[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 165 KB, 773x1024, nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4028128 No.4028128 [Reply] [Original]

"[For what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things: the transposition of morality into the metaphysical realm, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. [...] Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. [...] His doctrine, and his alone, posits truthfulness as the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist” who flees from reality [...]—Am I understood?—The self-overcoming of morality, out of truthfulness; the self-overcoming of the moralist, into his opposite—into me—that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth."

I'm currently reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra and I'm afraid I don't understands his stance on morality, at some point he paradoxically seems to criticise moral crusaders for moral reasons. There was also a passage attacking "clinging" people for being malevolent towards outsiders. Not to mention dismissing revolution for it's vindictive spirit. Was it hypocrisy and cowardice that he was really criticising, not moral flaws? I'm under an impression that he doesn't wholly reject morality, but believes it should be suspended if there is a good reason. Why he argues against revenge remains a mystery to me thought.

>> No.4028156

Ok op, I'm just going to go read something interesting now

>> No.4028158

>>4028128
The zoroastrian religion was metaphysically dualist, it said there is an eternal conflict between the 'good god' and the 'bad god'.

>I'm under an impression that he doesn't wholly reject morality

He does. He's arguing for aristotelian eudaimonian ethics of virtue instead of a morality of good and evil. He wants human flourishing instead of worrying about guilt because of moral failings or sins.