On Scholars

As I lay sleeping a sheep munched at the ivy wreath on my head –munched and spoke:

“Zarathustra is no longer a scholar.”

Spoke it and walked away, reproving and proud. A child told it to me.

I like to lie here where the children play, by the crumbling wall, beneath thistles and red poppies.

I am still a scholar to the children and also to the thistles and the red poppies.

They are innocent, even in their spite.

But to the sheep I am no longer a scholar, thus my fate wants it – blessed be it!

For this is the truth: I have moved out of the house of the scholars, and I slammed the door on my way out.

Too long my soul sat hungry at their table; unlike them, I am not trained to approach knowledge as if cracking nuts.

I love freedom and the air over fresh earth; and I would rather sleep on ox hides than on their honors and reputations.

I am too hot and burned up by my own thoughts; often it steals my breath away. Then I have to go out into the open and away from all dusty chambers.

But they sit cool in their cool shade; in all things they want to be mere spectators and they take care not to sit where the sun burns on the steps.

Just like those who stand in the street and gape at the people who pass by; thus too they wait and gape at thoughts that others have thought.

When grasped they puff out clouds of dust like sacks of flour, involuntarily; but who would guess that their dust comes from grain and from the yellow bliss of summer fields?

When they pose as wise, I am chilled by their little proverbs and truths; often there is an odor to their wisdom, as if it came from the swamp, and truly, I have already heard the frog croaking out of it!

They are skilled, they have clever fingers;why would my simplicity want to be near their multiplicity? Their fingers know how to do all manner of threading and knotting and weaving, and thus they knit the stockings of the spirit!

They are good clockworks, only one has to see to it that they are properly wound! Then they indicate the hour faithfully and make only a modest noise.

Like mills and stamps they work; one need only toss them one’s grain – they know how to grind down kernels and make white dust out of them!

They are good at spying on, and are not the best at trusting one another.

Inventive in petty cleverness they lie in wait for those whose knowledge walks on lame feet – they lie in wait like spiders.

I have always seen them prepare poison with caution, and always they donned gloves of glass for their fingers.

And they also know how to play with loaded dice; and I found them so ardent in their play that they sweated.

We are strangers to one another, and their virtues are even more repugnant to me than their falseness and false dice.

And when I dwelled among them, I dwelled over them. For this they bore a grudge against me.

They will hear nothing of it that someone strolls over their heads; and so they placed wood and earth and filth between me and their heads.

Thus they muffled the sound of my steps; and up till now the ones to hear me least have been the most scholarly.

All that is substandard and weakness in humans they laid between themselves and me – “sub-floor” they call it in their houses.

But despite this I stroll with my thoughts over their heads; and even if I wanted to stroll atop my own mistakes, I would still be over them and their heads.

For human beings are not equal: thus speaks justice. And what I want, they would not be permitted to want!

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

 
حسامي, It's just another nice and beneficial topic of yours.

I've found actually words of wisdom every line.
I generally trust and think high in individual scholars, those who do not blindly follow the principles of a certain school of thought. In every community such as universities, companies, families, etc. there are people who put morals and scientific "principles" for others to follow. They forget sometimes that the human creativity can outdo their own old principles and thoughts.
This discussion reminds me also of a contemporary Russian scholar or "genius" in mathematics who does his own work and studies and he refuses any sponsors yet. When he has lately refused to receive the one million dollar award, his principal said to media "oh I know him, and what he did is quite justifiable; he is not a crazy person in a sane world, rather he is a sane person in a crazy world"
However, you know, no one can create morals that is unique to himself. I mean creativity and individuality can do with many fields of human knowledge and life but not with morals anymore.

Sadly, this is totally true relating to Arab societies in particular ; they are very good in playing "with loaded dice" against each other, against their fellow Arabs.

I'm waiting for your own clarifications about the background of this piece of art and maybe you know "what's" and "who is" "Zarathustra"_more than the real ancient philosopher. Honestly, it matches many interpretations and I'm curious to listen to your own interpretation .

 
Good evening Andalusiah,

I quoted this chapter from Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra; it is about the question of originality. If a scholar understands and/or memorizes a subject, a theory, a poem or whatever, does it mean that s/he is original? In my opinion, understanding and/or memorization doesn't mean originality. Is there originality in our universities? Or learning-teaching process is just at the level of understanding and memorization? Aren't we as individuals mere copies of copies of copies ad infinitum? How does an individual feel when he discovers that his knowledge is just a copy of somebody's thoughts? Is imitation a part of originality? How can you describe the learning-teaching situation in our universities? Is the university a photocopy center? Are scholars and learners mere copy-paste creatures even if they study hard and understand very well? I quoted that chapter because I felt it could answer at least some of my questions.

Usually, I don't read Nietzsche from a religious or political perspective; I read him from an individualistic, intellectual and psychological perspective. Some scholars regardless of their position or reputation are parrots who produce sounds produced by others but you as a listener have the illusion that they are original. This is applicable for anyone- including me. I'm not completely original and many of my academic ideas are from what I read or heard. Then, where is originality?

Thank you

salam,,,

 
Oh now I've got the point you wanna discuss of this quotation. I thought at first read that you wanna employ the figure of Zarathustra to refer to either the same Zoroastrian beliefs, or, ironically, the academic scholarships nowadays.

Concerning the question of originality, I think the best we can do is to master the old conventional models and to reproduce them in the way that thoroughly meets the spiritual and material needs of the day. If we do so that will be great, and thus we may be called "original. For, as you mentioned, there is no "original" idea in this world; the ideas are the same but the applications can be so.

On the other hand, we are not "mere copies of copies of copies ad infinitum". It's our works, ours "ideas", not we. We as humans are unique to creation and every human is unique , different in special way from every other human. This opinion might contrast the one of" eternal recurrence" or as you put it" mere copies of copies of copies ad infinitum". Simply, though there's nothing actually simple in such subjects, the input is one but the output is not the same every time 'cos the case is different every time.

Down to our universities. Let me say that they are ultimately out of that question cos they are not "academic"; they do not pursue an academic way of teaching nor as institutions they are so either. You know what I mean hopefully.

Thanks again for your interesting posts.

I'll post a thread about this book of Nietzsche, Inshaallah
.

 
This is your interpretation of originality. Many would agree with such an approach including notable writers like T. S. Eliot in his Tradition and the Individual Talent as far as literature is the scope of our discussion. For me such an approach is very practical though for Nietzsche it is invalid.
Usually I don't cast absolutes around; originality is always there but nowadays it has become on a very limited scale. For Francis Fukuyama in his The End of History, "the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution."
human beings could be different but not necessarily original. Does difference mean originality?
Now this is food for thought.