What is Zarathustra’s “most abysmal thought”, which is written about in Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, as well as mentioned briefly in his biography Ecce Homo? He mentions it by this name several times, without ever going specifically into what it might be, but uses allusions and metaphors and stories to demonstrate it. Clearly, we are supposed to divine exactly what this is on our own.
I have my thoughts, but I would like to hear the opinions of other Nietzsche experts here.
It is the eternal return.
perhaps, that was my thought as well.
yet after further readings and thought, i dont think its that simple. its related to the reucrrence, yes, but its the way in which he understands it.
the most abysmal thought seems to have to do with the meaning, or impact, or a full significance of the eternal recurrence. it “divides” Zarathusrtra into two, and i remember him mentioning how language covers up or distorts the true meaning of the recurrence, the “circle”. his animals dont get it, of course, but due to language they THINK that they do.
there is some WAY in which the recurrence is grasped, some deep nature, some ultimate significance or relevance or conclusion, which causes Zarathustra such dismay, which causes him to jump up and scream, then to lie down for 7 days and be unable to speak. the “horror” of the thought. i agree it is the eternal recurrence, but just saying thats what it “is” doesnt do justice to HOW its understood, and what exactly it means. the abysmal thought itself and our understanding or idea of “the eternal recurrence” are two completely different things.
for example, by what he says it also seems as if the “great disgust with man” is the “monster” that “chokes” him. we need to understand how this disgust manifests and what it means, particularly in light of Zarathustra’s benevolent character. when we put together the eternal recurrence and this “great disgust” perhaps we get the answer: that the eternal recurrence and existence of the reasons for this great disgust, whatever it is that Zarathustra most hates or reviles, will always be-- that this horrible thing, sum or result, will never go away, never stop existing.
yet, the abysmal thought must be higher than this, as well. it must reconcile this eternal existence of the reasons for Zarathustra’s disgust with the circle itself, and with all other perspectives. and we cant forget that Zarathustra is “redeemed” by his abysmal thought, no matter how horrifying it is. so it seems inconclusive to just say that he realises the eternal recurrence and existence of all this disgust and horror, he must move BEYOND this realization as well.
perhaps by reaffirming the opposite, the recurrence of the overman, as well. but then again, why stop there? it seems too shallow a stopping place for a mind such as Zarathustra’s, particularly since we know he can grasp this meaning completely, and we are without reason to see why it causes him such distress and physical agony.
so, not just the eternal return itself, but the eternal return “of the small man”… is that really all there is to the most abysmal thought? can that really be enough to cause Zarathustra such horror and dismay?
and if it is, how can this also be Zarathustra’s “redemption”?
The horror of the eternal return should be easy enough to grasp. Take one of my friend’s grandmother- she lived to be 107. 104 years no pain, great life- and the last 3 were complete agony. Like Nietzsche says, it would be apt that we die at the right time- but this is just a hope. In reality, one would wonder if that grandmother was asked to re-live her live a thousand times if the pleasure would equal the pain or if the pain of the last three years would outweigh the pleasure of the 104. We cannot just trim the fat and gristle off of life, we have to take it all in one totality: we can either reject every bit of it or affirm every bit of it.
what was zarathustra’s sin?
pity… pity for the eternal return of the small man…
-Imp
Yes, this was my impression as well. Up to this point, the story seems to have Zarathustra coming down from the mountain to mingle with man. It seems, throughout his encounters, he becomes “stained” or rendered “sick” (as if he entered a contaminated area filled with disease) and ends up returning to his mountain to recuperate. Bringing the abysmal thought to consciousness is his coming to terms with, or summarizing, the experiences he had (it was almost like vomiting).
I think the thought redeems him because we see, after the realization, that he gives no thought to mingling with man again. Instead, he frolicks in the wilderness appreciating the beauty of nature. I think he even recites a few poems expressing his love of life and eternity. It could be that coming to terms with his disgust for man, and realizing the eternal recurrence, he figures this is the best thing to do. If it is to all happen again for all eternity, he might as well make the best of it - enjoy his solitude surrounded by the beauties of nature instead of enduring the hardship of living among men.
Something I wondered, though, was what the symbolism meant at the end when he sits with “Life” (portrayed as a woman he was supposedly in love with) and shares a moment of sorrow with her because he’s going to leave her. Then he recites a poem about Eternity (also portrayed as a woman) of whom he says “And I love you, O Eternity”. It’s as if he left Life for Eternity. What I’ve wondered is does this imply that he committed suicide? It seems obvious that at this point he’s done with life and ready to face eternity, but is he old and grey or did he decide that life is filled with nothing but misery, and if it is to recur over and over again, the best thing would be to end it early before it gets worse. I don’t see the latter as very Nietzschean, so I doubt it is the right interpretation, but then I didn’t recognize any time lapse between his resolution of the abysmal thought and these last scenes (like “30 years later…”), though I might have missed it.
remember too that Zarathustra states that he has changed from a teacher to a learner, and that he himself has become the object to be learned. its not only that he was filled with disgust for man (he was) but also that he realised he needed to stop teaching others, and start teaching himself, as the reason why he returned to the mountains. at least that is my impression.
it does seem that he is rejuvinated, but im not sure if this is directly due to the thought itself, or just a result of him being ‘healed’. yet i dont think that Zarathustra ever has an attitude of “well, since everything is eternally returning, i might as well make the best of it”-- that seems like a false way to approach it, and i do not get that attitude from Zarathustra. if he affirms, it seems to be because he decides such affirmation is correct and justified, not merely because “well, i might as well, i mean, why not?”… such an approach would be more akin to pascal’s argument for belief in God, which is absurd.
where is this passage that you are referring to here?
and i just realised: Zarathustra first is filled with disgust for man, first for the smallest man and then, because of the words of the soothsayer “all is one”, for all men-- at this point he realises that he too, himself, is also the same as the rest of men, in that he is a “dwarf” too. this seems to represent the animal nature of man, that which most people run from. Zarathustra too was running from it, from the random or arbitrary causality of the physical which seems to overcome or overpower the human will or self. Zarathustra realises he is the product of physical forces outside of his control, and that these forces will return eternally.
this, combined with the fact that Zarathustra has been forced to realise that he himself is too a “small man” in the sense that ALL men are small men, i think was his most abysmal thought. that he will return and exist eternally as one of these reviled men, whom he has so much disgust for. and in losing the distance between himself and others, he loses the ability to pity them as well.
and since pity is truly his “greatest sin”, he, in thus equating himself with all men, has conquered his greatest sin, for he no longer pities men. the realisation that man as a weak and reviled animal will return infinitely, as well as that he himself will return infinitely as such a man also, but then affirming this returning, all pity is lost. Zarathustra seems to reconcile himself with mankind, as well as with his animal nature (the dwarf). and this seems to tie into what Zarathustra had said previously, about “willing backwards” such that one wills everything to happen exactly as it did, and no different. once he applies this will to himself and to man in general, Zarathustra loses all pity and disgust for man, even though he still recognizes the weak and reviled state of man itself.
since man is the product of an eternally recurring causal chain, which will return unendingly, and since it both could not have been otherwise but also could not be willed otherwise by even Zarathustra himself, he is redeemed.
Last Man, I suggest you read Laurence Lampert’s book, Nietzsche’s Teaching, with TSZ on the side.
I listened to TSZ as an audio book. I’ll have to listen to it again to find you the exact passages (won’t be any time soon).
I have read into some of ‘Nietzsche’s Epic of the Soul: Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, by T.K. Seung, which is where I got some of the insights i mentioned here. It has been very helpful. I will also look into that one you mention as well.
It’s The Second Dancing Song, which continues in The Seven Seals, or The Song of Yes and Amen. It’s at the end of Part III. And Last Man, according to Lampert Eternity is Life, but transfigured by Zarathustra’s “yes” to it (ja in the German, which may also be translated as “yes, I do”…)—Zarathustra’s affirmation of Life, his wishing Life’s eternal return. This can all be found in Nietzsche’s Teaching (including an explanation of the sadness you mention). He’s not old and grey there yet (that’s in the beginning of Part IV). These scenes are not years later than his resolution of his most abysmal thought (in The Convalescent). Really, read Lampert: I knew the book very well before I read him, but I never saw the very tight structure of the book, which Lampert shows so convincingly. It’s no disgrace.
Sounds like eternal humiliation.
What does?
The way The Last Man describes eternal recurrence.
Er, yes. The Dwarf does not represent the animal nature of man, of course, which for the Nietzschean is nothing to be ashamed of, to the contrary: the more whole a beast one is, the more whole a human being.
I was going by what was written in ‘Nietzsche’s Epic of the Soul: Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, by T.K. Seung. I suggest you read it, it does a very good job breaking some stuff down, getting through the stories and metaphors. Im sure that there is some which you would disagree with, but no interpretation is completely right, I am sure.
But we do know that pity is Zarathustras greatest sin. His greatest challenge, his largest obstacle, in a way. Remember that even God died from his pity. I really like the concept of how Zarathustra comes to terms with his most abysmal thought, the eternal and unchanging existence of even the smallest man, and also combined with the fact that all men, even himself, is a small man; and how this helps him to overcome his pity for man. Especially the fact that even the smallest of men is necessary, and no less so than anything else. Maybe its not completely accurate, but it makes sense from reading the book, especially On Redemption, The Convalescent, and the entire fourth part.
And I do agree with you, Zarathustra is not ashamed by the beast in man. I think he is more concerned with making the beast more human, maybe. What are your thoughts about how Zarathustra treats the beast in man, the animal nature of man?