Parallels between Nietzsche and ASoIaF

[Bava]

If you keep the racism and social darwinism out and just look at the overman from an idealistic perspective, the overman is basically just a very independent, self-confident person that celebrates its individuality. I believe that this is not a point which is special to the works of Nietzsche. From this point of view I think it is really hard to argue that the work was inspired by Nietzsche, because we just don't exactly know what GRRM was inspired by. If there are paralells between aSoIaF and Nietzsche I take a conservative stance and see it as a coincidence, because, as one of the previous posters said, they are both (GRRM and N) writing about life. Hence I think that it is basically impossible to make predictions of what might happen later on aSoIaF based on the work of Nietzsche, especially as ideas like the eternal return are not found in aSoIaF.

One of the central points of Nietzsche's philosophy is, as the posters before me have already pointed out, the criticism of the Euro-Christian society, its values and morals. He despises them because those morals and rules make people miserable. In German he nicely points this out with the words compassion (Mitleid) and suffering (Leid), if you have compassion with one person, that suffering also aflicts you. Hence the necessity for the overman to overcome and destroy the Christian morals, in a way reverse all values and create his own individual morals and values. This is also symbolized in the transformation from camel (endure suffering) to lion (destruction of old "bad" morals) to child (new beginning creation of own standards, overman). After the destruction of old morals and some metaphysical constructs there is the imminent threat that nihilism might takeover. So it is not false to say Nietzsche is associated with nihilism. However Nietzsche is definately not a nihilist because he postulates the overman to fill the void with own morals and values.

If we search for the overman we need to find an independent, individual and creating person with own personal morals. I don't believe that there can be one character in the books that really represents the overman, because all characters are in a way integrated in the society and thus not totally independent like Zarathustra in his individual, independent cave. Generally I believe a social and not solitary overman is quite impossible, because dependence immediately kicks in as soon as there are other people around. However, we might find instances when characters displayed overman characteristics.

The Ironborn aren't an example for the overman because they are not creating but just destroying. In the sense of the transformations above, they are lions, not children. This point of view is highly supported by their words: "We do not sow".

Tywin shows definitely some overman actions, yet he is not completely overman. He values family so much and always claims that, everything he does, he does for the House of Lannister. If you consider the presence of Shae in his bed, many people assume that he, just like Tyrion liked to "use" whores. He hid his whoring though and condemned Tyrion for the same character trait, not very overman like. Same goes for the Iron Throne in general. I'm pretty sure Tywin would have loved to sit on the Throne and be the King. It must have been agonising to see Aerys or later Joffrey on the Throne, while he was running the entire kingdom. Still he played according to the rules of westeros.

There is not even a pinch of overman in Ned Stark. He is (probably) the most honorable character in the series, keeping his vows, doing the right thing, being so utterly depdent. He didn't want to be Hand, but thought for Robert, he had to do it. You already mentioned the possibilities to seize the Throne for himself, which Ned let pass and the list goes on and on. The only character that is maybe worse is Brienne.

Jaime has become one of my favourite characters throughout the series. I think he has some overman moments but they are certainly not in the end of the story (ADWD). One of those moments might be when he slays Aerys, forsakes his vows and follows his own value. The strongest moment is when he decides to go to KL and claim Cersei as his wife, acknowledge the children and give a shit about the rest of the world. Unfortunately that doesn't work out.

[Nucky Thompson]

Your requirements for the overman seem very much fulfilled by Roose Bolton who in essence destroyed the honor-bound morality of the Starks which was clearly not working. You can hardly call the Boltons integrated into their respective society, however convincing an impression they create. They seem to be quite independent in having been able to withstand a two-year siege by the entirety of the Northern armies, and their modus operandi is very individual if nothing else. And it's not like Bolton is only about destruction: his agenda involves creating "a peaceful land, a quiet people".

And the Ironborn are very much into creation, as subtle as it may be: the very reason I suggested them was because they were effectively creating a faction of overmen: it is stated in the books that their thralls pretty much amount to slaves, but the children of thralls are equal to a genuine Ironborn, provided that they consecrate themselves to the Drowned God and his reaving ways.

With regard to Tywin, for various reasons I don't think that he is the embodiment of the overman in the series (fearing the Tyrells and allowing them a lot of leeway, for one), but his faults at whoring and simultaneously punishing Tyrion for the same thing, may be attributed to his respect for the family name and differentiating between him having his priorities straight with a little whoring on the side, and Tyrion's priority of whoring which has substituted the actual prosperity of House Lannister as his main goal. And if what he said about his values was true, he wouldn't mind Joffrey being the king at all. It was a different thing with Aerys, and while Tywin may have conformed to societal norms then, he was doing so with the clear goal of having his daughter married to the heir apparent. Immediately after this deal falls through, Tywin quits his position as hand of the king. I dislike Jaime as a character very much, but while your arguments may have some weight, the very fact that he fails to deliver on his bluff at the siege of Riverrun, and maybe surrendering the Iron Throne to Eddard, seem to negate your hypothesis.

Btw, your evoking of the Nietzschean transformation from a camel to a lion and then to a child, seems to somewhat resemble what has happened in ASoIaF so far: if we disregard the camel (which under the weight of all the honour might be associated with the Starks), Eddard refused to sit the Iron Throne himself, thus leading to its eventual overtaking by the lion (Lannisters), which will then be unseated by Aegon (who is the personification of Varys' 'for the children' agenda).

PS: You seem to classify Eddard very low on the overman list, but if I may borrow a quote from Ayn Rand ("Honor is self-esteem made visible in action."), he may be the most egotistical character in the series, even if in a somewhat roundabout way (do to others as you wish others to do unto you).

[Thelastactionhero]

This active/passive nihilsm business is not a proper philosophical distinction, but an emotional disposition. I wouldn't come down so hard on the side of Nietzche being a nihilist, myself. Considering that Nietzche wrote long diatribes bemoaning the rise of nihilism, I think the truth is a little more subtle, and open to semantic distortion. You showed proper caution in saying "associated with", yet this jarred with the rest of your assertion. Negatively charged philosophical space? Definition please. Nitzche invented enough florid phrases without creating more . I assert that Nietzche is not truly a nihilist, because firstly he claimed to be in a separate domain. Secondly, he believes in too many transcendent concepts and too many subjectivist realities, to be a believer in the Void.

If I came off as condescending, it's because I have to deal with people abusing and distorting his ideas in academia on a regular basis, (especially in my field of literary theory). The way you in which you framed Nietzsche and nihilism in your previous post set off some warning bells, (you'd be suprised how many individuals develop superficial grievances with the term as a result of not properly understanding it) but perhaps I struck preemptively here. Ironically I actually agree with you that his relationship with nihilism is far more nuanced than most people often suggest. The fact remains that it's Nietzsche himself who makes the distinction between passive and active nihilism, thus I think dismissing it merely because it relates to two psychological/emotional dispositions is a mistake on your part, especially when we're trying to deduce to what degree one should or shouldn't classify him as a nihilist thinker. This distinction is especially important because it presents us with potential outcomes from adopting the nihilist world view, which is something Nietzsche was highly concerned with, as I believe you yourself noted. Judging from his notebooks, which, if we're going to be honest here, are our primary sources for his direct thoughts on the matter, Nietzsche seems to assert that nihilism is a transitional phase necessary to bring about the destruction of absolute values and the creation of new ones. (This development, in terms of later philosophical engagements, can be thought of as a crude precursor to the critique of metaphysics of presence that we see in Wittigstein, Heidegger, and Derrida, in that meaning is not simply pre-given to us.)

We can debate over the semantics of whether Nietzsche himself should be classified as a nihilist all day, (scholars are still doing it now) but I think what's more important is that his project, though too fractured to be considered a unified whole, is centered around the creation of a new value system that is in keeping with life affirmation. Active nihilism, while bleak, is what opens up the very space that makes this possible, and thus I think he is, for better or worse, bound to the term. For me, I don't really see this as a real problem, because I think that nihilism, in its more sophisticated manifestations, can and should be used as a philosophical vehicle that leads us to create cool shit and celebrate life. Which leads me to address the question you raised by what I was referring to when I mentioned a "negatively charged philosophical space of action and creation". We see something similar occur with Zizek and Lacan that is not unlike the Nietzschean rhetoric we're concerned with here. When one at last realizes that the symbolic order which constitutes absolute values, personal identity, and language is a ficticious one, arbitrarily constructed, and therefore mutable, one is given a precious, yet relative degree of autonomy in which they might choose to take action, self-actualize, and construct meaning. This opens a space, especially in philosophy, that is both playful and liberating for the human subject.

And yet to return to the topic at hand, I think it's this notion of life affirmation, (which gets so terribly understated when people fixate so much on the "ubermensch" concept) that marks the truest connection between Nietzsche and Martin's work. Neither of them shies away from presenting us with the hopeless brutality which constitutes human reality, yet both display a certain degree of romanticism in this regard, for each man seems to celebrate the tragic beauty of life in spite its inherent meaninglessness. A Song of Ice and Fire is unapologetically sad, and at times ghastly, but throughout the work, we find characters constantly striving, though most often times in vain, against the grizzly circumstances that surround them, and its in this sense that I think the series is a brilliant elegy for the human spirit.

[Nucky Thompson]

Yeah, but the only way to realize that the symbolic order is ficticious, is to already have another ficticious order in the back of your mind. It doesn't work any other way. It may be a simpler, chaotic, negatively charged, what have you order, but still an order. And Littlefinger is all about creative destruction, about opportunities in chaos, etc. but he still has an agenda, doesn't he (Catelyn/Sansa)? And the ghastliness of the world in a Song of Ice and Fire is a bit excessive, but its presence is to reinforce the similarities existing between Martin's world and the world around us - they seem to be rather alike, don't they? While you seem to be making a distinction between the ubermensch and life affirmation, I think that those are the two side of the same Nietzschean coin - only one is the fuel, and the other - the vehicle.

On another note, there were claims that an 'eternal return' wasn't evident in the series - how could we call the upcoming Dance of Dragons 2.0, then? Or the seemingly recurring Night's King 2.0 that is in the making? Not to mention Bran's parallels to Brandon the Builder (maybe still only a theory that one).

[Thelastactionhero]

Yeah, but the only way to realize that the symbolic order is ficticious, is to already have another ficticious order in the back of your mind. It doesn't work any other way. It may be a simpler, chaotic, negatively charged, what have you order, but still an order. And Littlefinger is all about creative destruction, about opportunities in chaos, etc. but he still has an agenda, doesn't he (Catelyn/Sansa)? And the ghastliness of the world in a Song of Ice and Fire is a bit excessive, but its presence is to reinforce the similarities existing between Martin's world and the world around us - they seem to be rather alike, don't they? While you seem to be making a distinction between the ubermensch and life affirmation, I think that those are the two side of the same Nietzschean coin - only one is the fuel, and the other - the vehicle.

On another note, there were claims that an 'eternal return' wasn't evident in the series - how could we call the upcoming Dance of Dragons 2.0, then? Or the seemingly recurring Night's King 2.0 that is in the making? Not to mention Bran's parallels to Brandon the Builder (maybe still only a theory that one).

I don't really see the ubermensh and life affirmation as being a dichotomy, I only mean that this notion of life affirmation in a Nietzschean sense is the only real connection I see between his work and George R Martin's. I think some of the connections you're making here with the characters, however, are really imaginative. Personally I don't think that Martin consciously intended his books or characters to reflect Nietzschean tropes, rather it seems that the two thinkers just happen to share some common philosophical and aesthetic concerns. If Nietzsche's work was direct influence on the books he probably would have said something about it at this point instead of fixating on Faulkner and Tolkien. (And you are correct about the symbolic order, which is why I said that this realization grants us only a relatively degree of autonomy.)

[Darkbringer]

Yeah, but the only way to realize that the symbolic order is ficticious, is to already have another ficticious order in the back of your mind. It doesn't work any other way. It may be a simpler, chaotic, negatively charged, what have you order, but still an order. And Littlefinger is all about creative destruction, about opportunities in chaos, etc. but he still has an agenda, doesn't he (Catelyn/Sansa)? And the ghastliness of the world in a Song of Ice and Fire is a bit excessive, but its presence is to reinforce the similarities existing between Martin's world and the world around us - they seem to be rather alike, don't they? While you seem to be making a distinction between the ubermensch and life affirmation, I think that those are the two side of the same Nietzschean coin - only one is the fuel, and the other - the vehicle.

On another note, there were claims that an 'eternal return' wasn't evident in the series - how could we call the upcoming Dance of Dragons 2.0, then? Or the seemingly recurring Night's King 2.0 that is in the making? Not to mention Bran's parallels to Brandon the Builder (maybe still only a theory that one).

I would argue that Nietzche recognises that we first return to a nihilistic zero-point, of sorts, after we dispense with the received morality. Truth is dead, God is dead, love is dead. How do we come to terms with, as he put it, the 'immeasurable sorrow' of this realisation? We have become the Ugliest Man, who killed God rather than accept the indignity of voyeurism and pity. He then encourages us to rise to create meaning in place of idols that we cast down, and thus strike out in new directions. To be cheekily reductive I would say that he breaks the old linear scale of morality, and encourages us to explore bravely in three dimensional space. I think GRRM is somewhat like The Sorcerer (Wagner) from TSZ, who delights in drawing out pity from his audience, and playing mischievious tricks on them, while striking at, and seeking (sometimes) other truths.

I think your argument of the repetition of history as the eternal return is interesting, but I cant really agree. if there is any commentary on the ER, I would say it is to do with Beric Dondarrian. And it is is a decidedly negative commentary, as if to say that there is a time when you are alive, a time that has meaning and vitality, and to return eternally to this life would be to rob it gradually of its uniqueness and meaning.

[Thelastactionhero]

I would argue that Nietzche recognises that we first return to a nihilistic zero-point, of sorts, after we dispense with the received morality. Truth is dead, God is dead, love is dead. How do we come to terms with, as he put it, the 'immeasurable sorrow' of this realisation? We have become the Ugliest Man, who killed God rather than accept the indignity of voyeurism and pity. He then encourages us to rise to create meaning in place of idols that we cast down, and thus strike out in new directions. To be cheekily reductive I would say that he breaks the old linear scale of morality, and encourages us to explore bravely in three dimensional space. I think GRRM is somewhat like The Sorcerer (Wagner) from TSZ, who delights in drawing out pity from his audience, and playing mischievious tricks on them, while striking at, and seeking (sometimes) other truths.

I think your argument of the repetition of history as the eternal return is interesting, but I cant really agree. if there is any commentary on the ER, I would say it is to do with Beric Dondarrian. And it is is a decidedly negative commentary, as if to say that there is a time when you are alive, a time that has meaning and vitality, and to return eternally to this life would be to rob it gradually of its uniqueness and meaning.

Okay, I think you and I are on the same page now. One important thing to remember when we compare the eternal return to these Rhillor resurrections though is that within the Nietzschean framework, you return exactly as you did before, and do exactly the same things you did in your first life, with absolutely no variation whatsoever. Nietzsche proposes this disturbing model of doomed immortality as a way of trying to goad the human subject into making the most of their life while they're actually living it, rather than wasting it on a religious gamble, hoping that there might be some long term pay off in the afterlife. To say Martin poses a negative commentary here regarding immortality is an intriguing one though, and I think it makes perfect sense when we see that those who are "blessed" with another life are scarred and mutilated by the physical and psychological torments they garnered their first time on the carousel. There are many problems with positing human beings in some state of infinity in an afterlife, but I think the one you bring up here is the most unsettling, and one Nietzsche would like, because the notion of an afterlife does rob human existence of the tragic beauty that makes it such a wondrous anomaly in this harsh universe of ours.

[Darkbringer]

Okay, I think you and I are on the same page now. One important thing to remember when we compare the eternal return to these Rhillor resurrections though is that within the Nietzschean framework, you return exactly as you did before, and do exactly the same things you did in your first life, with absolutely no variation whatsoever. Nietzsche proposes this disturbing model of doomed immortality as a way of trying to goad the human subject into making the most of their life while they're actually living it, rather than wasting it on a religious gamble, hoping that there might be some long term pay off in the afterlife. To say Martin poses a negative commentary here regarding immortality is an intriguing one though, and I think it makes perfect sense when we see that those who are "blessed" with another life are scarred and mutilated by the physical and psychological torments they garnered their first time on the carousel. There are many problems with positing human beings in some state of infinity in an afterlife, but I think the one you bring up here is the most unsettling, and one Nietzsche would like, because the notion of an afterlife does rob human existence of the tragic beauty that makes it such a wondrous anomaly in this harsh universe of ours.

I agree, Nietzche's model of eternal return is a timeless one, but I also think that it troubled him personally, and goes perhaps a little further than one of his (many) manipulations (also agree on this count to your previous post re- using notebooks as primary source). I couldn't say where exactly he was heading with it, and I suspect he wasn't so sure himself. Beric's story is definately a criticism on the idea of immortality, or ER, I remember this passsage as one of the saddest of the series:

"Can I dwell on what I scarce remember? I held a castle on the Marches once, and there was a woman I was pledged to marry, but I could not find that castle today, nor tell you the color of that woman's hair. Who knighted me, old friend? What were my favorite foods? It all fades. Sometimes I think I was born on the bloody grass in that grove of ash, with the taste of fire in my mouth and a hole in my chest. Are you my mother, Thoros?”

Going back to the OP again, it is interesting then to throw Septon Meribald and the Elder Brother into the mix. Meribald in particular is a likeable and sympathetic figure, in stark contrast to the new High Septon from AFFC onwards, a shrewd, cunning political player who is jockeying for power and influence. The fact that Meribald is given some of the best lines of the series, shows, I feel, that GRRM is the ultimate Lapsed Catholic. He is aware of the suffering and harsh unfairness of the world, despises the adherance to an ideology which robs people of their wits and individualty, and is willing to sucker punch the readers in their sympathetic gonads, so to speak. Yet he is still holding a place in his heart for the idealised picture of the 'true holy man', or 'True Knight', as impossible as this may seem to be in the harsh realities of his world.

[Bava]

Your requirements for the overman seem very much fulfilled by Roose Bolton who in essence destroyed the honor-bound morality of the Starks which was clearly not working. You can hardly call the Boltons integrated into their respective society, however convincing an impression they create. They seem to be quite independent in having been able to withstand a two-year siege by the entirety of the Northern armies, and their modus operandi is very individual if nothing else. And it's not like Bolton is only about destruction: his agenda involves creating "a peaceful land, a quiet people".

And the Ironborn are very much into creation, as subtle as it may be: the very reason I suggested them was because they were effectively creating a faction of overmen: it is stated in the books that their thralls pretty much amount to slaves, but the children of thralls are equal to a genuine Ironborn, provided that they consecrate themselves to the Drowned God and his reaving ways.

With regard to Tywin, for various reasons I don't think that he is the embodiment of the overman in the series (fearing the Tyrells and allowing them a lot of leeway, for one), but his faults at whoring and simultaneously punishing Tyrion for the same thing, may be attributed to his respect for the family name and differentiating between him having his priorities straight with a little whoring on the side, and Tyrion's priority of whoring which has substituted the actual prosperity of House Lannister as his main goal. And if what he said about his values was true, he wouldn't mind Joffrey being the king at all. It was a different thing with Aerys, and while Tywin may have conformed to societal norms then, he was doing so with the clear goal of having his daughter married to the heir apparent. Immediately after this deal falls through, Tywin quits his position as hand of the king. I dislike Jaime as a character very much, but while your arguments may have some weight, the very fact that he fails to deliver on his bluff at the siege of Riverrun, and maybe surrendering the Iron Throne to Eddard, seem to negate your hypothesis.

Btw, your evoking of the Nietzschean transformation from a camel to a lion and then to a child, seems to somewhat resemble what has happened in ASoIaF so far: if we disregard the camel (which under the weight of all the honour might be associated with the Starks), Eddard refused to sit the Iron Throne himself, thus leading to its eventual overtaking by the lion (Lannisters), which will then be unseated by Aegon (who is the personification of Varys' 'for the children' agenda).

PS: You seem to classify Eddard very low on the overman list, but if I may borrow a quote from Ayn Rand ("Honor is self-esteem made visible in action."), he may be the most egotistical character in the series, even if in a somewhat roundabout way (do to others as you wish others to do unto you).

You are very creative in making connections that seam plausible. I just get the feeling that you are trying a little to hard and bend the characters in the book and also the concepts of Nietzsche to fit together.

The Boltons are integrated and following the rules, otherwise they couldn't survive in that society. They need the Stark bride to keep their power and are just from this point of view utterly dependent. Then again I don't think a pure overman is possible within any society. Clearly Jaime is not the overman because of the reasons outlined by you. Yet he has short life affirmitive, individual, independent moments, like other characters in the series too.

I'm glad the two literary and philosophical experts of this thread have found some common ground regarding nihilism. Still I think it is important to make clear, that from his philosophical work (I don't do notebooks, no expert here ;)) shouldn't be called a nihilist, especially when you are talking about Nietzsche in less educated circles. The comparison to Schopenhauer and his conception of the will makes it really clear that N is not a nihilist.

Here I used nihilism in the meaning of passive nihilism as explained by Thelastactionhero because I feel this understanding of nihilism is closest to the understanding of "normal".people.

[Nucky Thompson]

Yes, this entire thread started as a speculation when certain similarities between those two pieces of literature seemed a bit more than your usual coincidence. I admit that some of the connections that I've tried to establish between certain characters in Martin's universe and some Nietzschean concepts, are tenuous at best, but if we are to make predictions about what is to happen in the series, such speculations seem the only way to go.

With regard to the eternal return and infinity, it is clearly a mind-numbing concept, since we cannot really grasp infinity and when we try to put it in a logical construct, the concept of infinity blows it up. Perhaps that might have been how Nietsche would perceive such a notion: don't overthink your life in place of living it, even more so for the sake of a divine gamble (the Pascal wager that you brought up). So, how would Bloodraven and the Old Gods fit into such a narrative? This eternal return seems to be personified in them (even if only via a slideshow), and I don't see Bloodraven as being too happy about it, yet he seems determined this is necessary for the smooth running of life on Planetos.

[Thelastactionhero]

You are very creative in making connections that seam plausible. I just get the feeling that you are trying a little to hard and bend the characters in the book and also the concepts of Nietzsche to fit together.

The Boltons are integrated and following the rules, otherwise they couldn't survive in that society. They need the Stark bride to keep their power and are just from this point of view utterly dependent. Then again I don't think a pure overman is possible within any society. Clearly Jaime is not the overman because of the reasons outlined by you. Yet he has short life affirmitive, individual, independent moments, like other characters in the series too.

I'm glad the two literary and philosophical experts of this thread have found some common ground regarding nihilism. Still I think it is important to make clear, that from his philosophical work (I don't do notebooks, no expert here ;)) shouldn't be called a nihilist, especially when you are talking about Nietzsche in less educated circles. The comparison to Schopenhauer and his conception of the will makes it really clear that N is not a nihilist.

Here I used nihilism in the meaning of passive nihilism as explained by Thelastactionhero because I feel this understanding of nihilism is closest to the understanding of "normal".people.

Thanks for the kind words, (I wish I could claim to be an expert but you really can't be unless you read the texts in German :( ) and I think you're pretty much right on the money. Nietzsche's existential model is certainly much more hopeful than Schopenhauer's pessimism. And yet something I've always found rather inspiring about Schopenhauer's project is that, while life is cruel, short, and pointless, his assertion that all humans and all life forms are imperfect refractions of the Will reveals a beautiful underlying thread that binds everyone and everything together. It's for this very reason that he stands as one of the first philosophers to take up the cause of Animal Rights, as he felt that animals, though lacking sentience in the way we possess it, are also connected and a part of us insofar as we are each an illusory reflection of a larger transcendental order. In terms of nihilism though, Schopenhauer, in theory, though certainly not in practice, was an advocate of letting our species die out rather than try to make something out of this shitty hand of cards we've been dealt, so your categorization of him as a passive nihilism is an accurate enough assessment.

As for the question of the Old Gods brought up by the OP, there might be room for an interpretation of the ER within the scope of the Blood Raven arc (there is a cyclical nature there), but I don't know if we have enough information yet in order to establish that sort of connection, or if it would really be ER in the Nietzschean sense per say. I see the Old Gods and the Northerners' affinity for them as more a question of value judgments, the dissolution of a certain set of values in place of new ones, (the Seven, Rhillor). I think that there's a bit more too it than just mere religious ideology going in and out of style though, seeing as Gods clearly have some relative power to intervene in the mortal realm, and there might be room to investigate how the relationship between Westerosi and their Gods informs the value systems and power vacuums which constantly cause conflict throughout the Seven Kingdoms.

[UVA]

Thanks for the kind words, (I wish I could claim to be an expert but you really can't be unless you read the texts in German :( ) and I think you're pretty much right on the money. Nietzsche's existential model is certainly much more hopeful than Schopenhauer's pessimism. And yet something I've always found rather inspiring about Schopenhauer's project is that, while life is cruel, short, and pointless, his assertion that all humans and all life forms are imperfect refractions of the Will reveals a beautiful underlying thread that binds everyone and everything together. It's for this very reason that he stands as one of the first philosophers to take up the cause of Animal Rights, as he felt that animals, though lacking sentience in the way we possess it, are also connected and a part of us insofar as we are each an illusory reflection of a larger transcendental order. In terms of nihilism though, Schopenhauer, in theory, though certainly not in practice, was an advocate of letting our species die out rather than try to make something out of this shitty hand of cards we've been dealt, so your categorization of him as a passive nihilism is an accurate enough assessment.

I've enjoyed reading the posts in this thread. Yea, as a philologist (or proto-linguist whatever) this is very true of Nietzsche. Heidegger went further to claim that German and Attic Greek were the languages that best captured his ontology but I wonder if he was just a German redneck at heart. But one of my favorite and most moving passages in all of philosophy is in the Untimely Meditations, specifically the essay 'Schopenhauer as Educator'. Essentially, N. summarizes his own project of life affirmation via a citation from the 18thc. German author Heinrich von Kleist.

If Kant ever should begin to exercise any wide influence we shall be aware of it in the form of a gnawing and disintegrating skepticism and relativism; and only in the most active and noble spirits who have never been able to exist in a state of doubt would there appear instead that undermining and despair of all truth such as Heinrich von Kleist for example experience as the effect of the Kantian philosophy. "Not long ago," he writes in his moving way, "I became acquainted with the Kantian philosophy—and I now have to tell you of a thought I derived from it, which I feel free to do because I have no reason to fear it will shatter you so profoundly and painfully as it has me. —We are unable to decide whether that which we call truth really is truth, or whether it only appears to us to be. If the latter, then the truth we assemble here is nothing after our death, and all endeavor to acquire a possession which will follow us to the grave is in vain. —If the point of this thought does not penetrate your heart, do not smile at one who feels wounded by it in the deepest and most sacred part of his being. My one great aim has failed me and I have no other." [Letter to Wilhelmine von Zenge, Mar. 22, 1801.] When indeed will men feel in this natural Kleistian fashion, when will they again learn to assess the meaning of a philosophy in the "most sacred part" of their being? And yet this must be done if we are to understand what, after Kant, Schopenhauer can be to us—namely the leader who leads us from the heights of skeptical gloom or criticizing renunciation up to the heights of tragic contemplation, to the nocturnal sky and its stars extended endlessly above us, and who was himself the first to take his path

In this way, I do not see any ASOIAF character as embodying this N. ideal. In terms of overcoming and threatening a new order, arguably Dany as a destroyer of worlds perhaps best fits this mode, or Bloodraven who appears to be omniscient, residing for all intents and purposes outside of time. Yet all adhere to a value system that appeals or is dependent on a supra-reality.

Tywin and LF would be critiqued under the lens of N.'s slave/ressentiment morality. So much of what motivates both characters is a tacit sense of deficiency and being defined by what they are not. LF in particular, cf. in his scenes after he returns to the Fingers with Sansa, drip in bitterness and hostility. Sure he's clever but perhaps LF has overextended this conception of himself as the smartest guy in the room. And this is chiefly because his physical limitations prevent him from achieving the essence of masculinity in a predominantly martial, hero-worshiping culture. His relative rise in status and influence are not so much due to his inherent talents as they are on the powerful's perception of them; and 2) even though he ostensibly rejects the master class values vis-a-vis his desire for chaos, LF is essentially determined by those values and constructs.

It's been a while since I've read and thought about N.'s ideas, but it was always my interpretative that the Doctrine of ER was not a metaphysical reality but rather another way of explaining an existential consequence of Kantian epistemology, that the breadth and depth of human experience is circumscribed by our perceptual apparatus of time and 3D space.

[Premier League]

Oh god. Nietzsche.

[Parizad]

I know that similarities can be found between many works of literature, and those are often random or sometimes even the author could subconsciously include them to the book. In any case, I think that it's worth further investigating.

Several days ago, while I was reading Nietzsche's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra', I noticed that there are a lot of similar themes with ASoIaF. There were mentions of a long twilight, of those in tombs being resurrected and of a Nightswatchman. What seemed like the deepest parallel, though, was the resemblance of Nietzsche's overman with his striving for overcoming oneself and complete disregard for those around him, to the Ironborn and how they let the children of thralls become equal with the other Ironborn after they have evolved according to Ironborn policies. There was an eerie resemblance of "What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger" in Nietzsche's "Only where there are tombs, there are resurrections".

What do you think? Someone who is more knowledgable about Nietzsche can weigh in here (I am only halfway through the Zarathustra book). Could there be some tropes that Martin borrowed from Nietzsche? If so, what implications could be made about the events to come in the series? It seems to me that his metaphor about the long twilight being caused by man's denial of his overman future may be somehow useful when determining the meaning of the Long Night in ASoIaF.

Zarathust's teaching is full of these concepts. In the heart of all of it is that cold and dark and their servants are the enemies of life and fire and sun which are the symbols of Ahoura the God of Zoroastrians. Nietzsche is drawing from this approach to philosophy in that book. Since this is one of the oldest religions in the world, I think it's not unlikely that whoever writes about this theme in the future have a lot in common. In this case Nietzsche and GRRM

[Hrafntýr]

Great thread, thank you to the OP and to all who posted such thoughtful replies, it makes for an interesting read.

I find it hard to decide whether GRRM is actually incorporating a specifically Nietzschean critique, or if he simply dislikes simplistic dualistic moral frameworks, or the life-negating vision of "a land of always summer" where there is no death.

One might, however, see a nod in the direction of Zarathustra in Bloodraven's "thousand eyes and one" sobriquet, which calls to mind the "thousand goals and one," which could be a hint to consider BR an Übermensch figure. I also like UVA's consideration of Dany as another such figure, especially in light of her possible sublation in her final chapter of ADwD of master and slave moralities, in a full embrace of what could be read as the will to power. At the very least, I expect that the Rhllorists, with their life-denying theology of ressentiment, slavishly waiting for the Chosen One of the Lord of Light to redeem them from the Dark, are likely to be surprised by what their chosen savior Dany ends up delivering.

[Nucky Thompson]

Well, one may argue that the entire focus on heraldry in Martin's works serves to emphasize the diversity of the various individuals striving for the overman status and their clash (of kings) may be in the form of a game (of thrones) but they do differ from the smallfolk. Basically, Nietzsche's 'The errors of great men are venerable, because they are more fruitful than the the truths of little men'. It is via such multiplication of the sides in the conflict that Martin creates his much advertised 'moral ambiguity' and is able to describe 'the human heart in conflict with itself' as he himself puts it.

But perhaps I got it wrong - it is not GRRM who consciously or subconsciously mirrors certain notions of Nietzsche, perhaps it is simply that Nietzsche's works cover the epistemological ground over which worlds such as Westeros (Planetos?) are being built upon. And it's not a single source of parallels - reading certain historical accounts from the real world, there are sometimes events and actions that remind me of a certain ASoIaF character - and this is to be expected, since I heard a GRRM interview where he stated that there is no need for an author to invent it all since history already has an endless supply of real events in store, events that one could never make up from scratch.

Another thought that occurred to me is how Stannis' de facto exile on Dragonstone parallels Zarathustra's cave and its significance for his character growth, so to say. And the quote above for the transfer from sceptical gloom to tragic contemplation seemingly applies to the 'I am no Robert. But we will take Winterfell or die in the attempt.' worldview.

[Lykos]

We´ll know when Stannis descends on Roose, just to be told that the only thing he is interested in, is Ramsay´s brain. ;)

"That, however, of which I am master and knower, is the BRAIN of the leech:—that is MY world!" Thus Spake Zaratustra.

I think that Martin does know Nietzsche´s work, and some parallels were intentional, but I´m not knowledgable enough to determine wether he is exploring some of the provokative philosophical ideas, or trying to criticise the misconception and abuse of those ideas. I see a lot of philosophical themes touched upon in ASoIaF, from Plato´s The Republic to Sartre´s works about individual responsinility, guilt and freedom ("L'enfer, c'est les autres";) ), but that is hardly surprising in a work that examines human nature and the mechanics of power and love.

You phrased that very well.

And it's not a single source of parallels - reading certain historical accounts from the real world, there are sometimes events and actions that remind me of a certain ASoIaF character - and this is to be expected, since I heard a GRRM interview where he stated that there is no need for an author to invent it all since history already has an endless supply of real events in store, events that one could never make up from scratch.

[dopplerdog]

Here we have a thread on ASOIAF and Nietzsche, but no-one's noticed this gem from Thus Spake Zarathustra:

Zarathustra however spake thus:

Ye despairing ones! Ye strange ones! So it was YOUR cry of distress that I heard? And now do I know also where he is to be sought, whom I have sought for in vain to-day: THE HIGHER MAN—:

—In mine own cave sitteth he, the higher man! But why do I wonder! Have not I myself allured him to me by honey-offerings and artful lure-calls of my happiness?

[...]

This is mine empire and my dominion: that which is mine, however, shall this evening and tonight be yours. Mine animals shall serve you: let my cave be your resting-place!

At house and home with me shall no one despair: in my purlieus do I protect every one from his wild beasts. And that is the first thing which I offer you: security!

The second thing, however, is my little finger. And when ye have THAT, then take the whole hand also, yea, and the heart with it! Welcome here, welcome to you, my guests!"

Thus spake Zarathustra, and laughed with love and mischief.

Given Littlefinger's world view, it could be more than a mere coincidence. The "Chaos is a Ladder" speech from the show is pure Nietzsche:

Only the ladder is real.

The climb is all there is

[James Arryn]

I could believe Shakespeare was a nihilist if I didn't know MacBeth was written centuries before the ideology was defined.