Nietzsche saw himself as reversing the moralities of Zoroaster/Zarathustra. Of the moralist through his opposite-THROUGH ME-: that is what the name Overcoming of morality through itself-through truthfulness, the overcoming To tell the truth and TOĪIM STRAIGHT: that is the first Persian virtue. Zarathustra had more courage in hisīody than any other thinker before or after him. Upheld as the highest virtue-i.e.: the reverse of the COWARDICE of the In his teaching alone do we meet with truthfulness Things:-the more important point is that Zarathustra was more truthful PERCEIVE that error, not only because he has had longer and greaterĮxperience of the subject than any other thinker-all history is theĮxperimental refutation of the theory of the so-called moral order of Portentous error, MORALITY, consequently he should also be the first to The metaphysical, as force, cause, end in itself, was HIS work. Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil theĮssential wheel in the working of things. Past is the very fact that he was exactly the reverse of an immoralist.

Immoralist for what distinguishes that philosopher from all others in the Zarathustra precisely means in my mouth, in the mouth of the first ]'People have never asked me, as they should have done, what the name This topic is designed for members to discuss as they read. This topic is not presuppose that the participants have already read this book. Hollingdale worked with the same flawed edition.' He also claims that Common had 'a particularly poor edition of the work.' Martin worked from 'a thoroughly revised and corrected edition of Also sprach Zarathustra.'įeel free to participate even if you're new here with enough support this could perhaps eventually spawn an 'official' philosophy book club here on Lit-Net (in the form of a subforum, maybe?).

The recent Clancy Martin translation seems to be the most reliable, as Martin claims 'some mistakes in Kaufmann's translation are a consequence of the unreliable German edition of Thus Spoke Zarathustra available to him. A note concerning translations- in my particular translation (published in 2005), there is a translator's note in which the Clancy Martin criticizes and praises three translations: the Thomas Common trans, the Walter Kaufmann trans, and the R.J. The Thomas Common translation is provided above. Should we comment on each section as we read them, or should we discuss each part as a whole? Or a combination of the abovementioned suggestions?Īlso, it is worth mentioning that I will be reading the Clancy Martin translation (2005). The book is divided into four (4) parts, each of which comprises 16-22 sections. The following directs to a free online text:

Thus spoke zarathustra gutenberg