Talk:Thus Spoke Zarathustra

but, according to Benjamin A. Elman, "[w]hen understood on its own terms, Buddhism cannot be dismissed as pessimistic or nihilistic". [...]
but, according to Benjamin A. Elman, "[w]hen understood on its own terms, Buddhism cannot be dismissed as pessimistic or nihilistic".[18] Moreover, answers which Nietzsche assembled to the questions he was asking, not only generally but also in Zarathustra, put him "very close to some basic doctrines found in Buddhism".[18] An example is when Zarathustra says that "the soul is only a word for something about the body".[18]

Is it just me or does this part appear very misplaced or contrived and probably suffering from undue weight too? If anything, it should be put into reception. It doesn't fit here. Nietzhe talks about eternal reoccurence too which is the opposite of what Buddhism preaches where the goal is to get out of the life cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.22.160.62 (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"TSZ" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSZ&redirect=no TSZ] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Zarathustra (fictional philosopher)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zarathustra_(fictional_philosopher)&redirect=no Zarathustra (fictional philosopher)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

introduction is a bit early for in-universe phrasing
The introduction states,


 * The style of Zarathustra has facilitated varied and often incompatible ideas about what Zarathustra says. Zarathustra's "[e]xplanations and claims are almost always analogical and figurative"

This "in-universe" way of writing about Zarathustra as a real person should not be one of the first (and possibly, only) things a reader gleans. Even if the reader has noticed the link to "philosophical fiction", they may still reasonably presume that Nietzsche is merely retelling a historical figure's beliefs. These sentences should make extra clear that the ideas properly belong to Nietzsche. B9 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have tried my best to clarify things up. Is it better now? Veverve (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is better. However, at the end of the introductory paragraph, the phrasing slips again into talking about "Zarathustra" as a person:
 *  ... there is no consensus about what Zarathustra means when he speaks...
 * Perhaps it would be better if the introduction prepared the reader for the in-universe way of speaking in which the article is written. For example, a preface like this:
 * Nota bene: Do not confuse Nietzsche's Zarathustra with the real Zarathustra whose actual philosophy disagrees with Thus Spake Zarathustra. In the following text the reader is advised that “Zarathustra says X” is merely shorthand for “Nietzsche says X using the literary device of Socratic Dialogue which puts Nietzsche's thoughts in the mouth of a fictional character named Zarathustra.”
 * Would this, or something like it, be acceptable? B9 (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not do prefaces such as these on WP. Veverve (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Veverve. Is that WP policy or merely accepted custom? What solution do you suggest? It may be a difficult task to remove every instance of in-universe point of view from this article as there are philosophical writings which use the same "Zarathustra says X" phrasing. But, it is important for the article to somehow address the confusion since obscuring exactly who "spoke" was part of Nietzsche's goal:
 * “Zarathustra is not so much a mouthpiece for Nietzsche’s views, but a mask he wears with mischievous intent, with the dual aim both of using Zarathustra to express himself and to hide behind.”
 * B9 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * it is important for the article to somehow address the confusion since obscuring exactly who "spoke" was part of Nietzsche's goal: this is adressed in the section Thus Spoke Zarathustra which is the very first section. Veverve (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nietzsche almost certainly did not know Sanskrit
There are some reddit-level preposterous statements regarding this in the article. German-language internet, however, makes no mention of any Sanskrit studying by Nietzsche at all, and one German article bluntly states that "Nietzsche did not have language access to the original Buddhist texts". Also, personally, as a person who has studied Latin and Greek, the ancient languages are s**t hard and you can't just learn them in your free time and not even tell anybody. 86.63.168.150 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What you are referring to in the WP article is sourced by a RS. Veverve (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Quotes from a paper written by somebody called Benjamin Elman who is a specialist on China. Not on Nietzsche or Sanskrit. And both of the quotes contain the word "probably". And the second quote "was probably one of the best read and most solidly grounded in Buddhism for his time among Europeans" - how the hell would Mr. Elman know that?!? Does he have data on Sanskrit knowledge among 19th century Europeans? This is just fantasy history. 86.63.168.150 (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)