First lets discus section 341, which I think the point of this section is to introduce us to eternal recurrence. What I grasped from eternal recurrence, is that every moment we live, will happen again over and over in space and time. He speaks about this as a demon that would make you go through every joyful and dreadful moment over and over. He brings Socrates into the equation by speaking about his last words of thanking the god of medicine by curing him of life by giving him death, but Nietzsche seems to not agree with his words and act as if they are foolish. The eternal recurrence seems to be different then Socrates words, because it seems that Socrates is implying that this world of senses that we actually experience was not a “real world” …show more content…
like Zarathustra in “incipit tragoedia” he lived in the mountains and gained knowledge but after the same thing every day he must go out and spread his knowledge with the people which leads to more stories of Zarathustra and terms such as over men. He speaks about a normal man in “thus spoke Zarathustra” that is afraid of dangerous or different, which is different then his first stage of becoming an over man, stage of camel, in which we must drive our self harshly in order to improve our self. This all leaning towards a achievement of becoming the perfect human. And we can achieve this by not believing in that the answers will be in the magical clouds, but rather in our self. This is so much different then views like Plato who believed in the idea of the forms, which believed that the truth was hide away in a form substance that we could not perceive, and the quote in the republic can be of a example: “philosophy is the practice of death”. Nietzsche would argue against this and say to not just expect answers after death, but strive yourself and become an over man, and achieve to be the perfect human to gain your own answers by disciplining yourself and learning from yourself, not by