Vi 1

Vi, Joseph Paolo S.

Contemporary Philosophy
15 December 2017
Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Of the Virtue that Makes Small
In this paper, I would like to explore the aphorism
entitled Of the Virtue that Makes Small found within Friedrich
Nietzsche’s book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I will begin with a
short synopsis of the aphorism and then go into my own ideas
regarding the meaning of the tale.
The whole aphorism is divided into three parts and spans
more or less 5 whole pages, making one of the books longer
aphorisms. The first part, for the most part, acts as a prologue
to the rest of the story with Zarathustra, but, acting like a
good prologue, it sets us the rest of the story, by introducing
something that the main body will take from. The second part I
think sums up the main thoughts of the aphorism. I will discuss
more on that later. Lastly, the third part presents what I
believe to be a refutation of the criticisms that Zarathustra
receives in the small town that he comes upon ending with the
usual line, “Thus spoke Zarathustra.”1
“‘We have set our chairs down in the middle’…This, however,
is – mediocrity: although it be called moderation.”2 I think that
this line is what sums up the entirety of the aphorism. To put
it into better context the whole story begins with Zarathustra
arriving in a place where everything is small. Here he offers a
bit of harsh criticism of the local’s way of life, most
especially the fact that they are only genial to people who like
them, therefore making his mere presence inimical without any
cause for such attitude.

1
P. 192
2
P. 190
 Vi 2

But I digress. Going back to the line that I have chosen it

is clear to me that this aphorism isn’t about humility or
moderation as what the title may make us believe, at least not
directly. From what I have deduced from my reading it appears
that the locals practice a form of what they perceive to be
moderation by always doing things half-heartedly. He says that
they speak harshly, but only in hoarseness, they have fingers
that can become fists, but never do, their most fundamental
desire is that they are not harmed by other people. They are a
bunch of fence sitters, not because they desire to see both
sides of an argument, but because they are afraid to pick any
side but their own, all in an attempt to be safe.
My teacher in logic says that the enemy of the great is not
the bad. No, the enemy of the great is the good. Why? Because,
when we find something as good enough then we stop there. This
is precisely why the actions of the locals are not moderation or
humility, but mediocrity. They see something as good enough, and
instead of looking for ways to improve it further, they stop
right in their tracks and do not dare to venture, to see the
heights that they can achieve.
I think that this is why the title of the aphorism is Of
the Virtue that Makes Small. If that title is anything, it is a
piece of satire, sarcasm either to just poke fun or to warn the
reader after he has read through the aphorism. It is in fact
very misleading. When one first goes into the story one is lead
to believe that, because the world around Zarathustra is
suddenly small, that there is, in fact, a virtue that makes one
small. However, as the story goes on it becomes a bit obvious
that what Zarathustra is describing is not in fact a virtue, but
a fraud.
 Vi 3

In the story it is strongly suggested that the people of

the place are small in stature, because of the “virtue” that
they practice, which stops them from going higher in the world.3
Now, in the real world I am fairly certain that there is no
virtue that directly affects physical height, there is, however,
a virtue that affects the height of one’s ego or of one’s
perception, humility.
For those that are familiar with the concept of humility
the title again may lead to us to believe that the story talks
about how to gain humility. This would not, I think, be
completely false. The story, for some part, does part talk about
what I believe to be humility, or false humility to be more
exact. A good portion of the latter portion of part two is
devoted to the denunciation of the locals and their way of
existence.
Part three, as I mentioned earlier, is particularly
devoted, I think, to a refutation of the locals in their
accusation of Zarathustra. Knowing Nietzsche as the staunch
atheist that he was, it would be very likely that this is one of
the most obvious defenses he has of himself, assuming that he
regards the Zarathustra character as an archetype of himself,
and his ideals. Seeing as how the locals react to his criticism
of their religious beliefs.4 There is, I think, a very close
relation between whatever comment was made with what Zarathustra
says in the prologue section, namely, that “God is dead.5
Based on how he describes the locals then it is very likely
that God is dead. Note he does not say that God does not exist.
He says that “God is dead”. Now begs the question as who killed
him, or why exactly did he die? I think that the answer is quite

3
P. 191
4
P.190
5
P. 41
 Vi 4

simple, those that believed in him, namely, the locals, did.

How? Zarathustra clearly points it out in the second part,
through mediocrity disguised as virtue.6 By never going for
greatness they have fundamentally denied themselves all the
hopes and the aspirations that the creator that they believed in
set out for them, and by doing so that said creator is no longer
truly relevant for them, because their mediocrity leads them
only to believe in themselves. Their fear of harm immediately
causes them to become self-centered and they only look toward
what they desire instead of what is truly good for them, or to
what can make them greater. They are more than comfortable in
their mediocrity as long as they are not harmed, and anyone who
is so audacious enough as to tell them that they are flawed is
immediately ostracized and symbolically burned at the stake.
Now, there is a section in part three where Zarathustra
continually calls himself “Zarathustra the Godless.”7 This is a
title that he granted himself upon the accusations of the
locals. This is also a title that he wears proudly. I think that
Zarathustra, again as an archetype for Nietzsche himself,
proudly takes on the banner of a heretic, because of the fact
that he does not consider himself one. I think that he considers
himself as a model, if not in belief, in action. Despite the
condemnation of the locals, Zarathustra still does not quit on
them, yes it may appear that he has dropped all semblance of
propriety and has taken on a bit of brash tone, but that is
nonetheless in attempt to drive his point, namely, that if they
do not work harder to achieve something then they will forever
be small, and become smaller, and smaller, and smaller until
they reach the point of nonexistence.8

6
P. 190
7
P. 191
8
P. 191
 Vi 5

Here, I think I really begin to see Nietzsche’s point

especially in his downward view toward religion, particularly
the Catholic Church, as we have discussed in class. I can only
assume how the Church must have been at the time of Nietzsche’s
life, and I can only assume that it angered him to the point
that he would include, what I perceive to be a monumental jab at
the way that Church was running at the time. The way that he
describes the actions of the locals as being mediocre over being
modest or moderate (unfortunately) strikes a chord with me,
since I am often at odds in differentiating the two.
However, as I have alluded to earlier I do not think that
what Nietzsche wrote is in any way a plain criticism, if
anything it was a way by which he could encourage everyone that
he was talking about or anyone who felt strongly about his ideas
to be try and become better, to try and overcome themselves. As
he says that man is to overcome, so too, I believe, that the
institutions that man has run should try to be overcome also.
This is not in an attempt to try and grab a victory of some
kind, but to try and become a better version of yourself in
order to create a better world.
Of course it is no surprise that those who are criticized
should feel, I suppose, in some way insulted, but that is no
excuse to totally ignore what is written down. Obviously there
must be some logical basis for this criticism, and, if there is
not, then, and only then, can it be ignored. However, from
discussing his background I have come to think of Nietzsche as
an intelligent and logical man, who more than anything, desired
that world become better than it was at his time.
This aphorism, I think also shows in creativity and his
desire to set things in such a way that those who read it have
 Vi 6

to carefully think about what was written in order to grasp what

was being said.