Nietzsche is known for being inherently polemic. He describes himself as such and even titled his book On the Genealogy of Morality as a simple “Polemic”. This book is central to Nietzsche’s thoughts on the revaluation of existing values and both influences and is influenced by his other writings on the subject. It is evident that Nietzsche’s polemic nature stems from his argument’s inevitable clash with the current system of valuation, making the book a metaphorical arrow aimed at challenging and critiquing this system.
Despite the absence of evidence suggesting the presence of an internal polemic arising from logical incompleteness, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, as introduced by RJ Hollingdale, is described as having a flaw of excessive content. I will argue that these excesses stem from Nietzsche’s endeavor in metaphysics, which becomes Nietzsche’s actual polemic, consequently rendering Zarathustra susceptible to logical incompleteness.
The vulnerability mentioned above becomes evident when comparing it to Nietzsche’s other works, such as the Genealogy of Morality. In his introduction, Hollingdale asserts that Nietzsche’s subsequent works are not susceptible to the fault of excess. Instead, concision, brevity, and directness of statement are prominent, surpassing those of any other German philosopher. This discipline can be considered a defining characteristic of the Genealogy, leading to a comprehensive logical coherence in the book. This coherence can be defined as the ability of an argument to reach a safe and logical conclusion solely through reason.
The book’s greatest strength lies in its introduction of the dichotomous relationship between master morality and slave morality. The former characterizes the strong-willed individuals who create values, while the latter characterizes the weak-willed individuals who feel resentment towards the strong and label them as “evil”, justifying their own meekness as “good”. Additionally, the book argues that guilt and bad conscious are societal extensions of slave morality, serving to repress and incarcerate the will to power. Ultimately, this repression leads to a self-destructive discharge. Furthermore, the book claims that the ascetic ideal represents a further extension of slave morality, thus turning the dichotomy between slave morality and master morality into a dichotomy between the will to truth and the will to power.
Despite the absence of faith in God, the ascetic ideal still leaves a legacy of slave morality. In other words, there is a new issue at hand: the value of truth needs to be critiqued. To summarize, Nietzsche’s logic is clear and conclusive throughout The Genealogy of Morality. This entire work is simply the natural continuation of what came before it. Nietzsche’s only attempt to push further is seen in The Gay Science, where he uses his characteristic grandiose metaphoric style to proclaim the death of God in “The Madman.” However, even this is merely an expression of the logical outcome of Nietzsche’s argument, rather than an example of his excessive tendencies.
In regard to Nietzsche’s use of metaphor, JP Stern, a scholar and professor, suggests that it originates from a peculiar invention of placing his discourse and language in a middle ground between metaphor and literal meaning. While the use of grand metaphor itself does not amount to excess, there is a distinction to be made between the use of metaphor in Nietzsche’s other books and the excessive employment of it in Zarathustra. Unlike The Gay Science, where metaphor serves as the logical conclusion of the argument, in Zarathustra it is used as a crutch on which the argument relies. This results in Zarathustra unnecessarily becoming metaphysical, indicating a true excess. The concept of the eternal return serves as an excellent example of this.
During an interview about Nietzsche, Bryan Magee discusses the difficult and oft-dismissed concept of the eternal return. He explains how this metaphor implies that everything in our lives has occurred an infinite number of times in the past and will continue to occur an infinite number of times in the future. Magee poses the question of whether Nietzsche truly intends this interpretation. In response, JP Stern confirms that Nietzsche does indeed propose this notion and explores what would happen if one seriously considered it. Stern argues that the idea of eternal recurrence is more of a moral theory rather than a theory about existence or the universe. He suggests that our actions, intentions, thoughts, and desires should be noble, generous, and grand enough to be repeated endlessly without hesitation or repulsion.
This response is highly significant because it inadvertenly touches upon the core controversy of Nietzsche’s excessive ideas. The phrases “ad nauseam” and “ad infinitum” are not typically associated with Nietzsche, but in this case, they are necessary. Zarathustra’s eternal return poses a major problem as it claims infinity, which is crucial for considering it as metaphysical. It strives to transform the finite nature of the past into the infinite by asserting its eternal recurrence.
Such argumentation is what Nietzsche is rebelling against in the second and third essays of the Genealogy of Morality – the creation of infinity, in this case the afterlife, to advance the creation of a new system of valuation. Another example of telling diction is ad nauseam. Nietzsche writes in the Genealogy that only Zarathustra can “redeem us… from the great nausea, the will to nothingness, from nihilism.” However, in the third part of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in the section “The Convalescent,” Zarathustra collapses due to nausea while trying to grasp the eternal recurrence.
Nietzsche acknowledges almost admitting to the excessive nature of his assertion regarding infinity. Stern’s use of language suggests a possible relationship between infinity and nausea, and this section comes close to not only recognizing this, but also stating it as a cause. Bryan Magee summarizes Stern’s statement as follows: “So, basically, you’re only affirming and embracing life in the way that you should, if you would be willing to repeat what you’re currently doing over and over again.” Stern confirms this and further adds that attempting to use mathematical or geometrical equations to prove or disprove these views seems unreasonable. Both men agree that the eternal return is not a doctrine but rather a literary device, with amor fati being its logical conclusion. This presents a challenge to Nietzsche’s argument as it deviates from his usual use of metaphor as a representation of the logical conclusion, instead employing it as an argument itself upon which other ideas are logically asserted. Ultimately, the eternal recurrence serves as a metaphorical representation of the logical conclusion of the will to power and self-overcoming.Nietzsche claims that the will to power defines the impulse to create that man still experiences in a state of freedom. This concept arises in the absence of the Christian moral ideal, which is the outcome of the slave morality ethic.
Nietzsche contends that self-overcoming is not a fixed procedure, but rather a recurring process involving the formation and annihilation of personal values. This concept is symbolized by Nietzsche’s metaphorical depiction of the wheel of being. The cyclic nature of existence leads Nietzsche to propose the idea of eternal return, suggesting that time itself follows a cyclical pattern. Consequently, in order to fully embrace life, one must acknowledge and embrace their own past, thereby resisting any resentment towards it. Ultimately, this viewpoint highlights Hollingdale’s mix of fondness and frustration with Zarathustra.
Such reasoning can be avoided by asserting that the affirmation of life itself is a virtue. Nietzsche strongly asserts this belief. Therefore, the reasoning mentioned before is not needed. Moreover, it undermines the depth of Zarathustra. Nietzsche’s work is unique in its resistance to and rejection of infinity. The Prologue of Zarathustra explicitly states what will be explored in the entire work: “The overman is the meaning of the earth.”
Within Nietzsche’s works, one can find an intellectually stimulating idea: that the overman embodies the purpose of the earth. Rather than contradicting its finite nature, Nietzsche argues that the overman draws significance from it. Hollingdale presents a compelling argument that the eruption of emotions is conveyed through language, metaphors, and wordplay. Therefore, in this introduction, our task is to understand why this outpouring became essential by examining Nietzsche’s personal chronology.
The argument suggests that Nietzsche’s mistake is not a cognitive one, but rather an emotional one. It quotes from his posthumously published notes, stating that if someone is opposed to Nietzsche, they have failed to comprehend his stance and arguments because they are not experiencing the same passion. Regardless of the reason, it is crucial to recognize, rather than condemn Nietzsche, in order to gain a deeper understanding of him. Hollingdale asserts that the book’s greatest flaw is its excessive nature. Although this flaw is somewhat forgivable, it remains a flaw nonetheless.
