짜라투스트라의 ‘의욕하는 주체’에 대한 소고 (On Zarathustra’s ‘willing subject’)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 인문학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 인문논총 / 60호 / 237 ~ 267페이지
· 저자명 : 김주휘

초록

Against two dominant understandings of Nietzsche’s subject, which are
represented by Heidegger who regards “will-to-power” as the
consummation of the metaphysics of modern subjectivity and as leading to
the domination of the earth by technology, and by Deleuze and Foucault
who find the de-construction of the very subjectivity in Nietzsche’s
thought, this work follows the idea of Nietzschean subject as something to
be created and to be achieved. According to this idea, Nietzsche shows his
own prescriptive concern with the self-creating and value-creating subjects
although he is in agreement with the de-constructionists as to the critique
of the myth of the unified rational subject at the descriptive level. Also this
work attends to ststus and the role of the Nietzschean self-creating subjects
in the dynamics of a community. Nietzsche considered the sovereign
self-creating individuals not only as the fruit of the community but also as
the seeds of the new states and communities. From this, against the
dominant asocial and apolitical rendering of Nietzschean individuals, this
work probes on the role of the individuals in the dynamics of the
communal life, as the center of its dynamics. and asks on what ground it
is possible.
The main argument of this work is that we can find the ground of the
individuals being at the center of the dynamics of a community in the fact
that both individuals and communities are considered to be the subjects of
the ethical practice, the creators of values. This is shown by a close reading
of Thus Spoke Zarathustra in comparison with “Schopenhauer as Educator.”
Pursuing the question of what the redeeming and liberating willing and
creating means in Zarathustra’s teaching, we find that it is none other than
the very will to create the ethical life on earth, to create good and evil,
that is, values. This can be made clearer if we compare Zarathustra with
“Educator” where Nietzsche makes explicit that the liberation of life means
the liberation of the higher self and that only it could lead to the creation
of culture, which makes human life different from that of mere animals.
We find in both works very similar contrasts of the higher human life with
that of mere animals. Especially in Zarathustra, it is expressed as the
contrast of those who could accept the status of man as the bridge to
Übermensch, as something to be overcome, and the last men who pursue
only happiness, the contented animal life. From these considerations, this
work shows that the teaching of liberation and creation means the demand
for a new ethical life on earth and for the subjects of the new ethical life,
which would be different from the old life-negating ones, especially at the
age of the demise of God, the demise of the old ethical communities and
the arrival of the new idol, the modern state.
The concluding remarks, Nietzsche’s insight into the necessary violence
and cruelty which accompanies any cultural and ethical creation is
understated as one of the major contributions of him although the
investigation of its implications must be deferred to a future work.

영어초록

Against two dominant understandings of Nietzsche’s subject, which are
represented by Heidegger who regards “will-to-power” as the
consummation of the metaphysics of modern subjectivity and as leading to
the domination of the earth by technology, and by Deleuze and Foucault
who find the de-construction of the very subjectivity in Nietzsche’s
thought, this work follows the idea of Nietzschean subject as something to
be created and to be achieved. According to this idea, Nietzsche shows his
own prescriptive concern with the self-creating and value-creating subjects
although he is in agreement with the de-constructionists as to the critique
of the myth of the unified rational subject at the descriptive level. Also this
work attends to ststus and the role of the Nietzschean self-creating subjects
in the dynamics of a community. Nietzsche considered the sovereign
self-creating individuals not only as the fruit of the community but also as
the seeds of the new states and communities. From this, against the
dominant asocial and apolitical rendering of Nietzschean individuals, this
work probes on the role of the individuals in the dynamics of the
communal life, as the center of its dynamics. and asks on what ground it
is possible.
The main argument of this work is that we can find the ground of the
individuals being at the center of the dynamics of a community in the fact
that both individuals and communities are considered to be the subjects of
the ethical practice, the creators of values. This is shown by a close reading
of Thus Spoke Zarathustra in comparison with “Schopenhauer as Educator.”
Pursuing the question of what the redeeming and liberating willing and
creating means in Zarathustra’s teaching, we find that it is none other than
the very will to create the ethical life on earth, to create good and evil,
that is, values. This can be made clearer if we compare Zarathustra with
“Educator” where Nietzsche makes explicit that the liberation of life means
the liberation of the higher self and that only it could lead to the creation
of culture, which makes human life different from that of mere animals.
We find in both works very similar contrasts of the higher human life with
that of mere animals. Especially in Zarathustra, it is expressed as the
contrast of those who could accept the status of man as the bridge to
Übermensch, as something to be overcome, and the last men who pursue
only happiness, the contented animal life. From these considerations, this
work shows that the teaching of liberation and creation means the demand
for a new ethical life on earth and for the subjects of the new ethical life,
which would be different from the old life-negating ones, especially at the
age of the demise of God, the demise of the old ethical communities and
the arrival of the new idol, the modern state.
The concluding remarks, Nietzsche’s insight into the necessary violence
and cruelty which accompanies any cultural and ethical creation is
understated as one of the major contributions of him although the
investigation of its implications must be deferred to a future work.

참고자료

· 없음