Thus Spoke Zarathustra

This is my impression of the first half of Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche. I started to write it when I was about 150 pages in, because I was just pissed. So here:

Nietzsche is freaking full of himself. I suppose, to be a philosopher, you sort of have to be. You need to believe that your ideas are right, and thus, that you are clever for think about them (unless your philosophy is that no one is smart, which would be contradictory; how can one philosophize without intelligence?).
But anyway. I'm really not enjoying the book. The main character, Zarathustra, who I assume is largely a mirror of Nietzsche, spends all his time preaching how people need to stop being ignorant and think of original things like he does. And then he moans and complains about how he is so lonely because he’s a genius. Why don’t you come down from your freaking mountain top, stop preaching, and get over yourself if you’re so freaking emo, Zarathustra? And, I am annoyed by Zarathustra’s obvious lack of respect for women. He called them stupid; he said they were only good for loving blindly and being playthings for men. BAH!
Occasionally, at the beginning of one of his little stories, I think that it is going to be good. A few times, he reminds me of Whitman (whom I love), but he always ultimately differs drastically from Whitman because in some way, he is always criticizing someone (where as Whitman believes in inter-connectedness and improvement through advice... and stuff).
I swear, I’m trying to like it. I really am. I’m trying to be open minded and receptive to his beliefs. I’ve found a few that I think are clever/moral/good, but not very many. Honestly, I don’t want to finish. I’m a little bummed, I guess my first major foray into philosophy isn’t much of a success.

Second Half
Okay, it got better. He lightened up. He stopped being emo. He became a bit less condescending, and started giving advice without attaching huge insults. He encouraged learning, and self-love, and limited selfishness, and change. He actually started to really remind me of Whitman. I was able to read happily and enjoy it.
I don’t get how this book was at all associated with the Nazis. Seeing as they all were uber-Christian and Nietzsche is essentially agnostic/making up his own religion. I think it would be interesting to read the Nazi-fied version.
One of my favorite philosophies in the book was that people should be “good” not to get anything, but simply because. It reminded me of the story from Looking from Alaska that Pudge reads about. In the story, a woman runs through the streets with a torch and a bucket of water, claiming she will put out the fires of hell and destroy heaven so that people will be good for the sake of being good rather than to get a reward/avoid a punishment. I like that story. I’ve always believed in that.
I know this is all over the place, but I’m going to be disorganized some more:
*I like the idea of the superman/overman/great man. It is a similar theory to Atlas Shrugged: that all men are not equal; rather, some are superior because of hard work and skill.
*I still don’t like how condescending Nietzsche can be.
*I still think Zarathustra should just take a few Prozac or a lexapro
*I think the idea of God being dead is interesting. However, I think that even if God were “dead” it wouldn’t matter. People would still act more or less the same, and just worship idealized versions of people (kind of like how Zarathustra’s disciples worship him because they think he’s so great)
So… better than I thought at first. Thank God. Now onto the fun brain book!

Total Count: 14
Nonfiction: 5? Does Philosophy count as NonFic?