《焚書》、《續焚書》兩書成於明代晚期，彼時社會動蕩不安，農民起義此起彼伏，階級矛盾日益尖銳。李贄最痛恨維護封建禮教的假道學和那些滿口仁義道德的衛道士、偽君子，批評他們“陽為道學，陰為富貴，被服儒雅，行若狗彘”（《續焚書·三教歸儒說》）；同時，對統治階級所極力推崇的孔孟之學也大加鞭撻，認為“耕稼陶漁之人即無不可取，則千聖萬賢之善，獨不可取乎？又何必專門學孔子而後為正脈也”（《焚書·答耿司寇》）；希望統治階級上層能夠出現“一個半個憐纔者”，使“大力大賢 ”的有纔之士“得以效用，彼必殺身圖報，不肯忘恩”（《焚書·寒燈小話》）。對此有書評者如是論道：“這說明李贄並非要推翻封建統治，而是要維護它，表明了他的政治思想沒有超出地主階級思想與時代的限製，也不可能違背地主階級的根本利益。”
湛若水和王陽明是相互欣賞的朋友也是論敵，但湛若水對中國哲學史的影響遠不及王陽明，主要原因恐怕是兩人走的哲學道路不同。
王陽明以他的“心外無物”、“格物緻知”等理論將中國傳統哲學中主觀唯心主義哲學推嚮最高峰，因而在中國哲學史上占有重要地位。湛若水的哲學走集大成為道路，要就重大成果自然比專攻一傢睏難許多。湛若水企圖調和各傢之言，以他經常引用《中庸》的語句就可見一斑。湛若水的主要理論“隨處體認天理”組合了前人的“隨處”、“體認”、“天理”之說，亦是在調和基礎上再創造。因此，在思想魅力方面，“隨處體認天理”低於“心外無物”、“格物緻知”。湛若水的哲學一方面取百傢所長，另一方面因為難於貫通衆多理論而顯得龐雜。
無可否認“隨處體認天理”的意義，但它遠不能使湛若水成為哲學的集大成者。所謂哲學上的集大成者，都是一些承前啓後、創造新概念為哲學發展開闢道路的偉大思想傢，如以“絶對精神”集德國古典唯心主義大成的黑格爾，以“辯證唯物主義”集唯物主義與辯證法大成的馬剋思等。哲學的集大成者的出現必須有經濟或科技重要發展、社會或時代有深刻變革的客觀環境為條件。有這種環境，個人才會在思想上有大創造。事實上，“隨處體認天理”就表達了人對“天理”的認識受“處” ——客觀環境限製的觀點。湛若水生活在封建社會走嚮衰落的後期，顯然缺乏哲學集大成的環境。
集大成的哲學道路雖然沒有使湛若水沒能在中國哲學史留下厚重的一筆，但湛若水在某程度上總結了宋、明理學，為後人的研究提供了藉鑒。正因為不偏不倚的集大成道路，他提出“自得”之說，批判當時人云亦云的風氣同時啓發了後人。結合了宋、明理學的某些精華，加上“中庸”的態度使他的哲學具有長經久不息的合理性。
王陽明以他的“心外無物”、“格物緻知”等理論將中國傳統哲學中主觀唯心主義哲學推嚮最高峰，因而在中國哲學史上占有重要地位。湛若水的哲學走集大成為道路，要就重大成果自然比專攻一傢睏難許多。湛若水企圖調和各傢之言，以他經常引用《中庸》的語句就可見一斑。湛若水的主要理論“隨處體認天理”組合了前人的“隨處”、“體認”、“天理”之說，亦是在調和基礎上再創造。因此，在思想魅力方面，“隨處體認天理”低於“心外無物”、“格物緻知”。湛若水的哲學一方面取百傢所長，另一方面因為難於貫通衆多理論而顯得龐雜。
無可否認“隨處體認天理”的意義，但它遠不能使湛若水成為哲學的集大成者。所謂哲學上的集大成者，都是一些承前啓後、創造新概念為哲學發展開闢道路的偉大思想傢，如以“絶對精神”集德國古典唯心主義大成的黑格爾，以“辯證唯物主義”集唯物主義與辯證法大成的馬剋思等。哲學的集大成者的出現必須有經濟或科技重要發展、社會或時代有深刻變革的客觀環境為條件。有這種環境，個人才會在思想上有大創造。事實上，“隨處體認天理”就表達了人對“天理”的認識受“處” ——客觀環境限製的觀點。湛若水生活在封建社會走嚮衰落的後期，顯然缺乏哲學集大成的環境。
集大成的哲學道路雖然沒有使湛若水沒能在中國哲學史留下厚重的一筆，但湛若水在某程度上總結了宋、明理學，為後人的研究提供了藉鑒。正因為不偏不倚的集大成道路，他提出“自得”之說，批判當時人云亦云的風氣同時啓發了後人。結合了宋、明理學的某些精華，加上“中庸”的態度使他的哲學具有長經久不息的合理性。
本書收錄了趙林教授近年來關於西方文化的幾篇學術講座。這些講座內容廣阔、氣勢磅礴，從全球範圍的文明衝突與文化融合歷程，到旨趣迥異的中西文化比較，再到源遠流長的西方文化演進，展現了講演者高屋建瓴的研究視域、博大恢弘的歷史情懷和深邃睿智的哲學反思。
本書堪稱“波普教皇”安迪•沃霍爾的非正式自傳。沃霍爾在此書中回顧了自己病態的少年晨夕，孤寂的青年時代，在紐約闖蕩的歲月，初創“工廠”的奢華時光，以及他遭受槍擊的創痛。英文版刊行於1975年，此後事跡自然無法呈現，但沃霍爾的人生精華已然濃縮於此。同時，這又一部拼貼而成的波普語錄。愛，性，工作，藝術，名氣，頭銜，時間，死亡，美，成功……舉凡時尚都市生活的各式睏惑，此書都備有現成的駭世箴言任君挑選——中譯本甚至做足工夫，將凡具警策潛力的句子都以加重的字體予以強調，並配上英文，免去摘引者核對原文的勞頓。三十餘年過去，安迪•沃霍爾的波普囈語讀來依舊新鮮時尚，或許，沃霍爾就是時尚本身。
尼采以透視主義認識論為主要武器，對西方傳統形而上學展開了全面批判，並在此基礎上提出了他對世界的新解釋。本書是周國平當年的博士論文，是他花費巨大心血做了係統研究的成果，本書是他真正深入到尼采的問題思路之中，對他在本體論和認識論方面的思想給出了相當清晰的分析，證明他不衹是一位關心人生問題的詩性哲人，那麽在周國平的世界裏，尼采究竟是如何的嚴格意義上的大哲學家呢？尼采究竟關心了什麽……
在西方哲學史上，尼采嚮來是一個有爭議的人物。尼采究竟是什麽樣的人？他在哲學上提出了一些什麽新問題？他和現時代有什麽關係....周國平在認真研究了尼采的生平和著作，經過自己獨立的思考，提出了一些與過去習慣的說法頗為不同的見解。 周國平說：“尼采需要的不是辯護，而是理解。衹有弱者纔需要辯護，而尼采卻不是弱者...” 尼采在世紀的轉折點上是不是真的成為古老的傳說？
本書是周國平首部“出行哲思錄”，極其真實詳盡地記錄了每一次遠離國民的日子中的所見所聞所思所憶，現了作者執著而超脫的靈魂之旅。無論花季還是老年，都能從他的文采和哲思中讀取智慧和超然。
本書中周國平老師對平常生活的所思所感進行了記錄，他把自己立於命運之外，淡淡地冷眼旁觀着世間百態，卻依然掩飾不住對生命的摯愛之情。通過對人生的哲學式感悟，對人、自然、孤獨、情欲、愛情、婚姻的精闢見解，將他的睿智和詩性的哲學再次奉獻給世人。周國平老師的作品，“絢爛之極歸於平淡”。其實文章作平淡不難，不過，平淡而要有味，就很難了。平淡不但是一種文字的境界，更是一種胸懷，一種人生的境界。要達到這種境界實非易事。
有錢又有閑當然幸運，倘不能，退而求其次，我寧做有閑的窮人，不做有錢的忙人。我愛閑適勝於愛金錢。金錢終究是身外之物，閑適卻使我感到自己是生命的主人。有人說：“有錢可以買時間。”這話當然不錯。但是，如果大前提是“時間就是金錢”，買得的時間又追加為獲取更多金錢的資本，則一生勞碌便永無終時。所以，應當改變大前提：時間不僅是金錢，更是生命，而生命的價值是金錢無法衡量的。
人是唯一能追問自身存在之意義的動物。這是人的偉大之處，也是人的悲壯之處。“人是萬物的尺度。”人把自己當作尺度去衡量萬物，尋求萬物的意義。可是，當他尋找自身的意義時，用什麽作尺度呢？仍然用人嗎?尺度與對象同一，無法衡量。用人之外的事物嗎?人又豈肯屈從他物，這本身就貶低了人的存在的意義。意義的尋求使人陷入二律背反。
《沉思錄》原為古羅馬皇帝奧勒留自我對話的記錄，行文質樸，不尚雕琢，然而由於發諸內心，靈性內藴，故充塞着一股浩然之氣，令人高山仰止，有一種深沉的崇高之美。正因為它出諸內心，不加掩飾，所以我們方能窺見作者如何在忙碌的人生路上，以自己的經驗為材料，沉思人生大義，領悟宇宙迷題，從中升華自己的智慧和心靈。哲學原來並非如後世的哲學教科書那般呆板枯燥，如一堆殿堂上的木偶，而是一潭活水，流瀉在人生的小道之上、山水之間，由涉足其間的沉思者隨手掬來，滌蕩心胸。所以讀《沉思錄》，固然可以正襟危坐，條剖理析；也可以於閑暇之時，憩息之餘，撿起來隨意翻讀。
這是一部理想的傳統文化教育和思想道德教育普及讀物，不僅適用於個人閱讀，同時也可以作為企事業單位、社區等團體舉辦培訓課程的教材，尤其適用於作為學校相關課程的輔助材料。寓言是生活與人性的提煉，本書則將寓言故事還原為人生哲學。寓言是一座智慧的礦藏。在各種舊的新的故事中，智慧的人，往往能解讀出一些智慧的思考，並體會思考參與的快樂。
生命是一團欲望，欲望不能滿足便痛苦，滿足便無聊，人生就在痛苦和無聊之間搖擺。本書作者以現代最流行的穿越時空的寫作手法走進了大師們的真實生活，與大師漫步人生。書中選取了哲學界具有代表性的人物的思想進行了闡述，如柏拉圖的真善美的追求理念、孔子的“剋已復禮”、孟子的“人性善”、尼采的“禽獸與超人之間”、薩特的“宿命和責任”等。大師們的思想不僅是他們那個時代的前導，而且在今天仍然深刻地影響着我們的人生選擇。
思乃生命的遊絲或觸須，在風中試探，試試看能抓住什麽。思乃對生命的執着和對死亡的抗拒。活着，就意味着思考。進一步，也可以說，思考的人是有尊嚴的人，人在思考時最能表現出他的特性。《若有所思》裏的隨感，大部分是從何懷宏教授過去十年的日記和一些筆記中選錄出來的，按作者自己的說法，本書是他個人內心生活經歷的某種供狀。《若有所思》是一本為自己寫的書，其中的大部分，在寫的時候並沒有想到發表。它也是何懷宏教授醖釀最久的書，時間跨度包括了從“十五有志於學”到“三十而立”之年，是其思想“原始的悸動”，也是青春悸動的産物，包含着對道德和社會的思考，愛情和婚姻的追問，讀書與寫作的樂趣，哲學與真理的追求，生與死的追問，等等。
作為一個年近七旬的寫過點文字也見過點世面的正在老去的人，我能給你們一點忠告、一點經驗、一點建議嗎？
本書是國外毛澤東研究譯叢之一。作者試圖回答的問題是：“一位曠世偉人究竟靠什麽思想予以滋養？”
什麽是人文？什麽是人文精神？有很多人擁有自己的看法，但是結出的碩果卻並不是很多，真正有獨立的哲學思考，有生動的東西也並不是很多，但無疑周國平算是一位代表人文精神的學者，這位學者既是一位哲學家，也是一位詩人，他用散文的筆調寫他的哲學思考，用哲學思考來貫穿他的文學寫作。這本自選集將引領我們用更多的時間去閱讀、思考。
《瘋顛與文明》一書，時間跨度有六百年。話題是從"瘋人"在歷史舞臺上的出現談起，即中世紀末隨着麻風病的消退，瘋人開始取代麻風病患者，成為社會排斥和隔離的新對象。然後是歷述這種排斥/隔離機製的各種變形：文藝復興時期（十四--十六世紀）是用"愚人船"放逐他們（就像舜投兇頑於四裔）；古典時期（十七世紀）是把他們當"社會垃圾"和罪犯，盲流一起關進收容所，叫"大禁閉"；啓蒙時期（十八世紀）是他們當"瘟疫"來隔離，叫"大恐懼"；終點是十九世紀，即把瘋人與罪犯分開，當病人看待，與"正常人"隔離，實行"治病救人"的"人道主義"。這樣纔形成現代的精神病院。
Foucault begins his history in the Middle Ages, noting the social and physical exclusion of lepers. He argues that with the gradual disappearance of leprosy, madness came to occupy this excluded position. The ship of fools in the 15th century is a literary version of one such exclusionary practice, the practice of sending mad people away in ships. However, during the Renaissance, madness was regarded as an all-abundant phenomenon because humans could not come close to the Reason of God. As Cervantes' Don Quixote, all humans are weak to desires and dissimulation. Therefore, the insane, understood as those who had come too close to God's Reason, were accepted in the middle of society. It is not before the 17th century, in a movement which Foucault famously describes as the Great Confinement, that "unreasonable" members of the population systematically were locked away and institutionalized. In the 18th century, madness came to be seen as the obverse of Reason, that is, as having lost what made them human and become animal-like and therefore treated as such. It is not before 19th century that madness was regarded as a mental illness that should be cured, e.g. Philippe Pinel, Freud. A few professional historians have argued that the large increase in confinement did not happen in 17th but in the 19th century. Critics argue that this undermines the central argument of Foucault, notably the link between the Age of Enlightenment and the suppression of the insane.
However, Foucault scholars have shown that Foucault was not talking about medical institutions designed specifically for the insane but about the creation of houses of confinement for social outsiders, including not only the insane but also vagrants, unemployed, impoverished, and orphaned, and what effect those general houses of confinement had on the insane and perceptions of Madness in western society. Furthermore, Foucault goes to great lengths to demonstrate that while this "confinement" of social outcasts was a generally European phenomenon, it had a unique development in France and distinct developments in the other countries that the confinement took place in, such as Germany and England, disproving complaints that Foucault takes French events to generalize the history of madness in the West. A few of the historians critical of its historiography, such as Roy Porter, also began to concur with these refutations and discarded their own past criticisms to acknowledge the revolutionary nature of Foucault's book.
Foucault begins his history in the Middle Ages, noting the social and physical exclusion of lepers. He argues that with the gradual disappearance of leprosy, madness came to occupy this excluded position. The ship of fools in the 15th century is a literary version of one such exclusionary practice, the practice of sending mad people away in ships. However, during the Renaissance, madness was regarded as an all-abundant phenomenon because humans could not come close to the Reason of God. As Cervantes' Don Quixote, all humans are weak to desires and dissimulation. Therefore, the insane, understood as those who had come too close to God's Reason, were accepted in the middle of society. It is not before the 17th century, in a movement which Foucault famously describes as the Great Confinement, that "unreasonable" members of the population systematically were locked away and institutionalized. In the 18th century, madness came to be seen as the obverse of Reason, that is, as having lost what made them human and become animal-like and therefore treated as such. It is not before 19th century that madness was regarded as a mental illness that should be cured, e.g. Philippe Pinel, Freud. A few professional historians have argued that the large increase in confinement did not happen in 17th but in the 19th century. Critics argue that this undermines the central argument of Foucault, notably the link between the Age of Enlightenment and the suppression of the insane.
However, Foucault scholars have shown that Foucault was not talking about medical institutions designed specifically for the insane but about the creation of houses of confinement for social outsiders, including not only the insane but also vagrants, unemployed, impoverished, and orphaned, and what effect those general houses of confinement had on the insane and perceptions of Madness in western society. Furthermore, Foucault goes to great lengths to demonstrate that while this "confinement" of social outcasts was a generally European phenomenon, it had a unique development in France and distinct developments in the other countries that the confinement took place in, such as Germany and England, disproving complaints that Foucault takes French events to generalize the history of madness in the West. A few of the historians critical of its historiography, such as Roy Porter, also began to concur with these refutations and discarded their own past criticisms to acknowledge the revolutionary nature of Foucault's book.
這大概是福柯寫過的最接近"完美"的著作，冷峻的描寫與熱烈的"抒情核心"，細緻的分析與透闢的理論反省以充滿張力的方式冶於一爐。對比最初臺灣版的翻譯，譯者又做了精心的修改，使現在這個譯本無論準確性還是流暢性，都堪稱佳譯。當然翻譯的質量是建立在作者對福柯思想的全面研究的基礎上的，這一點恰恰是現在許多翻譯所缺乏的。不過，將discipline譯為"規訓"，仍有"造字"之嫌，而現有的"紀律"一詞卻似乎更貼切。畢竟在尼采和韋伯那裏，這個詞都譯做"紀律"（所以這個概念也並非如譯者所言，是福柯的"獨創"）。
Foucault challenges the commonly accepted idea that the prison became the consistent form of punishment due to humanitarian concerns of reformists, although he does not deny those. He does so by meticulously tracing out the shifts in culture that led to the prison's dominance, focusing on the body and questions of power. Prison is a form used by the "disciplines", a new technological power, which can also be found, according to Foucault, in schools, hospitals, military barracks, etc. The main ideas of Discipline and Punish can be grouped according to its four parts: torture, punishment, discipline and prison.
Torture
Foucault begins the book by contrasting two forms of penalty: the violent and chaotic public torture of Robert-François Damiens who was convicted of attempted regicide in the late 18th century, and the highly regimented daily schedule for inmates from an early 19th century prison. These examples provide a picture of just how profound the change in western penal systems were after less than a century. Foucault wants the reader to consider what led to these changes. How did western culture shift so radically?
To answer this question, he begins by examining public torture itself. He argues that the public spectacle of torture was a theatrical forum that served several intended and unintended purposes for society. The intended purposes were:
* Reflecting the violence of the original crime onto the convict's body for all to see.
* Enacting the revenge upon the convict's body, which the sovereign seeks for having been injured by the crime. Foucault argues that the law was considered an extension of the sovereign's body, and so the revenge must take the form of harming the convict's body.
Some unintended consequences were:
* Providing a forum for the convict's body to become a focus of sympathy and admiration.
* Creating a site of conflict between the masses and the sovereign at the convict's body. Foucault notes that public executions often led to riots in support of the prisoner.
Thus, he argues, the public execution was ultimately an ineffective use of the body, qualified as non-economical. As well, it was applied non-uniformly and haphazardly. Hence, its political cost was too high. It was the antithesis of the more modern concerns of the state: order and generalization.
Punishment
The switch to prison was not immediate. There was a more graded change, though it ran its course rapidly. Prison was preceded by a different form of public spectacle. The theater of public torture gave way to public chain gangs. Punishment became "gentle", though not for humanitarian reasons, Foucault suggests. He argues that reformists were unhappy with the unpredictable, unevenly distributed nature of the violence the sovereign would inflict on the convict. The sovereign's right to punish was so disproportionate that it was ineffective and uncontrolled. Reformists felt the power to punish and judge should become more evenly distributed, the state's power must be a form of public power. This, according to Foucault, was of more concern to reformists than humanitarian arguments.
Out of this movement towards generalized punishment, a thousand "mini-theatres" of punishment would have been created wherein the convicts' bodies would have been put on display in a more ubiquitous, controlled, and effective spectacle. Prisoners would have been forced to do work that reflected their crime, thus repaying society for their infractions. This would have allowed the public to see the convicts' bodies enacting their punishment, and thus to reflect on the crime. But these experiments lasted less than twenty years.
Foucault argues that this theory of "gentle" punishment represented the first step away from the excessive force of the sovereign, and towards more generalized and controlled means of punishment. But he suggests that the shift towards prison that followed was the result of a new "technology" and ontology for the body being developed in the 18th century, the "technology" of discipline, and the ontology of "man as machine."
Discipline
The emergence of prison as the form of punishment for every crime grew out of the development of discipline in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Foucault. He looks at the development of highly refined forms of discipline, of discipline concerned with the smallest and most precise aspects of a person's body. Discipline, he suggests, developed a new economy and politics for bodies. Modern institutions required that bodies must be individuated according to their tasks, as well as for training, observation, and control. Therefore, he argues, discipline created a whole new form of individuality for bodies, which enabled them to perform their duty within the new forms of economic, political, and military organizations emerging in the modern age and continuing to today.
The individuality that discipline constructs (for the bodies it controls) has four characteristics, namely it makes individuality which is:
* Cellular—determining the spatial distribution of the bodies
* Organic—ensuring that the activities required of the bodies are "natural" for them
* Genetic—controlling the evolution over time of the activities of the bodies
* Combinatory—allowing for the combination of the force of many bodies into a single massive force
Foucault suggests this individuality can be implemented in systems that are officially egalitarian, but use discipline to construct non-egalitarian power relations:
Historically, the process by which the bourgeoisie became in the course of the eighteenth century the politically dominant class was masked by the establishment of an explicit, coded and formally egalitarian juridical framework, made possible by the organization of a parliamentary, representative regime. But the development and generalization of disciplinary mechanisms constituted the other, dark side of these processes. The general juridical form that guaranteed a system of rights that were egalitarian in principle was supported by these tiny, everyday, physical mechanisms, by all those systems of micro-power that are essentially non-egalitarian and asymmetrical that we call the disciplines. (222)
Foucault's argument is that discipline creates "docile bodies", ideal for the new economics, politics and warfare of the modern industrial age—bodies that function in factories, ordered military regiments, and school classrooms. But, to construct docile bodies the disciplinary institutions must be able to a) constantly observe and record the bodies they control, b) ensure the internalization of the disciplinary individuality within the bodies being controlled. That is, discipline must come about without excessive force through careful observation, and molding of the bodies into the correct form through this observation. This requires a particular form of institution, which Foucault argues, was exemplified by Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, which was never actually built.
The Panopticon was the ultimate realization of a modern disciplinary institution. It allowed for constant observation characterized by an "unequal gaze"; the constant possibility of observation. Perhaps the most important feature of the panopticon was that it was specifically designed so that the prisoner could never be sure whether s/he was being observed. The unequal gaze caused the internalization of disciplinary individuality, and the docile body required of its inmates. This means one is less likely to break rules or laws if they believe they are being watched, even if they are not. Thus, prison, and specifically those that follow the model of the Panopticon, provide the ideal form of modern punishment. Foucault argues that this is why the generalized, "gentle" punishment of public work gangs gave way to the prison. It was the ideal modernization of punishment, so its eventual dominance was natural.
Having laid out the emergence of the prison as the dominant form of punishment, Foucault devotes the rest of the book to examining its precise form and function in our society, to lay bare the reasons for its continued use, and question the assumed results of its use.
Prison
In examining the construction of the prison as the central means of criminal punishment, Foucault builds a case for the idea that prison became part of a larger “carceral system” that has become an all-encompassing sovereign institution in modern society. Prison is one part of a vast network, including schools, military institutions, hospitals, and factories, which build a panoptic society for its members. This system creates “disciplinary careers” (Discipline and Punish, 300) for those locked within its corridors. It is operated under the scientific authority of medicine, psychology, and criminology. Moreover, it operates according to principles that ensure that it “cannot fail to produce delinquents.” (Discipline and Punish, 266). Delinquency, indeed, is produced when social petty crime (such as taking wood in the lord's lands) is no longer tolerated, creating a class of specialized "delinquents" acting as the police's proxy in surveillance of society.
The structures Foucault chooses to use as his starting positions help highlight his conclusions. In particular, his choice as a perfect prison of the penal institution at Mettray helps personify the carceral system. Within it is included the Prison, the School, the Church, and the work-house (industry)—all of which feature heavily in his argument. The prisons at Neufchatel, Mettray, and Mettray Netherlands were perfect examples for Foucault, because they, even in their original state, began to show the traits Foucault was searching for. They showed the body of knowledge being developed about the prisoners, the creation of the 'delinquent' class, and the disciplinary careers emerging.
Foucault challenges the commonly accepted idea that the prison became the consistent form of punishment due to humanitarian concerns of reformists, although he does not deny those. He does so by meticulously tracing out the shifts in culture that led to the prison's dominance, focusing on the body and questions of power. Prison is a form used by the "disciplines", a new technological power, which can also be found, according to Foucault, in schools, hospitals, military barracks, etc. The main ideas of Discipline and Punish can be grouped according to its four parts: torture, punishment, discipline and prison.
Torture
Foucault begins the book by contrasting two forms of penalty: the violent and chaotic public torture of Robert-François Damiens who was convicted of attempted regicide in the late 18th century, and the highly regimented daily schedule for inmates from an early 19th century prison. These examples provide a picture of just how profound the change in western penal systems were after less than a century. Foucault wants the reader to consider what led to these changes. How did western culture shift so radically?
To answer this question, he begins by examining public torture itself. He argues that the public spectacle of torture was a theatrical forum that served several intended and unintended purposes for society. The intended purposes were:
* Reflecting the violence of the original crime onto the convict's body for all to see.
* Enacting the revenge upon the convict's body, which the sovereign seeks for having been injured by the crime. Foucault argues that the law was considered an extension of the sovereign's body, and so the revenge must take the form of harming the convict's body.
Some unintended consequences were:
* Providing a forum for the convict's body to become a focus of sympathy and admiration.
* Creating a site of conflict between the masses and the sovereign at the convict's body. Foucault notes that public executions often led to riots in support of the prisoner.
Thus, he argues, the public execution was ultimately an ineffective use of the body, qualified as non-economical. As well, it was applied non-uniformly and haphazardly. Hence, its political cost was too high. It was the antithesis of the more modern concerns of the state: order and generalization.
Punishment
The switch to prison was not immediate. There was a more graded change, though it ran its course rapidly. Prison was preceded by a different form of public spectacle. The theater of public torture gave way to public chain gangs. Punishment became "gentle", though not for humanitarian reasons, Foucault suggests. He argues that reformists were unhappy with the unpredictable, unevenly distributed nature of the violence the sovereign would inflict on the convict. The sovereign's right to punish was so disproportionate that it was ineffective and uncontrolled. Reformists felt the power to punish and judge should become more evenly distributed, the state's power must be a form of public power. This, according to Foucault, was of more concern to reformists than humanitarian arguments.
Out of this movement towards generalized punishment, a thousand "mini-theatres" of punishment would have been created wherein the convicts' bodies would have been put on display in a more ubiquitous, controlled, and effective spectacle. Prisoners would have been forced to do work that reflected their crime, thus repaying society for their infractions. This would have allowed the public to see the convicts' bodies enacting their punishment, and thus to reflect on the crime. But these experiments lasted less than twenty years.
Foucault argues that this theory of "gentle" punishment represented the first step away from the excessive force of the sovereign, and towards more generalized and controlled means of punishment. But he suggests that the shift towards prison that followed was the result of a new "technology" and ontology for the body being developed in the 18th century, the "technology" of discipline, and the ontology of "man as machine."
Discipline
The emergence of prison as the form of punishment for every crime grew out of the development of discipline in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Foucault. He looks at the development of highly refined forms of discipline, of discipline concerned with the smallest and most precise aspects of a person's body. Discipline, he suggests, developed a new economy and politics for bodies. Modern institutions required that bodies must be individuated according to their tasks, as well as for training, observation, and control. Therefore, he argues, discipline created a whole new form of individuality for bodies, which enabled them to perform their duty within the new forms of economic, political, and military organizations emerging in the modern age and continuing to today.
The individuality that discipline constructs (for the bodies it controls) has four characteristics, namely it makes individuality which is:
* Cellular—determining the spatial distribution of the bodies
* Organic—ensuring that the activities required of the bodies are "natural" for them
* Genetic—controlling the evolution over time of the activities of the bodies
* Combinatory—allowing for the combination of the force of many bodies into a single massive force
Foucault suggests this individuality can be implemented in systems that are officially egalitarian, but use discipline to construct non-egalitarian power relations:
Historically, the process by which the bourgeoisie became in the course of the eighteenth century the politically dominant class was masked by the establishment of an explicit, coded and formally egalitarian juridical framework, made possible by the organization of a parliamentary, representative regime. But the development and generalization of disciplinary mechanisms constituted the other, dark side of these processes. The general juridical form that guaranteed a system of rights that were egalitarian in principle was supported by these tiny, everyday, physical mechanisms, by all those systems of micro-power that are essentially non-egalitarian and asymmetrical that we call the disciplines. (222)
Foucault's argument is that discipline creates "docile bodies", ideal for the new economics, politics and warfare of the modern industrial age—bodies that function in factories, ordered military regiments, and school classrooms. But, to construct docile bodies the disciplinary institutions must be able to a) constantly observe and record the bodies they control, b) ensure the internalization of the disciplinary individuality within the bodies being controlled. That is, discipline must come about without excessive force through careful observation, and molding of the bodies into the correct form through this observation. This requires a particular form of institution, which Foucault argues, was exemplified by Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, which was never actually built.
The Panopticon was the ultimate realization of a modern disciplinary institution. It allowed for constant observation characterized by an "unequal gaze"; the constant possibility of observation. Perhaps the most important feature of the panopticon was that it was specifically designed so that the prisoner could never be sure whether s/he was being observed. The unequal gaze caused the internalization of disciplinary individuality, and the docile body required of its inmates. This means one is less likely to break rules or laws if they believe they are being watched, even if they are not. Thus, prison, and specifically those that follow the model of the Panopticon, provide the ideal form of modern punishment. Foucault argues that this is why the generalized, "gentle" punishment of public work gangs gave way to the prison. It was the ideal modernization of punishment, so its eventual dominance was natural.
Having laid out the emergence of the prison as the dominant form of punishment, Foucault devotes the rest of the book to examining its precise form and function in our society, to lay bare the reasons for its continued use, and question the assumed results of its use.
Prison
In examining the construction of the prison as the central means of criminal punishment, Foucault builds a case for the idea that prison became part of a larger “carceral system” that has become an all-encompassing sovereign institution in modern society. Prison is one part of a vast network, including schools, military institutions, hospitals, and factories, which build a panoptic society for its members. This system creates “disciplinary careers” (Discipline and Punish, 300) for those locked within its corridors. It is operated under the scientific authority of medicine, psychology, and criminology. Moreover, it operates according to principles that ensure that it “cannot fail to produce delinquents.” (Discipline and Punish, 266). Delinquency, indeed, is produced when social petty crime (such as taking wood in the lord's lands) is no longer tolerated, creating a class of specialized "delinquents" acting as the police's proxy in surveillance of society.
The structures Foucault chooses to use as his starting positions help highlight his conclusions. In particular, his choice as a perfect prison of the penal institution at Mettray helps personify the carceral system. Within it is included the Prison, the School, the Church, and the work-house (industry)—all of which feature heavily in his argument. The prisons at Neufchatel, Mettray, and Mettray Netherlands were perfect examples for Foucault, because they, even in their original state, began to show the traits Foucault was searching for. They showed the body of knowledge being developed about the prisoners, the creation of the 'delinquent' class, and the disciplinary careers emerging.
《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》是尼采的里程碑式的作品，幾乎包括了尼采的全部思想。全書以汪洋恣肆的詩體寫成，熔酒神的狂醉與日神的清醒於一爐，通過“超人”查拉圖斯特拉之口宣講未來世界的啓示，在世界哲學史和詩歌史上均占有獨特的不朽的地位。
這本以散文詩體寫就的傑作，以振聾發聵的奇異灼見和橫空出世的警世智慧宣講“超人哲學”和“權力意志”，橫掃了基督教教條造威的精神奴性的方方面面，譜寫了一麯自由主義的人性壯歌。在本書中，“上帝死了”， “超人”誕生了，於是近代人類思想的天空有了一道光耀千年的奇異彩虹。令尼采飽受非難的言論“去女人那裏嗎？別忘了你的鞭子”，便是出自此書。衹有深入理解了尼采的精神實質，才能真正理解這樣的怪論。
面對一座萬仞高山，我們往往說不出多少話來，感到贊辭是多餘的。面對弗裏德裏希·威廉·尼采 (1844—1900)，這位德國近代大詩人、大哲學家，我們也有同樣的感覺。
這個尼采，他宣告：“上帝死了!”曾經使整個西方世界震撼。這個尼采，他的“超人哲學”衹有極少數人能夠真正理解。深受他影響的思想文化巨人有：裏爾剋、弗洛伊德、加繆、薩持、海德格爾、蕭伯納、梁啓超、魯迅，等等。
尼采一生飽受漂泊和病痛之苦，最後是在精神錯亂中了卻殘生，更為不幸的是，他的學說常常受到誤解和歪麯。德國納粹分子曾把他的學說肆意麯解為法西斯的理論支柱。希特勒曾親自去拜謁尼采之墓，並把《尼采全集》作為壽禮送給墨索裏尼。
《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》-作者簡介
弗裏德裏希·威廉·尼采（1844—1900），德國近代詩人、哲學家。他宣告：“帝死了！”徹底動搖了西方思想體係的基石，他高蹈的“超人哲學”與酒神精神産生了巨大影響。他的主要著作有《悲劇的誕生》、《查拉圖斯特拉如是說善惡之彼岸》、《論道德的譜係》、《快樂的科學》、《曙光》、《權力意志》等。尼采既有哲學家的深遂洞見，又有詩人的澎湃激情。深受他影響的思想文化巨人，有裏爾剋、蕭伯納、弗洛伊德、加繆、薩特、海德格爾，粱啓超、魯迅等。
尼采和馬剋思，牛頓、愛因斯坦、達爾文等同時榮獲“千年十大思想傢”的盛譽。
《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》-《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中的歷史觀
尼采在他的代表作《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中站在一元論的立場上嚮世人展示了一種發展的辯證的歷史觀，下面我想從四個方面來談談這個問題。
(一)發展的思維方式
查拉圖斯特拉在山上度過了十年節制生活之後，在人類面前發表了第一次演講，陳述了從植物到超人的過程：植物→蟲子→猴子→人類→超人。“你們經歷了從蟲子到人的道路，在你們身上多少有點像蟲子。你們以前是猴子，在現在人也比任何一隻猴子更象猴子。”1尼采認為在生物界中始終存在一種更高的發展，目前的階段絶非最終階段。人這個階段也是發展中的過渡階段，還會超過人這個階段，嚮下一個階段——超人的階段發展。查拉圖斯特拉斷言：“到目前為止，所有生物都創造了一些超過自己的東西。”2“創造”這個概念表明，查拉圖斯特拉並不將生物進化理解為一種機械的因果過程，而認為這些生物自身就是發展動力，他(它)們自身創造超出自己的事物並因此而超越自己。遺憾的是存在一種錯誤觀點，這種觀點根深蒂固地左右着人類的思維：人類自以為自己就是宇宙發展的最高階段，人類判定自己是進化結束的最終成果。由於沒有什麽可再發展了，於是乎人類停止不前甚至退回到已經超越的階段。為此查拉圖斯特拉提醒道：“你們想要成為洶涌潮水中的落潮同時寧可返回到動物也不願超越人類嗎?”3要知道人類是生物中唯一不靠本能在進化潮流中進行創造活動的，而且可以按照自己的意志對抗或順應進化潮流。但是按照查拉圖斯特拉的觀點，即便是人類為了使自己保持為人也必須在極端的對立面之間來回跑。換句話說為了當落潮必須先當漲潮，衹有體驗了落潮的失落才能享受漲潮的喜悅。假若人類停滯不前就會退到早已被超過了的階段——動物預備階段。“對於人來說，猴子是什麽?一種大笑或者是一種痛苦的羞辱。而人類對於超人來說正是如此：一種嘲笑或者是一種痛苦的羞辱。”4當人類回顧自己的歷史時，他看到了成為人之前的全部發展階段。一方面他發現自己在一定程度上已經在猴子中顯現同時猴子又頗具人性，這時他會哈哈大笑；另一方面當他想起自己的祖先曾是猴子時，又會面紅耳赤。有朝一日超人也會産生這樣兩方面的感覺。對此赫拉剋立特也有同感：“最漂亮的猴子與人相比也是醜陋的。最聰明的人在上帝身邊看起來如同一隻猴子，這涉及到智慧，美麗和其它的一切。”5
查拉圖斯特拉在愛聽聳人聽聞消息的觀衆面前做了他的第一次演講，但是他的聽衆不理解他的演說，因為這些人甚至還未達到人的階段“你們之中最聰明的人也衹是植物和魔鬼的一種矛盾的混種。但是我教你們成為魔鬼或植物了嗎?/你們看哪，我教你們什麽是超人：/超人是大地的意義。你們的意志說：超人是大地的意義!”6在尼采筆下的查拉圖斯特拉看來，由於人類還算不上一個完整出色的整體，衹是兩個相互矛盾的部分的組合，這兩部分之間密不可分的關係還未被認識到，所以在從猴子到人的過渡期間就出現了物質和精神的分離。
很顯然，尼采不想在進化論的狹隘的意義中去展示人類的生物進化史而想從生物遺傳學方面來演示植物→蟲子→猴子→從→超人的整個發展史。在此清楚地顯示了尼采的歷史觀（１）是發展的而不是停止的，（２）既不是簡單的機械的因果過程也不同於達爾文的進化論。尼采始終認為達爾文的觀點是片面的，達爾文在生存鬥爭中忽略了精神，沒有黑格爾就沒有達爾文，因此尼采強烈反對把他當作達爾主義者，“受過訓練的有角動物使我對達爾文主義産生了懷疑”。7
下面讓我們再看看尼采筆下的精神的三個發展階段。查拉圖斯特拉對衆人說：“我告訴你們精神的三種變形：精神是如何變成駱駝，駱駝是如何變成獅子，最後獅子如何變成小孩。”8這精神的歷史經歷了“物質化”的三個階段。第一個階段即駱駝的階段，刻畫了西方傳統觀念中自我悟性的特徵。在第二階段即獅子的階段，查拉圖斯特拉扮演了傳統價值的批判者的角色。在第三階段即小孩階段指明超人還沒有誕生。乍一看起來似乎精神的三種變形與黑格爾的三段論：正題、反題、綜合很相似。但這僅僅是在一定條件下。在第一階段，精神以駱駝的外形出現，扮演了屈服順從的角色，一個外在的、來世的、永遠固定的超精神強加於它。在第二階段，它認識到了駱駝是一種自鄙的形式，因而徹底否認了駱駝的行為，它自己宣告了自己的死亡，並為自己的新生做好了準備，這是一次鳳凰涅盤，於是精神發展到了第三階段：小孩階段。“小孩是天真與遺忘的”9表明精神通過産生自己的第二個起點而忘記了以前的失敗和過失。精神在超越了獅子階段以後就把自己的往事忘得一幹二淨，因為在當年它不是自覺自願，而是被外來力量強製的物化的魔鬼精神，衹有在小孩階段纔恢復了自我，纔有了創造性“一個自轉的輪”。“是的，為了創造的遊戲，我的弟兄們，一個神聖的肯定是必要的：精神現在要有它的意志力，失去世界者贏得了他的世界。”10總之，在精神發展的第三階段，衹有在這個階段，世界做為精神活動的真正産物纔誕生了。順便說一句，尼采在此對精神係列的三種變化的描繪與基督教教義中上帝從虛無中創造了世界的情形很相似。看來堅决反對基督教神學的尼采也無法擺脫時代與環境對他的潛移默化的影響。
從以上我們可以看出，尼采認為精神和物質在極端對立中相互依存，並因此形成了一個又一個超越自己又回歸自己的嚮高級發展的運動。
(二)辯證的一元論觀點
尼采用查拉圖斯特拉的名義從植物和魔鬼的情形入手來研究肉體和靈魂這個古老的問題。按照查拉圖斯特拉的觀點，儘管傳統哲學將人類視為肉體——靈魂、物質 ——精神所組成的整體，但在事實上已經將精神物化了，精神變成了可以脫離物質單獨存在的實體。因此就有了查拉圖斯特拉的反問：“我教人們成為魔鬼和植物嗎?”11唯心主義和唯物主義同樣都是人類自我悟性的片面形式，在這其中或者是人的肉體的那一面或者是人的精神的那一面被否定了。在查拉圖斯特拉一開始演講時我們就聽到了人類應該是被超越的。現在當人類被分裂成肉體與靈魂兩部分時我們再次聽到他的聲音：“你們看哪，我教人們什麽是超人!”12當我們思考超越人——這個前進中的質的飛躍時，讓我們再回憶一下人類已經超越的那些階段，以便更好地理解從猴子到人的過程中如何出現了靈魂和肉體的分離。首先要回憶的是從植物→蟲子→猴子→人的發展過程中被描繪為在兩個平面上發生的過程。其一是空間的平面：活動半徑由植物到人遞增，因而活動餘地和生活空間變大了變廣了。為了適應擴展了的生活空間帶來的多樣性，就必須在思想這第二個非空間的平面上加工出新的東西來。生活空間愈是色彩斑斕，思想活動就愈是抽象枯燥。這思想活動不得不把各種秩序、條理帶入生存所必須的繁雜的多樣性中，並以這種方式形成了與生活空間相關聯的意識。這樣一來在猴子階段就逐漸現出了猴子和世界的二元不同性的縐形，儘管還沒有達到人類所特有的反省、抽象那樣高級的程度。人類不僅在與世界的聯繫中而且在自身中也發現了我與非我的二元性。這樣一來人類將自身也作為客體對立起來，並用這種方式與自己拉開了距離，於是乎意識的我與肉體的我撕裂了，勢不兩立地對立了。人類出現的這個錯誤已被尼采在《真實的世界究竟是如何成為寓言的》這篇文章中討論過。人類的這個錯誤在於：意識到了自身卻忘記了出身，忘記了從植物一直到人類的整個發展史，所以纔使精神和物質相脫離。假如人類從生物發展史的起源階段就正確理解自身意識，那麽人類就會自然而然地在自身中找到自己超越過的每一個階段，發展成人類的這個生物進程就會被描繪成肉體和精神辯證關係的自然延續。而西方人在很長時間裏卻不是這樣。他們使靈魂和肉體相互脫節，他們為精神杜撰了一個完全不同的、更高級的起源並因此發明了一個非感官所能感覺到的、超自然的世界。物質和精神的徹底分裂在肉體和靈魂這個問題上清清楚楚地表現出來了。當人類由如此相相互對立的、老死不相往來的兩部分組成時又該如何想象作為一種自身統一的生物的人呢?靈魂和肉體之間的脫節問題在這個疑問中得到了最高體現。這些僵化的規則希望將關於兩個世界的二元論以及物質和精神的鴻溝最終地永久地固定下來，而尼采筆下的查拉圖斯特拉卻用具有大地意義的超人的理念來與之相對抗。儘管這是用一種唯心主義來對抗另一種唯心主義，但查拉圖斯特拉的對抗顯然技高一籌，這對抗産生了新事物，因為它使兩個對立面之間有了即使是瞬間統一的可能性，正如在彩虹中可以看出它是光與水等等元素共同作用的結果一樣，從物質與精神、肉體與靈魂的相對抗中就産生了超人。總而言之，尼采筆下的查拉圖斯特拉把傳統的靈魂和肉體對立分裂的二元論思想理解為人類一種自我誤解的結果，這正是尼采的高明過人之處。一旦人類消除了這種誤解，那麽靈魂和肉體相互撕裂的問題就解决了，這就意味着人類階段被超越了，那麽隨之而來的就是超人階段。無論如何對於人類來說有一點是可以肯定的，即大地的意義和生活的意義不存在於一個靜止的、物化了的精神産物中，不存在於魔鬼、上帝、理念式的理性中，而衹存在於對立面的對立統一的辯證關係之中。
從以上分析人們不難看出，尼采用一元論剋服了二元論，儘管尼采的出發點仍是唯心主義，但是他用發展的辯證的唯心主義來取代僵化的靜止的唯物主義，這無疑是一種進步。
在《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中，尼采還擬人化地諷刺揭露了當時靈魂和肉體之間的錯誤關係：“從前靈魂蔑視肉體，這種蔑視在當時被認為是最高尚的事：——靈魂要肉體枯瘦、醜陋並且餓死。它以為這樣便可以逃避肉體，同時也逃避了大地。/啊，這靈魂自己還是枯瘦、醜陋、餓死的，殘忍就是它的淫樂!”13對於查拉圖斯特拉來說，肉體在傳統的形而上學和基督教那兒所受到的貶低是一種謬論。這種謬論認為，人應該拋棄一切感官的感受，拋棄人類的以往的動物的歷程而衹通過關註精神就能嚮更高階段發展。這種謬論衹承認精神的積極因素和肉體的消極因素。查拉圖斯特拉的看法正相反，如果靈魂能夠作為肉體的靈魂而存在，那麽它試圖從肉體中獨立出來的每一次嘗試都是胡闹；如果靈魂貶低肉體，那無異於貶低靈魂自己，靈魂和肉體永遠相輔相成不可分離。查拉圖斯特拉還認為，靈魂對肉體的評價恰恰等於肉體對靈魂的判斷：“你們的肉體是怎樣說明你們的靈魂呢?你們的靈魂難道不是貧乏、污穢與可憐的自滿嗎?”14靈魂為自己創造了一個虛幻的世界，它臆想着戰勝肉體的輝煌勝利，但這衹是可憐又可笑的精神勝利法。衹有與肉體同時存在，靈魂才能越來越豐富；衹有當精神和物質相互終結並産生於對方之中時纔會出現“貧乏、污穢與可憐的自滿”的反面。查拉圖斯特拉的結束語是：“不是你們的罪惡，而是你們的節制嚮天呼喊!/那道用舌頭舔你們的閃電何在?那個應當嚮你們註射的瘋狂何在?/現在我教你們什麽是超人：他就是這閃電，他就是這瘋狂!”15查拉圖斯特拉在這兒抨擊的正是被基督教深惡痛絶的“罪惡意識”：如果人們滿足了肉體的欲望就意味着背叛精神，就意味着有罪。查拉圖斯特拉公然與基督教教義背道而馳，他認為原罪不存在於違背精神的罪惡中而存在於違背肉體的罪惡中，當人類真的因為有罪過要受到懲罰時，肉體首當其衝在劫難逃。為了徹底摧毀基督教教義，需要電閃雷鳴，以便讓二元論人物及其觀點徹底暴露，以便讓千百年來僵化凝固的教條都活動運轉起來。
與此同時，尼采以聖者來反襯突出查拉圖斯特拉的發展、運動的一元論觀點。聖者追求盡善盡美。他將自己對人類的愛當作這個世界上最完美的事情，可惜，這個愛永遠不可能從理想變為現實。因為人類存在的有限性從原則上禁止他們去達到那位聖者所要求的完美。持有這種看法的聖者讓自己孤立於人類之外而轉嚮唯一能滿足這個要求的生物：上帝。誰要是象這位聖者一樣在對上帝的愛中找到了自己的滿足，那他就實在無法理解為什麽查拉圖斯特拉背離完美的事物而去尋找不完美的事物。
聖者的這種觀點是由他的以宗教為基礎的生活方式决定的。聖者崇尚完美，並因此而完全脫離並不完美的人類世界。他獨居在森林中每天贊美上帝。聖者所理解的完美是自身封閉的、不變的、無法超越的，因此可以說聖者為自己選擇的生活方式是靜止不變的，這一點，從尼采的筆下可以清楚地看出。查拉圖斯特拉跳舞，聖者唱歌、譜麯、作詞。他的歌聲表達了他對盡善盡美的執着的追求。通過歌唱他不斷地接近完美並與之越來越相似。前面已經談到當查拉圖斯特拉跳舞時，聖者唱歌。他伴着歌聲在原地動，可以說他始終停留在圓周的中心點上，所有的半徑從此開始，所有的直徑通過此處，聖者圍繞自身絶對旋轉。他的生活方式凝固成油畫般的靜態的完美，在其內部所有的運動都消失貽盡。
上帝之死的想法對於聖者來說是不堪設想的。因為死亡意味着一種由活轉變為死的變化過程。聖者之所以愛上帝是因為上帝是至高無尚的完美無瑕的化身的體現，是一成不變的無比至尊的代表的體現，也就是說排除了任何運動變化的可能性，上帝絶不可能變成別的什麽，也絶不可能死去，上帝必須永遠是上帝，永遠是盡善盡美、完美無瑕的化身。對於聖者來說這個永遠的存在象徵性地固定在他停留的那個中心點，使他也成為完美與永恆。對於查拉圖斯特拉來說，在現實世界中不存在永恆不變的事物，在現實世界中萬事萬物都在誕生、變化和終結，而絶不可能超時空而存在。如果在我們這個唯一的真實世界裏談論上帝，那麽上帝就必須被認為和其它的萬事萬物一樣是發展變化的，而不是凝固不變的，那麽上帝也會和其它的萬事萬物一樣存在着産生和終結，對於已經終結的上帝，人們可以如此這般地說，上帝死了!聖者是個典型的二元論者，象其他的二元論者一樣在他那裏真實的世界與想象的世界被相互顛倒，真實的世界被歪麯成了表象的世界，而想象的世界卻被稱之為真實的世界，所以尼采纔針鋒相對地寫了那篇教育戲劇《真實的世界究竟是如何變成寓言的》。我們可以舉個通俗的例子，在想象中人們總是把現實世界描繪為一汪靜止不動的清泉，這汪清泉總是被描繪成無比純、無比淨、無比透明。但事實上真實的世界是一個骯髒的池沼。柏拉圖認為真實的世界代表了昏暗的洞穴，而這昏暗的洞穴又被看作人類肉體的象徵。而對於蘇格拉底來說最艱難的就是從上面的大地回到下面的洞穴中，即從明亮的精神那裏返回污穢的肉體中。這一上一下、一個天堂一個地獄活生生地將一個完整的生物的人撕裂成兩部分。總而言之尼采通過塑造這個追求盡善盡美的二元論者——聖者，反襯了查拉圖斯特拉辯證、發展的一元論觀點。
(三)超人模式
查拉圖斯特拉說：“人類是一根係在動物和超人之間的繩索，一根懸在深𠔌上的繩索。/往彼端去是危險的，停在半途是危險的，嚮後望也是危險的，戰慄或者不前進，都是危險的。”16查拉圖斯特拉的意思是說，人類剛好處在猴子階段和超人階段的過渡中。如果他回首自己的歷史，那他就面臨遵循早已無效的規則的危險；如果他躊躇不前，他就會發現自己的腳下是萬丈深淵，這樣他就會因懼怕跌落而戰甚至墜落。與回首、前瞻和停止相聯繫的這三種危險給人的印象是，查拉圖斯特拉將人類與一個走繩者相比較，後者隨着他在繩上邁出的每一步都會陷入一種死亡的危險之中，而人類卻是繩索和走繩者的合二而一。這就是說並不存在一條現成的路 (繩索)和某個在這條路上行走的人(走繩者)，而是如果沒有走路的人，也就不存在這條路。路是由於有了那個在路上行走的人才産生的。此人知道自己曾經是誰，也知道他將會是誰，但是不肯定自己能否夠成為他將是的人。超越自己要冒很大的風險，因為人們為此必須將習慣的、久經考驗的、安全的事物拋開，以便朝着一個未知的目標前進。絶沒有現成的道路通往這個目標，人們要在奔嚮目標的過程中自己創造出路來。路途中的每次懷疑和猶豫都會産生災難性的後果，因為衹要人們一停止前進，腳下的路和遠處的目標就消失了；行者腳下若踩空同樣也就跌入了未知和虛無的深淵。人類衹有永無止境地嚮前走，纔會腳踏實地，即腳踩繩索。換句話說，人類通過行走自己創造出支撐自己走路的支架，最終目的也不再會同路脫離開，因為目的不是別的，正是走路本身。隨着每一步的邁出，就意味着不斷的離開和到達。這條直直的繩索，從固定的一端伸展到另一端，可以理解成繞圓周行走的辯證法。這行走代表了生命，代表了超越自己的強烈追求。在走這條路時，人類産生出了作為繩索的超人。人類走在這根繩索上，與此同時，人類就是這根繩索。
查拉圖斯特拉繼續說：“人類的偉大之處，在於他是一座橋梁而不是一個目的。人類的可愛之處，在於他是一個過程和一個終結。”17橋梁以及前面提到的繩索都可以理解為走過去，朝着人類還不曾是的情形前進。而人類本身也正因為是一座承前啓後的橋梁而不是一個目標纔變得偉大。如果人類是目的，那他就不能自己設定目的，他就無法將自己設計為他將要成為的情形，而會受到他的內在的目的性的限製，那麽人類所做的一切努力最終不外乎僅僅是去實現他無需去做就已經存在的目的了。被視為目的的人類顯然不能通過自我超越而嚮更高層次發展，因為他就是他自己的最高層次。但是，假如人類將自己視為一個通嚮最高層次的階段，通過一次次的自我超越，建立起連接現在的他和將來的他的橋梁，那麽人類的這個事業就比人類將自己本身當作目標的事業要偉大得多。衹有當人類走出現在的自我以後纔决定自己要成為誰和要幹什麽時，那麽在最初的意義中人類就是自由的。這時，衹有在這時，人類的目標纔不再是人類，而是超越了人類的超人。因此查拉圖斯特拉纔說，人類的偉大和可愛之處在於，他是一個過程和終結。過程表示超越作為人的自我運動；終結表示通過這個運動人類階段消失了，超人階段來臨了，如同涓涓細流匯入奔騰咆哮的無邊大海。
對於人類之後的超人階段，查拉圖斯特拉用散文詩的形式抒發了自己對其的熱愛“我愛那些衹知道為終結而生活的人。因為他們是跨過橋者。”18誰作為人類而終結，誰就跨過了橋，就邁嚮了超人。“我愛那些偉大的輕衊者，因為他們是偉大的崇拜者，是射嚮彼岸的渴望之箭。”19渴望之箭意味着渴望超越自己的努力，這種努力鄙視人間的一切目的，唯獨想要到達彼岸世界。“我愛那些人，他們不先到星星後面尋找某種理由去終結、去犧牲，他們為大地犧牲，使大地有朝一日能屬於超人。”20任何一個能正常思維的人都不會為一個虛無飄渺的來世作出犧牲。地球，我們生活的大地，有足夠的理由讓人類為它做出超越自我的犧牲。
人類嚮超人超越的過程是一個極其艱難麯折危機四伏的過程，隨時可能付出生活的代價。走繩者無疑代表人類，他想建立一座由動物通嚮超人的橋梁。走繩者是查拉圖斯特拉所喜愛的人們中的一個。這些人蔑視末人的理想社會，敢於進行危險的超越，勇敢地嚮着超人的理想前進。超人的事業是前所未有的事業，必將受到舊勢力的瘋狂攻擊，走繩者的墜落就標志着基督教教義的勝利，這教義抨擊所有違背基督教教義的事為原罪並對觸犯原罪的人處以死刑。走繩者在其過去(順從的羔羊)和未來(獨立的個體)之間被拉來扯去，最終過去獲勝了，未來被放棄了，魔鬼戰勝了超人。但是這一結局並不是最終結局，每個作為走繩者的個體都必須在從動物到超人的過渡中經受多次這樣的死亡(“原罪”)，直到有一天他成功地在自身內超越人類這個階段。我們在前面已經談到繩索和走繩者是不可分的，繩索這條路的存在正是由於人們在它上面行走，隨着邁出的每一步超越自己的行為都重新進行，這種行為的總和就是超人。換句話說超人是走繩者、繩索和目標交織在一起嚮前進的一個整體。遺憾的是走繩者沒有能夠將這個統一體堅持到底，他在行進中失去了冷靜和平衡，摔了下去。在某種程度上人們可以說走繩者掉進了肉體和靈魂的二元論中，墜進了他想超越的物質和靈魂之間的鴻溝中。這墜落使由走繩者、繩索、目標三方面組成的統一體破裂了，解體了。如果一個人讓宗教或形而上學的偏見主宰着自己，那他就會被它(們)所超越，走繩者的悲慘結局就是一個最好的例子。查拉圖斯特拉試圖讓走繩者在臨死前明白，他(走繩者)本來已經超越了基督教關於魔鬼和地獄的教義，衹是他還未來得及做出不存在靈魂不死的結論。要知道肉體和靈魂始終相依相存；肉體是經濟基礎，靈魂是上層建築，肉體終結了，靈魂也就不存在了。走繩者雖然沒有走到繩索的那一端，但他用自己寶貴的生命嚮世人展示他是一位勇敢者、創新者，是一位嚮着超人理想奮勇直前者。從這個意義上說，他是一位大無畏的先驅。
查拉圖斯特拉在其演講的結尾談到了自己所扮演的角色——超人的宣告者。“我愛所有那些人，他們象沉重的雨點，一滴一滴地從人們頭頂上的烏雲中落下；它們預告着閃電的到來，並作為預告者而終結。/看吧，我是一道閃電的預告者，一滴自云中落下的重雨點：但是這道閃電便是超人。——”21查拉圖斯特拉不是超人，也不是超人的代表，而是超人的宣告者。他要將人們的註意力吸引到預示着超人的閃電事件中。這閃電將舊世界突然間照亮，撕掉了它的全部偽裝，展露出猙獰的本來面目，並宣告了它的末日。這閃電表明了舊的思維方式和舊的歷史觀的終結，這閃電預示了新的質的飛躍的來臨。隨着這閃電的到來，作為宣告者的查拉圖斯特拉就終結了。因為閃電、雷鳴、暴風雨過後，人類就成功地過渡到了超人，作為超人的宣告者就成為多餘的人了。人類自身超越了傳統的人物形象，並把這個新形象放到恰當的位置上。一旦超人的理念直接進入到人類的意識中，查拉圖斯特拉的使命就完成了，那時他將同其他人一樣，把所有的力量集中在更新自己，全力以赴地創造一座由動物嚮超人過渡的橋梁。
非常遺憾，查拉圖斯特拉的演講超出了人類理解水平的地平綫。所以，當查拉圖斯特拉結束演講時，聽衆大聲轟笑、怪叫、咂舌頭。人們嘲笑他，就象當年蘇格拉底嚮洞穴人解釋他的理念時受到的嘲笑一樣。即便在那兒，洞穴人也嚮蘇格拉底嚎叫：讓我們看看你的理念吧!接着他們指嚮每一堵有陰影的墻，在這些洞穴人看來，這些陰影就是真理的化身。蘇格拉底無法嚮他們展示什麽是理念，並不僅僅因為他從陽光普照的世界回到昏暗的洞穴中感到頭暈目眩，還因為而且首先是因為理念表達的方式和墻上陰影表達的方式截然不同，理念是無論如何無法以陰影的形式出現的。查拉圖斯特拉和蘇格拉底的遭遇如此相似，聽衆想看見他宣揚的超人，但人們沒有搞明白，超人是無法看見的，衹能做出來。遺憾的是，按照人類的傳統悟性，人類衹能理解物化了的、客觀上觸摸得到的形體，而恰恰在這種意義上既不存在超人，也不存在理念。超人就不是人，更不是那種超級人。超人不是個體，而是個體一項活動的總稱。這項活動的特點是既超越出去又在更高的程度上回歸自己。所以，衹有當我們去做這件事時，衹有當我們去超越人類自身時纔會有超人。由於世人的不理解，查拉圖斯特拉下山後的第一次演講失敗了。人們用舊的思維方式來理解查拉圖斯特拉的超人學說，似乎他要宣佈一個新的救世主的降臨。按照傳統觀念這個新的救世主是特定的個體的人，他以說教者的身份來此地教訓人類，人們想看的就是這種人。回顧人類的思想史，人類對於超出了自己理解力的改革者通常都采取從肉體上消滅的解决辦法。到目前為止查拉圖斯特拉是第一個幸免於難的人，這也許得益於人類的誤解。在世人看來，查拉圖斯特拉是個難得的白癡，一個令人捧腹大笑的醜角，但恰恰是這個醜角嚮舊世界的尊貴無比的人物形象和至高無上的理性觀念宣戰。
(四)對立統一體的圓周運動
尼采在《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中塑造了查拉圖斯特拉的兩個動物形象：鷹與蛇。這兩衹動物象徵着一個對立同一體。在這個統一體中對立面既相互對立又相依相存。鷹這個高傲的動物盤旋在高空，它代表了理智與精神。蛇這個聰明狡猾的動物生活在地面，它代表了肉體與物質。儘管這兩種動物嚮前運動的方式不同，但是其共同點是都做圓周運動：鷹在空中畫圈，蛇在地上圈麯前進。蛇纏繞在飛翔的雄鷹的頸上的情影直觀地表現了對立面的統一。鷹與蛇，精神與物質是如此的不同，衹有圓周運動纔將二者聯繫在一起。對於尼采來說超越自我的行為就是嚮高層次發展的原則，它既超越自己，又在超越後回歸自我，衹不過是在更高的層次上。鷹與蛇儘管相互對立，截然不同，可它們二者之間沒有敵意，它們在友好的合作中完成圓周運動。同樣的，精神和物質不是相互抵毀，而是相互依存、相互補充，精神通過物質來實現，物質通過精神來提高。蛇在與鷹的共同飛翔中離開了它在地上的居留地升躍到了它依靠自己的力量無法達到的層次，同樣的物質作為精神的實現者進入了它通過自己的努力無法涉足的領域。精神中有物質，物質中有精神，不論物質還是精神都存在嚮更高層次發展的要求。這種要求作為權力意志的原則在共同的又存在差異的圓周運動中表現出來。
人類好比鷹與蛇的統一體。因此查拉圖斯特拉乞求高傲(鷹)永遠伴隨他的智慧(蛇)，因為衹有這樣才能保證人類永遠以圓周運動的方式前進。在這圓周運動中人類存在的對立面辯證地統一在一起，相互鬥爭，相互依存，就象查拉圖斯特拉的鷹與蛇一樣。它們各是不同種的生物，但是纏繞在一起共同做圓周運動。在現實世界中精神(靈魂)既要緊跟物質(內體)，以便不與物質脫節並隨時汲取生活的活力，同時精神還要反作用於物質，發揮其獨特的能動作用。
最後，讓我們分析一下查拉圖斯特拉的終結。從表面意義上看，這首先是指查拉圖斯特拉本人。他在十年前走了自下而上之路——復活，現在走的是自上而下之路 ——終結。從一個非表面的意義上看，查拉圖斯特拉在進行這兩種相反的運動中執行的是權力意志的原則，這一點在形成過程中表現得非常直觀。傳統的二元論觀點把對立面不是看作既矛盾又統一的，而是看成極端相反、水火不相容的。恰好在這一點上尼采與傳統的二元論者分道揚鑣。西方哲學界的普遍錯誤在於他們把對立面作為誓不兩立的二元論固定、延襲下來了，其實質問題為如何看待對立面之間的關係。在真實世界(即西方傳統觀念中所說的表象的世界)中立面之間的關係是對立統一的辯證關係，二者既極端對立又相互依存，並在一定條件下相互轉化，尼采一針見血地指出了這一點。在《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中，尼采表達了清晰明確的一元論思想。二元論的思想淵源流長，無論是在人類早期哲學的璀璨明珠希臘哲學中還是在人類宗教史上歷史最長分佈最廣影響最大的基督教教義中同樣存在着兩個世界的學說——真實的世界和表象的世界。這兩個世界之間的關係被絶對化了。形象地說，好比人們設定了圓周的直徑，卻忘記了圓周本身。這樣一來勢必給人造成一種錯誤印象：這是一對無法調節、無法統一的對立面，人們衹能或者選擇這一面或者那一面；或者嚮上到精神，踏上通往所謂的真實的、美妙的世界之路，或者是嚮下到物質，墜入所謂的表象的邪惡的世界之中，二者之間是一道無法逾越的鴻溝。尼采力圖超越二者之間的鴻溝，他用形象的比喻和散文詩的語言生動地表述了二者之間的對立統一關係以及圓周式的前進方式。超人的思想是尼采超現實的想象，超人的理論無疑應歸入唯心主義的體係。但是這裏面所包含的一元論的思想和辯證發展的歷史觀是無論如何應該肯定的。另外尼采的唯心主義體係裏所包含的異常生動的辯證法思想，此起當時在歐洲大陸廣為流行的庸俗唯物主義機械唯物主義和拜物教不知要高明多少倍。馬剋思主義以前的唯物論，由於其機械的、形而上學的性質，沒有在強調思維依賴於存在，精神依賴於物質的前提下，充分估價意識、精神、主觀的巨大能動作用，人類這方面的正確認識首先是在唯心主義哲學範疇中被體現出來了。尼采在《查拉圖斯特如是說》中所提出的超人理論和永恆輪回的思想就是出類拔萃的例證。
《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》-目錄
代總序尼采，一位應該被超越的偉人
譯者前言尼采最具轟動效應的扛鼎之作
第一捲
查拉圖斯特拉前言
查拉圖斯特拉的演說
論三種變形
論道德講壇
論信仰彼岸世界的人
論蔑視肉體者
論快樂和激情
論蒼白的罪犯
論閱讀和寫作
論山旁之樹
論死之說教者
論戰爭和戰士
論新偶像
論市場的蒼蠅
論貞潔
論朋友
論一千零一個目標
論愛鄰人
論創造者的道路
論老嫗和少婦
論毒蛇的咬嚙
論孩子和婚姻
論自由之死
論饋贈的道德
第二捲
持鏡的小孩
在幸福島上
論同情者
論牧師
論道德傢
論流氓無賴
論毒蜘蛛
論著名的智者
夜歌
舞蹈之歌
墳墓之歌
論超越自我
論高尚者
論教化的國度
論純潔的知識
論學者
論詩人
論偉大事件
預言傢
論解救
論人的智慧
最寂靜的時刻
第三捲
漫遊者
論相貌和謎
論違背意志的幸福
日出之前
論逐漸變小的道德
橄欖山上
離棄
背叛者
歸傢
論三件惡事
論沉重的思想
論新舊招牌
痊愈者
論偉大的渴望
另一支舞麯
七個印章
第四捲
蜂蜜祭品
痛苦的呼號
與兩位國王的談話
水蛭
魔術傢
遜位
最醜陋的人
自願行乞者
影子
正午
歡迎
晚餐
更高級的人
憂鬱之歌
論科學
在沙漠的女兒們中間
覺醒
驢節
沉醉之歌
徵兆
Described by Nietzsche himself as "the deepest ever written," the book is a dense and esoteric treatise on philosophy and morality, featuring as protagonist a fictionalized prophet descending from his recluse to mankind, Zarathustra. A central irony of the text is that Nietzsche mimics the style of the Bible in order to present ideas which fundamentally oppose Christian and Jewish morality and tradition.
Genesis
Thus Spoke Zarathustra was conceived while Nietzsche was writing The Gay Science; he made a small note, reading "6,000 feet beyond man and time," as evidence of this. More specifically, this note related to the concept of the Eternal Recurrence, which is, by Nietzsche's admission, the central idea of Zarathustra; this idea occurred to him by a "pyramidal block of stone" on the shores of Lake Silvaplana in the Upper Engadine, a high alpine region whose valley floor is at 6,000 ft. Nietzsche planned to write the book in three parts over several years. He wrote that the ideas for Zarathustra first came to him while walking on two roads surrounding Rapallo, according to Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche in the introduction of Thomas Common's early translation of the book.
While developing the general outlook of the book, he subsequently decided to write an additional three parts; ultimately, however, he composed only the fourth part, which is viewed to constitute an intermezzo.
Nietzsche commented in Ecce Homo that for the completion of each part: "Ten days sufficed; in no case, neither for the first nor for the third and last, did I require more" (trans. Kaufmann). The first three parts were first published separately, and were subsequently published in a single volume in 1887. The fourth part remained private after Nietzsche wrote it in 1885; a scant forty copies were all that were printed, apart from seven others that were distributed to Nietzsche's close friends. In March 1892, the four parts were finally reprinted as a single volume. Since then, the version most commonly produced has included all four parts.
The original text contains a great deal of word-play. An example of this exists in the use of the words "over" or "super" and the words "down" or "abyss/abysmal"; some examples include "superman" or "overman", "overgoing", "downgoing" and "self-overcoming".
Synopsis
The book chronicles the fictitious travels and pedagogy of Zarathustra. The name of this character is taken from the ancient prophet usually known in English as Zoroaster (Avestan: Zaraθuštra), the Persian founder of Zoroastrianism. Nietzsche is clearly portraying a "new" or "different" Zarathustra, one who turns traditional morality on its head. He goes on to characterize "what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth, the mouth of the first immoralist:"
[F]or 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.
– Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny", §3, trans. Walter Kaufmann
Zarathustra has a simple characterisation and plot, narrated sporadically throughout the text. It possesses a unique experimental style, one that is, for instance, evident in newly invented "dithyrambs" narrated or sung by Zarathustra. Likewise, the separate Dithyrambs of Dionysus was written in autumn 1888, and printed with the full volume in 1892, as the corollaries of Zarathustra's "abundance".
Some speculate that Nietzsche intended to write about final acts of creation and destruction brought about by Zarathustra. However, the book lacks a finale to match that description; its actual ending focuses more on Zarathustra recognizing that his legacy is beginning to perpetuate, and consequently choosing to leave the higher men to their own devices in carrying his legacy forth.
Zarathustra also contains the famous dictum "God is dead", which had appeared earlier in The Gay Science. In his autobiographical work Ecce Homo, Nietzsche states that the book's underlying concept is discussed within "the penultimate section of the fourth book" of The Gay Science (Ecce Homo, Kaufmann). It is the Eternal recurrence of the same events.
This concept first occurred to Nietzsche while he was walking in Switzerland through the woods along the lake of Silvaplana (close to Surlei); he was inspired by the sight of a gigantic, towering, pyramidal rock. Before Zarathustra, Nietzsche had mentioned the concept in the fourth book of The Gay Science (e.g., sect. 341); this was the first public proclamation of the notion by him. Apart from its salient presence in Zarathustra, it is also echoed throughout Nietzsche's work. At any rate, it is by Zarathustra's transfiguration that he embraces eternity, that he at last ascertains "the supreme will to power". This inspiration finds its expression with Zarathustra's Roundelay, featured twice in the book, once near the story's close:
“ O man, take care!
What does the deep midnight declare?
"I was asleep—
From a deep dream I woke and swear:—
The world is deep,
Deeper than day had been aware.
Deep is its woe—
Joy—deeper yet than agony:
Woe implores: Go!
But all joy wants eternity—
Wants deep, wants deep eternity." ”
Another singular feature of Zarathustra, first presented in the prologue, is the designation of human beings as a transition between apes and the "Übermensch" (in English, either the "overman" or "superman"; or, superhuman or overhuman. English translators Thomas Common and R. J. Hollingdale use superman, while Kaufmann uses overman, and Parkes uses overhuman). The Übermensch is one of the many interconnecting, interdependent themes of the story, and is represented through several different metaphors. Examples include: the lightning that is portended by the silence and raindrops of a travelling storm cloud; or the sun's rise and culmination at its midday zenith; or a man traversing a rope stationed above an abyss, moving away from his uncultivated animality and towards the Übermensch.
The symbol of the Übermensch also alludes to Nietzsche's notions of "self-mastery", "self-cultivation", "self-direction", and "self-overcoming". Expostulating these concepts, Zarathustra declares:
"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.
"Whoever is the wisest among you is also a mere conflict and cross between plant and ghost. But do I bid you become ghosts or plants?
"Behold, I teach you the overman! The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go!"
– Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, §3, trans. Walter Kaufmann
The book embodies a number of innovative poetical and rhetorical methods of expression. It serves as a parallel and supplement to the various philosophical ideas present in Nietzsche's body of work. He has, however, said that "among my writings my Zarathustra stands to my mind by itself" (Ecce Homo, Preface, sec. 4, Kaufmann). Emphasizing its centrality and its status as his magnum opus, it is stated by Nietzsche that:
With [Thus Spoke Zarathustra] I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made to it so far. This book, with a voice bridging centuries, is not only the highest book there is, the book that is truly characterized by the air of the heights—the whole fact of man lies beneath it at a tremendous distance—it is also the deepest, born out of the innermost wealth of truth, an inexhaustible well to which no pail descends without coming up again filled with gold and goodness.
– Ecce Homo, Preface, §4, trans. Walter Kaufmann
Since, as stated, many of the book's ideas are also present in his other works, Zarathustra is seen to have served as a precursor to his later philosophical thought. With the book, Nietzsche embraced a distinct aesthetic assiduity. He later reformulated many of his ideas, in his book Beyond Good and Evil and various other writings that he composed thereafter. He continued to emphasize his philosophical concerns; generally, his intention was to show an alternative to repressive moral codes and to avert "nihilism" in all of its varied forms.
Other aspects of Thus Spoke Zarathustra relate to Nietzsche's proposed "Transvaluation of All Values". This incomplete project began with The Antichrist.
Themes
Nietzsche injects myriad ideas into the book, but there are a few recurring themes. The overman (Übermensch), a self-mastered individual who has achieved his full power, is an almost omnipresent idea in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Man as a race is merely a bridge between animals and the overman. Nietzsche also makes a point that the overman is not an end result for a person, but more the journey toward self-mastery.
The eternal recurrence, found elsewhere in Nietzsche's writing, is also mentioned. The eternal recurrence is the idea that all events that have happened will happen again, infinitely many times. Such a reality can serve as the litmus test for an overman. Faced with the knowledge that he would repeat every action that he has taken, an overman would be elated as he has no regrets and loves life.
The will to power is the fundamental component of human nature. Everything we do is an expression of the will to power. The will to power is a psychological analysis of all human action and is accentuated by self-overcoming and self-enhancement. Contrasted with living for procreation, pleasure, or happiness, the will to power is the summary of all man's struggle against his surrounding environment as well as his reason for living in it.
Copious criticisms of Christianity can be found in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in particular Christian values of good and evil and its belief in an afterlife. Nietzsche sees the complacency of Christian values as fetters to the achievement of overman as well as on the human spirit.
Style
Harold Bloom calls Thus Spoke Zarathustra a "gorgeous disaster", adding that its rhapsodic fiction is "now unreadable".
Noteworthy for its format, the book comprises a philosophical work of fiction whose style often lightheartedly imitates that of the New Testament and of the Platonic dialogues, at times resembling pre-Socratic works in tone and in its use of natural phenomena as rhetorical and explanatory devices. It also features frequent references to the Western literary and philosophical traditions, implicitly offering an interpretation of these traditions and of their problems. Nietzsche achieves all of this through the character of Zarathustra (referring to the traditional prophet of Zoroastrianism), who makes speeches on philosophic topics as he moves along a loose plotline marking his development and the reception of his ideas. One can view this characteristic (following the genre of the bildungsroman) as an inline commentary on Zarathustra's (and Nietzsche's) philosophy. All this, along with the book's ambiguity and paradoxical nature, has helped its eventual enthusiastic reception by the reading public, but has frustrated academic attempts at analysis (as Nietzsche may have intended). Thus Spoke Zarathustra remained unpopular as a topic for scholars (especially those in the Anglo-American analytic tradition) until the second half of the twentieth century brought widespread interest in Nietzsche and his unconventional style that does not distinguish between philosophy and literature. It offers formulations of eternal recurrence, and Nietzsche for the first time speaks of the Übermensch: themes that would dominate his books from this point onwards.
A vulnerability of Nietzsche's style is that his nuances and shades of meaning are very easily lost — and all too easily gained — in translation. The Übermensch is particularly problematic: the equivalent "Superman" found in dictionaries and in the translations by Thomas Common and R.J. Hollingdale may create an unfortunate association with the heroic comic-character "Superman", while simultaneously detracting from Nietzsche's repeated play on "über" as well as losing the gender-neutrality of the German.
The "Übermensch" is the being that overcomes the "great nausea" associated with nihilism; that overcomes that most "abysmal" realization of the eternal return. He is the being that "sails over morality", and that dances over gravity (the "spirit of gravity" is Zarathustra's devil and archenemy). He is a "harvester" and a "celebrant" who endlessly affirms his existence, thereby becoming the transfigurer of his consciousness and life, aesthetically. He is initially a destructive force, excising and annihilating the insidious "truths" of the herd, and consequently reclaiming the chaos from which pure creativity is born. It is this creative force exemplified by the Übermensch that justifies suffering without displacing it in some "afterworld".
Translations
The English translations of Zarathustra differ according to the sentiments of the translators. The Thomas Common translation favors a classic English approach, in the style of Shakespeare or the King James Version of the Bible. Common's poetic interpretation of the text, which renders the title Thus Spake Zarathustra, received wide acclaim for its lambent portrayal. Common reasoned that because the original German was written in a pseudo-Luther-Biblical style, a pseudo-King-James-Biblical style would be fitting in the English translation.
The Common translation, which improved on Alexander Tille's earlier attempt, remained widely accepted until the more critical translations, titled Thus Spoke Zarathustra, separately by R.J. Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann, which are considered to convey more accurately the German text than the Common version. Kaufmann's introduction to his own translation included a blistering critique of Common's version; he notes that in one instance, Common has taken the German "most evil" and rendered it "baddest", a particularly unfortunate error not merely for his having coined the term "baddest", but also because Nietzsche dedicated a third of The Genealogy of Morals to the difference between "bad" and "evil". This and other errors led Kaufmann to wondering if Common "had little German and less English". The translations of Kaufmann and Hollingdale render the text in a far more familiar, less archaic, style of language, than that of Common.
Clancy Martin's 2005 translation opens with criticism and praise for these three seminal translators, Common, Hollingdale, and Kaufmann. He notes that the German text available to Common was considerably flawed, and that the German text from which Hollingdale and Kaufmann worked was itself untrue to Nietzsche's own work in some ways. Martin criticizes Kaufmann for changing punctuation, altering literal and philosophical meanings, and dampening some of Nietzsche's more controversial metaphors. Kaufmann's version, which has become the most widely available, features a translator's note suggesting that Nietzsche's text would have benefited from an editor; Martin suggests that Kaufmann "took it upon himself to become his editor".
Graham Parkes describes his own 2005 translation as trying "above all to convey the musicality of the text (which was not a priority for Walter Kaufmann or R.J. Hollingdale, authors of the best English translations so far)."
Musical adaptation
The book inspired Richard Strauss to compose the tone poem Also sprach Zarathustra, which he designated "freely based on Friedrich Nietzsche." Zarathustra's Roundelay is set as part of Gustav Mahler's Third Symphony (1895-6), originally under the title What Man Tells Me, or alternatively What the Night tells me (of Man). Frederick Delius based his major choral-orchestral work A Mass of Life (1904-5) on texts from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The work ends with a setting of Zarathustra's Roundelay which Delius had composed earlier, in 1898, as a separate work. Carl Orff also composed a three-movement setting of part of Nietzsche's text as a teenager, but this work remains unpublished.
Editions of Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* 1st - 1909 - (limited to 2,000)
* 2nd - 1911 - (limited to 1,500)
* 3rd - 1914 - (limited to 2,000)
* 4th - 1916 - (limited to 2,000) of Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None translated by Thomas Common, published by the MacMillan Company in 1916, printed in Great Britain by The Darwien Press of Edinburgh.
* Also sprach Zarathustra, edited by Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag (study edition of the standard German Nietzsche edition)
* Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Walter Kaufmann, New York: Random House; reprinted in The Portable Nietzsche, New York: The Viking Press, 1954 and Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976
* Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961
* Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Graham Parkes, Oxford: Oxford World's Classics, 2005
* Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Adrian del Caro and edited by Robert Pippin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006
Commentaries on Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* Gustav Naumann 1899-1901 Zarathustra-Commentar, 4 volumes. Leipzig : Haessel
* Higgins, Kathleen. 1990. Nietzsche's Zarathustra. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
* Lampert, Laurence. 1989. Nietzsche's Teaching: An Interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. New Haven: Yale University Press.
* Rosen, Stanley. 2004. The Mask of Enlightenment: Nietzsche's Zarathustra. New Haven: Yale University Press.
* Seung, T. K. 2005. Nietzsche's Epic of the Soul: Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Introduction to Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* Rüdiger Schmidt Nietzsche für Anfänger: Also sprach Zarathustra - Eine Lese-Einführung (introduction in German to the work)
Essay collections on Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* Essays on Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Before Sunrise, edited by James Luchte, London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008. ISBN 1847062210
這本以散文詩體寫就的傑作，以振聾發聵的奇異灼見和橫空出世的警世智慧宣講“超人哲學”和“權力意志”，橫掃了基督教教條造威的精神奴性的方方面面，譜寫了一麯自由主義的人性壯歌。在本書中，“上帝死了”， “超人”誕生了，於是近代人類思想的天空有了一道光耀千年的奇異彩虹。令尼采飽受非難的言論“去女人那裏嗎？別忘了你的鞭子”，便是出自此書。衹有深入理解了尼采的精神實質，才能真正理解這樣的怪論。
面對一座萬仞高山，我們往往說不出多少話來，感到贊辭是多餘的。面對弗裏德裏希·威廉·尼采 (1844—1900)，這位德國近代大詩人、大哲學家，我們也有同樣的感覺。
這個尼采，他宣告：“上帝死了!”曾經使整個西方世界震撼。這個尼采，他的“超人哲學”衹有極少數人能夠真正理解。深受他影響的思想文化巨人有：裏爾剋、弗洛伊德、加繆、薩持、海德格爾、蕭伯納、梁啓超、魯迅，等等。
尼采一生飽受漂泊和病痛之苦，最後是在精神錯亂中了卻殘生，更為不幸的是，他的學說常常受到誤解和歪麯。德國納粹分子曾把他的學說肆意麯解為法西斯的理論支柱。希特勒曾親自去拜謁尼采之墓，並把《尼采全集》作為壽禮送給墨索裏尼。
《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》-作者簡介
弗裏德裏希·威廉·尼采（1844—1900），德國近代詩人、哲學家。他宣告：“帝死了！”徹底動搖了西方思想體係的基石，他高蹈的“超人哲學”與酒神精神産生了巨大影響。他的主要著作有《悲劇的誕生》、《查拉圖斯特拉如是說善惡之彼岸》、《論道德的譜係》、《快樂的科學》、《曙光》、《權力意志》等。尼采既有哲學家的深遂洞見，又有詩人的澎湃激情。深受他影響的思想文化巨人，有裏爾剋、蕭伯納、弗洛伊德、加繆、薩特、海德格爾，粱啓超、魯迅等。
尼采和馬剋思，牛頓、愛因斯坦、達爾文等同時榮獲“千年十大思想傢”的盛譽。
《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》-《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中的歷史觀
尼采在他的代表作《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中站在一元論的立場上嚮世人展示了一種發展的辯證的歷史觀，下面我想從四個方面來談談這個問題。
(一)發展的思維方式
查拉圖斯特拉在山上度過了十年節制生活之後，在人類面前發表了第一次演講，陳述了從植物到超人的過程：植物→蟲子→猴子→人類→超人。“你們經歷了從蟲子到人的道路，在你們身上多少有點像蟲子。你們以前是猴子，在現在人也比任何一隻猴子更象猴子。”1尼采認為在生物界中始終存在一種更高的發展，目前的階段絶非最終階段。人這個階段也是發展中的過渡階段，還會超過人這個階段，嚮下一個階段——超人的階段發展。查拉圖斯特拉斷言：“到目前為止，所有生物都創造了一些超過自己的東西。”2“創造”這個概念表明，查拉圖斯特拉並不將生物進化理解為一種機械的因果過程，而認為這些生物自身就是發展動力，他(它)們自身創造超出自己的事物並因此而超越自己。遺憾的是存在一種錯誤觀點，這種觀點根深蒂固地左右着人類的思維：人類自以為自己就是宇宙發展的最高階段，人類判定自己是進化結束的最終成果。由於沒有什麽可再發展了，於是乎人類停止不前甚至退回到已經超越的階段。為此查拉圖斯特拉提醒道：“你們想要成為洶涌潮水中的落潮同時寧可返回到動物也不願超越人類嗎?”3要知道人類是生物中唯一不靠本能在進化潮流中進行創造活動的，而且可以按照自己的意志對抗或順應進化潮流。但是按照查拉圖斯特拉的觀點，即便是人類為了使自己保持為人也必須在極端的對立面之間來回跑。換句話說為了當落潮必須先當漲潮，衹有體驗了落潮的失落才能享受漲潮的喜悅。假若人類停滯不前就會退到早已被超過了的階段——動物預備階段。“對於人來說，猴子是什麽?一種大笑或者是一種痛苦的羞辱。而人類對於超人來說正是如此：一種嘲笑或者是一種痛苦的羞辱。”4當人類回顧自己的歷史時，他看到了成為人之前的全部發展階段。一方面他發現自己在一定程度上已經在猴子中顯現同時猴子又頗具人性，這時他會哈哈大笑；另一方面當他想起自己的祖先曾是猴子時，又會面紅耳赤。有朝一日超人也會産生這樣兩方面的感覺。對此赫拉剋立特也有同感：“最漂亮的猴子與人相比也是醜陋的。最聰明的人在上帝身邊看起來如同一隻猴子，這涉及到智慧，美麗和其它的一切。”5
查拉圖斯特拉在愛聽聳人聽聞消息的觀衆面前做了他的第一次演講，但是他的聽衆不理解他的演說，因為這些人甚至還未達到人的階段“你們之中最聰明的人也衹是植物和魔鬼的一種矛盾的混種。但是我教你們成為魔鬼或植物了嗎?/你們看哪，我教你們什麽是超人：/超人是大地的意義。你們的意志說：超人是大地的意義!”6在尼采筆下的查拉圖斯特拉看來，由於人類還算不上一個完整出色的整體，衹是兩個相互矛盾的部分的組合，這兩部分之間密不可分的關係還未被認識到，所以在從猴子到人的過渡期間就出現了物質和精神的分離。
很顯然，尼采不想在進化論的狹隘的意義中去展示人類的生物進化史而想從生物遺傳學方面來演示植物→蟲子→猴子→從→超人的整個發展史。在此清楚地顯示了尼采的歷史觀（１）是發展的而不是停止的，（２）既不是簡單的機械的因果過程也不同於達爾文的進化論。尼采始終認為達爾文的觀點是片面的，達爾文在生存鬥爭中忽略了精神，沒有黑格爾就沒有達爾文，因此尼采強烈反對把他當作達爾主義者，“受過訓練的有角動物使我對達爾文主義産生了懷疑”。7
下面讓我們再看看尼采筆下的精神的三個發展階段。查拉圖斯特拉對衆人說：“我告訴你們精神的三種變形：精神是如何變成駱駝，駱駝是如何變成獅子，最後獅子如何變成小孩。”8這精神的歷史經歷了“物質化”的三個階段。第一個階段即駱駝的階段，刻畫了西方傳統觀念中自我悟性的特徵。在第二階段即獅子的階段，查拉圖斯特拉扮演了傳統價值的批判者的角色。在第三階段即小孩階段指明超人還沒有誕生。乍一看起來似乎精神的三種變形與黑格爾的三段論：正題、反題、綜合很相似。但這僅僅是在一定條件下。在第一階段，精神以駱駝的外形出現，扮演了屈服順從的角色，一個外在的、來世的、永遠固定的超精神強加於它。在第二階段，它認識到了駱駝是一種自鄙的形式，因而徹底否認了駱駝的行為，它自己宣告了自己的死亡，並為自己的新生做好了準備，這是一次鳳凰涅盤，於是精神發展到了第三階段：小孩階段。“小孩是天真與遺忘的”9表明精神通過産生自己的第二個起點而忘記了以前的失敗和過失。精神在超越了獅子階段以後就把自己的往事忘得一幹二淨，因為在當年它不是自覺自願，而是被外來力量強製的物化的魔鬼精神，衹有在小孩階段纔恢復了自我，纔有了創造性“一個自轉的輪”。“是的，為了創造的遊戲，我的弟兄們，一個神聖的肯定是必要的：精神現在要有它的意志力，失去世界者贏得了他的世界。”10總之，在精神發展的第三階段，衹有在這個階段，世界做為精神活動的真正産物纔誕生了。順便說一句，尼采在此對精神係列的三種變化的描繪與基督教教義中上帝從虛無中創造了世界的情形很相似。看來堅决反對基督教神學的尼采也無法擺脫時代與環境對他的潛移默化的影響。
從以上我們可以看出，尼采認為精神和物質在極端對立中相互依存，並因此形成了一個又一個超越自己又回歸自己的嚮高級發展的運動。
(二)辯證的一元論觀點
尼采用查拉圖斯特拉的名義從植物和魔鬼的情形入手來研究肉體和靈魂這個古老的問題。按照查拉圖斯特拉的觀點，儘管傳統哲學將人類視為肉體——靈魂、物質 ——精神所組成的整體，但在事實上已經將精神物化了，精神變成了可以脫離物質單獨存在的實體。因此就有了查拉圖斯特拉的反問：“我教人們成為魔鬼和植物嗎?”11唯心主義和唯物主義同樣都是人類自我悟性的片面形式，在這其中或者是人的肉體的那一面或者是人的精神的那一面被否定了。在查拉圖斯特拉一開始演講時我們就聽到了人類應該是被超越的。現在當人類被分裂成肉體與靈魂兩部分時我們再次聽到他的聲音：“你們看哪，我教人們什麽是超人!”12當我們思考超越人——這個前進中的質的飛躍時，讓我們再回憶一下人類已經超越的那些階段，以便更好地理解從猴子到人的過程中如何出現了靈魂和肉體的分離。首先要回憶的是從植物→蟲子→猴子→人的發展過程中被描繪為在兩個平面上發生的過程。其一是空間的平面：活動半徑由植物到人遞增，因而活動餘地和生活空間變大了變廣了。為了適應擴展了的生活空間帶來的多樣性，就必須在思想這第二個非空間的平面上加工出新的東西來。生活空間愈是色彩斑斕，思想活動就愈是抽象枯燥。這思想活動不得不把各種秩序、條理帶入生存所必須的繁雜的多樣性中，並以這種方式形成了與生活空間相關聯的意識。這樣一來在猴子階段就逐漸現出了猴子和世界的二元不同性的縐形，儘管還沒有達到人類所特有的反省、抽象那樣高級的程度。人類不僅在與世界的聯繫中而且在自身中也發現了我與非我的二元性。這樣一來人類將自身也作為客體對立起來，並用這種方式與自己拉開了距離，於是乎意識的我與肉體的我撕裂了，勢不兩立地對立了。人類出現的這個錯誤已被尼采在《真實的世界究竟是如何成為寓言的》這篇文章中討論過。人類的這個錯誤在於：意識到了自身卻忘記了出身，忘記了從植物一直到人類的整個發展史，所以纔使精神和物質相脫離。假如人類從生物發展史的起源階段就正確理解自身意識，那麽人類就會自然而然地在自身中找到自己超越過的每一個階段，發展成人類的這個生物進程就會被描繪成肉體和精神辯證關係的自然延續。而西方人在很長時間裏卻不是這樣。他們使靈魂和肉體相互脫節，他們為精神杜撰了一個完全不同的、更高級的起源並因此發明了一個非感官所能感覺到的、超自然的世界。物質和精神的徹底分裂在肉體和靈魂這個問題上清清楚楚地表現出來了。當人類由如此相相互對立的、老死不相往來的兩部分組成時又該如何想象作為一種自身統一的生物的人呢?靈魂和肉體之間的脫節問題在這個疑問中得到了最高體現。這些僵化的規則希望將關於兩個世界的二元論以及物質和精神的鴻溝最終地永久地固定下來，而尼采筆下的查拉圖斯特拉卻用具有大地意義的超人的理念來與之相對抗。儘管這是用一種唯心主義來對抗另一種唯心主義，但查拉圖斯特拉的對抗顯然技高一籌，這對抗産生了新事物，因為它使兩個對立面之間有了即使是瞬間統一的可能性，正如在彩虹中可以看出它是光與水等等元素共同作用的結果一樣，從物質與精神、肉體與靈魂的相對抗中就産生了超人。總而言之，尼采筆下的查拉圖斯特拉把傳統的靈魂和肉體對立分裂的二元論思想理解為人類一種自我誤解的結果，這正是尼采的高明過人之處。一旦人類消除了這種誤解，那麽靈魂和肉體相互撕裂的問題就解决了，這就意味着人類階段被超越了，那麽隨之而來的就是超人階段。無論如何對於人類來說有一點是可以肯定的，即大地的意義和生活的意義不存在於一個靜止的、物化了的精神産物中，不存在於魔鬼、上帝、理念式的理性中，而衹存在於對立面的對立統一的辯證關係之中。
從以上分析人們不難看出，尼采用一元論剋服了二元論，儘管尼采的出發點仍是唯心主義，但是他用發展的辯證的唯心主義來取代僵化的靜止的唯物主義，這無疑是一種進步。
在《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中，尼采還擬人化地諷刺揭露了當時靈魂和肉體之間的錯誤關係：“從前靈魂蔑視肉體，這種蔑視在當時被認為是最高尚的事：——靈魂要肉體枯瘦、醜陋並且餓死。它以為這樣便可以逃避肉體，同時也逃避了大地。/啊，這靈魂自己還是枯瘦、醜陋、餓死的，殘忍就是它的淫樂!”13對於查拉圖斯特拉來說，肉體在傳統的形而上學和基督教那兒所受到的貶低是一種謬論。這種謬論認為，人應該拋棄一切感官的感受，拋棄人類的以往的動物的歷程而衹通過關註精神就能嚮更高階段發展。這種謬論衹承認精神的積極因素和肉體的消極因素。查拉圖斯特拉的看法正相反，如果靈魂能夠作為肉體的靈魂而存在，那麽它試圖從肉體中獨立出來的每一次嘗試都是胡闹；如果靈魂貶低肉體，那無異於貶低靈魂自己，靈魂和肉體永遠相輔相成不可分離。查拉圖斯特拉還認為，靈魂對肉體的評價恰恰等於肉體對靈魂的判斷：“你們的肉體是怎樣說明你們的靈魂呢?你們的靈魂難道不是貧乏、污穢與可憐的自滿嗎?”14靈魂為自己創造了一個虛幻的世界，它臆想着戰勝肉體的輝煌勝利，但這衹是可憐又可笑的精神勝利法。衹有與肉體同時存在，靈魂才能越來越豐富；衹有當精神和物質相互終結並産生於對方之中時纔會出現“貧乏、污穢與可憐的自滿”的反面。查拉圖斯特拉的結束語是：“不是你們的罪惡，而是你們的節制嚮天呼喊!/那道用舌頭舔你們的閃電何在?那個應當嚮你們註射的瘋狂何在?/現在我教你們什麽是超人：他就是這閃電，他就是這瘋狂!”15查拉圖斯特拉在這兒抨擊的正是被基督教深惡痛絶的“罪惡意識”：如果人們滿足了肉體的欲望就意味着背叛精神，就意味着有罪。查拉圖斯特拉公然與基督教教義背道而馳，他認為原罪不存在於違背精神的罪惡中而存在於違背肉體的罪惡中，當人類真的因為有罪過要受到懲罰時，肉體首當其衝在劫難逃。為了徹底摧毀基督教教義，需要電閃雷鳴，以便讓二元論人物及其觀點徹底暴露，以便讓千百年來僵化凝固的教條都活動運轉起來。
與此同時，尼采以聖者來反襯突出查拉圖斯特拉的發展、運動的一元論觀點。聖者追求盡善盡美。他將自己對人類的愛當作這個世界上最完美的事情，可惜，這個愛永遠不可能從理想變為現實。因為人類存在的有限性從原則上禁止他們去達到那位聖者所要求的完美。持有這種看法的聖者讓自己孤立於人類之外而轉嚮唯一能滿足這個要求的生物：上帝。誰要是象這位聖者一樣在對上帝的愛中找到了自己的滿足，那他就實在無法理解為什麽查拉圖斯特拉背離完美的事物而去尋找不完美的事物。
聖者的這種觀點是由他的以宗教為基礎的生活方式决定的。聖者崇尚完美，並因此而完全脫離並不完美的人類世界。他獨居在森林中每天贊美上帝。聖者所理解的完美是自身封閉的、不變的、無法超越的，因此可以說聖者為自己選擇的生活方式是靜止不變的，這一點，從尼采的筆下可以清楚地看出。查拉圖斯特拉跳舞，聖者唱歌、譜麯、作詞。他的歌聲表達了他對盡善盡美的執着的追求。通過歌唱他不斷地接近完美並與之越來越相似。前面已經談到當查拉圖斯特拉跳舞時，聖者唱歌。他伴着歌聲在原地動，可以說他始終停留在圓周的中心點上，所有的半徑從此開始，所有的直徑通過此處，聖者圍繞自身絶對旋轉。他的生活方式凝固成油畫般的靜態的完美，在其內部所有的運動都消失貽盡。
上帝之死的想法對於聖者來說是不堪設想的。因為死亡意味着一種由活轉變為死的變化過程。聖者之所以愛上帝是因為上帝是至高無尚的完美無瑕的化身的體現，是一成不變的無比至尊的代表的體現，也就是說排除了任何運動變化的可能性，上帝絶不可能變成別的什麽，也絶不可能死去，上帝必須永遠是上帝，永遠是盡善盡美、完美無瑕的化身。對於聖者來說這個永遠的存在象徵性地固定在他停留的那個中心點，使他也成為完美與永恆。對於查拉圖斯特拉來說，在現實世界中不存在永恆不變的事物，在現實世界中萬事萬物都在誕生、變化和終結，而絶不可能超時空而存在。如果在我們這個唯一的真實世界裏談論上帝，那麽上帝就必須被認為和其它的萬事萬物一樣是發展變化的，而不是凝固不變的，那麽上帝也會和其它的萬事萬物一樣存在着産生和終結，對於已經終結的上帝，人們可以如此這般地說，上帝死了!聖者是個典型的二元論者，象其他的二元論者一樣在他那裏真實的世界與想象的世界被相互顛倒，真實的世界被歪麯成了表象的世界，而想象的世界卻被稱之為真實的世界，所以尼采纔針鋒相對地寫了那篇教育戲劇《真實的世界究竟是如何變成寓言的》。我們可以舉個通俗的例子，在想象中人們總是把現實世界描繪為一汪靜止不動的清泉，這汪清泉總是被描繪成無比純、無比淨、無比透明。但事實上真實的世界是一個骯髒的池沼。柏拉圖認為真實的世界代表了昏暗的洞穴，而這昏暗的洞穴又被看作人類肉體的象徵。而對於蘇格拉底來說最艱難的就是從上面的大地回到下面的洞穴中，即從明亮的精神那裏返回污穢的肉體中。這一上一下、一個天堂一個地獄活生生地將一個完整的生物的人撕裂成兩部分。總而言之尼采通過塑造這個追求盡善盡美的二元論者——聖者，反襯了查拉圖斯特拉辯證、發展的一元論觀點。
(三)超人模式
查拉圖斯特拉說：“人類是一根係在動物和超人之間的繩索，一根懸在深𠔌上的繩索。/往彼端去是危險的，停在半途是危險的，嚮後望也是危險的，戰慄或者不前進，都是危險的。”16查拉圖斯特拉的意思是說，人類剛好處在猴子階段和超人階段的過渡中。如果他回首自己的歷史，那他就面臨遵循早已無效的規則的危險；如果他躊躇不前，他就會發現自己的腳下是萬丈深淵，這樣他就會因懼怕跌落而戰甚至墜落。與回首、前瞻和停止相聯繫的這三種危險給人的印象是，查拉圖斯特拉將人類與一個走繩者相比較，後者隨着他在繩上邁出的每一步都會陷入一種死亡的危險之中，而人類卻是繩索和走繩者的合二而一。這就是說並不存在一條現成的路 (繩索)和某個在這條路上行走的人(走繩者)，而是如果沒有走路的人，也就不存在這條路。路是由於有了那個在路上行走的人才産生的。此人知道自己曾經是誰，也知道他將會是誰，但是不肯定自己能否夠成為他將是的人。超越自己要冒很大的風險，因為人們為此必須將習慣的、久經考驗的、安全的事物拋開，以便朝着一個未知的目標前進。絶沒有現成的道路通往這個目標，人們要在奔嚮目標的過程中自己創造出路來。路途中的每次懷疑和猶豫都會産生災難性的後果，因為衹要人們一停止前進，腳下的路和遠處的目標就消失了；行者腳下若踩空同樣也就跌入了未知和虛無的深淵。人類衹有永無止境地嚮前走，纔會腳踏實地，即腳踩繩索。換句話說，人類通過行走自己創造出支撐自己走路的支架，最終目的也不再會同路脫離開，因為目的不是別的，正是走路本身。隨着每一步的邁出，就意味着不斷的離開和到達。這條直直的繩索，從固定的一端伸展到另一端，可以理解成繞圓周行走的辯證法。這行走代表了生命，代表了超越自己的強烈追求。在走這條路時，人類産生出了作為繩索的超人。人類走在這根繩索上，與此同時，人類就是這根繩索。
查拉圖斯特拉繼續說：“人類的偉大之處，在於他是一座橋梁而不是一個目的。人類的可愛之處，在於他是一個過程和一個終結。”17橋梁以及前面提到的繩索都可以理解為走過去，朝着人類還不曾是的情形前進。而人類本身也正因為是一座承前啓後的橋梁而不是一個目標纔變得偉大。如果人類是目的，那他就不能自己設定目的，他就無法將自己設計為他將要成為的情形，而會受到他的內在的目的性的限製，那麽人類所做的一切努力最終不外乎僅僅是去實現他無需去做就已經存在的目的了。被視為目的的人類顯然不能通過自我超越而嚮更高層次發展，因為他就是他自己的最高層次。但是，假如人類將自己視為一個通嚮最高層次的階段，通過一次次的自我超越，建立起連接現在的他和將來的他的橋梁，那麽人類的這個事業就比人類將自己本身當作目標的事業要偉大得多。衹有當人類走出現在的自我以後纔决定自己要成為誰和要幹什麽時，那麽在最初的意義中人類就是自由的。這時，衹有在這時，人類的目標纔不再是人類，而是超越了人類的超人。因此查拉圖斯特拉纔說，人類的偉大和可愛之處在於，他是一個過程和終結。過程表示超越作為人的自我運動；終結表示通過這個運動人類階段消失了，超人階段來臨了，如同涓涓細流匯入奔騰咆哮的無邊大海。
對於人類之後的超人階段，查拉圖斯特拉用散文詩的形式抒發了自己對其的熱愛“我愛那些衹知道為終結而生活的人。因為他們是跨過橋者。”18誰作為人類而終結，誰就跨過了橋，就邁嚮了超人。“我愛那些偉大的輕衊者，因為他們是偉大的崇拜者，是射嚮彼岸的渴望之箭。”19渴望之箭意味着渴望超越自己的努力，這種努力鄙視人間的一切目的，唯獨想要到達彼岸世界。“我愛那些人，他們不先到星星後面尋找某種理由去終結、去犧牲，他們為大地犧牲，使大地有朝一日能屬於超人。”20任何一個能正常思維的人都不會為一個虛無飄渺的來世作出犧牲。地球，我們生活的大地，有足夠的理由讓人類為它做出超越自我的犧牲。
人類嚮超人超越的過程是一個極其艱難麯折危機四伏的過程，隨時可能付出生活的代價。走繩者無疑代表人類，他想建立一座由動物通嚮超人的橋梁。走繩者是查拉圖斯特拉所喜愛的人們中的一個。這些人蔑視末人的理想社會，敢於進行危險的超越，勇敢地嚮着超人的理想前進。超人的事業是前所未有的事業，必將受到舊勢力的瘋狂攻擊，走繩者的墜落就標志着基督教教義的勝利，這教義抨擊所有違背基督教教義的事為原罪並對觸犯原罪的人處以死刑。走繩者在其過去(順從的羔羊)和未來(獨立的個體)之間被拉來扯去，最終過去獲勝了，未來被放棄了，魔鬼戰勝了超人。但是這一結局並不是最終結局，每個作為走繩者的個體都必須在從動物到超人的過渡中經受多次這樣的死亡(“原罪”)，直到有一天他成功地在自身內超越人類這個階段。我們在前面已經談到繩索和走繩者是不可分的，繩索這條路的存在正是由於人們在它上面行走，隨着邁出的每一步超越自己的行為都重新進行，這種行為的總和就是超人。換句話說超人是走繩者、繩索和目標交織在一起嚮前進的一個整體。遺憾的是走繩者沒有能夠將這個統一體堅持到底，他在行進中失去了冷靜和平衡，摔了下去。在某種程度上人們可以說走繩者掉進了肉體和靈魂的二元論中，墜進了他想超越的物質和靈魂之間的鴻溝中。這墜落使由走繩者、繩索、目標三方面組成的統一體破裂了，解體了。如果一個人讓宗教或形而上學的偏見主宰着自己，那他就會被它(們)所超越，走繩者的悲慘結局就是一個最好的例子。查拉圖斯特拉試圖讓走繩者在臨死前明白，他(走繩者)本來已經超越了基督教關於魔鬼和地獄的教義，衹是他還未來得及做出不存在靈魂不死的結論。要知道肉體和靈魂始終相依相存；肉體是經濟基礎，靈魂是上層建築，肉體終結了，靈魂也就不存在了。走繩者雖然沒有走到繩索的那一端，但他用自己寶貴的生命嚮世人展示他是一位勇敢者、創新者，是一位嚮着超人理想奮勇直前者。從這個意義上說，他是一位大無畏的先驅。
查拉圖斯特拉在其演講的結尾談到了自己所扮演的角色——超人的宣告者。“我愛所有那些人，他們象沉重的雨點，一滴一滴地從人們頭頂上的烏雲中落下；它們預告着閃電的到來，並作為預告者而終結。/看吧，我是一道閃電的預告者，一滴自云中落下的重雨點：但是這道閃電便是超人。——”21查拉圖斯特拉不是超人，也不是超人的代表，而是超人的宣告者。他要將人們的註意力吸引到預示着超人的閃電事件中。這閃電將舊世界突然間照亮，撕掉了它的全部偽裝，展露出猙獰的本來面目，並宣告了它的末日。這閃電表明了舊的思維方式和舊的歷史觀的終結，這閃電預示了新的質的飛躍的來臨。隨着這閃電的到來，作為宣告者的查拉圖斯特拉就終結了。因為閃電、雷鳴、暴風雨過後，人類就成功地過渡到了超人，作為超人的宣告者就成為多餘的人了。人類自身超越了傳統的人物形象，並把這個新形象放到恰當的位置上。一旦超人的理念直接進入到人類的意識中，查拉圖斯特拉的使命就完成了，那時他將同其他人一樣，把所有的力量集中在更新自己，全力以赴地創造一座由動物嚮超人過渡的橋梁。
非常遺憾，查拉圖斯特拉的演講超出了人類理解水平的地平綫。所以，當查拉圖斯特拉結束演講時，聽衆大聲轟笑、怪叫、咂舌頭。人們嘲笑他，就象當年蘇格拉底嚮洞穴人解釋他的理念時受到的嘲笑一樣。即便在那兒，洞穴人也嚮蘇格拉底嚎叫：讓我們看看你的理念吧!接着他們指嚮每一堵有陰影的墻，在這些洞穴人看來，這些陰影就是真理的化身。蘇格拉底無法嚮他們展示什麽是理念，並不僅僅因為他從陽光普照的世界回到昏暗的洞穴中感到頭暈目眩，還因為而且首先是因為理念表達的方式和墻上陰影表達的方式截然不同，理念是無論如何無法以陰影的形式出現的。查拉圖斯特拉和蘇格拉底的遭遇如此相似，聽衆想看見他宣揚的超人，但人們沒有搞明白，超人是無法看見的，衹能做出來。遺憾的是，按照人類的傳統悟性，人類衹能理解物化了的、客觀上觸摸得到的形體，而恰恰在這種意義上既不存在超人，也不存在理念。超人就不是人，更不是那種超級人。超人不是個體，而是個體一項活動的總稱。這項活動的特點是既超越出去又在更高的程度上回歸自己。所以，衹有當我們去做這件事時，衹有當我們去超越人類自身時纔會有超人。由於世人的不理解，查拉圖斯特拉下山後的第一次演講失敗了。人們用舊的思維方式來理解查拉圖斯特拉的超人學說，似乎他要宣佈一個新的救世主的降臨。按照傳統觀念這個新的救世主是特定的個體的人，他以說教者的身份來此地教訓人類，人們想看的就是這種人。回顧人類的思想史，人類對於超出了自己理解力的改革者通常都采取從肉體上消滅的解决辦法。到目前為止查拉圖斯特拉是第一個幸免於難的人，這也許得益於人類的誤解。在世人看來，查拉圖斯特拉是個難得的白癡，一個令人捧腹大笑的醜角，但恰恰是這個醜角嚮舊世界的尊貴無比的人物形象和至高無上的理性觀念宣戰。
(四)對立統一體的圓周運動
尼采在《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中塑造了查拉圖斯特拉的兩個動物形象：鷹與蛇。這兩衹動物象徵着一個對立同一體。在這個統一體中對立面既相互對立又相依相存。鷹這個高傲的動物盤旋在高空，它代表了理智與精神。蛇這個聰明狡猾的動物生活在地面，它代表了肉體與物質。儘管這兩種動物嚮前運動的方式不同，但是其共同點是都做圓周運動：鷹在空中畫圈，蛇在地上圈麯前進。蛇纏繞在飛翔的雄鷹的頸上的情影直觀地表現了對立面的統一。鷹與蛇，精神與物質是如此的不同，衹有圓周運動纔將二者聯繫在一起。對於尼采來說超越自我的行為就是嚮高層次發展的原則，它既超越自己，又在超越後回歸自我，衹不過是在更高的層次上。鷹與蛇儘管相互對立，截然不同，可它們二者之間沒有敵意，它們在友好的合作中完成圓周運動。同樣的，精神和物質不是相互抵毀，而是相互依存、相互補充，精神通過物質來實現，物質通過精神來提高。蛇在與鷹的共同飛翔中離開了它在地上的居留地升躍到了它依靠自己的力量無法達到的層次，同樣的物質作為精神的實現者進入了它通過自己的努力無法涉足的領域。精神中有物質，物質中有精神，不論物質還是精神都存在嚮更高層次發展的要求。這種要求作為權力意志的原則在共同的又存在差異的圓周運動中表現出來。
人類好比鷹與蛇的統一體。因此查拉圖斯特拉乞求高傲(鷹)永遠伴隨他的智慧(蛇)，因為衹有這樣才能保證人類永遠以圓周運動的方式前進。在這圓周運動中人類存在的對立面辯證地統一在一起，相互鬥爭，相互依存，就象查拉圖斯特拉的鷹與蛇一樣。它們各是不同種的生物，但是纏繞在一起共同做圓周運動。在現實世界中精神(靈魂)既要緊跟物質(內體)，以便不與物質脫節並隨時汲取生活的活力，同時精神還要反作用於物質，發揮其獨特的能動作用。
最後，讓我們分析一下查拉圖斯特拉的終結。從表面意義上看，這首先是指查拉圖斯特拉本人。他在十年前走了自下而上之路——復活，現在走的是自上而下之路 ——終結。從一個非表面的意義上看，查拉圖斯特拉在進行這兩種相反的運動中執行的是權力意志的原則，這一點在形成過程中表現得非常直觀。傳統的二元論觀點把對立面不是看作既矛盾又統一的，而是看成極端相反、水火不相容的。恰好在這一點上尼采與傳統的二元論者分道揚鑣。西方哲學界的普遍錯誤在於他們把對立面作為誓不兩立的二元論固定、延襲下來了，其實質問題為如何看待對立面之間的關係。在真實世界(即西方傳統觀念中所說的表象的世界)中立面之間的關係是對立統一的辯證關係，二者既極端對立又相互依存，並在一定條件下相互轉化，尼采一針見血地指出了這一點。在《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》中，尼采表達了清晰明確的一元論思想。二元論的思想淵源流長，無論是在人類早期哲學的璀璨明珠希臘哲學中還是在人類宗教史上歷史最長分佈最廣影響最大的基督教教義中同樣存在着兩個世界的學說——真實的世界和表象的世界。這兩個世界之間的關係被絶對化了。形象地說，好比人們設定了圓周的直徑，卻忘記了圓周本身。這樣一來勢必給人造成一種錯誤印象：這是一對無法調節、無法統一的對立面，人們衹能或者選擇這一面或者那一面；或者嚮上到精神，踏上通往所謂的真實的、美妙的世界之路，或者是嚮下到物質，墜入所謂的表象的邪惡的世界之中，二者之間是一道無法逾越的鴻溝。尼采力圖超越二者之間的鴻溝，他用形象的比喻和散文詩的語言生動地表述了二者之間的對立統一關係以及圓周式的前進方式。超人的思想是尼采超現實的想象，超人的理論無疑應歸入唯心主義的體係。但是這裏面所包含的一元論的思想和辯證發展的歷史觀是無論如何應該肯定的。另外尼采的唯心主義體係裏所包含的異常生動的辯證法思想，此起當時在歐洲大陸廣為流行的庸俗唯物主義機械唯物主義和拜物教不知要高明多少倍。馬剋思主義以前的唯物論，由於其機械的、形而上學的性質，沒有在強調思維依賴於存在，精神依賴於物質的前提下，充分估價意識、精神、主觀的巨大能動作用，人類這方面的正確認識首先是在唯心主義哲學範疇中被體現出來了。尼采在《查拉圖斯特如是說》中所提出的超人理論和永恆輪回的思想就是出類拔萃的例證。
《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》-目錄
代總序尼采，一位應該被超越的偉人
譯者前言尼采最具轟動效應的扛鼎之作
第一捲
查拉圖斯特拉前言
查拉圖斯特拉的演說
論三種變形
論道德講壇
論信仰彼岸世界的人
論蔑視肉體者
論快樂和激情
論蒼白的罪犯
論閱讀和寫作
論山旁之樹
論死之說教者
論戰爭和戰士
論新偶像
論市場的蒼蠅
論貞潔
論朋友
論一千零一個目標
論愛鄰人
論創造者的道路
論老嫗和少婦
論毒蛇的咬嚙
論孩子和婚姻
論自由之死
論饋贈的道德
第二捲
持鏡的小孩
在幸福島上
論同情者
論牧師
論道德傢
論流氓無賴
論毒蜘蛛
論著名的智者
夜歌
舞蹈之歌
墳墓之歌
論超越自我
論高尚者
論教化的國度
論純潔的知識
論學者
論詩人
論偉大事件
預言傢
論解救
論人的智慧
最寂靜的時刻
第三捲
漫遊者
論相貌和謎
論違背意志的幸福
日出之前
論逐漸變小的道德
橄欖山上
離棄
背叛者
歸傢
論三件惡事
論沉重的思想
論新舊招牌
痊愈者
論偉大的渴望
另一支舞麯
七個印章
第四捲
蜂蜜祭品
痛苦的呼號
與兩位國王的談話
水蛭
魔術傢
遜位
最醜陋的人
自願行乞者
影子
正午
歡迎
晚餐
更高級的人
憂鬱之歌
論科學
在沙漠的女兒們中間
覺醒
驢節
沉醉之歌
徵兆
Described by Nietzsche himself as "the deepest ever written," the book is a dense and esoteric treatise on philosophy and morality, featuring as protagonist a fictionalized prophet descending from his recluse to mankind, Zarathustra. A central irony of the text is that Nietzsche mimics the style of the Bible in order to present ideas which fundamentally oppose Christian and Jewish morality and tradition.
Genesis
Thus Spoke Zarathustra was conceived while Nietzsche was writing The Gay Science; he made a small note, reading "6,000 feet beyond man and time," as evidence of this. More specifically, this note related to the concept of the Eternal Recurrence, which is, by Nietzsche's admission, the central idea of Zarathustra; this idea occurred to him by a "pyramidal block of stone" on the shores of Lake Silvaplana in the Upper Engadine, a high alpine region whose valley floor is at 6,000 ft. Nietzsche planned to write the book in three parts over several years. He wrote that the ideas for Zarathustra first came to him while walking on two roads surrounding Rapallo, according to Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche in the introduction of Thomas Common's early translation of the book.
While developing the general outlook of the book, he subsequently decided to write an additional three parts; ultimately, however, he composed only the fourth part, which is viewed to constitute an intermezzo.
Nietzsche commented in Ecce Homo that for the completion of each part: "Ten days sufficed; in no case, neither for the first nor for the third and last, did I require more" (trans. Kaufmann). The first three parts were first published separately, and were subsequently published in a single volume in 1887. The fourth part remained private after Nietzsche wrote it in 1885; a scant forty copies were all that were printed, apart from seven others that were distributed to Nietzsche's close friends. In March 1892, the four parts were finally reprinted as a single volume. Since then, the version most commonly produced has included all four parts.
The original text contains a great deal of word-play. An example of this exists in the use of the words "over" or "super" and the words "down" or "abyss/abysmal"; some examples include "superman" or "overman", "overgoing", "downgoing" and "self-overcoming".
Synopsis
The book chronicles the fictitious travels and pedagogy of Zarathustra. The name of this character is taken from the ancient prophet usually known in English as Zoroaster (Avestan: Zaraθuštra), the Persian founder of Zoroastrianism. Nietzsche is clearly portraying a "new" or "different" Zarathustra, one who turns traditional morality on its head. He goes on to characterize "what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth, the mouth of the first immoralist:"
[F]or 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.
– Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny", §3, trans. Walter Kaufmann
Zarathustra has a simple characterisation and plot, narrated sporadically throughout the text. It possesses a unique experimental style, one that is, for instance, evident in newly invented "dithyrambs" narrated or sung by Zarathustra. Likewise, the separate Dithyrambs of Dionysus was written in autumn 1888, and printed with the full volume in 1892, as the corollaries of Zarathustra's "abundance".
Some speculate that Nietzsche intended to write about final acts of creation and destruction brought about by Zarathustra. However, the book lacks a finale to match that description; its actual ending focuses more on Zarathustra recognizing that his legacy is beginning to perpetuate, and consequently choosing to leave the higher men to their own devices in carrying his legacy forth.
Zarathustra also contains the famous dictum "God is dead", which had appeared earlier in The Gay Science. In his autobiographical work Ecce Homo, Nietzsche states that the book's underlying concept is discussed within "the penultimate section of the fourth book" of The Gay Science (Ecce Homo, Kaufmann). It is the Eternal recurrence of the same events.
This concept first occurred to Nietzsche while he was walking in Switzerland through the woods along the lake of Silvaplana (close to Surlei); he was inspired by the sight of a gigantic, towering, pyramidal rock. Before Zarathustra, Nietzsche had mentioned the concept in the fourth book of The Gay Science (e.g., sect. 341); this was the first public proclamation of the notion by him. Apart from its salient presence in Zarathustra, it is also echoed throughout Nietzsche's work. At any rate, it is by Zarathustra's transfiguration that he embraces eternity, that he at last ascertains "the supreme will to power". This inspiration finds its expression with Zarathustra's Roundelay, featured twice in the book, once near the story's close:
“ O man, take care!
What does the deep midnight declare?
"I was asleep—
From a deep dream I woke and swear:—
The world is deep,
Deeper than day had been aware.
Deep is its woe—
Joy—deeper yet than agony:
Woe implores: Go!
But all joy wants eternity—
Wants deep, wants deep eternity." ”
Another singular feature of Zarathustra, first presented in the prologue, is the designation of human beings as a transition between apes and the "Übermensch" (in English, either the "overman" or "superman"; or, superhuman or overhuman. English translators Thomas Common and R. J. Hollingdale use superman, while Kaufmann uses overman, and Parkes uses overhuman). The Übermensch is one of the many interconnecting, interdependent themes of the story, and is represented through several different metaphors. Examples include: the lightning that is portended by the silence and raindrops of a travelling storm cloud; or the sun's rise and culmination at its midday zenith; or a man traversing a rope stationed above an abyss, moving away from his uncultivated animality and towards the Übermensch.
The symbol of the Übermensch also alludes to Nietzsche's notions of "self-mastery", "self-cultivation", "self-direction", and "self-overcoming". Expostulating these concepts, Zarathustra declares:
"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.
"Whoever is the wisest among you is also a mere conflict and cross between plant and ghost. But do I bid you become ghosts or plants?
"Behold, I teach you the overman! The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go!"
– Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, §3, trans. Walter Kaufmann
The book embodies a number of innovative poetical and rhetorical methods of expression. It serves as a parallel and supplement to the various philosophical ideas present in Nietzsche's body of work. He has, however, said that "among my writings my Zarathustra stands to my mind by itself" (Ecce Homo, Preface, sec. 4, Kaufmann). Emphasizing its centrality and its status as his magnum opus, it is stated by Nietzsche that:
With [Thus Spoke Zarathustra] I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made to it so far. This book, with a voice bridging centuries, is not only the highest book there is, the book that is truly characterized by the air of the heights—the whole fact of man lies beneath it at a tremendous distance—it is also the deepest, born out of the innermost wealth of truth, an inexhaustible well to which no pail descends without coming up again filled with gold and goodness.
– Ecce Homo, Preface, §4, trans. Walter Kaufmann
Since, as stated, many of the book's ideas are also present in his other works, Zarathustra is seen to have served as a precursor to his later philosophical thought. With the book, Nietzsche embraced a distinct aesthetic assiduity. He later reformulated many of his ideas, in his book Beyond Good and Evil and various other writings that he composed thereafter. He continued to emphasize his philosophical concerns; generally, his intention was to show an alternative to repressive moral codes and to avert "nihilism" in all of its varied forms.
Other aspects of Thus Spoke Zarathustra relate to Nietzsche's proposed "Transvaluation of All Values". This incomplete project began with The Antichrist.
Themes
Nietzsche injects myriad ideas into the book, but there are a few recurring themes. The overman (Übermensch), a self-mastered individual who has achieved his full power, is an almost omnipresent idea in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Man as a race is merely a bridge between animals and the overman. Nietzsche also makes a point that the overman is not an end result for a person, but more the journey toward self-mastery.
The eternal recurrence, found elsewhere in Nietzsche's writing, is also mentioned. The eternal recurrence is the idea that all events that have happened will happen again, infinitely many times. Such a reality can serve as the litmus test for an overman. Faced with the knowledge that he would repeat every action that he has taken, an overman would be elated as he has no regrets and loves life.
The will to power is the fundamental component of human nature. Everything we do is an expression of the will to power. The will to power is a psychological analysis of all human action and is accentuated by self-overcoming and self-enhancement. Contrasted with living for procreation, pleasure, or happiness, the will to power is the summary of all man's struggle against his surrounding environment as well as his reason for living in it.
Copious criticisms of Christianity can be found in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in particular Christian values of good and evil and its belief in an afterlife. Nietzsche sees the complacency of Christian values as fetters to the achievement of overman as well as on the human spirit.
Style
Harold Bloom calls Thus Spoke Zarathustra a "gorgeous disaster", adding that its rhapsodic fiction is "now unreadable".
Noteworthy for its format, the book comprises a philosophical work of fiction whose style often lightheartedly imitates that of the New Testament and of the Platonic dialogues, at times resembling pre-Socratic works in tone and in its use of natural phenomena as rhetorical and explanatory devices. It also features frequent references to the Western literary and philosophical traditions, implicitly offering an interpretation of these traditions and of their problems. Nietzsche achieves all of this through the character of Zarathustra (referring to the traditional prophet of Zoroastrianism), who makes speeches on philosophic topics as he moves along a loose plotline marking his development and the reception of his ideas. One can view this characteristic (following the genre of the bildungsroman) as an inline commentary on Zarathustra's (and Nietzsche's) philosophy. All this, along with the book's ambiguity and paradoxical nature, has helped its eventual enthusiastic reception by the reading public, but has frustrated academic attempts at analysis (as Nietzsche may have intended). Thus Spoke Zarathustra remained unpopular as a topic for scholars (especially those in the Anglo-American analytic tradition) until the second half of the twentieth century brought widespread interest in Nietzsche and his unconventional style that does not distinguish between philosophy and literature. It offers formulations of eternal recurrence, and Nietzsche for the first time speaks of the Übermensch: themes that would dominate his books from this point onwards.
A vulnerability of Nietzsche's style is that his nuances and shades of meaning are very easily lost — and all too easily gained — in translation. The Übermensch is particularly problematic: the equivalent "Superman" found in dictionaries and in the translations by Thomas Common and R.J. Hollingdale may create an unfortunate association with the heroic comic-character "Superman", while simultaneously detracting from Nietzsche's repeated play on "über" as well as losing the gender-neutrality of the German.
The "Übermensch" is the being that overcomes the "great nausea" associated with nihilism; that overcomes that most "abysmal" realization of the eternal return. He is the being that "sails over morality", and that dances over gravity (the "spirit of gravity" is Zarathustra's devil and archenemy). He is a "harvester" and a "celebrant" who endlessly affirms his existence, thereby becoming the transfigurer of his consciousness and life, aesthetically. He is initially a destructive force, excising and annihilating the insidious "truths" of the herd, and consequently reclaiming the chaos from which pure creativity is born. It is this creative force exemplified by the Übermensch that justifies suffering without displacing it in some "afterworld".
Translations
The English translations of Zarathustra differ according to the sentiments of the translators. The Thomas Common translation favors a classic English approach, in the style of Shakespeare or the King James Version of the Bible. Common's poetic interpretation of the text, which renders the title Thus Spake Zarathustra, received wide acclaim for its lambent portrayal. Common reasoned that because the original German was written in a pseudo-Luther-Biblical style, a pseudo-King-James-Biblical style would be fitting in the English translation.
The Common translation, which improved on Alexander Tille's earlier attempt, remained widely accepted until the more critical translations, titled Thus Spoke Zarathustra, separately by R.J. Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann, which are considered to convey more accurately the German text than the Common version. Kaufmann's introduction to his own translation included a blistering critique of Common's version; he notes that in one instance, Common has taken the German "most evil" and rendered it "baddest", a particularly unfortunate error not merely for his having coined the term "baddest", but also because Nietzsche dedicated a third of The Genealogy of Morals to the difference between "bad" and "evil". This and other errors led Kaufmann to wondering if Common "had little German and less English". The translations of Kaufmann and Hollingdale render the text in a far more familiar, less archaic, style of language, than that of Common.
Clancy Martin's 2005 translation opens with criticism and praise for these three seminal translators, Common, Hollingdale, and Kaufmann. He notes that the German text available to Common was considerably flawed, and that the German text from which Hollingdale and Kaufmann worked was itself untrue to Nietzsche's own work in some ways. Martin criticizes Kaufmann for changing punctuation, altering literal and philosophical meanings, and dampening some of Nietzsche's more controversial metaphors. Kaufmann's version, which has become the most widely available, features a translator's note suggesting that Nietzsche's text would have benefited from an editor; Martin suggests that Kaufmann "took it upon himself to become his editor".
Graham Parkes describes his own 2005 translation as trying "above all to convey the musicality of the text (which was not a priority for Walter Kaufmann or R.J. Hollingdale, authors of the best English translations so far)."
Musical adaptation
The book inspired Richard Strauss to compose the tone poem Also sprach Zarathustra, which he designated "freely based on Friedrich Nietzsche." Zarathustra's Roundelay is set as part of Gustav Mahler's Third Symphony (1895-6), originally under the title What Man Tells Me, or alternatively What the Night tells me (of Man). Frederick Delius based his major choral-orchestral work A Mass of Life (1904-5) on texts from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The work ends with a setting of Zarathustra's Roundelay which Delius had composed earlier, in 1898, as a separate work. Carl Orff also composed a three-movement setting of part of Nietzsche's text as a teenager, but this work remains unpublished.
Editions of Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* 1st - 1909 - (limited to 2,000)
* 2nd - 1911 - (limited to 1,500)
* 3rd - 1914 - (limited to 2,000)
* 4th - 1916 - (limited to 2,000) of Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None translated by Thomas Common, published by the MacMillan Company in 1916, printed in Great Britain by The Darwien Press of Edinburgh.
* Also sprach Zarathustra, edited by Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag (study edition of the standard German Nietzsche edition)
* Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Walter Kaufmann, New York: Random House; reprinted in The Portable Nietzsche, New York: The Viking Press, 1954 and Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976
* Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961
* Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Graham Parkes, Oxford: Oxford World's Classics, 2005
* Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Adrian del Caro and edited by Robert Pippin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006
Commentaries on Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* Gustav Naumann 1899-1901 Zarathustra-Commentar, 4 volumes. Leipzig : Haessel
* Higgins, Kathleen. 1990. Nietzsche's Zarathustra. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
* Lampert, Laurence. 1989. Nietzsche's Teaching: An Interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. New Haven: Yale University Press.
* Rosen, Stanley. 2004. The Mask of Enlightenment: Nietzsche's Zarathustra. New Haven: Yale University Press.
* Seung, T. K. 2005. Nietzsche's Epic of the Soul: Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Introduction to Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* Rüdiger Schmidt Nietzsche für Anfänger: Also sprach Zarathustra - Eine Lese-Einführung (introduction in German to the work)
Essay collections on Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* Essays on Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Before Sunrise, edited by James Luchte, London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008. ISBN 1847062210
1789年生於但澤(Danzig)的叔本華從小孤僻，傲慢，喜怒無常，並帶點神經質。叔本華早年在英國和法國接受教育，能夠流利使用英語、意大利語、西班牙語等多種歐洲語言和拉丁語等古代語言。他最初被迫選擇經商以繼承父業，在父親死後他纔得以進入大學。1809年他進入哥廷根大學攻讀醫學，但把興趣轉移到了哲學，並在1811年於柏林學習一段時間。在那裏他對費希特和施萊艾爾馬赫産生了濃厚的興趣。他以《論充足理由律的四重根》獲得了博士學位。歌德對此文非常贊賞，同時發現了叔本華的悲觀主義傾嚮，告誡說：如果你愛自己的價值，那就給世界更多的價值吧。他稱柏拉圖為神明般的，康德為奇跡般的，對這兩人的思想相當崇敬。但厭惡後來費希特，黑格爾代表的思辨哲學。
他對自己的哲學也極為自負，聲稱是一種全新的哲學方法，會震撼整個歐洲思想界。然而他的著作卻常常受人冷落。在柏林大學任教時，他試圖和黑格爾在講臺上一决高低，結果黑格爾的講座常常爆滿，而聽他講課的學生卻從來沒有超出過三人。於是叔本華帶着一種憤遭的心情離開了大學的講壇。叔本華與黑格爾的對抗實際上是兩種哲學傾嚮之間的較量。他失敗了。因為他不屬於那個時代。用叔本華自己的話說，他的書是為後人寫的。事實也是如此：到了晚年，時代纔和他走到了一起，他終於享受到了期待了一生的榮譽。
他對自己的哲學也極為自負，聲稱是一種全新的哲學方法，會震撼整個歐洲思想界。然而他的著作卻常常受人冷落。在柏林大學任教時，他試圖和黑格爾在講臺上一决高低，結果黑格爾的講座常常爆滿，而聽他講課的學生卻從來沒有超出過三人。於是叔本華帶着一種憤遭的心情離開了大學的講壇。叔本華與黑格爾的對抗實際上是兩種哲學傾嚮之間的較量。他失敗了。因為他不屬於那個時代。用叔本華自己的話說，他的書是為後人寫的。事實也是如此：到了晚年，時代纔和他走到了一起，他終於享受到了期待了一生的榮譽。
林猹 主編
編者前言
後改革中國與商鞅（序言）
天將降大任於斯人（代跋）
捲一 交鋒後的中國
>>第一章 歷史賦予的機遇
>>第二章 重提商鞅
捲二 再現革命之精神
>>第三章 回首一望，遍地鮮花
>>第四章 大方略
>>第五章 奠基百年
捲三 為了中華之崛起
>>第六章 未來之路
天將降大任於斯人（代跋）
返回上頁
編者前言
後改革中國與商鞅（序言）
天將降大任於斯人（代跋）
捲一 交鋒後的中國
>>第一章 歷史賦予的機遇
>>第二章 重提商鞅
捲二 再現革命之精神
>>第三章 回首一望，遍地鮮花
>>第四章 大方略
>>第五章 奠基百年
捲三 為了中華之崛起
>>第六章 未來之路
天將降大任於斯人（代跋）
返回上頁
《智慧書--永恆的處世經典》這本書談的是知人觀事、判斷、行動的策略--使人在這個世界上功成名就且臻於完美的策略。全書由三百則箴言警句構成，這些箴言警句滋味絶佳而不可不與友朋同事分享共賞，又鞭闢入裏而不能不蒙敵人對手於鼓裏。
巴爾塔沙·葛拉西安（1601一1658），一個滿懷入世熱忱的那穌會教士，對人類的愚行深惡痛絶。但《智慧書 --永恆的處世經典》全書極言人有臻於完美的可能，並雲衹要佐以技巧，善必勝惡。在《智慧書--永恆的處世經典》中，完美並不靠宗教上的啓示（全書罕言上帝），而取决於人的資源與勤奮：警覺、自製、有自知之明及其餘明慎之道。
巴爾塔沙·葛拉西安（1601一1658），一個滿懷入世熱忱的那穌會教士，對人類的愚行深惡痛絶。但《智慧書 --永恆的處世經典》全書極言人有臻於完美的可能，並雲衹要佐以技巧，善必勝惡。在《智慧書--永恆的處世經典》中，完美並不靠宗教上的啓示（全書罕言上帝），而取决於人的資源與勤奮：警覺、自製、有自知之明及其餘明慎之道。