Thank you for this discussion. One thing I found interesting when reading this book is, Zarathustra is “enlightened” at the beginning of the book, after having spent time time in the cave/on the top of the mountain; however, we are not privy on how he came to said “enlightenment”. Yes, one could argue that he gains “insight” through the interactions he has throughout the book, and perhaps this is one way Nietzsche was expressing the idea of eternal recurrence, where he could say, “When you finish Zarathustra’s journey, go back to page one, because now you know how he arrived at these ideas.” Further, I found it rather ironic that, in order to become “enlightened”, Zarathustra had to ascend. To me, it seems like Nietzsche believed we must ascend in order to descend, which is counter to the Christian ethic, of course. However, it’s puzzling to me on *where* this enlightenment comes from; Zarathustra seems to be the passive recipient, in a way. But the recipient of what/whom? Something outside himself, something transcendent? Nietzsche would, obviously, reject that, but I don’t think one can escape it.
Thank you for this discussion. One thing I found interesting when reading this book is, Zarathustra is “enlightened” at the beginning of the book, after having spent time time in the cave/on the top of the mountain; however, we are not privy on how he came to said “enlightenment”. Yes, one could argue that he gains “insight” through the interactions he has throughout the book, and perhaps this is one way Nietzsche was expressing the idea of eternal recurrence, where he could say, “When you finish Zarathustra’s journey, go back to page one, because now you know how he arrived at these ideas.” Further, I found it rather ironic that, in order to become “enlightened”, Zarathustra had to ascend. To me, it seems like Nietzsche believed we must ascend in order to descend, which is counter to the Christian ethic, of course. However, it’s puzzling to me on *where* this enlightenment comes from; Zarathustra seems to be the passive recipient, in a way. But the recipient of what/whom? Something outside himself, something transcendent? Nietzsche would, obviously, reject that, but I don’t think one can escape it.