So I have been reading a lot of Nietzsche because in my opinion he has a rather interesting view on certain things.

One of the things I came across which I do not understand is his quote 'I and me are always too deep in conversation' as, after investigating, it seemed that it was contradictive with regard to perspectivism and nihilism.

I thought this because 'I' and 'Me' have the following meanings:

  1. I = subjective, it is the subject in a verb, e.g. de executer.
  2. Me = objective, it is the object in a verb, it receives an as a consequence of an execution.

Obviously this approach is not correct, therefore I was wondering whether anyone could help me out?

  • He was probably (unwittingly) paying hommage to Fichte. :)
    – Gordon
    Apr 12, 2018 at 18:13
  • @Gordon how so? Apr 12, 2018 at 18:21
  • Copleston, Hist. Phil v. 7, p 40, para. 3, Gentlemen, think the wall... books.google.com/…
    – Gordon
    Apr 12, 2018 at 18:23
  • 1
    The only thing I could think of is placing Nietzsche in the eternal recurrence theorem (where the book was based on) which means that for one to become an übermensch, one must fight its ghost of change, which indicates some kind of objectivity. Therefore to become ubermensch one must have some kind of objectivity within itself, as everything is an interpretation of something, and therefore subjective, thus proving one should have an objective side within itself, which, to become an übermensch, you need to master. Apr 12, 2018 at 19:12
  • 2
    You are clipping this sentence at a colon. Which means you are missing the main part. goodreads.com/quotes/… With this context it seems clear he is saying that thinking needs grounding in another perspective to prevent meaningless self-inflicted pain.
    – user9166
    Apr 12, 2018 at 21:17

2 Answers 2



Let's get the quotation in front of us. Tt's from 'On the Friend', Thus Spake Zarathustra :

"One is always too many around me" - thus thinks the hermit. "Always one times one - in the long run that makes two!" ['Einer ist immer zu viel um mich' – also denkt der Einsiedler. »Immer Einmal Eins – das giebt auf die Dauer Zwei!]

I and me are always too eager in conversation : how could I stand it if there were no friend ? [Ich und Mich sind immer zu eifrig im Gespräche: wie wäre es auszuhalten, wenn es nicht einen Freund gäbe?]

For the hermit the friend is always a third : the third is the cork that prevents the conversation of the two from sinking into the depths.

Oh, there are too many depths for all hermits. That is why they long for a friend and his height. (F. Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, tr. A. Del Caro, Cambridge : CUP, 2006, 40.)


No easy task ! How I read it is that the hermit can only self-reflect : think of a question, work out an answer, have an idea and develop or destroy it. The hermit can only conduct an internal dialogue in which s/he is both questioner and answerer, proposer and critic. 'One times one ... that makes two'. (But why only 'in the long run' - auf die Dauer?) Without the friend, as an external viewpoint or frame of reference, the internal dialogue becomes an endless self-entanglement : a self-comfort, self-torture or illusion.

As Willow Verkerk puts it : 'Nietzsche expresses the need for friends to challenge beliefs, to inspire each other into overcoming and to “a yearning for the Overhuman” (Z I: “On the Friend”)'. (Willow Verkerk, 'Nietzsche's Goal of Friendship', Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Autumn 2014), p. 279.) How this inspiration is to come about is not clear to me.


F. Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, tr. A. Del Caro, Cambridge : CUP, 2006.

Willow Verkerk, 'Nietzsche's Goal of Friendship', Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Autumn 2014), pp. 279-91.

Robert C. Miner, 'Nietzsche on Friendship', Journal of Nietzsche Studies, No. 40 (AUTUMN 2010), pp. 47-69.

  • I ended up with something like: "The 'I', our subjectivity must go into conversation with the 'me' our objectivity, the basis of our interpretation, to decide how to transcend ones cultures norms and values. (Because our subjectivity can not exist without an objectivity as we would have nothing to interpret). Apr 13, 2018 at 18:42

I haven't studied Nietzsche's philosophy. So, the only thing I can do here is to verify this only statement.

We often say--"I asked myself." And this is never considered to be nonsense.

Here, 'myself' must mean something other than 'I'. Then only this statement would become meaningful. So, 'myself' is the 'me' that represents my SELF. In our daily conversation, this must be related to our intellect. And the 'I' (in this case) must be something related to our mind because it has a wavering tendency.

If the above statement has got any meaning, 'me' must be something purer and subtler than 'I'. That may be the reason for his statement: "I and me are always too deep in conversation."

I don't know whether Nietzsche knew about the following thought.

The mind does the function of Sankalpa, Vikalpa, - whether I can go to Dehra Dun or not. The Buddhi or intellect decides - I must go. Ahamkara self-arrogates. Chitta, which is the storehouse of Samskaras or impressions, makes the preparation and gives orders to the senses. Then the senses act. The legs move. The eyes see. After you reach Dehra Dun the Vritti or wave of thought that was agitating you to see Dehra Dun subsides or gets dissolution (Laya) and you get temporary peace after the gratification of your desire.

See the link: http://sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=854

  1. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Introduction_to_Yoga/Lecture_II/Chapter_2

  2. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28297/7/07_chapter%201.pdf

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .