Twilight of the Idols
{"WorkMasterId":5797,"WpPageId":271242,"ParentWpPageId":189661,"Slug":"twilight-of-the-idols","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/twilight-of-the-idols/","RelativeUrl":"theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/twilight-of-the-idols/","HasFullText":true,"RawHtmlLength":540382,"CleanHtmlLength":484272,"Kicker":"Philosophy Work","Title":"Twilight of the Idols","Deck":"Nietzsche compresses his critique of idols, morality, reason, metaphysics, Socrates, Christianity, and modern culture into aphoristic hammer blows.","BackLink":{"Text":"Back to Friedrich Nietzsche","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/"},"AuthorCard":{"Label":"Author","Title":"Friedrich Nietzsche","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/","MediaHref":"","ImageSrc":"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/friedrich-nietzsche-01-klassik-stoeving-portrait.jpg","ImageAlt":"Friedrich Nietzsche portrait by Hans Olde Stoewing","FilterTerra":"Western Europe","ClickText":"Friedrich Nietzsche","ClickHref":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/","Copies":["1844 CE – 1900 CE","Röcken, Saxony, Prussia","German philosopher of genealogy, perspectivism, tragedy, value creation, nihilism, and the critique of Christianity whose work reshaped modern ethics, aesthetics, psychology, and continental philosophy."]},"ContextCards":[{"Label":"Period","Key":"Period:4","Title":"Modern History","DateText":"1800 CE – 1944 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/"},{"Label":"Era","Key":"Era:11","Title":"Long 19th Century","DateText":"1870 CE – 1913 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/philosophers-of-the-long-19th-century/"},{"Label":"Composition","Title":"1888 CE","Url":"","DateText":""}],"DateNote":"Written in 1888 CE and published in 1889; visible late aphoristic/status note required.","GeoCards":[{"Label":"Region","Key":"Region:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita","Key":"TerraAvita:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita Region","Key":"TerraAvitaRegion:3"},{"Label":"Modern Country","Key":"Country:DEU:1"}],"OriginalTitle":"Götzen-Dämmerung","Language":"German","DisciplineCards":[{"Label":"Primary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:metaphysics"},{"Label":"Secondary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:ethics"}],"Tradition":"Continental philosophy / Nietzschean critique","FullText":{"Title":"Full Text","Copy":"Public-domain full text from Project Gutenberg eBook #52263 .","Url":"","Label":"","Kicker":"","Cards":[]},"CoreThesis":["Nietzsche compresses his critique of idols, morality, reason, metaphysics, Socrates, Christianity, and modern culture into aphoristic hammer blows."],"Classification":{"AlternateTitles":"Twilight of the Idols, or How to Philosophize with a Hammer","KeyConcepts":"Friedrich Nietzsche; perspectivism; genealogy; will to power; eternal recurrence; nihilism; value creation; master morality; slave morality; ressentiment; Dionysian; Apollonian; tragedy; death of God; Christianity; ascetic ideal; language; drives; body; science; morality; art; Zarathustra","Methodology":"Genealogy, aphorism, philology, cultural criticism, polemic, psychological diagnosis, literary-philosophical experiment, historical reconstruction, and critique of morality and religion.","Structure":"The page records an approved Nietzsche work with visible date, posthumous, unpublished, aphoristic, revised, embedded, or fragmentary notes where needed."},"Arguments":["Nietzsche compresses his critique of idols, morality, reason, metaphysics, Socrates, Christianity, and modern culture into aphoristic hammer blows."],"Influence":{"InfluencedBy":"Schopenhauer, Wagner, Heraclitus, Greek tragedy, Presocratic philosophy, Paul Ree, French moralists, philology, and nineteenth-century naturalism.","InfluenceOn":""},"Significance":["Included as one of the direct Nietzsche work pages approved for the Friedrich Nietzsche full-process update.","The work documents Nietzsche\u0027s influence on morality, nihilism, religion critique, aesthetics, language, psychology, genealogy, and continental philosophy."],"EvidenceNote":["Direct Nietzsche work page approved in the Friedrich Nietzsche update. The Will to Power, collected works, correspondence, notebooks, fragments, individual aphorisms, editorial compilations, modern translations, catalog rows, biographies, and scholarship remain evidence/Other Voices."],"MainSections":[{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Versions","BodyHtml":"\u003cdiv class=\"dz-philo__full-version-grid\"\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-version-card\"\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-provider\"\u003eProject Gutenberg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ch3 class=\"dz-philo__full-version-title\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #52263\u003c/h3\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-meta\"\u003eHtmlText · Imported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ca class=\"dz-philo__full-version-link\" href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52263\"\u003eOpen full version\u003c/a\u003e\n \u003c/article\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e"},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Core Thesis","Paragraphs":["Nietzsche compresses his critique of idols, morality, reason, metaphysics, Socrates, Christianity, and modern culture into aphoristic hammer blows."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Classification","Fields":[{"Label":"Alternate Titles","Value":"Twilight of the Idols, or How to Philosophize with a Hammer"},{"Label":"Key Concepts","Value":"Friedrich Nietzsche; perspectivism; genealogy; will to power; eternal recurrence; nihilism; value creation; master morality; slave morality; ressentiment; Dionysian; Apollonian; tragedy; death of God; Christianity; ascetic ideal; language; drives; body; science; morality; art; Zarathustra"},{"Label":"Methodology","Value":"Genealogy, aphorism, philology, cultural criticism, polemic, psychological diagnosis, literary-philosophical experiment, historical reconstruction, and critique of morality and religion."},{"Label":"Structure","Value":"The page records an approved Nietzsche work with visible date, posthumous, unpublished, aphoristic, revised, embedded, or fragmentary notes where needed."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Arguments","Paragraphs":["Nietzsche compresses his critique of idols, morality, reason, metaphysics, Socrates, Christianity, and modern culture into aphoristic hammer blows."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Influence","Fields":[{"Label":"Influenced By","Value":"Schopenhauer, Wagner, Heraclitus, Greek tragedy, Presocratic philosophy, Paul Ree, French moralists, philology, and nineteenth-century naturalism."},{"Label":"Influence On","Value":"Heidegger, existentialism, Foucault, Deleuze, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, literary modernism, genealogy, value theory, and modern continental philosophy."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Significance","Paragraphs":["Included as one of the direct Nietzsche work pages approved for the Friedrich Nietzsche full-process update.","The work documents Nietzsche\u0027s influence on morality, nihilism, religion critique, aesthetics, language, psychology, genealogy, and continental philosophy."]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Evidence Note","Paragraphs":["Direct Nietzsche work page approved in the Friedrich Nietzsche update. The Will to Power, collected works, correspondence, notebooks, fragments, individual aphorisms, editorial compilations, modern translations, catalog rows, biographies, and scholarship remain evidence/Other Voices."]},{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Text","BodyHtml":"\u003cp class=\"dz-philo__section-copy dz-philo__full-text-source\"\u003ePublic-domain full text from \u003ca href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52263\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #52263\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-text-body\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"figcenter\" style=\"width: 500px;\"\u003e\r\n\u003cimg alt=\"\" src=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-twilight-of-the-idols-cover.png\" width=\"500\" id=\"img_images_cover.png\"\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003ch1\u003eTHE TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS\u003c/h1\u003e\r\n\u003ch3\u003eBY\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\u003ch2\u003eFRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003eOr, How to Philosophise with the Hammer\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003eTHE ANTICHRIST\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ci\u003eNOTES TO ZARATHUSTRA, AND ETERNAL RECURRENCE\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003eTRANSLATED BY\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003eANTHONY M. LUDOVICI\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"figcenter\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\r\n\u003cimg alt=\"\" src=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-twilight-of-the-idols-ill-niet.jpg\" width=\"175\" id=\"img_images_ill_niet.jpg\"\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003eThe Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003eThe First Complete and Authorised English Translation\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003eEdited by Dr Oscar Levy\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003eVolume Sixteen\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003eT.N. FOULIS\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003e13 \u0026amp; 15 FREDERICK STREET\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003eEDINBURGH: AND LONDON\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003e1911\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"full\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"font-size: 0.8em;\"\u003e\r\nCONTENTS\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cbr\u003e\r\nTWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#TRANSLATORS_PREFACE\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eTRANSLATOR’S PREFACE\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#PREFACE\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003ePREFACE\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#MAXIMS_AND_MISSILES\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eMAXIMS AND MISSILES\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#THE_PROBLEM_OF_SOCRATES\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eTHE PROBLEM OF SOCRATES\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#REASON_IN_PHILOSOPHY\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e“REASON” IN PHILOSOPHY\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#MORALITY_AS_THE_ENEMY_OF_NATURE\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eMORALITY AS THE ENEMY OF NATURE\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#THE_FOUR_GREAT_ERRORS\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eTHE FOUR GREAT ERRORS\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#THE_IMPROVERS_OF_MANKIND\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eTHE “IMPROVERS” OF MANKIND\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#THINGS_THE_GERMANS_LACK\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eTHINGS THE GERMANS LACK\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#SKIRMISHES_IN_A_WAR_WITH_THE_AGE\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eSKIRMISHES IN A WAR WITH THE AGE\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#THINGS_I_OWE_TO_THE_ANCIENTS\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eTHINGS I OWE TO THE ANCIENTS\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#THE_ANTICHRIST\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eTHE ANTICHRIST\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#THE_ETERNAL_RECURRENCE\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eTHE ETERNAL RECURRENCE\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ca href=\"#THUS_SPAKE_ZARATHUSTRA\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eNOTES TO ZARATHUSTRA\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_vii\"\u003e[Pg vii]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"TRANSLATORS_PREFACE\"\u003eTRANSLATOR’S PREFACE\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Twilight of the Idols\u003c/i\u003e was written towards the end of the summer\r\nof 1888, its composition seems to have occupied only a few days,—so\r\nfew indeed that, in \u003ci\u003eEcce Homo\u003c/i\u003e (p. 118), Nietzsche says he hesitates\r\nto give their number; but, in any case, we know it was completed on the\r\n3rd of September in Sils Maria. The manuscript which was dispatched to\r\nthe printers on the 7th of September bore the title: “\u003ci\u003eIdle Hours of a\r\nPsychologist\u003c/i\u003e”; this, however, was abandoned in favour of the present\r\ntitle, while the work was going through the press. During September\r\nand the early part of October 1888, Nietzsche added to the original\r\ncontents of the book by inserting the whole section entitled “Things\r\nthe Germans Lack,” and aphorisms 32-43 of “Skirmishes in a War with the\r\nAge”; and the book, as it now stands, represents exactly the form in\r\nwhich Nietzsche intended to publish it in the course of the year 1889.\r\nUnfortunately its author was already stricken down with illness when\r\nthe work first appeared at the end of January 1889, and he was denied\r\nthe joy of seeing it run into nine editions, of one thousand each,\r\nbefore his death in 1900.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf \u003ci\u003eThe Twilight of the Idols,\u003c/i\u003e Nietzsche says in \u003ci\u003eEcce Homo\u003c/i\u003e (p.\r\n118):—“If anyone should desire to obtain a rapid sketch of how\r\neverything before my\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_viii\"\u003e[Pg viii]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e time was standing on its head, he should begin\r\nreading me in this book. That which is called ‘Idols’ on the title-page\r\nis simply the old truth that has been believed in hitherto. In plain\r\nEnglish, \u003ci\u003eThe Twilight of the Idols\u003c/i\u003e means that the old truth is on its\r\nlast legs.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eCertain it is that, for a rapid survey of the whole of Nietzsche’s\r\ndoctrine, no book, save perhaps the section entitled “Of Old and New\r\nTables” in \u003ci\u003eThus Spake Zarathustra,\u003c/i\u003e could be of more real value than\r\n\u003ci\u003eThe Twilight of the Idols.\u003c/i\u003e Here Nietzsche is quite at his best. He\r\nis ripe for the marvellous feat of the transvaluation of all values.\r\nNowhere is his language—that marvellous weapon which in his hand\r\nbecame at once so supple and so murderous—more forcible and more\r\ncondensed. Nowhere are his thoughts more profound. But all this does\r\nnot by any means imply that this book is the easiest of Nietzsche’s\r\nworks. On the contrary, I very much fear that, unless the reader is\r\nwell prepared, not only in Nietzscheism, but also in the habit of\r\ngrappling with uncommon and elusive problems, a good deal of the\r\ncontents of this work will tend rather to confuse than to enlighten\r\nhim in regard to what Nietzsche actually wishes to make clear in these\r\npages.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow much prejudice, for instance, how many traditional and deep-seated\r\nopinions, must be uprooted, if we are to see even so much as an\r\nimportant note of interrogation in the section entitled “The Problem\r\nof Socrates”—not to speak of such sections as “Morality as the Enemy\r\nof Nature,” “The Four Great Errors,” \u0026amp;c. The errors exposed in these\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_ix\"\u003e[Pg ix]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsections have a tradition of two thousand years behind them; and only a\r\nfantastic dreamer could expect them to be eradicated by a mere casual\r\nstudy of these pages. Indeed, Nietzsche himself looked forward only to\r\na gradual change in the general view of the questions he discussed; he\r\nknew only too well what the conversion of “light heads” was worth, and\r\nwhat kind of man would probably be the first to rush into his arms;\r\nand, grand psychologist that he was, he guarded himself beforehand\r\nagainst bad company by means of his famous warning:—“The first\r\nadherents of a creed do not prove anything against it.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo the aspiring student of Nietzsche, however, it ought not to be\r\nnecessary to become an immediate convert in order to be interested in\r\nthe treasure of thought which Nietzsche here lavishes upon us. For\r\nsuch a man it will be quite difficult enough to regard the questions\r\nraised in this work as actual problems. Once, however, he has succeeded\r\nin doing this, and has given his imagination time to play round these\r\nquestions \u003ci\u003eas\u003c/i\u003e problems, the particular turn or twist that Nietzsche\r\ngives to their elucidation, may then perhaps strike him, not only as\r\nvaluable, but as absolutely necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith regard to the substance of \u003ci\u003eThe Twilight of the Idols,\u003c/i\u003e Nietzsche\r\nsays in \u003ci\u003eEcce Homo\u003c/i\u003e (p. 119):—“There is the waste of an all-too-rich\r\nautumn in this book: you trip over truths. You even crush some to\r\ndeath, there are too many of them.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd what are these truths? They are things that are not yet held to\r\nbe true. They are the utterances of a man who, as a single exception,\r\nescaped for a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_x\"\u003e[Pg x]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e while the general insanity of Europe, with its blind\r\nidealism in the midst of squalor, with its unscrupulous praise of\r\nso-called “Progress” while it stood knee-deep in the belittlement\r\nof “Man,” and with its vulgar levity in the face of effeminacy and\r\ndecay;—they are the utterances of one who voiced the hopes, the\r\naims, and the realities of another world, not of an ideal world, not\r\nof a world beyond, but of a real world, of \u003ci\u003ethis\u003c/i\u003e world regenerated\r\nand reorganised upon a sounder, a more virile, and a more orderly\r\nbasis,—in fact, of a perfectly \u003ci\u003epossible\u003c/i\u003e world, one that has already\r\nexisted in the past, and could exist again, if only the stupendous\r\nrevolution of a transvaluation of all values were made possible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis then is the nature of the truths uttered by this one sane man in\r\nthe whole of Europe at the end of last century; and when, owing to his\r\nunequal struggle against the overwhelming hostile forces of his time,\r\nhis highly sensitive personality was at last forced to surrender itself\r\nto the enemy and become one with them—that is to say, insane!—at\r\nleast the record of his sanity had been safely stored away, beyond the\r\nreach of time and change, in the volumes which constitute his life-work.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"tb\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNietzsche must have started upon the “Antichrist,” immediately after\r\nhaving dispatched the “Idle Hours of a Psychologist” to the printers,\r\nand the work appears to have been finished at the end of September\r\n1888. It was intended by Nietzsche to form the first book of a large\r\nwork entitled “The Transvaluation of all Values”; but, though this work\r\nwas never completed, we can form some idea\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_xi\"\u003e[Pg xi]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e from the substance of the\r\n“Antichrist” and from the titles of the remaining three books, which\r\nalas! were never written, of what its contents would have been. These\r\ntitles are:—Book II. The Free Spirit. A Criticism of Philosophy as a\r\nNihilistic Movement. Book III. The Immoralist. A Criticism of the most\r\nFatal Kind of Ignorance,—Morality. Book IV. Dionysus. The Philosophy\r\nof Eternal Recurrence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNietzsche calls this book “An Attempted Criticism of Christianity.”\r\nModest as this sub-title is, it will probably seem not quite modest\r\nenough to those who think that Nietzsche fell far short of doing\r\njustice to their Holy Creed. Be this as it may, there is the solution\r\nof a certain profound problem in this book, which, while it is the key\r\nto all Nietzscheism, is also the justification and the sanctification\r\nof Nietzsche’s cause. The problem stated quite plainly is this: “\u003ci\u003eTo\r\nwhat end\u003c/i\u003e did Christianity avail itself of falsehood?”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMany readers of this amazing little work, who happen to be acquainted\r\nwith Nietzsche’s doctrine of Art and of Ruling, will probably feel\r\nslightly confused at the constant deprecation of falsehood, of\r\ndeception, and of arbitrary make-believe, which seems to run through\r\nthis book like a litany in praise of a certain Absolute Truth.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eRemembering Nietzsche’s utterance in volume ii. (p. 26) of the \u003ci\u003eWill\r\nto Power,\u003c/i\u003e to wit:—“The prerequisite of all living things and of\r\ntheir lives is: that there should be a large amount of faith, that\r\nit should be possible to pass definite judgments on things, and\r\nthat there should be no doubt at all\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_xii\"\u003e[Pg xii]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e concerning values. Thus it is\r\nnecessary that something should be assumed to be true, \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e that it\r\nis true;”—remembering these words, as I say, the reader may stand\r\nsomewhat aghast before all those passages in the second half of this\r\nvolume, where the very falsehoods of Christianity, its assumptions, its\r\nunwarrantable claims to Truth, are declared to be pernicious, base and\r\ncorrupt.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain and again, if we commit the error of supposing that Nietzsche\r\nbelieved in a truth that was absolute, we shall find throughout his\r\nworks reasons for charging him with apparently the very same crimes\r\nthat he here lays at the door of Christianity. What then is the\r\nexplanation of his seeming inconsistency?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is simple enough. Nietzsche’s charge of falsehood against\r\nChristianity is not a moral one,—in fact it may be taken as a general\r\nrule that Nietzsche scrupulously avoids making moral charges, and that\r\nhe emains throughout faithful to his position Beyond Good and Evil\r\n(see, for instance \u003ca href=\"#Page_130\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eAph. 6\u003c/a\u003e(Antichrist) where he repudiates all moral\r\nprejudice in charging humanity with corruption). A man who maintained\r\nthat “truth is that form of error which enables a particular species to\r\nprevail,” could not make a \u003ci\u003emoral\u003c/i\u003e charge of falsehood against any one,\r\nor any institution; but he could do so from another standpoint He could\r\nwell say, for instance, “falsehood is that kind of error which causes a\r\nparticular species to degenerate and to decay.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus the fact that Christianity “lied” becomes a subject of alarm\r\nto Nietzsche, not owing to the fact that it is immoral to lie, but\r\nbecause in this particular\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_xiii\"\u003e[Pg xiii]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e instance, the lie was harmful, hostile to\r\nlife, and dangerous to humanity; for “a belief might be false and yet\r\nlife-preserving” (\u003ci\u003eBeyond Good and Evil,\u003c/i\u003e pp. 8, 9).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuppose, therefore, we say with Nietzsche that there is no absolute\r\ntruth, but that all that has been true in the past which has been\r\nthe means of making the “plant man flourish best”—or, since the\r\nmeaning of “best” is open to some debate, let us say, flourish in a\r\nNietzschean sense, that is to say, thanks to a mastery of life, and\r\nto a preponderance of all those qualities which say yea to existence,\r\nand which suggest no flight from this world and all its pleasure and\r\npain. And suppose we add that, wherever we may find the plant man\r\nflourishing, in this sense, we should there suspect the existence of\r\ntruth?—I If we say this with Nietzsche, any sort of assumption or\r\narbitrary valuation which aims at a reverse order of things, becomes a\r\ndangerous lie in a super-moral and purely physiological sense.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith these preparatory remarks we are now prepared to read\r\n\u003ca href=\"#Page_215\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eaphorism 56\u003c/a\u003e with a complete understanding of what Nietzsche means, and\r\nto recognise in this particular aphorism the key to the whole of\r\nNietzsche’s attitude towards Christianity. It is at once a solution of\r\nour problem, and a justification of its author’s position. Naturally,\r\nit still remains open to Nietzsche’s opponents to argue, if they\r\nchoose, that man has flourished best under the sway of nihilistic\r\nreligions—religions which deny life,—and that consequently the\r\nfalsehoods of Christianity are not only warrantable but also in the\r\nhighest degree blessed; but, in any case, the aphorism in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_xiv\"\u003e[Pg xiv]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e question\r\ncompletely exonerates Nietzsche from a charge of inconsistency in the\r\nuse of the terms “truth” and “falsehood” throughout his works, and\r\nit moreover settles once and for all the exact altitude from which\r\nour author looked down upon the religions of the world, not only to\r\ncriticise them, but also to \u003ci\u003eplace\u003c/i\u003e them in the order of their merit as\r\ndisciplinary systems aiming at the cultivation of particular types of\r\nmen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNietzsche says in \u003ca href=\"#Page_215\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eaphorism 56\u003c/a\u003e:—“After all, the question is, to what\r\nend are falsehoods perpetrated? The fact that, in Christianity, ‘holy’\r\nends are entirely absent, constitutes \u003ci\u003emy\u003c/i\u003e objection to the means it\r\nemploys. Its ends are only \u003ci\u003ebad\u003c/i\u003e ends: the poisoning, the calumniation\r\nand the denial of life, the contempt of the body, the degradation and\r\nself-pollution of man by virtue of the concept sin,—consequently its\r\nmeans are bad as well.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus, to repeat it once more, it is not because Christianity availed\r\nitself of all kinds of lies that Nietzsche condemns it; for the Book\r\nof Manu—which he admires—is just as full of falsehood as the Semitic\r\nBook of Laws; but, in the Book of Manu the lies are calculated to\r\npreserve and to create a strong and noble type of man, whereas in\r\nChristianity the opposite type was the aim,—an aim which has been\r\nachieved in a manner far exceeding even the expectations of the\r\nfaithful.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis then is the main argument of the book and its conclusion; but, in\r\nthe course of the general elaboration of this argument, many important\r\nside-issues are touched upon and developed, wherein Nietzsche reveals\r\nhimself as something very much\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_xv\"\u003e[Pg xv]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e more valuable than a mere iconoclast.\r\nOf course, on every page of his philosophy,—whatever his enemies may\r\nmaintain to the contrary,—he never once ceases to construct, since he\r\nis incessantly enumerating and emphasising those qualities and types\r\nwhich he fain would rear, as against those he fain would see destroyed;\r\nbut it is in \u003ca href=\"#Page_216\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003eaphorism 57\u003c/a\u003e of this book that Nietzsche makes the\r\nplainest and most complete statement of his actual taste in Sociology,\r\nand it is upon this aphorism that all his followers and disciples will\r\nultimately have to build, if Nietzscheism is ever to become something\r\nmore than a merely intellectual movement.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 65%; font-size: 0.8em;\"\u003eANTHONY M. LUDOVICI.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_xvii\"\u003e[Pg xvii]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"PREFACE\"\u003ePREFACE\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo maintain a cheerful attitude of mind in the midst of a gloomy and\r\nexceedingly responsible task, is no slight artistic feat. And yet, what\r\ncould be more necessary than cheerfulness? Nothing ever succeeds which\r\nexuberant spirits have not helped to produce. Surplus power, alone,\r\nis the proof of power.—A \u003ci\u003etransvaluation of all values,\u003c/i\u003e—this note\r\nof interrogation which is so black, so huge, that it casts a shadow\r\neven upon him who affixes it,—is a task of such fatal import, that\r\nhe who undertakes it is compelled every now and then to rush out into\r\nthe sunlight in order to shake himself free from an earnestness that\r\nbecomes crushing, far too crushing. This end justifies every means,\r\nevery event on the road to it is a windfall. Above all \u003ci\u003ewar.\u003c/i\u003e War has\r\nalways been the great policy of all spirits who have penetrated too\r\nfar into themselves or who have grown too deep; a wound stimulates the\r\nrecuperative powers. For many years, a maxim, the origin of which I\r\nwithhold from learned curiosity, has been my motto:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 10%;\"\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003eincrescunt animi, virescit volnere virtus.\u003c/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt other times another means of recovery which is even more to my\r\ntaste, is to cross-examine idols. There are more idols than realities\r\nin the world:\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_xviii\"\u003e[Pg xviii]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e this constitutes my “evil eye” for this world: it is\r\nalso my “evil ear.” To put questions in this quarter with a hammer, and\r\nto hear perchance that well-known hollow sound which tells of blown-out\r\nfrogs,—what a joy this is for one who has ears even behind his ears,\r\nfor an old psychologist and Pied Piper like myself in whose presence\r\nprecisely that which would fain be silent, \u003ci\u003emust betray itself.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEven this treatise—as its title shows—is above all a recreation,\r\na ray of sunshine, a leap sideways of a psychologist in his leisure\r\nmoments. Maybe, too, a new war? And are we again cross-examining new\r\nidols? This little work is a great declaration of war; and with regard\r\nto the cross-examining of idols, this time it is not the idols of the\r\nage but eternal idols which are here struck with a hammer as with\r\na tuning fork,—there are certainly no idols which are older, more\r\nconvinced, and more inflated. Neither are there any more hollow. This\r\ndoes not alter the fact that they are believed in more than any others,\r\nbesides they are never called idols,—at least, not the most exalted\r\namong their number.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 65%; font-size: 0.8em;\"\u003eFRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 5%; font-size: 0.8em;\"\u003eTURIN, the 30th \u003ci\u003eSeptember\u003c/i\u003e 1888.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 5%; font-size: 0.8em;\"\u003eon the day when the first\u003cbr\u003e book of the Transvaluation\u003cbr\u003e of all Values was\r\nfinished.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_1\"\u003e[Pg 1]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"MAXIMS_AND_MISSILES\"\u003eMAXIMS AND MISSILES\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIdleness is the parent of all psychology. What? Is psychology then\r\na—vice?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEven the pluckiest among us has but seldom the courage of what he\r\nreally knows.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAristotle says that in order to live alone, a man must be either an\r\nanimal or a god. The third alternative is lacking: a man must be\r\nboth—a \u003ci\u003ephilosopher.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“All truth is simple.”—Is not this a double lie?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOnce for all I wish to be blind to many things.—Wisdom sets bounds\r\neven to knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA man recovers best from his exceptional nature—his\r\nintellectuality—by giving his animal instincts a chance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_2\"\u003e[Pg 2]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhich is it? Is man only a blunder of God? Or is God only a blunder of\r\nman?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eFrom the military school of life.\u003c/i\u003e—That which does not kill me, makes\r\nme stronger.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHelp thyself, then everyone will help thee. A principle of\r\nneighbour-love.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA man should not play the coward to his deeds. He should not repudiate\r\nthem once he has performed them. Pangs of conscience are indecent.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eCan a donkey be tragic?—To perish beneath a load that one can neither\r\nbear nor throw off? This is the case of the Philosopher.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf a man knows the wherefore of his existence, then the manner of it\r\ncan take care of itself. Man does not aspire to happiness; only the\r\nEnglishman does that.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMan created woman—out of what? Out of a rib of his god,—of his\r\n“ideal.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat? Art thou looking for something? Thou\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_3\"\u003e[Pg 3]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e wouldst fain multiply\r\nthyself tenfold, a hundredfold? Thou seekest followers? Seek ciphers!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePosthumous men, like myself, are not so well understood as men who\r\nreflect their age, but they are heard with more respect. In plain\r\nEnglish: we are never understood—hence our authority.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eAmong women.\u003c/i\u003e—“Truth? Oh, you do not know truth! Is it not an outrage\r\non all our \u003ci\u003epudeurs?\u003c/i\u003e”—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is an artist after my own heart, modest in his needs: he really\r\nwants only two things, his bread and his art—\u003ci\u003epanem et Circem.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHe who knows not how to plant his will in things, at least endows them\r\nwith some meaning: that is to say, he believes that a will is already\r\npresent in them. (A principle of faith.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat? Ye chose virtue and the heaving breast, and at the same time\r\nye squint covetously at the advantages of the unscrupulous.—But\r\nwith virtue ye renounce all “advantages” … (to be nailed to an\r\nAntisemite’s door).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe perfect woman perpetrates literature as if it were a petty vice: as\r\nan experiment, \u003ci\u003een passant,\u003c/i\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_4\"\u003e[Pg 4]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e and looking about her all the while to\r\nsee whether anybody is noticing her, hoping that somebody \u003ci\u003eis\u003c/i\u003e noticing\r\nher.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne should adopt only those situations in which one is in no need of\r\nsham virtues, but rather, like the tight-rope dancer on his tight rope,\r\nin which one must either fall or stand—or escape.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Evil men have no songs.”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1_1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1_1\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e—How is it that the Russians have songs?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“German intellect”; for eighteen years this has been a \u003ci\u003econtradictio in\r\nadjecto.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBy seeking the beginnings of things, a man becomes a crab. The\r\nhistorian looks backwards: in the end he also \u003ci\u003ebelieves\u003c/i\u003e backwards.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_5\"\u003e[Pg 5]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eContentment preserves one even from catching cold. Has a woman who knew\r\nthat she was well-dressed ever caught cold?—No, not even when she had\r\nscarcely a rag to her back.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI distrust all systematisers, and avoid them. The will to a system,\r\nshows a lack of honesty.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMan thinks woman profound—why? Because he can never fathom her depths.\r\nWoman is not even shallow.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen woman possesses masculine virtues, she is enough to make you run\r\naway. When she possesses no masculine virtues, she herself runs away.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“How often conscience had to bite in times gone by! What good teeth it\r\nmust have had! And to-day, what is amiss?”—A dentist’s question.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eErrors of haste are seldom committed singly. The first time a man\r\nalways docs too much. And precisely on that account he commits a second\r\nerror, and then he does too little.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe trodden worm curls up. This testifies to its caution. It thus\r\nreduces its chances of being trodden\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_6\"\u003e[Pg 6]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e upon again. In the language of\r\nmorality: Humility.—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is such a thing as a hatred of lies and dissimulation, which is\r\nthe outcome of a delicate sense of humour; there is also the selfsame\r\nhatred but as the result of cowardice, in so far as falsehood is\r\nforbidden by Divine law. Too cowardly to lie….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat trifles constitute happiness! The sound of a bagpipe. Without\r\nmusic life would be a mistake. The German imagines even God as a\r\nsongster.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eOn ne peut penser et écrire qu’assis\u003c/i\u003e (G. Flaubert). Here I have got\r\nyou, you nihilist! A sedentary life is the real sin against the Holy\r\nSpirit. Only those thoughts that come by walking have any value.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere are times when we psychologists are like horses, and grow\r\nfretful. We see our own shadow rise and fall before us. The\r\npsychologist must look away from himself if he wishes to see anything\r\nat all.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDo we immoralists injure virtue in any way? Just as little as the\r\nanarchists injure royalty. Only since they have been shot at do princes\r\nsit firmly on their thrones once more. Moral: \u003ci\u003emorality must be shot\r\nat.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_7\"\u003e[Pg 7]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThou runnest \u003ci\u003eahead?\u003c/i\u003e—Dost thou do so as a shepherd or as an\r\nexception? A third alternative would be the fugitive…. First question\r\nof conscience.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eArt thou genuine or art thou only an actor? Art thou a representative\r\nor the thing represented, itself? Finally, art thou perhaps simply a\r\ncopy of an actor?… Second question of conscience.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe disappointed man speaks:\u003c/i\u003e—I sought for great men, but all I found\r\nwere the apes of their ideal.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eArt thou one who looks on, or one who puts his own shoulder to the\r\nwheel?—Or art thou one who looks away, or who turns aside?… Third\r\nquestion of conscience.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWilt thou go in company, or lead, or go by thyself?… A man should\r\nknow what he desires, and that he desires something.—Fourth question\r\nof conscience.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThey were but rungs in my ladder, on them I made my ascent:—to that\r\nend I had to go beyond them. But they imagined that I wanted to lay\r\nmyself to rest upon them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_8\"\u003e[Pg 8]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat matters it whether I am acknowledged to be right! I am much too\r\nright. And he who laughs best to-day, will also laugh last.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe formula of my happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, \u003ci\u003egoal….\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"r5\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1_1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_1\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e This is a reference to Seume’s poem “\u003ci\u003eDie Gesänge\u003c/i\u003e,” the\r\nfirst verse of which is:—\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003e“Wo man singet, lass dich ruhig nieder,\u003c/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003eOhne Furcht, was man im Lande glaubt\u003c/i\u003e;\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003eWo man singet, wird kein Mensch beraubt\u003c/i\u003e:\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003eBösewichter haben keine Lieder\u003c/i\u003e.”\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n(Wherever people sing thou canst safely settle down without a qualm\r\nas to what the general faith of the land may be Wherever people sing,\r\nno man is ever robbed; \u003ci\u003erascals\u003c/i\u003e have no songs.) Popular tradition,\r\nhowever, renders the lines thus:—\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003e“Wo man singt, da lass dich ruhig nieder;\u003c/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003eBase Menschen\u003c/i\u003e [evil men] \u003ci\u003ehaben keine Lieder.”\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_9\"\u003e[Pg 9]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"THE_PROBLEM_OF_SOCRATES\"\u003eTHE PROBLEM OF SOCRATES\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn all ages the wisest have always agreed in their judgment of\r\nlife: \u003ci\u003eit is no good.\u003c/i\u003e At all times and places the same words have\r\nbeen on their lips,—words full of doubt, full of melancholy, full of\r\nweariness of life, full of hostility to life. Even Socrates’ dying\r\nwords were:—“To live—means to be ill a long while: I owe a cock to\r\nthe god Æsculapius.” Even Socrates had had enough of it. What does that\r\nprove? What does it point to? Formerly people would have said (—oh,\r\nit has been said, and loudly enough too; by our Pessimists loudest of\r\nall!): “In any case there must be some truth in this! The \u003ci\u003econsensus\r\nsapientium\u003c/i\u003e is a proof of truth.”—Shall we say the same to-day? \u003ci\u003eMay\u003c/i\u003e\r\nwe do so? “In any case there must be some sickness here,” we make\r\nreply. These great sages of all periods should first be examined more\r\nclosely! Is it possible that they were, everyone of them, a little\r\nshaky on their legs, effete, rocky, decadent? Does wisdom perhaps\r\nappear on earth after the manner of a crow attracted by a slight smell\r\nof carrion?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis irreverent belief that the great sages were decadent types, first\r\noccurred to me precisely in regard to that case concerning which both\r\nlearned\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_10\"\u003e[Pg 10]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e and vulgar prejudice was most opposed to my view. I recognised\r\nSocrates and Plato as symptoms of decline, as instruments in the\r\ndisintegration of Hellas, as pseudo-Greek, as anti-Greek (“The Birth\r\nof Tragedy,” 1872). That \u003ci\u003econsensus sapientium,\u003c/i\u003e as I perceived ever\r\nmore and more clearly, did not in the least prove that they were right\r\nin the matter on which they agreed. It proved rather that these sages\r\nthemselves must have been alike in some physiological particular, in\r\norder to assume the same negative attitude towards life—in order to\r\nbe bound to assume that attitude. After all, judgments and valuations\r\nof life, whether for or against, cannot be true: their only value lies\r\nin the fact that they are symptoms; they can be considered only as\r\nsymptoms,—\u003ci\u003eper se\u003c/i\u003e such judgments are nonsense. You must therefore\r\nendeavour by all means to reach out and try to grasp this astonishingly\r\nsubtle axiom, \u003ci\u003ethat the value of life cannot be estimated.\u003c/i\u003e A living\r\nman cannot do so, because he is a contending party, or rather the very\r\nobject in the dispute, and not a judge; nor can a dead man estimate\r\nit—for other reasons. For a philosopher to see a problem in the value\r\nof life, is almost an objection against him, a note of interrogation\r\nset against his wisdom—a lack of wisdom. What? Is it possible that all\r\nthese great sages were not only decadents, but that they were not even\r\nwise? Let me however return to the problem of Socrates.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo judge from his origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest of the low:\r\nSocrates was mob. You know, and you can still see it for yourself,\r\nhow ugly\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_11\"\u003e[Pg 11]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e he was. But ugliness, which in itself is an objection, was\r\nalmost a refutation among the Greeks. Was Socrates really a Greek?\r\nUgliness is not infrequently the expression of thwarted development,\r\nor of development arrested by crossing. In other cases it appears\r\nas a decadent development. The anthropologists among the criminal\r\nspecialists declare that I the typical criminal is ugly: \u003ci\u003emonstrum\r\nin fronte, monstrum in animo.\u003c/i\u003e But the criminal is a decadent?\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1_2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1_2\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e\r\nWas Socrates a typical criminal?—At all events this would not clash\r\nwith that famous physiognomist’s judgment which was so repugnant to\r\nSocrates’ friends. While on his way through Athens a certain foreigner\r\nwho was no fool at judging by looks, told Socrates to his face that\r\nhe was a monster, that his body harboured all the worst vices and\r\npassions. And Socrates replied simply: “You know me, sir!”—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNot only are the acknowledged wildness and anarchy of Socrates’\r\ninstincts indicative of decadence, but also that preponderance of the\r\nlogical faculties and that malignity of the misshapen which was his\r\nspecial characteristic. Neither should we forget those aural delusions\r\nwhich were religiously interpreted as “the demon of Socrates.”\r\nEverything in him is exaggerated, \u003ci\u003ebuffo,\u003c/i\u003e caricature, his nature is\r\nalso full of concealment, of ulterior motives, and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_12\"\u003e[Pg 12]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of underground\r\ncurrents. I try to understand the idiosyncrasy from which the Socratic\r\nequation:—Reason = Virtue = Happiness, could have arisen: the\r\nweirdest equation ever seen, and one which was essentially opposed to\r\nall the instincts of the older Hellenes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith Socrates Greek taste veers round in favour of dialectics: what\r\nactually occurs? In the first place a noble taste is vanquished:\r\nwith dialectics the mob comes to the top. Before Socrates’ time,\r\ndialectical manners were avoided in good society: they were regarded\r\nas bad manners, they were compromising. Young men were cautioned\r\nagainst them. All such proffering of one’s reasons was looked upon with\r\nsuspicion. Honest things like honest men do not carry their reasons\r\non their sleeve in such fashion. It is not good form to make a show\r\nof everything. That which needs to be proved cannot be worth much.\r\nWherever authority still belongs to good usage, wherever men do not\r\nprove but command, the dialectician is regarded as a sort of clown.\r\nPeople laugh at him, they do not take him seriously. Socrates was a\r\nclown who succeeded in making men take him seriously: what then was the\r\nmatter?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA man resorts to dialectics only when he has no other means to hand.\r\nPeople know that they excite suspicion with it and that it is not\r\nvery convincing. Nothing is more easily dispelled than a dialectical\r\neffect: this is proved by the experience of every\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_13\"\u003e[Pg 13]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e gathering in which\r\ndiscussions are held. It can be only the last defence of those who have\r\nno other weapons. One must require to extort one’s right, otherwise one\r\nmakes no use of it. That is why the Jews were dialecticians. Reynard\r\nthe Fox was a dialectician: what?—and was Socrates one as well?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIs the Socratic irony an expression of revolt, of mob resentment?\r\nDoes Socrates, as a creature suffering under oppression, enjoy his\r\ninnate ferocity in the knife-thrusts of the syllogism? Does he wreak\r\nhis revenge on the noblemen he fascinates?—As a dialectician a man\r\nhas a merciless instrument to wield; he can play the tyrant with it:\r\nhe compromises when he conquers with it. The dialectician leaves it to\r\nhis opponent to prove that he is no idiot: he infuriates, he likewise\r\nparalyses. The dialectician cripples the intellect of his opponent. Can\r\nit be that dialectics was only a form of revenge in Socrates?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI have given you to understand in what way Socrates was able to repel:\r\nnow it is all the more necessary to explain how he fascinated.—One\r\nreason is that he discovered a new kind of \u003ci\u003eAgon,\u003c/i\u003e and that he was the\r\nfirst fencing-master in the best circles in Athens. He fascinated by\r\nappealing to the combative instinct of the Greeks,—he introduced a\r\nvariation into the contests between men and youths. Socrates was also a\r\ngreat erotic.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_14\"\u003e[Pg 14]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut Socrates divined still more. He saw right through his noble\r\nAthenians; he perceived that his case, his peculiar case, was no\r\nexception even in his time. The same kind of degeneracy was silently\r\npreparing itself everywhere: ancient Athens was dying out. And Socrates\r\nunderstood that the whole world needed him,—his means, his remedy, his\r\nspecial artifice for self-preservation. Everywhere the instincts were\r\nin a state of anarchy; everywhere people were within an ace of excess:\r\nthe \u003ci\u003emonstrum in animo\u003c/i\u003e was the general danger. “The instincts would\r\nplay the tyrant; we must discover a counter-tyrant who is stronger than\r\nthey.” On the occasion when that physiognomist had unmasked Socrates,\r\nand had told him what he was, a crater full of evil desires, the great\r\nMaster of Irony let fall one or two words more, which provide the key\r\nto his nature. “This is true,” he said, “but I overcame them all.” How\r\ndid Socrates succeed in mastering himself? His case was at bottom only\r\nthe extreme and most apparent example of a state of distress which\r\nwas beginning to be general: that state in which no one was able to\r\nmaster himself and in which the instincts turned one against the other.\r\nAs the extreme example of this state, he fascinated—his terrifying\r\nugliness made him conspicuous to every eye: it is quite obvious that he\r\nfascinated still more as a reply, as a solution, as an apparent cure of\r\nthis case.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen a man finds it necessary, as Socrates did, to create a tyrant out\r\nof reason, there is no small\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_15\"\u003e[Pg 15]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e danger that something else wishes to play\r\nthe tyrant. Reason was then discovered as a saviour; neither Socrates\r\nnor his “patients” were at liberty to be rational or not, as they\r\npleased; at that time it was \u003ci\u003ede rigueur,\u003c/i\u003e it had become a last shift.\r\nThe fanaticism with which the whole of Greek thought plunges into\r\nreason, betrays a critical condition of things: men were in danger;\r\nthere were only two alternatives: either perish or else be absurdly\r\nrational. The moral bias of Greek philosophy from Plato onward, is the\r\noutcome of a pathological condition, as is also its appreciation of\r\ndialectics. Reason = Virtue = Happiness, simply means: we must imitate\r\nSocrates, and confront the dark passions permanently with the light\r\nof day—the light of reason. We must at all costs be clever, precise,\r\nclear: all yielding to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads\r\ndownwards.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI have now explained how Socrates fascinated: he seemed to be a\r\ndoctor, a Saviour. Is it necessary to expose the errors which lay in\r\nhis faith in “reason at any price”?—It is a piece of self-deception\r\non the part of philosophers and moralists to suppose that they can\r\nextricate themselves from degeneration by merely waging war upon it.\r\nThey cannot thus extricate themselves; that which they choose as a\r\nmeans, as the road to salvation, is in itself again only an expression\r\nof degeneration—they only modify its mode of manifesting itself:\r\nthey do not abolish it. Socrates was a misunderstanding. \u003ci\u003eThe whole\r\nof the morality of amelioration—that of Christianity as well—was\r\na misunderstanding.\u003c/i\u003e The most blinding light\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_16\"\u003e[Pg 16]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of day: reason at any\r\nprice; life made clear, cold, cautious, conscious, without instincts,\r\nopposed to the instincts, was in itself only a disease, another kind\r\nof disease—and by no means a return to “virtue,” to “health,” and to\r\nhappiness. To be obliged to fight the instincts—this is the formula of\r\ndegeneration: as long as life is in the ascending line, happiness is\r\nthe same as instinct.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—Did he understand this himself, this most intelligent of\r\nself-deceivers? Did he confess this to himself in the end, in the\r\nwisdom of his courage before death. Socrates wished to die. Not Athens,\r\nbut his own hand gave him the draught of hemlock; he drove Athens to\r\nthe poisoned cup. “Socrates is not a doctor,” he whispered to himself,\r\n“death alone can be a doctor here…. Socrates himself has only been ill\r\na long while.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"r5\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1_2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_2\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e It should be borne in mind that Nietzsche recognised two\r\ntypes of criminals,—the criminal from strength, and the criminal from\r\nweakness. This passage alludes to the latter, Aphorism 45, \u003ca href=\"#Page_103\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003ep. 103\u003c/a\u003e,**\r\nalludes to the former.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_17\"\u003e[Pg 17]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"REASON_IN_PHILOSOPHY\"\u003e“REASON” IN PHILOSOPHY\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eYou ask me what all idiosyncrasy is in philosophers? … For instance\r\ntheir lack of the historical sense, their hatred even of the idea of\r\nBecoming, their Egyptianism. They imagine that they do honour to a\r\nthing by divorcing it from history \u003ci\u003esub specie æterni,—\u003c/i\u003ewhen they\r\nmake a mummy of it. All the ideas that philosophers have treated for\r\nthousands of years, have been mummied concepts; nothing real has ever\r\ncome out of their hands alive. These idolaters of concepts merely\r\nkill and stuff things when they worship,—they threaten the life of\r\neverything they adore. Death, change, age, as well as procreation and\r\ngrowth, are in their opinion objections,—even refutations. That which\r\nis cannot evolve; that which evolves \u003ci\u003eis\u003c/i\u003e not. Now all of them believe,\r\nand even with desperation, in Being. But, as they cannot lay hold of\r\nit, they try to discover reasons why this privilege is withheld from\r\nthem. “Some merely apparent quality, some deception must be the cause\r\nof our not being able to ascertain the nature of Being: where is the\r\ndeceiver?” “We have him,” they cry rejoicing, “it is sensuality!” These\r\nsenses, \u003ci\u003ewhich in other things are so immoral,\u003c/i\u003e cheat us concerning the\r\ntrue world. Moral: we must get rid of the deception of the senses, of\r\nBecoming, of history, of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_18\"\u003e[Pg 18]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e falsehood.—History is nothing more than the\r\nbelief in the senses, the belief in falsehood. Moral: we must say “no”\r\nto everything in which the senses believe: to all the rest of mankind:\r\nall that belongs to the “people.” Let us be philosophers, mummies,\r\nmonotono-theists, grave-diggers!—And above all, away with the \u003ci\u003ebody,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nthis wretched \u003ci\u003eidée fixe\u003c/i\u003e of the senses, infected with all the faults\r\nof logic that exist, refuted, even impossible, although it be impudent\r\nenough to pose as if it were real!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith a feeling of great reverence I except the name of \u003ci\u003eHeraclitus.\u003c/i\u003e\r\nIf the rest of the philosophic gang rejected the evidences of the\r\nsenses, because the latter revealed a state of multifariousness and\r\nchange, he rejected the same evidence because it revealed things as if\r\nthey possessed permanence and unity. Even Heraclitus did an injustice\r\nto the senses. The latter lie neither as the Eleatics believed them\r\nto lie, nor as he believed them to lie,—they do not lie at all. The\r\ninterpretations we give to their evidence is what first introduces\r\nfalsehood into it; for instance the lie of unity, the lie of matter,\r\nof substance and of permanence. Reason is the cause of our falsifying\r\nthe evidence of the senses. In so far as the senses show us a state\r\nof Becoming, of transiency, and of change, they do not lie. But in\r\ndeclaring that Being was an empty illusion, Heraclitus will remain\r\neternally right. The “apparent” world is the only world: the “true\r\nworld” is no more than a false adjunct thereto.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_19\"\u003e[Pg 19]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd what delicate instruments of observation we have in our senses!\r\nThis human nose, for instance, of which no philosopher has yet spoken\r\nwith reverence and gratitude, is, for the present, the most finely\r\nadjusted instrument at our disposal: it is able to register even such\r\nslight changes of movement as the spectroscope would be unable to\r\nrecord. Our scientific triumphs at the present day extend precisely\r\nso far as we have accepted the evidence of our senses,—as we have\r\nsharpened and armed them, and learned to follow them up to the\r\nend. What remains is abortive and not yet science—that is to say,\r\nmetaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology, or formal science, or\r\na doctrine of symbols, like logic and its applied form mathematics.\r\nIn all these things reality does not come into consideration at all,\r\neven as a problem; just as little as does the question concerning the\r\ngeneral value of such a convention of symbols as logic.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe other idiosyncrasy of philosophers is no less dangerous; it\r\nconsists in confusing the last and the first things. They place that\r\nwhich makes its appearance last—unfortunately! for it ought not\r\nto appear at all!—the “highest concept,” that is to say, the most\r\ngeneral, the emptiest, the last cloudy streak of evaporating reality,\r\nat the beginning as the beginning. This again is only their manner of\r\nexpressing their veneration: the highest thing must not have grown out\r\nof the lowest, it must not have grown at all…. Moral: everything\r\nof the first rank must be\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_20\"\u003e[Pg 20]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003ci\u003ecausa sui.\u003c/i\u003e To have been derived from\r\nsomething else, is as good as an objection, it sets the value of a\r\nthing in question. All superior values are of the first rank, all the\r\nhighest concepts—that of Being, of the Absolute, of Goodness, of\r\nTruth, and of Perfection; all these things cannot have been evolved,\r\nthey must therefore be \u003ci\u003ecausa sui.\u003c/i\u003e All these things cannot however be\r\nunlike one another, they cannot be opposed to one another. Thus they\r\nattain to their stupendous concept “God.” The last, most attenuated and\r\nemptiest thing is postulated as the first thing, as the absolute cause,\r\nas \u003ci\u003eens realissimum.\u003c/i\u003e Fancy humanity having to take the brain diseases\r\nof morbid cobweb-spinners seriously!—And it has paid dearly for having\r\ndone so.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—Against this let us set the different manner in which we (—you\r\nobserve that I am courteous enough to say “we”) conceive the problem of\r\nthe error and deceptiveness of things. Formerly people regarded change\r\nand evolution in general as the proof of appearance, as a sign of the\r\nfact that something must be there that leads us astray. To-day, on\r\nthe other hand, we realise that precisely as far as the rational bias\r\nforces us to postulate unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause,\r\nmateriality and being, we are in a measure involved in error, driven\r\nnecessarily to error; however certain we may feel, as the result of a\r\nstrict examination of the matter, that the error lies here. It is just\r\nthe same here as with the motion of the sun: In its case it was our\r\neyes that were wrong; in the matter of the concepts above mentioned it\r\nis our language itself that pleads\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_21\"\u003e[Pg 21]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e most constantly in their favour.\r\nIn its origin language belongs to an age of the most rudimentary\r\nforms of psychology: if we try to conceive of the first conditions of\r\nthe metaphysics of language, \u003ci\u003ei.e.\u003c/i\u003e in plain English, of reason, we\r\nimmediately find ourselves in the midst of a system of fetichism. For\r\nhere, the doer and his deed are seen in all circumstances, will is\r\nbelieved in as a cause in general; the ego is taken for granted, the\r\nego as Being, and as substance, and the faith in the ego as substance\r\nis projected into all things—in this way, alone, the concept “thing”\r\nis created. Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as\r\ncause; from the concept “ego,” alone, can the concept “Being” proceed.\r\nAt the beginning stands the tremendously fatal error of supposing the\r\nwill to be something that actuates,—a faculty. Now we know that it\r\nis only a word.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1_3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1_3\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e Very much later, in a world a thousand times more\r\nenlightened, the assurance, the subjective certitude, in the handling\r\nof the categories of reason came into the minds of philosophers as a\r\nsurprise. They concluded that these categories could not be derived\r\nfrom experience,—on the contrary, the whole of experience rather\r\ncontradicts them. \u003ci\u003eWhence do they come therefore?\u003c/i\u003e In India, as in\r\nGreece, the same mistake was made: “we must already once have lived\r\nin a higher world (—instead of in a much lower one, which would have\r\nbeen the truth!), we must have been divine, for we possess\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_22\"\u003e[Pg 22]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e reason!”\r\n… Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion\r\nhitherto than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics\r\nfor instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we\r\nutter!—Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive\r\npowers of their concept of Being. Among others there was Democritus in\r\nhis discovery of the atom. “Reason” in language!—oh what a deceptive\r\nold witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as\r\nwe still believe in grammar.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople will feel grateful to me if I condense a point of view, which\r\nis at once so important and so new, into four theses: by this means\r\nI shall facilitate comprehension, and shall likewise challenge\r\ncontradiction.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eProposition One.\u003c/i\u003e The reasons upon which the apparent nature of “this”\r\nworld have been based, rather tend to prove its reality,—any other\r\nkind of reality defies demonstration.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eProposition Two.\u003c/i\u003e The characteristics with which man has endowed\r\nthe “true Being” of things, are the characteristics of non-Being, of\r\n\u003ci\u003enonentity.\u003c/i\u003e The “true world” has been erected upon a contradiction of\r\nthe real world; and it is indeed an apparent world, seeing that it is\r\nmerely a \u003ci\u003emoralo-optical\u003c/i\u003e delusion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eProposition Three.\u003c/i\u003e There is no sense in spinning yarns about another\r\nworld, provided, of course, that we do not possess a mighty instinct\r\nwhich urges us to slander, belittle, and cast suspicion upon this life:\r\nin this case we should be avenging ourselves on\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_23\"\u003e[Pg 23]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e this life with the\r\nphantasmagoria of “another,” of a “better” life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eProposition Four.\u003c/i\u003e To divide the world into a “true” and an “apparent”\r\nworld, whether after the manner of Christianity or of Kant (after all\r\na Christian in disguise), is only a sign of decadence,—a symptom of\r\n\u003ci\u003edegenerating\u003c/i\u003e life. The fact that the artist esteems the appearance\r\nof a thing higher than reality, is no objection to this statement. For\r\n“appearance” signifies once more reality here, but in a selected,\r\nstrengthened and corrected form. The tragic artist is no pessimist,—he\r\nsays \u003ci\u003eYea\u003c/i\u003e to everything questionable and terrible, he is Dionysian.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"r5\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1_3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_3\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Nietzsche here refers to the concept “free will” of\r\nthe Christians; this does not mean that there is no such thing as\r\nwill—that is to say a powerful determining force from within.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_24\"\u003e[Pg 24]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003eHOW THE “TRUE WORLD” ULTIMATELY BECAME A FABLE\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003eTHE HISTORY OF AN ERROR\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. The true world, attainable to the sage, the pious man and the man of\r\nvirtue,—he lives in it, \u003ci\u003ehe is it.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e(The most ancient form of the idea was relatively clever,\r\nsimple, convincing. It was a paraphrase of the proposition\r\n“I, Plato, am the truth.”)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. The true world which is unattainable for the moment, is promised to\r\nthe sage, to the pious man and to the man of virtue (“to the sinner who\r\nrepents”).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, more\r\ninsidious, more evasive,—It \u003ci\u003ebecomes a woman,\u003c/i\u003e it becomes\r\nChristian.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. The true world is unattainable, it cannot be proved, it cannot\r\npromise anything; but even as a thought, alone, it is a comfort, an\r\nobligation, a command.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e(At bottom this is still the old sun; but seen through mist\r\nand scepticism: the idea has become sublime, pale, northern,\r\nKönigsbergian.)\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1_4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1_4\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_25\"\u003e[Pg 25]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. The true world—is it unattainable? At all events it is unattained.\r\nAnd as unattained it is also \u003ci\u003eunknown.\u003c/i\u003e Consequently it no longer\r\ncomforts, nor saves, nor constrains: what could something unknown\r\nconstrain us to?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e(The grey of dawn. Reason stretches itself and yawns for the\r\nfirst time. The cock-crow of positivism.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e5. The “true world”—an idea that no longer serves any purpose, that\r\nno longer constrains one to anything,—a useless idea that has become\r\nquite superfluous, consequently an exploded idea: let us abolish it!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e(Bright daylight; breakfast; the return of common sense\r\nand of cheerfulness; Plato blushes for shame and all\r\nfree-spirits kick up a shindy.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e6. We have suppressed the true world: what world survives? the apparent\r\nworld perhaps?… Certainly not! \u003ci\u003eIn abolishing the true world we have\r\nalso abolished the world of appearance!\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e(Noon; the moment of the shortest shadows; the end of the\r\nlongest error; mankind’s zenith; \u003ci\u003eIncipit Zarathustra.\u003c/i\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"r5\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1_4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_4\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Kant was a native of Königsberg and lived there all his\r\nlife. Did Nietzsche know that Kant was simply a Scotch Puritan, whose\r\nfamily had settled in Germany?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_26\"\u003e[Pg 26]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"MORALITY_AS_THE_ENEMY_OF_NATURE\"\u003eMORALITY AS THE ENEMY OF NATURE\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is a time when all passions are simply fatal in their action,\r\nwhen they wreck their victims with the weight of their folly,—and\r\nthere is a later period, a very much later period, when they marry with\r\nthe spirit, when they “spiritualise” themselves. Formerly, owing to the\r\nstupidity inherent in passion, men waged war against passion itself:\r\nmen pledged themselves to annihilate it,—all ancient moral-mongers\r\nwere unanimous on this point, “\u003ci\u003eil faut tuer les passions.\u003c/i\u003e” The\r\nmost famous formula for this stands in the New Testament, in that\r\nSermon on the Mount, where, let it be said incidentally, things are\r\nby no means regarded \u003ci\u003efrom a height.\u003c/i\u003e It is said there, for instance,\r\nwith an application to sexuality: “if thy eye offend thee, pluck it\r\nout”: fortunately no Christian acts in obedience to this precept.\r\nTo annihilate the passions and desires, simply on account of their\r\nstupidity, and to obviate the unpleasant consequences of their\r\nstupidity, seems to us to-day merely an aggravated form of stupidity.\r\nWe no longer admire those dentists who extract teeth simply in order\r\nthat they may not ache again. On the other hand, it will be admitted\r\nwith some reason, that on the soil from which Christianity grew, the\r\nidea of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_27\"\u003e[Pg 27]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the “spiritualisation of passion” could not possibly have been\r\nconceived. The early Church, as everyone knows, certainly did wage war\r\nagainst the “intelligent,” in favour of the “poor in spirit” In these\r\ncircumstances how could the passions be combated intelligently? The\r\nChurch combats passion by means of excision of all kinds: its practice,\r\nits “remedy,” is \u003ci\u003ecastration.\u003c/i\u003e It never inquires “how can a desire\r\nbe spiritualised, beautified, deified?”—In all ages it has laid the\r\nweight of discipline in the process of extirpation (the extirpation\r\nof sensuality, pride, lust of dominion, lust of property, and\r\nrevenge).—But to attack the passions at their roots, means attacking\r\nlife itself at its source: the method of the Church is hostile to life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe same means, castration and extirpation, are instinctively chosen\r\nfor waging war against a passion, by those who are too weak of will,\r\ntoo degenerate, to impose some sort of moderation upon it; by those\r\nnatures who, to speak in metaphor (—and without metaphor), need\r\n\u003ci\u003ela Trappe,\u003c/i\u003e or some kind of ultimatum of war, a \u003ci\u003egulf\u003c/i\u003e set between\r\nthemselves and a passion. Only degenerates find radical methods\r\nindispensable: weakness of will, or more strictly speaking, the\r\ninability not to react to a stimulus, is in itself simply another form\r\nof degeneracy. Radical and mortal hostility to sensuality, remains a\r\nsuspicious symptom: it justifies one in being suspicious of the general\r\nstate of one who goes to such extremes. Moreover, that hostility and\r\nhatred reach their height only when such natures no longer possess\r\nenough strength of character to adopt the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_28\"\u003e[Pg 28]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e radical remedy, to renounce\r\ntheir inner “Satan.” Look at the whole history of the priests, the\r\nphilosophers, and the artists as well: the most poisonous diatribes\r\nagainst the senses have not been said by the impotent, nor by the\r\nascetics; but by those impossible ascetics, by those who found it\r\nnecessary to be ascetics.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe spiritualisation of sensuality is called \u003ci\u003elove:\u003c/i\u003e it is a great\r\ntriumph over Christianity. Another triumph is our spiritualisation of\r\nhostility. It consists in the fact that we are beginning to realise\r\nvery profoundly the value of having enemies: in short that with them\r\nwe are forced to do and to conclude precisely the reverse of what\r\nwe previously did and concluded. In all ages the Church wished to\r\nannihilate its enemies: we, the immoralists and Antichrists, see our\r\nadvantage in the survival of the Church. Even in political life,\r\nhostility has now become more spiritual,—much more cautious, much\r\nmore thoughtful, and much more moderate. Almost every party sees its\r\nself-preservative interests in preventing the Opposition from going\r\nto pieces; and the same applies to politics on a grand scale. A new\r\ncreation, more particularly, like the new Empire, has more need\r\nof enemies than friends: only as a contrast does it begin to feel\r\nnecessary, only as a contrast does it \u003ci\u003ebecome\u003c/i\u003e necessary. And we behave\r\nin precisely the same way to the “inner enemy”: in this quarter too we\r\nhave spiritualised enmity, in this quarter too we have understood its\r\nvalue. A man is productive only in so far as he is rich in contrasted\r\ninstincts; he can remain young only on\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_29\"\u003e[Pg 29]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e condition that his soul does\r\nnot begin to take things easy and to yearn for peace. Nothing has\r\ngrown more alien to us than that old desire—the “peace of the soul,”\r\nwhich is the aim of Christianity. Nothing could make us less envious\r\nthan the moral cow and the plump happiness of a clean conscience. The\r\nman who has renounced war has renounced a grand life. In many cases,\r\nof course, “peace of the soul” is merely a misunderstanding,—it is\r\nsomething \u003ci\u003every different\u003c/i\u003e which has failed to find a more honest name\r\nfor itself. Without either circumlocution or prejudice I will suggest a\r\nfew cases. “Peace of the soul” may for instance be the sweet effulgence\r\nof rich animality in the realm of morality (or religion). Or the first\r\npresage of weariness, the first shadow that evening, every kind of\r\nevening, is wont to cast. Or a sign that the air is moist, and that\r\nwinds are blowing up from the south. Or unconscious gratitude for a\r\ngood digestion (sometimes called “brotherly love”). Or the serenity\r\nof the convalescent, on whose lips all things have a new taste, and\r\nwho bides his time. Or the condition which follows upon a thorough\r\ngratification of our strongest passion, the well-being of unaccustomed\r\nsatiety. Or the senility of our will, of our desires, and of our vices.\r\nOr laziness, coaxed by vanity into togging itself out in a moral garb.\r\nOr the ending of a state of long suspense and of agonising uncertainty,\r\nby a state of certainty, of even terrible certainty. Or the expression\r\nof ripeness and mastery in the midst of a task, of a creative work, of\r\na production, of a thing willed, the calm breathing that denotes that\r\n“freedom of will” has been attained.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_30\"\u003e[Pg 30]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Who knows?—maybe \u003ci\u003eThe Twilight\r\nof the Idols\u003c/i\u003e is only a sort of “peace of the soul.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI will formulate a principle. All naturalism in morality—that is to\r\nsay, every sound morality is ruled by a life instinct,—any one of\r\nthe laws of life is fulfilled by the definite canon “thou shalt,”\r\n“thou shalt not,” and any sort of obstacle or hostile element in the\r\nroad of life is thus cleared away. Conversely, the morality which is\r\nantagonistic to nature—that is to say, almost every morality that has\r\nbeen taught, honoured and preached hitherto, is directed precisely\r\nagainst the life-instincts,—it is a condemnation, now secret, now\r\nblatant and impudent, of these very instincts. Inasmuch as it says “God\r\nsees into the heart of man,” it says Nay to the profoundest and most\r\nsuperior desires of life and takes God as the enemy of life. The saint\r\nin whom God is well pleased, is the ideal eunuch. Life terminates where\r\nthe “Kingdom of God” begins.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAdmitting that you have understood the villainy of such a mutiny\r\nagainst life as that which has become almost sacrosanct in Christian\r\nmorality, you have fortunately understood something besides; and that\r\nis the futility, the fictitiousness, the absurdity and the falseness\r\nof such a mutiny. For the condemnation of life by a living creature is\r\nafter all but the symptom of a definite kind of life: the question as\r\nto whether the condemnation is justified or the reverse is not even\r\nraised. In order even to approach the problem of the value of life,\r\na man would need\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_31\"\u003e[Pg 31]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e to be placed outside life, and moreover know it as\r\nwell as one, as many, as all in fact, who have lived it These are\r\nreasons enough to prove to us that this problem is an inaccessible one\r\nto us. When we speak of values, we speak under the inspiration, and\r\nthrough the optics of life: life itself urges us to determine values:\r\nlife itself values through us when we determine values. From which it\r\nfollows that even that morality which is antagonistic to life, and\r\nwhich conceives God as the opposite and the condemnation of life, is\r\nonly a valuation of life—of what life? of what kind of life? But I\r\nhave already answered this question: it is the valuation of declining,\r\nof enfeebled, of exhausted and of condemned life. Morality, as it has\r\nbeen understood hitherto—as it was finally formulated by Schopenhauer\r\nin the words “The Denial of the Will to Life,” is the instinct of\r\ndegeneration itself, which converts itself into an imperative: it says:\r\n“Perish!” It is the death sentence of men who are already doomed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us at last consider how exceedingly simple it is on our part to\r\nsay: “Man should be thus and thus!” Reality shows us a marvellous\r\nwealth of types, and a luxuriant variety of forms and changes: and yet\r\nthe first wretch of a moral loafer that comes along cries “No! Man\r\nshould be different!” He even knows what man should be like, does this\r\nsanctimonious prig: he draws his own face on the wall and declares:\r\n“\u003ci\u003eecce homo!\u003c/i\u003e” But even when the moralist addresses himself only to the\r\nindividual and says “thus and thus shouldst thou be!” he still makes\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_32\"\u003e[Pg 32]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nan ass of himself. The individual in his past and future is a piece of\r\nfate, one law the more, one necessity the more for all that is to come\r\nand is to be. To say to him “change thyself,” is tantamount to saying\r\nthat everything should change, even backwards as well. Truly these have\r\nbeen consistent moralists, they wished man to be different, \u003ci\u003ei.e.\u003c/i\u003e,\r\nvirtuous; they wished him to be after their own image,—that is to say\r\nsanctimonious humbugs. And to this end they denied the world! No slight\r\nform of insanity! No modest form of immodesty! Morality, in so far it\r\ncondemns \u003ci\u003eper se,\u003c/i\u003e and \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e out of any aim, consideration or motive of\r\nlife, is a specific error, for which no one should feel any mercy, a\r\ndegenerate idiosyncrasy, that has done an unutterable amount of harm.\r\nWe others, we immoralists, on the contrary, have opened our hearts\r\nwide to all kinds of comprehension, understanding and approbation.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1_5\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1_5\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e\r\nWe do not deny readily, we glory in saying yea to things. Our eyes\r\nhave opened ever wider and wider to that economy which still employs\r\nand knows how to use to its own advantage all that which the sacred\r\ncraziness of priests and the morbid reason in priests, rejects; to\r\nthat economy in the law of life which draws its own advantage even out\r\nof the repulsive race of bigots, the priests and the virtuous,—what\r\nadvantage?—But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the reply to this\r\nquestion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"r5\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1_5\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_5\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003ci\u003eCf.\u003c/i\u003e Spinoza, who says in the \u003ci\u003eTractatus politico\u003c/i\u003e\r\n(1677), Chap. I, § 4: \u003ci\u003e“Sedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere,\r\nnon tugert, negue detestari, sed intelligere”\u003c/i\u003e (“I have carefully\r\nendeavoured not to deride, or deplore, or detest human actions, but to\r\nunderstand them.”).—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_33\"\u003e[Pg 33]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"THE_FOUR_GREAT_ERRORS\"\u003eTHE FOUR GREAT ERRORS\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe error of the confusion of cause and effect.—\u003c/i\u003eThere is no more\r\ndangerous error than to confound the effect with the cause: I call\r\nthis error the intrinsic perversion of reason. Nevertheless this error\r\nis one of the most ancient and most recent habits of mankind. In one\r\npart of the world it has even been canonised; and it bears the name of\r\n“Religion” and “Morality.” Every postulate formulated by religion and\r\nmorality contains it. Priests and the promulgators of moral laws are the\r\npromoters of this perversion of reason.—Let me give you an example.\r\nEverybody knows the book of the famous Cornaro, in which he recommends\r\nhis slender diet as the recipe for a long, happy and also virtuous\r\nlife. Few books have been so widely read, and to this day many thousand\r\ncopies of it are still printed annually in England. I do not doubt that\r\nthere is scarcely a single book (the Bible of course excepted) that\r\nhas worked more mischief, shortened more lives, than this well-meant\r\ncuriosity. The reason of this is the confusion of effect and cause.\r\nThis worthy Italian saw the cause of his long life in his diet: whereas\r\nthe prerequisites of long life, which are exceptional slowness of\r\nmolecular change, and a low rate of expenditure in energy, were the\r\ncause of his meagre\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_34\"\u003e[Pg 34]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e diet He was not at liberty to eat a small or a\r\ngreat amount. His frugality was not the result of free choice, he would\r\nhave been ill had he eaten more. He who does not happen to be a carp,\r\nhowever, is not only wise to eat well, but is also compelled to do so.\r\nA scholar of the present day, with his rapid consumption of nervous\r\nenergy, would soon go to the dogs on Cornaro’s diet. \u003ci\u003eCrede experto.\u003c/i\u003e—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe most general principle lying at the root of every religion and\r\nmorality, is this: “Do this and that and avoid this and that—and\r\nthou wilt be happy. Otherwise——.” Every morality and every\r\nreligion is this Imperative—I call it the great original sin of\r\nreason,—\u003ci\u003eimmortal unreason.\u003c/i\u003e In my mouth this principle is converted\r\ninto its opposite—first example of my “Transvaluation of all Values”:\r\na well-constituted man, a man who is one of “Nature’s lucky strokes,”\r\n\u003ci\u003emust\u003c/i\u003e perform certain actions and instinctively fear other actions;\r\nhe introduces the element of order, of which he is the physiological\r\nmanifestation, into his relations with men and things. In a formula:\r\nhis virtue is the consequence of his good constitution. Longevity\r\nand plentiful offspring are not the reward of virtue, virtue itself\r\nis on the contrary that retardation of the metabolic process which,\r\namong other things, results in a long life and in plentiful offspring,\r\nin short in \u003ci\u003eCornarism.\u003c/i\u003e The Church and morality say: “A race, a\r\npeople perish through vice and luxury.” My reinstated reason says:\r\nwhen a people are going to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_35\"\u003e[Pg 35]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the dogs, when they are degenerating\r\nphysiologically, vice and luxury (that is to say, the need of ever\r\nstronger and more frequent stimuli such as all exhausted natures are\r\nacquainted with) are bound to result. Such and such a young man grows\r\npale and withered prematurely. His friends say this or that illness\r\nis the cause of it I say: the fact that he became ill, the fact that\r\nhe did not resist illness, was in itself already the outcome of\r\nimpoverished life, of hereditary exhaustion. The newspaper reader says:\r\nsuch and such a party by committing such an error will meet its death.\r\nMy superior politics say: a party that can make such mistakes, is in\r\nits last agony—it no longer possesses any certainty of instinct. Every\r\nmistake is in every sense the sequel to degeneration of the instincts,\r\nto disintegration of the will. This is almost the definition of evil,\r\nEverything valuable is instinct—and consequently easy, necessary,\r\nfree. Exertion is an objection, the god is characteristically different\r\nfrom the hero (in my language: light feet are the first attribute of\r\ndivinity).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe error of false causality.\u003c/i\u003e In all ages men have believed that\r\nthey knew what a cause was: but whence did we derive this knowledge,\r\nor more accurately, this faith in the fact that we know? Out of the\r\nrealm of the famous “inner facts of consciousness,” not one of which\r\nhas yet proved itself to be a fact We believed ourselves to be causes\r\neven in the action of the will; we thought that in this matter at\r\nleast we caught causality red-handed. No one\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_36\"\u003e[Pg 36]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e doubted that all the\r\n\u003ci\u003eantecedentia\u003c/i\u003e of an action were to be sought in consciousness, and\r\ncould be discovered there—as “motive”—if only they were sought.\r\nOtherwise we should not be free to perform them, we should not have\r\nbeen responsible for them. Finally who would have questioned that a\r\nthought is caused? that the ego causes the thought? Of these three\r\n“facts of inner consciousness” by means of which causality seemed to\r\nbe guaranteed, the first and most convincing is that of the will as\r\ncause; the conception of consciousness (“spirit”) as a cause, and\r\nsubsequently that of the ego (the “subject”) as a cause, were merely\r\nborn afterwards, once the causality of the will stood established\r\nas “given,” as a fact of experience. Meanwhile we have come to our\r\nsenses. To-day we no longer believe a word of all this. The “inner\r\nworld” is full of phantoms and will-o’-the-wisps: the will is one of\r\nthese. The will no longer actuates, consequently it no longer explains\r\nanything—all it does is to accompany processes; it may even be absent.\r\nThe so-called “motive” is another error. It is merely a ripple on\r\nthe surface of consciousness, a side issue of the action, which is\r\nmuch more likely to conceal than to reveal the \u003ci\u003eantecedentia\u003c/i\u003e of the\r\nlatter. And as for the ego! It has become legendary, fictional, a\r\nplay upon words: it has ceased utterly and completely from thinking,\r\nfeeling, and willing! What is the result of it all? There are no such\r\nthings as spiritual causes. The whole of popular experience on this\r\nsubject went to the devil! That is the result of it all. For we had\r\nblissfully abused that experience, we had built the world upon it as a\r\nworld of causes, as a world\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_37\"\u003e[Pg 37]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of will, as a world of spirit. The most\r\nantiquated and most traditional psychology has been at work here, it\r\nhas done nothing else: all phenomena were deeds in the light of this\r\npsychology, and all deeds were the result of will; according to it the\r\nworld was a complex mechanism of agents, an agent (a “subject”) lay\r\nat the root of all things. Man projected his three “inner facts of\r\nconsciousness,” the will, the spirit, and the ego in which he believed\r\nmost firmly, outside himself. He first deduced the concept Being out\r\nof the concept Ego, he supposed “things” to exist as he did himself,\r\naccording to his notion of the ego as cause. Was it to be wondered at\r\nthat later on he always found in things only that which he had laid\r\nin them?—The thing itself, I repeat, the concept thing was merely a\r\nreflex of the belief in the ego as cause. And even your atom, my dear\r\ngood Mechanists and Physicists, what an amount of error, of rudimentary\r\npsychology still adheres to it!—Not to speak of the “thing-in-itself,”\r\nof the \u003ci\u003ehorrendum pudendum\u003c/i\u003e of the metaphysicians! The error of spirit\r\nregarded as a cause, confounded with reality! And made the measure of\r\nreality! And called \u003ci\u003eGod!\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Error of imaginary Causes.\u003c/i\u003e Starting out from dreamland, we\r\nfind that to any definite sensation, like that produced by a distant\r\ncannon shot for instance, we are wont to ascribe a cause after the\r\nfact (very often quite a little romance in which the dreamer himself\r\nis, of course, the hero). Meanwhile the sensation becomes protracted\r\nlike a sort of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_38\"\u003e[Pg 38]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e continuous echo, until, as it were, the instinct of\r\ncausality allows it to come to the front rank, no longer however as a\r\nchance occurrence, but as a thing which has some meaning. The cannon\r\nshot presents itself in a \u003ci\u003ecausal\u003c/i\u003e manner, by means of an apparent\r\nreversal in the order of time. That which occurs last, the motivation,\r\nis experienced first, often with a hundred details which flash past\r\nlike lightning, and the shot is the \u003ci\u003eresult.\u003c/i\u003e What has happened? The\r\nideas suggested by a particular state of our senses, are misinterpreted\r\nas the cause of that state. As a matter of fact we proceed in precisely\r\nthe same manner when we are awake. The greater number of our general\r\nsensations—every kind of obstacle, pressure, tension, explosion in\r\nthe interplay of the organs, and more particularly the condition of\r\nthe \u003ci\u003enervus sympathies\u003c/i\u003e—stimulate our instinct of causality: we will\r\nhave a reason which will account for our feeling thus or thus,—for\r\nfeeling ill or well. We are never satisfied by merely ascertaining\r\nthe fact that we feel thus or thus: we admit this fact—we become\r\nconscious of it—only when we have attributed it to some kind of\r\nmotivation. Memory, which, in such circumstances unconsciously becomes\r\nactive, adduces former conditions of a like kind, together with the\r\ncausal interpretations with which they are associated,—but not their\r\nreal cause. The belief that the ideas, the accompanying processes\r\nof consciousness, have been the causes, is certainly produced by\r\nthe agency of memory. And in this way we become \u003ci\u003eaccustomed\u003c/i\u003e to a\r\nparticular interpretation of causes which, truth to tell, actually\r\nhinders and even utterly prevents the investigation of the proper\r\ncause.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_39\"\u003e[Pg 39]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Psychological Explanation of the above Fact.\u003c/i\u003e To trace something\r\nunfamiliar back to something familiar, is at once a relief, a comfort\r\nand a satisfaction, while it also produces a feeling of power. The\r\nunfamiliar involves danger, anxiety and care,—the fundamental instinct\r\nis to get rid of these painful circumstances. First principle: any\r\nexplanation is better than none at all. Since, at bottom, it is\r\nonly a question of shaking one’s self free from certain oppressive\r\nideas, the means employed to this end are not selected with overmuch\r\npunctiliousness: the first idea by means of which the unfamiliar is\r\nrevealed as familiar, produces a feeling of such comfort that it is\r\n“held to be true.” The proof of happiness (“of power”) as the criterion\r\nof truth. The instinct of causality is therefore conditioned and\r\nstimulated by the feeling of fear. Whenever possible, the question\r\n“why?” should not only educe the cause as cause, but rather a certain\r\nkind of cause—a comforting, liberating and reassuring cause. The first\r\nresult of this need is that something known or already experienced, and\r\nrecorded in the memory, is posited as the cause. The new factor, that\r\nwhich has not been experienced and which is unfamiliar, is excluded\r\nfrom the sphere of causes. Not only do we try to find a certain kind\r\nof explanation as the cause, but those kinds of explanations are\r\nselected and preferred which dissipate most rapidly the sensation of\r\nstrangeness, novelty and unfamiliarity,—in fact the most ordinary\r\nexplanations. And the result is that a certain manner of postulating\r\ncauses tends to predominate ever more and more, becomes concentrated\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_40\"\u003e[Pg 40]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninto a system, and finally reigns supreme, to the complete exclusion\r\nof all other causes and explanations. The banker thinks immediately of\r\nbusiness, the Christian of “sin,” and the girl of her love affair.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe whole Domain of Morality and Religion may be classified under the\r\nRubric “Imaginary Causes.”\u003c/i\u003e The “explanation” of general unpleasant\r\nsensations. These sensations are dependent upon certain creatures who\r\nare hostile to us (evil spirits: the most famous example of this—the\r\nmistaking of hysterical women for witches). These sensations are\r\ndependent upon actions which are reprehensible (the feeling of “sin,”\r\n“sinfulness” is a manner of accounting for a certain physiological\r\ndisorder—people always find reasons for being dissatisfied with\r\nthemselves). These sensations depend upon punishment, upon compensation\r\nfor something which we ought not to have done, which we ought not\r\nto have been (this idea was generalised in a more impudent form by\r\nSchopenhauer, into that principle in which morality appears in its real\r\ncolours,—that is to say, as a veritable poisoner and slanderer of\r\nlife: “all great suffering, whether mental or physical, reveals what\r\nwe deserve: for it could not visit us if we did not deserve it,” “The\r\nWorld as Will and Idea,” vol. 2, p. 666). These sensations are the\r\noutcome of ill-considered actions, having evil consequences, (—the\r\npassions, the senses, postulated as causes, as guilty. By means of\r\nother calamities distressing physiological conditions are interpreted\r\nas “merited”).—The “explanation” of pleasant sensations. These\r\nsensations are\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_41\"\u003e[Pg 41]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e dependent upon a trust in God. They may depend upon\r\nour consciousness of having done one or two good actions (a so-called\r\n“good conscience” is a physiological condition, which may be the\r\noutcome of good digestion). They may depend upon the happy issue of\r\ncertain undertakings (—an ingenuous mistake: the happy issue of an\r\nundertaking certainly does not give a hypochondriac or a Pascal any\r\ngeneral sensation of pleasure). They may depend upon faith, love and\r\nhope,—the Christian virtues. As a matter of fact all these pretended\r\nexplanations are but the results of certain states, and as it were\r\ntranslations of feelings of pleasure and pain into a false dialect: a\r\nman is in a condition of hopefulness because the dominant physiological\r\nsensation of his being is again one of strength and wealth; he trusts\r\nin God because the feeling of abundance and power gives him a peaceful\r\nstate of mind. Morality and religion are completely and utterly parts\r\nof the psychology of error: in every particular case cause and effect\r\nare confounded; as truth is confounded with the effect of that which is\r\nbelieved to be true; or a certain state of consciousness is confounded\r\nwith the chain of causes which brought it about.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Error of Free-Will.\u003c/i\u003e At present we no longer have any mercy upon\r\nthe concept “free-will”: we know only too well what it is—the most\r\negregious theological trick that has ever existed for the purpose of\r\nmaking mankind “responsible” in a theological manner,—that is to\r\nsay, to make mankind dependent upon theologians. I will now explain\r\nto you only\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_42\"\u003e[Pg 42]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the psychology of the whole process of inculcating the\r\nsense of responsibility. Wherever men try to trace responsibility\r\nhome to anyone, it is the instinct of punishment and of the desire\r\nto judge which is active. Becoming is robbed of its innocence when\r\nany particular condition of things is traced to a will, to intentions\r\nand to responsible actions. The doctrine of the will was invented\r\nprincipally for the purpose of punishment,—that is to say, with\r\nthe intention of tracing guilt. The whole of ancient psychology,\r\nor the psychology of the will, is the outcome of the fact that its\r\noriginators, who were the priests at the head of ancient communities,\r\nwanted to create for themselves a right to administer punishments—or\r\nthe right for God to do so. Men were thought of as “free” in order that\r\nthey might be judged and punished—in order that they might be held\r\nguilty: consequently every action had to be regarded as voluntary,\r\nand the origin of every action had to be imagined as lying in\r\nconsciousness(—in this way the most fundamentally fraudulent character\r\nof psychology was established as the very principle of psychology\r\nitself). Now that we have entered upon the opposite movement, now that\r\nwe immoralists are trying with all our power to eliminate the concepts\r\nof guilt and punishment from the world once more, and to cleanse\r\npsychology, history, nature and all social institutions and customs\r\nof all signs of those two concepts, we recognise no more radical\r\nopponents than the theologians, who with their notion of “a moral order\r\nof things,” still continue to pollute the innocence of Becoming with\r\npunishment and guilt Christianity is the metaphysics of the hangman.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_43\"\u003e[Pg 43]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat then, alone, can our teaching be?—That no one gives man his\r\nqualities, neither God, society, his parents, his ancestors, nor\r\nhimself (—this non-sensical idea which is at last refuted here, was\r\ntaught as “intelligible freedom” by Kant, and perhaps even as early\r\nas Plato himself). No one is responsible for the fact that he exists\r\nat all, that he is constituted as he is, and that he happens to be in\r\ncertain circumstances and in a particular environment. The fatality of\r\nhis being cannot be divorced from the fatality of all that which has\r\nbeen and will be. This is not the result of an individual intention,\r\nof a will, of an aim, there is no attempt at attaining to any “ideal\r\nman,” or “ideal happiness” or “ideal morality” with him,—it is absurd\r\nto wish him to be careering towards some sort of purpose. \u003ci\u003eWe\u003c/i\u003e invented\r\nthe concept “purpose”; in reality purpose is altogether lacking. One\r\nis necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is\r\nin the whole,—there is nothing that could judge, measure, compare,\r\nand condemn our existence, for that would mean judging, measuring,\r\ncomparing and condemning the whole. \u003ci\u003eBut there is nothing outside the\r\nwhole!\u003c/i\u003e The fact that no one shall any longer be made responsible, that\r\nthe nature of existence may not be traced to a \u003ci\u003ecausa prima\u003c/i\u003e, that the\r\nworld is an entity neither as a sensorium nor as a spirit—\u003ci\u003ethis alone\r\nis the great deliverance\u003c/i\u003e,—thus alone is the innocence of Becoming\r\nrestored…. The concept “God” has been the greatest objection to\r\nexistence hitherto…. We deny God, we deny responsibility in God: thus\r\nalone do we save the world.—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_44\"\u003e[Pg 44]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"THE_IMPROVERS_OF_MANKIND\"\u003eTHE “IMPROVERS” OF MANKIND\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eYou are aware of my demand upon philosophers, that they should take\r\nup a stand Beyond Good and Evil,—that they should have the illusion\r\nof the moral judgment beneath them. This demand is the result of a\r\npoint of view which I was the first to formulate: \u003ci\u003ethat there are no\r\nsuch things as moral facts.\u003c/i\u003e Moral judgment has this in common with\r\nthe religious one, that it believes in realities which are not real.\r\nMorality is only an interpretation of certain phenomena: or, more\r\nstrictly speaking, a misinterpretation of them. Moral judgment, like\r\nthe religious one, belongs to a stage of ignorance in which even the\r\nconcept of reality, the distinction between real and imagined things,\r\nis still lacking: so that truth, at such a stage, is applied to a host\r\nof things which to-day we call “imaginary.” That is why the moral\r\njudgment must never be taken quite literally: as such it is sheer\r\nnonsense. As a sign code, however, it is invaluable: to him at least\r\nwho knows, it reveals the most valuable facts concerning cultures and\r\ninner conditions, which did not know enough to “understand” themselves.\r\nMorality is merely a sign-language, simply symptomatology: one must\r\nalready know what it is all about in order to turn it to any use.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_45\"\u003e[Pg 45]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet me give you one example, quite provisionally. In all ages there\r\nhave been people who wished to “improve” mankind: this above all\r\nis what was called morality. But the most different tendencies\r\nare concealed beneath the same word. Both the taming of the beast\r\nman, and the rearing of a particular type of man, have been called\r\n“improvement”: these zoological \u003ci\u003etermini,\u003c/i\u003e alone, represent real\r\nthings—real things of which the typical “improver,” the priest,\r\nnaturally knows nothing, and will know nothing. To call the taming\r\nof an animal “improving” it, sounds to our ears almost like a joke.\r\nHe who knows what goes on in menageries, doubts very much whether an\r\nanimal is improved in such places. It is certainly weakened, it is\r\nmade less dangerous, and by means of the depressing influence of fear,\r\npain, wounds, and hunger, it is converted into a sick animal. And the\r\nsame holds good of the tamed man whom the priest has “improved.” In\r\nthe early years of the Middle Ages, during which the Church was most\r\ndistinctly and above all a menagerie, the most beautiful examples of\r\nthe “blond beast” were hunted down in all directions,—the noble\r\nGermans, for instance, were “improved.” But what did this “improved”\r\nGerman, who had been lured to the monastery look like after the\r\nprocess? He looked like a caricature of man, like an abortion: he had\r\nbecome a “sinner,” he was caged up, he had been imprisoned behind a\r\nhost of apparling notions. He now lay there, sick, wretched, malevolent\r\neven toward himself: full of hate for the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_46\"\u003e[Pg 46]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e instincts of life, full of\r\nsuspicion in regard to all that is still strong and happy. In short a\r\n“Christian.” In physiological terms: in a fight with an animal, the\r\nonly way of making it weak may be to make it sick. The Church undersood\r\nthis: it ruined man, it made him weak,—but it laid claim to having\r\n“improved” him.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNow let us consider the other case which is called morality, the\r\ncase of the rearing of a particular race and species. The most\r\nmagnificent example of this is offered by Indian morality, and is\r\nsanctioned religiously as the “Law of Manu.” In this book the task\r\nis set of rearing no less than four races at once: a priestly race,\r\na warrior race, a merchant and agricultural race, and finally a race\r\nof servants—the Sudras. It is quite obvious that we are no longer\r\nin a circus watching tamers of wild animals in this book. To have\r\nconceived even the plan of such a breeding scheme, presupposes the\r\nexistence of a man who is a hundred times milder and more reasonable\r\nthan the mere lion-tamer. One breathes more freely, after stepping out\r\nof the Christian atmosphere of hospitals and prisons, into this more\r\nsalubrious, loftier and more spacious world. What a wretched thing the\r\nNew Testament is beside Manu, what an evil odour hangs around it!—But\r\neven this organisation found it necessary to be terrible,—not this\r\ntime in a struggle with the animal-man, but with his opposite, the\r\nnon-caste man, the hotch-potch man, the Chandala. And once again it\r\nhad no other means of making him weak and harmless, than by making\r\nhim sick,—it was the struggle with the greatest\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_47\"\u003e[Pg 47]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e “number.” Nothing\r\nperhaps is more offensive to our feelings than these measures of\r\nsecurity on the part of Indian morality. The third edict, for instance\r\n(Avadana-Sastra I.), which treats “of impure vegetables,” ordains that\r\nthe only nourishment that the Chandala should be allowed must consist\r\nof garlic and onions, as the holy scriptures forbid their being given\r\ncorn or grain-bearing fruit, water and fire. The same edict declares\r\nthat the water which they need must be drawn neither out of rivers,\r\nwells or ponds, but only out of the ditches leading to swamps and out\r\nof the holes left by the footprints of animals. They are likewise\r\nforbidden to wash either their linen or themselves since the water\r\nwhich is graciously granted to them must only be used for quenching\r\ntheir thirst. Finally Sudra women are forbidden to assist Chandala\r\nwomen at their confinements, while Chandala women are also forbidden to\r\nassist each other at such times. The results of sanitary regulations of\r\nthis kind could not fail to make themselves felt; deadly epidemics and\r\nthe most ghastly venereal diseases soon appeared, and in consequence\r\nof these again “the Law of the Knife,”—that is to say circumcision,\r\nwas prescribed for male children and the removal of the small labia\r\nfrom the females. Manu himself says: “the Chandala are the fruit of\r\nadultery, incest, and crime (—this is the necessary consequence of the\r\nidea of breeding). Their clothes shall consist only of the rags torn\r\nfrom corpses, their vessels shall be the fragments of broken pottery,\r\ntheir ornaments shall be made of old iron, and their religion shall be\r\nthe worship of evil spirits; without rest they shall wander from place\r\nto place.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_48\"\u003e[Pg 48]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e They are forbidden to write from left to right or to use\r\ntheir right hand in writing: the use of the right hand and writing from\r\nleft to right are reserved to people of virtue, to people of race.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese regulations are instructive enough: we can see in them the\r\nabsolutely pure and primeval humanity of the Aryans,—we learn that\r\nthe notion “pure blood,” is the reverse of harmless. On the other hand\r\nit becomes clear among which people the hatred, the Chandala hatred\r\nof this humanity has been immortalised, among which people it has\r\nbecome religion and genius. From this point of view the gospels are\r\ndocuments of the highest value; and the Book of Enoch is still more\r\nso. Christianity as sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only\r\nas grown upon this soil, represents the counter-movement against that\r\nmorality of breeding, of race and of privilege:—it is essentially an\r\nanti-Aryan religion: Christianity is the transvaluation of all Aryan\r\nvalues, the triumph of Chandala values, the proclaimed gospel of the\r\npoor and of the low, the general insurrection of all the down-trodden,\r\nthe wretched, the bungled and the botched, against the “race,”—the\r\nimmortal revenge of the Chandala as the \u003ci\u003ereligion of love.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe morality of breeding and the morality of taming, in the means which\r\nthey adopt in order to prevail, are quite worthy of each other: we may\r\nlay down as a leading principle that in order to create morality a\r\nman must have the absolute will to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_49\"\u003e[Pg 49]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e immorality. This is the great and\r\nstrange problem with which I have so long been occupied: the psychology\r\nof the “Improvers” of mankind. A small, and at bottom perfectly\r\ninsignificant fact, known as the “\u003ci\u003epia fraus\u003c/i\u003e,” first gave me access\r\nto this problem: the \u003ci\u003epia fraus,\u003c/i\u003e the heirloom of all philosophers and\r\npriests who “improve” mankind. Neither Manu, nor Plato, nor Confucius,\r\nnor the teachers of Judaism and Christianity, have ever doubted their\r\nright to falsehood. They have never doubted their right to quite a\r\nnumber of other things To express oneself in a formula, one might\r\nsay:—all means which have been used heretofore with the object of\r\nmaking man moral, were through and through immoral.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_50\"\u003e[Pg 50]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"THINGS_THE_GERMANS_LACK\"\u003eTHINGS THE GERMANS LACK\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmong Germans at the present day it does not suffice to have intellect;\r\none is actually forced to appropriate it, to lay claim to it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMaybe I know the Germans, perhaps I may tell them a few home-truths.\r\nModern Germany represents such an enormous store of inherited and\r\nacquired capacity, that for some time it might spend this accumulated\r\ntreasure even with some prodigality. It is no superior culture that has\r\nultimately become prevalent with this modern tendency, nor is it by any\r\nmeans delicate taste, or noble beauty of the instincts; but rather a\r\nnumber of virtues more manly than any that other European countries can\r\nshow. An amount of good spirits and self-respect, plenty of firmness\r\nin human relations and in the reciprocity of duties; much industry and\r\nmuch perseverance—and a certain inherited soberness which is much more\r\nin need of a spur than of a brake. Let me add that in this country\r\npeople still obey without feeling that obedience humiliates. And no one\r\ndespises his opponent.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eYou observe that it is my desire to be fair to the Germans: and in this\r\nrespect I should not like to be untrue to myself,—I must therefore\r\nalso state my objections to them. It costs a good deal to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_51\"\u003e[Pg 51]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e attain to a\r\nposition of power; for power \u003ci\u003estultifies.\u003c/i\u003e The Germans—they were once\r\ncalled a people of thinkers: do they really think at all at present?\r\nNowadays the Germans are bored by intellect, they mistrust intellect;\r\npolitics have swallowed up all earnestness for really intellectual\r\nthings—“Germany, Germany above all.”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1_6\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1_6\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e I fear this was the death-blow\r\nto German philosophy. “Are there any German philosophers? Are there any\r\nGerman poets? Are there any good German books?” people ask me abroad. I\r\nblush; but with that pluck which is peculiar to me, even in moments of\r\ndesperation, I reply: “Yes, Bismarck!”—Could I have dared to confess\r\nwhat books \u003ci\u003eare\u003c/i\u003e read to-day? Cursed instinct of mediocrity!—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat might not German intellect have been!—who has not thought sadly\r\nupon this question! But this nation has deliberately stultified itself\r\nfor almost a thousand years: nowhere else have the two great European\r\nnarcotics, alcohol and Christianity, been so viciously abused as in\r\nGermany. Recently a third opiate was added to the list, one which in\r\nitself alone would have sufficed to complete the ruin of all subtle\r\nand daring intellectual animation, I speak of music, our costive and\r\nconstipating German music. How much peevish ponderousness, paralysis,\r\ndampness, dressing-gown languor, and beer is there not in German\r\nintelligence!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow is it really possible that young men who\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_52\"\u003e[Pg 52]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e consecrate their whole\r\nlives to the pursuit of intellectual ends, should not feel within them\r\nthe first instinct of intellectuality, the \u003ci\u003eself-preservative instinct\r\nof the intellect\u003c/i\u003e—and should drink beer? The alcoholism of learned\r\nyouths does not incapacitate them for becoming scholars—a man quite\r\ndevoid of intellect may be a great scholar,—but it is a problem in\r\nevery other respect. Where can that soft degeneracy not be found, which\r\nis produced in the intellect by beer! I once laid my finger upon a case\r\nof this sort, which became almost famous,—the degeneration of our\r\nleading German free-spirit, the \u003ci\u003eclever\u003c/i\u003e David Strauss, into the author\r\nof a suburban gospel and New Faith. Not in vain had he sung the praises\r\nof “the dear old brown liquor” in verse—true unto death.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI have spoken of German intellect. I have said that it is becoming\r\ncoarser and shallower. Is that enough?—In reality something very\r\ndifferent frightens me, and that is the ever steady decline of\r\nGerman earnestness, German profundity, and German passion in things\r\nintellectual. Not only intellectuality, but also pathos has altered.\r\nFrom time to time I come in touch with German universities; what\r\nan extraordinary atmosphere prevails among their scholars! what\r\nbarrenness! and what self-satisfied and lukewarm intellectuality! For\r\nany one to point to German science as an argument against me would show\r\nthat he grossly misunderstood my meaning, while it would also prove\r\nthat he had not read a word of my writings. For seventeen\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_53\"\u003e[Pg 53]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e years I\r\nhave done little else than expose the de-intellectualising influence\r\nof our modern scientific studies. The severe slavery to which every\r\nindividual nowadays is condemned by the enormous range covered by the\r\nsciences, is the chief reason why fuller, richer and profounder natures\r\ncan find no education or educators that are fit for them. Nothing\r\nis more deleterious to this age than the superfluity of pretentious\r\nloafers and fragmentary human beings; our universities are really\r\nthe involuntary forcing houses for this kind of withering-up of the\r\ninstincts of intellectuality. And the whole of Europe is beginning\r\nto know this—politics on a large scale deceive no one. Germany is\r\nbecoming ever more and more the Flat-land of Europe. I am still in\r\nsearch of a German with whom I could be serious after my own fashion.\r\nAnd how much more am I in search of one with whom I could be cheerful\r\n\u003ci\u003e—The Twilight of the Idols:\u003c/i\u003e ah! what man to-day would be capable\r\nof understanding the kind of seriousness from which a philosopher is\r\nrecovering in this work! It is our cheerfulness that people understand\r\nleast.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us examine another aspect of the question: it is not only obvious\r\nthat German culture is declining, but adequate reasons for this decline\r\nare not lacking. After all, nobody can spend more than he has:—this\r\nis true of individuals, it is also true of nations. If you spend\r\nyour strength in acquiring power, or in politics on a large scale,\r\nor in economy, or in universal commerce, or in parliamentarism, or\r\nin military interests—if you dissipate the modicum\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_54\"\u003e[Pg 54]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of reason, of\r\nearnestness, of will, and of self-control that constitutes your nature\r\nin one particular fashion, you cannot dissipate it in another. Culture\r\nand the state—let no one be deceived on this point—are antagonists:\r\nA “culture-state”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_2_7\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_2_7\"\u003e[2]\u003c/a\u003e is merely a modern idea. The one lives upon\r\nthe other, the one flourishes at the expense of the other. All great\r\nperiods of culture have been periods of political decline; that which\r\nis great from the standpoint of culture, was always unpolitical—even\r\nanti-political. Goethe’s heart opened at the coming of Napoleon—it\r\nclosed at the thought of the “Wars of Liberation.” At the very moment\r\nwhen Germany arose as a great power in the world of politics, France\r\nwon new importance as a force in the world of culture. Even at this\r\nmoment a large amount of fresh intellectual earnestness and passion\r\nhas emigrated to Paris; the question of pessimism, for instance,\r\nand the question of Wagner; in France almost all psychological and\r\nartistic questions are considered with incomparably more subtlety and\r\nthoroughness than they are in Germany,—the Germans are even incapable\r\nof this kind of earnestness. In the history of European culture the\r\nrise of the Empire signifies, above all, a displacement of the centre\r\nof gravity. Everywhere people are already aware of this: in things that\r\nreally matter—and these after all constitute culture,—the Germans\r\nare no longer worth considering. I ask you, can you show me one single\r\nman of brains who could be\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_55\"\u003e[Pg 55]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e mentioned in the same breath with other\r\nEuropean thinkers, like your Goethe, your Hegel, your Heinrich Heine,\r\nand your Schopenhauer?—The fact that there is no longer a single\r\nGerman philosopher worth mentioning is an increasing wonder.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEverything that matters has been lost sight of by the whole of the\r\nhigher educational system of Germany: the end quite as much as the\r\nmeans to that end. People forget that education, the process of\r\ncultivation itself, is the end—and not “the Empire”—they forget that\r\nthe \u003ci\u003eeducator\u003c/i\u003e is required for this end—and not the public-school\r\nteacher and university scholar. Educators are needed who are themselves\r\neducated, superior and noble intellects, who can prove that they are\r\nthus qualified, that they are ripe and mellow products of culture\r\nat every moment of their lives, in word and in gesture;—not the\r\nlearned louts who, like “superior wet-nurses,” are now thrust upon the\r\nyouth of the land by public schools and universities. With but rare\r\nexceptions, that which is lacking in Germany is the first prerequisite\r\nof education—that is to say, the educators; hence the decline of\r\nGerman culture. One of those rarest exceptions is my highly respected\r\nfriend Jacob Burckhardt of Bâle: to him above all is Bâle indebted\r\nfor its foremost position in human culture What the higher schools\r\nof Germany really do accomplish is this, they brutally train a vast\r\ncrowd of young men, in the smallest amount of time possible, to become\r\nuseful and exploitable servants of the state.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_56\"\u003e[Pg 56]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e “Higher education”\r\nand a vast crowd—these terms contradict each other from the start.\r\nAll superior education can only concern the exception: a man must be\r\nprivileged in order to have a right to such a great privilege. All\r\ngreat and beautiful things cannot be a common possession: \u003ci\u003epulchrum\r\nest paucorum hominum.\u003c/i\u003e—What is it that brings about the decline of\r\nGerman culture? The fact that “higher education” is no longer a special\r\nprivilege—the democracy of a process of cultivation that has become\r\n“general,” \u003ci\u003ecommon.\u003c/i\u003e Nor must it be forgotten that the privileges of\r\nthe military profession by urging many too many to attend the higher\r\nschools, involve the downfall of the latter. In modern Germany nobody\r\nis at liberty to give his children a noble education: in regard to\r\ntheir teachers, their curricula, and their educational aims, our higher\r\nschools are one and all established upon a fundamentally doubtful\r\nmediocre basis. Everywhere, too, a hastiness which is unbecoming rules\r\nsupreme; just as if something would be forfeited if the young man were\r\nnot “finished” at the age of twenty-three, or did not know how to\r\nreply to the most essential question, “which calling to choose?”—The\r\nsuperior kind of man, if you please, does not like “callings,”\r\nprecisely because he knows himself to be called. He has time, he takes\r\ntime, he cannot possibly think of becoming “finished,”—in the matter\r\nof higher culture, a man of thirty years is a beginner, a child. Our\r\novercrowded public-schools, our accumulation of foolishly manufactured\r\npublic-school masters, are a scandal: maybe there are very serious\r\n\u003ci\u003emotives\u003c/i\u003e for defending this state of affairs, as was shown quite\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_57\"\u003e[Pg 57]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nrecently by the professors of Heidelberg; but there can be no reasons\r\nfor doing so.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to be true to my nature, which is affirmative and which\r\nconcerns itself with contradictions and criticism only indirectly\r\nand with reluctance, let me state at once what the three objects\r\nare for which we need educators. People must learn to see; they\r\nmust learn to think, and they must learn to speak and to write: the\r\nobject of all three of these pursuits is a noble culture. To learn\r\nto see—to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow\r\nthings to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit\r\nof approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This\r\nis the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not\r\nrespond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the\r\nobstructing and isolating instincts. To learn to see, as I understand\r\nthis matter, amounts almost to that which in popular language is\r\ncalled “strength of will”: its essential feature is precisely \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e\r\nto \u003ci\u003ewish\u003c/i\u003e to see, to be able to postpone one’s decision. All lack of\r\nintellectuality, all vulgarity, arises out of the inability to resist\r\na stimulus:—one must respond or react, every impulse is indulged. In\r\nmany cases such necessary action is already a sign of morbidity, of\r\ndecline, and a symptom of exhaustion. Almost everything that coarse\r\npopular language characterises as vicious, is merely that physiological\r\ninability to refrain from reacting.—As an instance of what it means\r\nto have learnt to see, let me state that a man\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_58\"\u003e[Pg 58]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e thus trained will as a\r\nlearner have become generally slow, suspicious, and refractory. With\r\nhostile calm he will first allow every kind of strange and \u003ci\u003enew\u003c/i\u003e thing\r\nto come right up to him,—he will draw back his hand at its approach.\r\nTo stand with all the doors of one’s soul wide open, to lie slavishly\r\nin the dust before every trivial fact, at all times of the day to be\r\nstrained ready for the leap, in order to deposit one’s self, to plunge\r\none’s self, into other souls and other things, in short, the famous\r\n“objectivity” of modern times, is bad taste, it is essentially vulgar\r\nand cheap.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs to learning how to think—our schools no longer have any notion\r\nof such a thing. Even at the universities, among the actual scholars\r\nin philosophy, logic as a theory, as a practical pursuit, and as a\r\nbusiness, is beginning to die out. Turn to any German book: you will\r\nnot find the remotest trace of a realisation that there is such a\r\nthing as a technique, a plan of study, a will to mastery, in the\r\nmatter of thinking,—that thinking insists upon being learnt, just\r\nas dancing insists upon being learnt, and that thinking insists upon\r\nbeing learnt as a form of dancing. What single German can still say he\r\nknows from experience that delicate shudder which \u003ci\u003elight footfalls\u003c/i\u003e\r\nin matters intellectual cause to pervade his whole body and limbs!\r\nStiff awkwardness in intellectual attitudes, and the clumsy fist in\r\ngrasping—these things are so essentially German, that outside Germany\r\nthey are absolutely confounded with the German spirit. The German\r\nhas no fingers for delicate \u003ci\u003enuances. \u003c/i\u003e The fact that\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_59\"\u003e[Pg 59]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the people of\r\nGermany have actually tolerated their philosophers, more particularly\r\nthat most deformed cripple of ideas that has ever existed—the great\r\nKant, gives one no inadequate notion of their native elegance. For,\r\ntruth to tell, dancing in all its forms cannot be excluded from the\r\ncurriculum of all noble education: dancing with the feet, with ideas,\r\nwith words, and, need I add that one must also be able to dance with\r\nthe pen—that one must learn how to write?—But at this stage I should\r\nbecome utterly enigmatical to German readers.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"r5\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1_6\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_6\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e The German national hymn: “\u003ci\u003eDeutschland, Deutschland über\r\nalles.—\u003c/i\u003e” TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_2_7\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_2_7\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[2]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e The word \u003ci\u003eKultur-Staat\u003c/i\u003e “culture-state” has become a\r\nstandard expression in the German language, and is applied to the\r\nleading European States.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_60\"\u003e[Pg 60]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"SKIRMISHES_IN_A_WAR_WITH_THE_AGE\"\u003eSKIRMISHES IN A WAR WITH THE AGE\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eMy Impossible People.\u003c/i\u003e—Seneca, or the toreador of virtue—-Rousseau,\r\nor the return to nature, \u003ci\u003ein impuris naturalibus.\u003c/i\u003e—Schiller, or the\r\nMoral-Trumpeter of Sackingen.—Dante, or the hyæna that writes poetry\r\nin tombs.—Kant, or \u003ci\u003ecant\u003c/i\u003e as an intelligible character.—Victor\r\nHugo, or the lighthouse on the sea of nonsense.—Liszt, or the\r\nschool of racing—after women.—George Sand, or \u003ci\u003elactea ubertas,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nin plain English: the cow with plenty of beautiful milk.—Michelet,\r\nor enthusiasm in its shirt sleeves.—Carlyle, or Pessimism after\r\nundigested meals.—John Stuart Mill, or offensive lucidity.—The\r\nbrothers Goncourt, or the two Ajaxes fighting with Homer. Music by\r\nOffenbach.—Zola, or the love of stinking.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eRenan.\u003c/i\u003e—Theology, or the corruption of reason by original sin\r\n(Christianity). Proof of this,—Renan who, even in those rare cases\r\nwhere he ventures to say either Yes or No on a general question,\r\ninvariably misses the point with painful regularity. For instance,\r\nhe would fain associate science and nobility: but surely it must be\r\nobvious that science is democratic. He seems to be actuated by a\r\nstrong desire to represent an aristocracy of intellect: but, at the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_61\"\u003e[Pg 61]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nsame time he grovels on his knees, and not only on his knees, before\r\nthe opposite doctrine, the gospel of the humble. What is the good of\r\nall free-spiritedness, modernity, mockery and acrobatic suppleness,\r\nif in one’s belly one is still a Christian, a Catholic, and even a\r\npriest! Renan’s forte, precisely like that of a Jesuit and Father\r\nConfessor, lies in his seductiveness. His intellectuality is not\r\ndevoid of that unctuous complacency of a parson,—like all priests, he\r\nbecomes dangerous only when he loves. He is second to none in the art\r\nof skilfully worshipping a dangerous thing. This intellect of Renan’s,\r\nwhich in its action is enervating, is one calamity the more, for poor,\r\nsick France with her will-power all going to pieces.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eSainte-Beuve.\u003c/i\u003e—There is naught of man in him; he is full of petty\r\nspite towards all virile spirits. He wanders erratically; he is subtle,\r\ninquisitive, a little bored, for ever with his ear to key-holes,—at\r\nbottom a woman, with all woman’s revengefulness and sensuality. As a\r\npsychologist he is a genius of slander; inexhaustively rich in means\r\nto this end; no one understands better than he how to introduce a\r\nlittle poison into praise. In his fundamental instincts he is plebeian\r\nand next of kin to Rousseau’s resentful spirit: consequently he is\r\na Romanticist—for beneath all romanticism Rousseau’s instinct for\r\nrevenge grunts and frets. He is a revolutionary, but kept within\r\nbounds by “funk.” He is embarrassed in the face of everything that is\r\nstrong (public opinion, the Academy, the court, even Port Royal). He\r\nis embittered against everything great in men\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_62\"\u003e[Pg 62]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e and things, against\r\neverything that believes in itself. Enough of a poet and of a female to\r\nbe able to feel greatness as power; he is always turning and twisting,\r\nbecause, like the proverbial worm, he constantly feels that he is\r\nbeing trodden upon. As a critic he has no standard of judgment, no\r\nguiding principle, no backbone. Although he possesses the tongue of\r\nthe Cosmopolitan libertine which can chatter about a thousand things,\r\nhe has not the courage even to acknowledge his \u003ci\u003elibertinage.\u003c/i\u003e As a\r\nhistorian he has no philosophy, and lacks the power of philosophical\r\nvision,—hence his refusal to act the part of a judge, and his adoption\r\nof the mask of “objectivity” in all important matters. His attitude\r\nis better in regard to all those things in which subtle and effete\r\ntaste is the highest tribunal: in these things he really does have\r\nthe courage of his own personality—he really does enjoy his own\r\nnature—he actually is a \u003ci\u003emaster,\u003c/i\u003e—In some respects he is a prototype\r\nof Baudelaire.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“\u003ci\u003eThe Imitation of Christ\u003c/i\u003e” is one of those books which I cannot even\r\ntake hold of without physical loathing: it exhales a perfume of the\r\neternally feminine, which to appreciate fully one must be a Frenchman\r\nor a Wagnerite. This saint has a way of speaking about love which\r\nmakes even Parisiennes feel a little curious.—I am told that that\r\n\u003ci\u003emost intelligent\u003c/i\u003e of Jesuits, Auguste Comte, who wished to lead his\r\ncompatriots back to Rome by the circuitous route of science, drew his\r\ninspiration from this book. And I believe it: “The religion of the\r\nheart.”\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_63\"\u003e[Pg 63]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eG. Eliot.\u003c/i\u003e—They are rid of the Christian God and therefore\r\nthink it all the more incumbent upon them to hold tight to Christian\r\nmorality: this is an English way of reasoning; but let us not take it\r\nill in moral females \u003ci\u003eà la\u003c/i\u003e Eliot. In England, every man who indulges\r\nin any trifling emancipation from theology, must retrieve his honour\r\nin the most terrifying manner by becoming a moral fanatic. That is how\r\nthey do penance in that country.—As for us, we act differently. When\r\nwe renounce the Christian faith, we abandon all right to Christian\r\nmorality. This is not by any means self-evident and in defiance of\r\nEnglish shallow-pates the point must be made ever more and more plain.\r\nChristianity is a system, a complete outlook upon the world, conceived\r\nas a whole. If its leading concept, the belief in God, is wrenched\r\nfrom it, the whole is destroyed; nothing vital remains in our grasp.\r\nChristianity presupposes that man does not and cannot know what is\r\ngood or bad for him: the Christian believes in God who, alone, can\r\nknow these things. Christian morality is a command, its origin is\r\ntranscendental. It is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism;\r\nit is true only on condition that God is truth,—it stands or falls\r\nwith the belief in God. If the English really believe that they know\r\nintuitively, and of their own accord, what is good and evil; if,\r\ntherefore, they assert that they no longer need Christianity as a\r\nguarantee of morality, this in itself is simply the outcome of the\r\ndominion of Christian valuations, and a proof of the strength and\r\nprofundity of this dominion. It only shows that the origin of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_64\"\u003e[Pg 64]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e English\r\nmorality has been forgotten, and that its exceedingly relative right to\r\nexist is no longer felt. For Englishmen morality is not yet a problem.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eGeorge Sand.\u003c/i\u003e—I have been reading the first “\u003ci\u003eLettres d’un\r\nVoyageur\u003c/i\u003e:” like everything that springs from Rousseau’s influence\r\nit is false, made-up, blown out, and exaggerated! I cannot endure\r\nthis bright wall-paper style, any more than I can bear the vulgar\r\nstriving after generous feelings. The worst feature about it is\r\ncertainly the coquettish adoption of male attributes by this female,\r\nafter the manner of ill-bred schoolboys. And how cold she must have\r\nbeen inwardly all the while, this insufferable artist! She wound\r\nherself up like a clock—and wrote. As cold as Hugo and Balzac, as\r\ncold as all Romanticists are as soon as they begin to write! And how\r\nself-complacently she must have lain there, this prolific ink-yielding\r\ncow. For she had something German in her (German in the bad sense),\r\njust as Rousseau, her master, had;—something which could only have\r\nbeen possible when French taste was declining!—and Renan adores her!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eA Moral for Psychologists.\u003c/i\u003e Do not go in for any note-book psychology!\r\nNever observe for the sake of observing! Such things lead to a false\r\npoint of view, to a squint, to something forced and exaggerated.\r\nTo experience things on purpose—this is not a bit of good. In the\r\nmidst of an experience a man should not turn his eyes upon himself;\r\nin such cases\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_65\"\u003e[Pg 65]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e any eye becomes the “evil eye.” A born psychologist\r\ninstinctively avoids seeing for the sake of seeing. And the same holds\r\ngood of the born painter. Such a man never works “from nature,”—he\r\nleaves it to his instinct, to his \u003ci\u003ecamera obscura\u003c/i\u003e to sift and to\r\ndefine the “fact,” “nature,” the “experience.” The general idea,\r\nthe conclusion, the result, is the only thing that reaches his\r\nconsciousness. He knows nothing of that wilful process of deducing\r\nfrom particular cases. What is the result when a man sets about this\r\nmatter differently?—when, for instance, after the manner of Parisian\r\nnovelists, he goes in for note-book psychology on a large and small\r\nscale? Such a man is constantly spying on reality, and every evening\r\nhe bears home a handful of fresh curios…. But look at the result!—a\r\nmass of daubs, at best a piece of mosaic, in any case something heaped\r\ntogether, restless and garish. The Goncourts are the greatest sinners\r\nin this respect: they cannot put three sentences together which are not\r\nabsolutely painful to the eye—the eye of the psychologist. From an\r\nartistic standpoint, nature is no model. It exaggerates, distorts, and\r\nleaves gaps. Nature is the \u003ci\u003eaccident.\u003c/i\u003e To study “from nature” seems to\r\nme a bad sign: it betrays submission, weakness, fatalism—this lying\r\nin the dust before trivial facts is unworthy of a thorough artist. To\r\nsee \u003ci\u003ewhat is\u003c/i\u003e—is the function of another order of intellects, the\r\n\u003ci\u003eanti-artistic,\u003c/i\u003e the matter-of-fact. One must know \u003ci\u003ewho\u003c/i\u003e one is.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eConcerning the psychology of the artist\u003c/i\u003e For art to be possible at\r\nall—that is to say, in order that an\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_66\"\u003e[Pg 66]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e æsthetic mode of action and of\r\nobservation may exist, a certain preliminary physiological state is\r\nindispensable \u003ci\u003eecstasy.\u003c/i\u003e\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1_8\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1_8\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e This state of ecstasy must first have\r\nintensified the susceptibility of the whole machine: otherwise, no art\r\nis possible. All kinds of ecstasy, however differently produced, have\r\nthis power to create art, and above all the state dependent upon sexual\r\nexcitement—this most venerable and primitive form of ecstasy. The same\r\napplies to that ecstasy which is the outcome of all great desires,\r\nall strong passions; the ecstasy of the feast, of the arena, of the\r\nact of bravery, of victory, of all extreme action; the ecstasy of\r\ncruelty; the ecstasy of destruction; the ecstasy following upon certain\r\nmeteorological influences, as for instance that of spring-time, or upon\r\nthe use of narcotics; and finally the ecstasy of will, that ecstasy\r\nwhich results from accumulated and surging will-power.—The essential\r\nfeature of ecstasy is the feeling of increased strength and abundance.\r\nActuated by this feeling a man gives of himself to things, \u003ci\u003ehe\r\nforces\u003c/i\u003e them to partake of his riches, he does violence to them—this\r\nproceeding is called \u003ci\u003eidealising.\u003c/i\u003e Let us rid ourselves of a prejudice\r\nhere: idealising does not consist, as is generally believed, in a\r\nsuppression or an elimination of detail or of unessential features.\r\nA stupendous \u003ci\u003eaccentuation\u003c/i\u003e of the principal characteristics is by\r\nfar the most decisive factor at work, and in consequence the minor\r\ncharacteristics vanish.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_67\"\u003e[Pg 67]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn this state a man enriches everything from out his own abundance:\r\nwhat he sees, what he wills, he sees distended, compressed, strong,\r\noverladen with power. He transfigures things until they reflect his\r\npower,—until they are stamped with his perfection. This compulsion\r\nto transfigure into the beautiful is—Art. Everything—even that which\r\nhe is not,—is nevertheless to such a man a means of rejoicing over\r\nhimself; in Art man rejoices over himself as perfection.—It is\r\npossible to imagine a contrary state, a specifically anti-artistic\r\nstate of the instincts,—a state in which a man impoverishes,\r\nattenuates, and draws the blood from everything. And, truth to tell,\r\nhistory is full of such anti-artists, of such creatures of low\r\nvitality who have no choice but to appropriate everything they see\r\nand to suck its blood and make it thinner. This is the case with the\r\ngenuine Christian, Pascal for instance. There is no such thing as a\r\nChristian who is also an artist … Let no one be so childish as to\r\nsuggest Raphael or any homeopathic Christian of the nineteenth century\r\nas an objection to this statement: Raphael said Yea, Raphael \u003ci\u003edid\u003c/i\u003e\r\nYea,—consequently Raphael was no Christian.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is the meaning of the antithetical concepts \u003ci\u003eApollonian\u003c/i\u003e and\r\n\u003ci\u003eDionysian\u003c/i\u003e which I have introduced into the vocabulary of Æsthetic, as\r\nrepresenting two distinct modes of ecstasy?—Apollonian ecstasy acts\r\nabove all as a force stimulating the eye, so that it acquires the power\r\nof vision. The painter, the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_68\"\u003e[Pg 68]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e sculptor, the epic poet are essentially\r\nvisionaries. In the Dionysian state, on the other hand, the whole\r\nsystem of passions is stimulated and intensified, so that it discharges\r\nitself by all the means of expression at once, and vents all its power\r\nof representation, of imitation, of transfiguration, of transformation,\r\ntogether with every kind of mimicry and histrionic display at the same\r\ntime. The essential feature remains the facility in transforming,\r\nthe inability to refrain from reaction (—a similar state to that of\r\ncertain hysterical patients, who at the slightest hint assume any\r\nrôle). It is impossible for the Dionysian artist not to understand any\r\nsuggestion; no outward sign of emotion escapes him, he possesses\r\nthe instinct of comprehension and of divination in the highest degree,\r\njust as he is capable of the most perfect art of communication. He\r\nenters into every skin, into every passion: he is continually changing\r\nhimself. Music as we understand it to-day is likewise a general\r\nexcitation and discharge of the emotions; but, notwithstanding this, it\r\nis only the remnant of a much richer world of emotional expression, a\r\nmere residuum of Dionysian histrionism. For music to be made possible\r\nas a special art, quite a number of senses, and particularly the\r\nmuscular sense, had to be paralysed (at least relatively: for all\r\nrhythm still appeals to our muscles to a certain extent): and thus man\r\nno longer imitates and represents physically everything he feels, as\r\nsoon as he feels it. Nevertheless that is the normal Dionysian state,\r\nand in any case its primitive state. Music is the slowly attained\r\nspecialisation of this state at the cost of kindred capacities.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_69\"\u003e[Pg 69]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe actor, the mime, the dancer, the musician, and the lyricist, are\r\nin their instincts fundamentally related; but they have gradually\r\nspecialised in their particular branch, and become separated—even\r\nto the point of contradiction. The lyricist remained united with the\r\nmusician for the longest period of time; and the actor with the dancer.\r\nThe architect manifests neither a Dionysian nor an Apollonian state: In\r\nhis case it is the great act of will, the will that moveth mountains,\r\nthe ecstasy of the great will which aspires to art. The most powerful\r\nmen have always inspired architects; the architect has always been\r\nunder the suggestion of power. In the architectural structure, man’s\r\npride, man’s triumph over gravitation, man’s will to power, assume\r\na visible form. Architecture is a sort of oratory of power by means\r\nof forms. Now it is persuasive, even flattering, and at other times\r\nmerely commanding. The highest sensation of power and security finds\r\nexpression in grandeur of style. That power which no longer requires to\r\nbe proved, which scorns to please; which responds only with difficulty;\r\nwhich feels no witnesses around it; which is oblivious of the fact\r\nthat it is being opposed; which relies on itself fatalistically, and\r\nis a law among laws:—such power expresses itself quite naturally in\r\ngrandeur of style.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI have been reading the life of Thomas Carlyle, that unconscious and\r\ninvoluntary farce, that heroico-moral interpretation of dyspeptic\r\nmoods.—Carlyle, a man of strong words and attitudes, a rhetorician\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_70\"\u003e[Pg 70]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e by\r\nnecessity, who seems ever to be tormented by the desire of finding some\r\nkind of strong faith, and by his inability to do so (—in this respect\r\na typical Romanticist!). To yearn for a strong faith is not the proof\r\nof a strong faith, but rather the reverse. If a man have a strong faith\r\nhe can indulge in the luxury of scepticism; he is strong enough, firm\r\nenough, well-knit enough for such a luxury. Carlyle stupefies something\r\nin himself by means of the \u003ci\u003efortissimo\u003c/i\u003e of his reverence for men of a\r\nstrong faith, and his rage over those who are less foolish: he is in\r\nsore need of noise. An attitude of constant and passionate dishonesty\r\ntowards himself—this is his \u003ci\u003eproprium;\u003c/i\u003e by virtue of this he is and\r\nremains interesting.—Of course, in England he is admired precisely\r\non account of his honesty. Well, that is English; and in view of the\r\nfact that the English are the nation of consummate cant, it is not only\r\ncomprehensible but also very natural. At bottom, Carlyle is an English\r\natheist who makes it a point of honour not to be one.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eEmerson.\u003c/i\u003e—He is much more enlightened, much broader, more versatile,\r\nand more subtle than Carlyle; but above all, he is happier. He is one\r\nwho instinctively lives on ambrosia and who leaves the indigestible\r\nparts of things on his plate. Compared with Carlyle he is a man of\r\ntaste.—Carlyle, who was very fond of him, nevertheless declared that\r\n“he does not give us enough to chew.” This is perfectly true but\r\nit is not unfavourable to Emerson.—Emerson possesses that kindly\r\nintellectual cheerfulness which deprecates overmuch seriousness; he\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_71\"\u003e[Pg 71]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhas absolutely no idea of how old he is already, and how young he will\r\nyet be,—he could have said of himself, in Lope de Vega’s words: “\u003ci\u003eyo\r\nme sucedo a mi mismo.\u003c/i\u003e” His mind is always finding reasons for being\r\ncontented and even thankful; and at times he gets preciously near to\r\nthat serene superiority of the worthy bourgeois who returning from an\r\namorous rendezvous \u003ci\u003etamquam re bene gesta,\u003c/i\u003e said gratefully “\u003ci\u003eUt desint\r\nvires, tamen est laudanda voluptas.\u003c/i\u003e”—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eAnti-Darwin.\u003c/i\u003e—As to the famous “struggle for existence,” it seems to\r\nme, for the present, to be more of an assumption than a fact. It does\r\noccur, but as an exception. The general condition of life is not one\r\nof want or famine, but rather of riches, of lavish luxuriance, and even\r\nof absurd prodigality,—where there is a struggle, it is a struggle\r\nfor power. We should not confound Malthus with nature.—Supposing,\r\nhowever, that this struggle exists,—and it does indeed occur,—its\r\nresult is unfortunately the very reverse of that which the Darwinian\r\nschool seems to desire, and of that which in agreement with them we\r\nalso might desire: that is to say, it is always to the disadvantage\r\nof the strong, the privileged, and the happy exceptions. Species\r\ndo not evolve towards perfection: the weak always prevail over the\r\nstrong—simply because they are the majority, and because they are also\r\nthe more crafty. Darwin forgot the intellect (—that is English!), the\r\nweak have more intellect. In order to acquire intellect, one must be in\r\nneed of it. One loses it when one no longer needs it. He who possesses\r\nstrength\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_72\"\u003e[Pg 72]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e flings intellect to the deuce (—“let it go hence!”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_2_9\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_2_9\"\u003e[2]\u003c/a\u003e\r\nsay the Germans of the present day, “the \u003ci\u003eEmpire\u003c/i\u003e will remain”).\r\nAs you perceive, intellect to me means caution, patience, craft,\r\ndissimulation, great self-control, and everything related to mimicry\r\n(what is praised nowadays as virtue is very closely related the latter).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eCasuistry of a Psychologist.\u003c/i\u003e—This man knows mankind: to what purpose\r\ndoes he study his fellows? He wants to derive some small or even\r\ngreat advantages from them,—he is a politician!… That man yonder\r\nis also well versed in human nature: and ye tell me that he wishes to\r\ndraw no personal profit from his knowledge, that he is a thoroughly\r\ndisinterested person? Examine him a little more closely! Maybe he\r\nwishes to derive a more wicked advantage from his possession; namely,\r\nto feel superior to men, to be able to look down upon them, no longer\r\nto feel one of them. This “disinterested person” is a despiser of\r\nmankind; and the former is of a more humane type, whatever appearances\r\nmay seem to say to the contrary. At least he considers himself the\r\nequal of those about him, at least he classifies himself with them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe psychological tact\u003c/i\u003e of Germans seems to me to have been set in\r\ndoubt by a whole series of cases\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_73\"\u003e[Pg 73]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e which my modesty forbids me to\r\nenumerate. In one case at least I shall not let the occasion slip\r\nfor substantiating my contention: I bear the Germans a grudge for\r\nhaving made a mistake about Kant and his “backstairs philosophy,” as\r\nI call it. Such a man was not the type of intellectual uprightness.\r\nAnother thing I hate to hear is a certain infamous “and”: the Germans\r\nsay, “Goethe \u003ci\u003eand\u003c/i\u003e Schiller,”—I even fear that they say, “Schiller\r\nand Goethe.” … Has nobody found Schiller out yet?—But there are\r\nother “ands” which are even more egregious. With my own ears I have\r\nheard—only among University professors, it is true!—men speak of\r\n“Schopenhauer \u003ci\u003eand\u003c/i\u003e Hartmann.” …\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_3_10\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_3_10\"\u003e[3]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe most intellectual men, provided they are also the most courageous,\r\nexperience the most excruciating tragedies: but on that very account\r\nthey honour life, because it confronts them with its most formidable\r\nantagonism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eConcerning “\u003ci\u003ethe Conscience of the Intellect\u003c/i\u003e” Nothing seems to me\r\nmore uncommon to-day than genuine hypocrisy. I strongly suspect that\r\nthis growth is unable to flourish in the mild climate of our culture.\r\nHypocrisy belongs to an age of strong faith,—one in which one does\r\nnot lose one’s own faith in spite of the fact that one has to make\r\nan\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_74\"\u003e[Pg 74]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e outward show of holding another faith. Nowadays a man gives it\r\nup; or, what is still more common, he acquires a second faith,—in\r\nany case, however, he remains honest. Without a doubt it is possible\r\nto have a much larger number of convictions at present, than it was\r\nformerly: \u003ci\u003epossible\u003c/i\u003e—that is to say, allowable,—that is to say,\r\n\u003ci\u003eharmless.\u003c/i\u003e From this there arises an attitude of toleration towards\r\none’s self. Toleration towards one’s self allows of a greater number\r\nof convictions: the latter live comfortably side by side, and they\r\ntake jolly good care, as all the world does to-day, not to compromise\r\nthemselves. How does a man compromise himself to-day? When he is\r\nconsistent; when he pursues a straight course; when he has anything\r\nless than five faces; when he is genuine…. I very greatly fear that\r\nmodern man is much too fond of comfort for certain vices; and the\r\nconsequence is that the latter are dying out. Everything evil which\r\nis the outcome of strength of will—and maybe there is nothing evil\r\nwithout the strengh of will,—degenerates, in our muggy atmosphere,\r\ninto virtue. The few hypocrites I have known only imitated hypocrisy:\r\nlike almost every tenth man to-day, they were actors.—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eBeautiful and Ugly:\u003c/i\u003e—Nothing is more relative, let us say, more\r\nrestricted, than our sense of the beautiful. He who would try to\r\ndivorce it from the delight man finds in his fellows, would immediately\r\nlose his footing. “Beauty in itself,” is simply a word, it is not even\r\na concept. In the beautiful, man postulates himself as the standard of\r\nperfection;\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_75\"\u003e[Pg 75]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e in exceptional cases he worships himself as that standard.\r\nA species has no other alternative than to say “yea” to itself alone,\r\nin this way. Its lowest instinct, the instinct of self-preservation and\r\nself-expansion, still radiates in such sublimities. Man imagines the\r\nworld itself to be overflowing with beauty,—he forgets that he is the\r\ncause of it all. He alone has endowed it with beauty. Alas! and only\r\nwith human all-too-human beauty! Truth to tell man reflects himself in\r\nthings, he thinks everything beautiful that throws his own image back\r\nat him. The judgment “beautiful” is the “vanity of his species.” …\r\nA little demon of suspicion may well whisper into the sceptic’s ear:\r\nis the world really beautified simply because man thinks it beautiful?\r\nHe has only humanised it—that is all. But nothing, absolutely nothing\r\nproves to us that it is precisely man who is the proper model of\r\nbeauty. Who knows what sort of figure he would cut in the eyes of a\r\nhigher judge of taste? He might seem a little \u003ci\u003eoutré\u003c/i\u003e? perhaps even\r\nsomewhat amusing? perhaps a trifle arbitrary? “O Dionysus, thou divine\r\none, why dost thou pull mine ears?” Ariadne asks on one occasion of\r\nher philosophic lover, during one of those famous conversations on the\r\nisland of Naxos. “I find a sort of humour in thine ears, Ariadne: why\r\nare they not a little longer?”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNothing is beautiful; man alone is beautiful: all æsthetic rests on\r\nthis piece of ingenuousness, it is the first axiom of this science.\r\nAnd now let us straightway add the second to it: nothing is ugly save\r\nthe\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_76\"\u003e[Pg 76]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e degenerate man,—within these two first principles the realm of\r\næsthetic judgments is confined. From the physiological standpoint,\r\neverything ugly weakens and depresses man. It reminds him of decay,\r\ndanger, impotence; he literally loses strength in its presence. The\r\neffect of ugliness may be gauged by the dynamometer. Whenever man’s\r\nspirits are downcast, it is a sign that he scents the proximity of\r\nsomething “ugly.” His feeling of power, his will to power, his courage\r\nand his pride—these things collapse at the sight of what is ugly, and\r\nrise at the sight of what is beautiful. In both cases an inference is\r\ndrawn; the premises to which are stored with extra ordinary abundance\r\nin the instincts. Ugliness is understood to signify a hint and a\r\nsymptom of degeneration: that which reminds us however remotely of\r\ndegeneracy, impels us to the judgment “ugly.” Every sign of exhaustion,\r\nof gravity, of age, of fatigue; every kind of constraint, such as\r\ncramp, or paralysis; and above all the smells, colours and forms\r\nassociated with decomposition and putrefaction, however much they may\r\nhave been attenuated into symbols,—all these things provoke the same\r\nreaction which is the judgment “ugly.” A certain hatred expresses\r\nitself here: what is it that man hates? Without a doubt it is the\r\n\u003ci\u003edecline of his type.\u003c/i\u003e In this regard his hatred springs from the\r\ndeepest instincts of the race: there is horror, caution, profundity and\r\nfar-reaching vision in this hatred,—it is the most profound hatred\r\nthat exists. On its account alone Art is profound.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_77\"\u003e[Pg 77]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eSchopenhauer.\u003c/i\u003e—Schopenhauer, the last German who is to be reckoned\r\nwith (—who is a European event like Goethe, Hegel, or Heinrich Heine,\r\nand who is not merely local, national), is for a psychologist a case\r\nof the first rank: I mean as a malicious though masterly attempt to\r\nenlist on the side of a general nihilistic depreciation of life, the\r\nvery forces which are opposed to such a movement,—that is to say, the\r\ngreat self-affirming powers of the “will to live,” the exuberant forms\r\nof life itself. He interpreted Art, heroism, genius, beauty, great\r\nsympathy, knowledge, the will to truth, and tragedy, one after the\r\nother, as the results of the denial, or of the need of the denial, of\r\nthe “will”—the greatest forgery, Christianity always excepted, which\r\nhistory has to show. Examined more carefully, he is in this respect\r\nsimply the heir of the Christian interpretation; except that he knew\r\nhow to approve in a Christian fashion (\u003ci\u003ei.e.\u003c/i\u003e, nihilistically) even\r\nof the great facts of human culture, which Christianity completely\r\nrepudiates. (He approved of them as paths to “salvation,” as\r\npreliminary stages to “salvation,” as \u003ci\u003eappetisers\u003c/i\u003e calculated to arouse\r\nthe desire for “salvation.”)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet me point to one single instance. Schopenhauer speaks of beauty with\r\nmelancholy ardour,—why in sooth does he do this? Because in beauty\r\nhe sees a bridge on which one can travel further, or which stimulates\r\none’s desire to travel further. According to him it constitutes a\r\nmomentary emancipation from\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_78\"\u003e[Pg 78]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the “will”—it lures to eternal salvation.\r\nHe values it more particularly as a deliverance from the “burning core\r\nof the will” which is sexuality,—in beauty he recognises the negation\r\nof the procreative instinct. Singular Saint! Some one contradicts thee;\r\nI fear it is Nature. Why is there beauty of tone, colour, aroma, and\r\nof rhythmic movement in Nature at all? What is it forces beauty to the\r\nfore? Fortunately, too, a certain philosopher contradicts him. No less\r\nan authority than the divine Plato himself (thus does Schopenhauer\r\ncall him), upholds another proposition: that all beauty lures to\r\nprocreation,—that this precisely is the chief characteristic of its\r\neffect, from the lowest sensuality to the highest spirituality.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePlato goes further. With an innocence for which a man must be Greek\r\nand not “Christian,” he says that there would be no such thing as\r\nPlatonic philosophy if there were not such beautiful boys in Athens:\r\nit was the sight of them alone that set the soul of the philosopher\r\nreeling with erotic passion, and allowed it no rest until it had\r\nplanted the seeds of all lofty things in a soil so beautiful. He\r\nwas also a singular saint!—One scarcely believes one’s ears, even\r\nsupposing one believes Plato. At least one realises that philosophy was\r\npursued differently in Athens; above all, publicly. Nothing is less\r\nGreek than the cobweb-spinning with concepts by an anchorite, \u003ci\u003eamor\r\nintellectualis dei\u003c/i\u003e after the fashion of Spinoza. Philosophy according\r\nto Plato’s style might be defined rather as an erotic competition, as a\r\ncontinuation and a spiritualisation of the old\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_79\"\u003e[Pg 79]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e agonal gymnastics and\r\nthe conditions on which they depend…. What was the ultimate outcome\r\nof this philosophic eroticism of Plato’s? A new art-form of the Greek\r\n\u003ci\u003eAgon,\u003c/i\u003e dialectics.—In opposition to Schopenhauer and to the honour of\r\nPlato, I would remind you that all the higher culture and literature of\r\nclassical France, as well, grew up on the soil of sexual interests. In\r\nall its manifestations you may look for gallantry, the senses, sexual\r\ncompetition, and “woman,” and you will not look in vain.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eL’Art pour l’Art.\u003c/i\u003e—The struggle against a purpose in art is always a\r\nstruggle against the moral tendency in art, against its subordination\r\nto morality. \u003ci\u003eL’art pour l’art\u003c/i\u003e means, “let morality go to the devil!”\r\n—But even this hostility betrays the preponderating power of the moral\r\nprejudice. If art is deprived of the purpose of preaching morality\r\nand of improving mankind, it does not by any means follow that art is\r\nabsolutely pointless, purposeless, senseless, in short \u003ci\u003el’art pour\r\nl’art\u003c/i\u003e—a snake which bites its own tail. “No purpose at all is better\r\nthan a moral purpose!”—thus does pure passion speak. A psychologist,\r\non the other hand, puts the question: what does all art do? does it\r\nnot praise? does it not glorify? does it not select? does it not\r\nbring things into prominence? In all this it strengthens or weakens\r\ncertain valuations. Is this only a secondary matter? an accident?\r\nsomething in which the artist’s instinct has no share? Or is it not\r\nrather the very prerequisite which enables the artist to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_80\"\u003e[Pg 80]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e accomplish\r\nsomething?… Is his most fundamental instinct concerned with art?\r\nIs it not rather concerned with the purpose of art, with life? with\r\na certain desirable kind of life? Art is the great stimulus to life;\r\nhow can it be regarded as purpose less, as pointless, as \u003ci\u003el’art pour\r\nl’art?\u003c/i\u003e—There still remains one question to be answered: Art also\r\nreveals much that is ugly, hard and questionable in life,—does it\r\nnot thus seem to make life intolerable?—And, as a matter of fact,\r\nthere have been philosophers who have ascribed this function to art.\r\nAccording to Schopenhauer’s doctrine, the general object of art was to\r\n“free one from the Will”; and what he honoured as the great utility\r\nof tragedy, was that it “made people more resigned.”—But this, as\r\nI have already shown, is a pessimistic standpoint; it is the “evil\r\neye”: the artist himself must be appealed to. What is it that the soul\r\nof the tragic artist communicates to others? Is it not precisely his\r\nfearless attitude towards that which is terrible and questionable?\r\nThis attitude is in itself a highly desirable one; he who has once,\r\nexperienced it honours it above everything else. He communicates it. He\r\nmust communicate, provided he is an artist and a genius in the art of\r\ncommunication. A courageous and free spirit, in the presence of a mighty\r\nfoe, in the presence of a sublime misfortune, and face to face with a\r\nproblem that inspires horror—this is the triumphant attitude which\r\nthe tragic artist selects and which he glorifies. The martial elements\r\nin our soul celebrate their Saturnalia in tragedy; he who is used to\r\nsuffering, he who looks out for suffering, the heroic man, extols his\r\nexistence\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_81\"\u003e[Pg 81]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e by means of tragedy,—to him alone does the tragic artist\r\noffer this cup of sweetest cruelty.—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo associate in an amiable fashion with anybody; to keep the house of\r\none’s heart open to all, is certainly liberal: but it is nothing else.\r\nOne can recognise the hearts that are capable of noble hospitality, by\r\ntheir wealth of screened windows and closed shutters: they keep their\r\nbest rooms empty. Whatever for?—Because they are expecting guests who\r\nare somebodies.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe no longer value ourselves sufficiently highly when we communicate\r\nour soul’s content. Our real experiences are not at all garrulous. They\r\ncould not communicate themselves even if they wished to. They are at a\r\nloss to find words for such confidences. Those things for which we find\r\nwords, are things wehave already overcome. In all speech there lies\r\nan element of contempt. Speech, it would seem, was only invented for\r\naverage, mediocre and communicable things.—Every spoken word proclaims\r\nthe speaker vulgarised—(Extract from a moral code for deaf-and-dumb\r\npeople and other philosophers.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“This picture is perfectly beautiful!”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_4_11\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_4_11\"\u003e[4]\u003c/a\u003e The dissatisfied and\r\nexasperated literary woman with a desert in her heart and in her belly,\r\nlistening with\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_82\"\u003e[Pg 82]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e agonised curiosity every instant to the imperative\r\nwhich whispers to her from the very depths of her being: \u003ci\u003eaut liberi,\r\naut libri:\u003c/i\u003e the literary woman, sufficiently educated to understand the\r\nvoice of nature, even when nature speaks Latin, and moreover enough\r\nof a peacock and a goose to speak even French with herself in secret\r\n“\u003ci\u003eJe me verrai, je me lirai, je m’extasierai et je dirai: Possible, que\r\nj’aie eu tant d’esprit?\u003c/i\u003e” …\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe objective ones speak.—“Nothing comes more easily to us, than to\r\nbe wise, patient, superior. We are soaked in the oil of indulgence and\r\nof sympathy, we are absurdly just, we forgive everything. Precisely on\r\nthat account we should be severe with ourselves; for that very reason\r\nwe ought from time to time to go in for a little emotion, a little\r\nemotional vice. It may seem bitter to us; and between ourselves we may\r\neven laugh at the figure which it makes us cut But what does it matter?\r\nWe have no other kind of self-control left. This is our asceticism, our\r\nmanner of performing penance.” \u003ci\u003eTo become personal\u003c/i\u003e—the virtues of the\r\n“impersonal and objective one.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eExtract from a doctor’s examination paper.\u003c/i\u003e—“What is the task of all\r\nhigher schooling?”—To make man into a machine. “What are the means\r\nemployed?”—He must learn how to be bored. “How is this achieved?”—By\r\nmeans of the concept duty. “What example of duty has he before his\r\neyes?”—The philologist: it is he who teaches people\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_83\"\u003e[Pg 83]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e how to swat.\r\n“Who is the perfect man?”—The Government official. “Which philosophy\r\nfurnishes the highest formula for the Government official?”—Kant’s\r\nphilosophy: the Government official as thing-in-itself made judge over\r\nthe Government official as appearance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe right to Stupidity.\u003c/i\u003e—The worn-out worker, whose breath is\r\nslow, whose look is good-natured, and who lets things slide just as\r\nthey please: this typical figure which in this age of labour (and\r\nof “Empire!”) is to be met with in all classes of society, has now\r\nbegun to appropriate even Art, including the book, above all the\r\nnewspaper,—and how much more so beautiful nature, Italy! This man\r\nof the evening, with his “savage instincts lulled,” as Faust has it;\r\nneeds his summer holiday, his sea-baths, his glacier, his Bayreuth.\r\nIn such ages Art has the right to be \u003ci\u003epurely foolish,\u003c/i\u003e—as a sort of\r\nvacation for spirit, wit and sentiment. Wagner understood this. Pure\r\nfoolishness\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_5_12\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_5_12\"\u003e[5]\u003c/a\u003e is a pick-me-up….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eYet another problem of diet.\u003c/i\u003e—The means with which Julius Cæsar\r\npreserved himself against sickness and headaches: heavy marches,\r\nthe simplest mode of living, uninterrupted sojourns in the open\r\nair, continual hardships,—generally speaking these are the\r\nself-preservative and self-defensive measures against the extreme\r\nvulnerability of those subtle\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_84\"\u003e[Pg 84]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e machines working at the highest\r\npressure, which are called geniuses.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Immoralist speaks.\u003c/i\u003e—Nothing is more distasteful to true\r\nphilosophers than man when he begins to wish…. If they see man only\r\nat his deeds; if they see this bravest, craftiest and most enduring\r\nof animals even inextricably entangled in disaster, how admirable he\r\nthen appears to them! They even encourage him…. But true philosophers\r\ndespise the man who wishes, as also the “desirable” man—and all the\r\ndesiderata and \u003ci\u003eideals\u003c/i\u003e of man in general. If a philosopher could be a\r\nnihilist, he would be one; for he finds only nonentity behind all human\r\nideals. Or, not even nonentity, but vileness, absurdity, sickness,\r\ncowardice, fatigue and all sorts of dregs from out the quaffed goblets\r\nof his life…. How is it that man, who as a reality is so estimable,\r\nceases from deserving respect the moment he begins to desire? Must he\r\npay for being so perfect as a reality? Must he make up for his deeds,\r\nfor the tension of spirit and will which underlies all his deeds, by an\r\neclipse of his powers in matters of the imagination and in absurdity?\r\nHitherto the history of his desires has been the \u003ci\u003epartie honteuse\u003c/i\u003e of\r\nmankind: one should take care not to read too deeply in this history.\r\nThat which justifies man is his reality,—it will justify him to all\r\neternity. How much more valuable is a real man than any other man\r\nwho is merely the phantom of desires, of dreams of stinks and of\r\nlies?—than any kind of ideal man? … And the ideal man, alone, is\r\nwhat the philosopher cannot abide.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_85\"\u003e[Pg 85]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Natural Value of Egoism.\u003c/i\u003e—Selfishness has as much value as the\r\nphysiological value of him who practises it: its worth may be great,\r\nor it may be worthless and contemptible. Every individual may be\r\nclassified according to whether he represents the ascending or the\r\ndescending line of life. When this is decided, a canon is obtained\r\nby means of which the value of his selfishness may be determined.\r\nIf he represent the ascending line of life, his value is of course\r\nextraordinary—and for the sake of the collective life which in him\r\nmakes one step \u003ci\u003eforward,\u003c/i\u003e the concern about his maintenance, about\r\nprocuring his \u003ci\u003eoptimum\u003c/i\u003e of conditions may even be extreme. The human\r\nunit, the “individual,” as the people and the philosopher have always\r\nunderstood him, is certainly an error: he is nothing in himself, no\r\natom, no “link in the chain,” no mere heritage from the past,—he\r\nrepresents the whole direct line of mankind up to his own life….\r\nIf he represent declining development, decay, chronic degeneration,\r\nsickness (—illnesses are on the whole already the outcome of decline,\r\nand not the cause thereof), he is of little worth, and the purest\r\nequity would have him \u003ci\u003etake away\u003c/i\u003e as little as possible from those who\r\nare lucky strokes of nature. He is then only a parasite upon them….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe Christian and the Anarchist.\u003c/i\u003e—When the anarchist, as the\r\nmouthpiece of the decaying strata of society, raises his voice in\r\nsplendid indignation for “right,” “justice,” “equal rights,” he\r\nis only\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_86\"\u003e[Pg 86]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e groaning under the burden of his ignorance, which cannot\r\nunderstand \u003ci\u003ewhy\u003c/i\u003e he actually suffers,—what his poverty consists\r\nof—the poverty of life. An instinct of causality is active in\r\nhim: someone must be responsible for his being so ill at ease. His\r\n“splendid indignation” alone relieves him somewhat, it is a pleasure\r\nfor all poor devils to grumble—it gives them a little intoxicating\r\nsensation of power. The very act of complaining, the mere fact that one\r\nbewails one’s lot, may lend such a charm to life that on that account\r\nalone, one is ready to endure it. There is a small dose of revenge in\r\nevery lamentation. One casts one’s afflictions, and, under certain\r\ncircumstances, even one’s baseness, in the teeth of those who are\r\ndifferent, as if their condition were an injustice, an \u003ci\u003einiquitous\u003c/i\u003e\r\nprivilege. “Since I am \u003ci\u003ea blackguard\u003c/i\u003e you ought to be one too.” It is\r\nupon such reasoning that revolutions are based.—To bewail one’s lot\r\nis always despicable: it is always the outcome of weakness. Whether\r\none ascribes one’s afflictions to others or to \u003ci\u003eone’s self,\u003c/i\u003e it is all\r\nthe same. The socialist does the former, the Christian, for instance,\r\ndoes the latter. That which is common to both attitudes, or rather\r\nthat which is equally ignoble in them both, is the fact that somebody\r\nmust be to \u003ci\u003eblame\u003c/i\u003e if one suffers—in short that the sufferer drugs\r\nhimself with the honey of revenge to allay his anguish. The objects\r\ntowards which this lust of vengeance, like a lust of pleasure, are\r\ndirected, are purely accidental causes. In all directions the sufferer\r\nfinds reasons for cooling his petty passion for revenge. If he is a\r\nChristian, I repeat, he finds these reasons in himself. The Christian\r\nand the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_87\"\u003e[Pg 87]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Anarchist—both are decadents. But even when the Christian\r\ncondemns, slanders, and sullies the world, he is actuated by precisely\r\nthe same instinct as that which leads the socialistic workman to curse,\r\ncalumniate and cast dirt at society. The last “Judgment” itself is\r\nstill the sweetest solace to revenge—revolution, as the socialistic\r\nworkman expects it, only thought of as a little more remote…. The\r\nnotion of a “Beyond,” as well—why a Beyond, if it be not a means of\r\nsplashing mud over a “Here,” over this world? …\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eA Criticism of the Morality of Decadence.\u003c/i\u003e—An “altruistic”\r\nmorality, a morality under which selfishness withers, is in all\r\ncircumstances a bad sign. This is true of individuals and above\r\nall of nations. The best are lacking when selfishness begins to be\r\nlacking. Instinctively to select that which is harmful to one, to be\r\n\u003ci\u003elured\u003c/i\u003e by “disinterested” motives,—these things almost provide the\r\nformula for decadence. “Not to have one’s own interests at heart”\r\n—this is simply a moral fig-leaf concealing a very different fact, a\r\nphysiological one, to wit:—“I no longer know how to find what is to my\r\ninterest.”… Disintegration of the instincts!—All is up with man when\r\nhe becomes altruistic.—Instead of saying ingenuously “I am no longer\r\nany good,” the lie of morality in the decadent’s mouth says: “Nothing\r\nis any good,—life is no good.”—A judgment of this kind ultimately\r\nbecomes a great danger; for it is infectious, and it soon flourishes\r\non the polluted soil of society with tropical luxuriance, now as a\r\nreligion (Christianity), anon as a philosophy (Schopenhauerism).\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_88\"\u003e[Pg 88]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e In\r\ncertain circumstances the mere effluvia of such a venomous vegetation,\r\nspringing as it does out of the very heart of putrefaction, can poison\r\nlife for thousands and thousands of years.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eA moral for doctors.\u003c/i\u003e—The sick man is a parasite of society. In\r\ncertain cases it is indecent to go on living. To continue to vegetate\r\nin a state of cowardly dependence upon doctors and special treatments,\r\nonce the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost, ought to\r\nbe regarded with the greatest contempt by society. The doctors, for\r\ntheir part, should be the agents for imparting this contempt,—they\r\nshould no longer prepare prescriptions, but should every day administer\r\na fresh dose of \u003ci\u003edisgust\u003c/i\u003e to their patients. A new responsibility\r\nshould be created, that of the doctor—the responsibility of ruthlessly\r\nsuppressing and eliminating \u003ci\u003edegenerate\u003c/i\u003e life, in all cases in which\r\nthe highest interests of life itself, of ascending life, demand such\r\na course—for instance in favour of the right of procreation, in\r\nfavour of the right of being born, in favour of the right to live.\r\nOne should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly.\r\nDeath should be chosen freely,—death at the right time, faced clearly\r\nand joyfully and embraced while one is surrounded by one’s children\r\nand other witnesses. It should be affected in such a way that a proper\r\nfarewell is still possible, that he who is about to take leave of us\r\nis still \u003ci\u003ehimself,\u003c/i\u003e and really capable not only of valuing what he\r\nhas achieved and willed in life, but also of \u003ci\u003esumming-up\u003c/i\u003e the value\r\nof life itself. Everything\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_89\"\u003e[Pg 89]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e precisely the opposite of the ghastly\r\ncomedy which Christianity has made of the hour of death. We should\r\nnever forgive Christianity for having so abused the weakness of the\r\ndying man as to do violence to his conscience, or for having used\r\nhis manner of dying as a means of valuing both man and his past—In\r\nspite of all cowardly prejudices, it is our duty, in this respect,\r\nabove all to reinstate the proper—that is to say, the physiological,\r\naspect of so-called \u003ci\u003enatural\u003c/i\u003e death, which after all is perfectly\r\n“unnatural” and nothing else than suicide. One never perishes through\r\nanybody’s fault but one’s own. The only thing is that the death which\r\ntakes place in the most contemptible circumstances, the death that\r\nis not free, the death which occurs at the wrong time, is the death\r\nof a coward. Out of the very love one bears to life, one should wish\r\ndeath to be different from this—that is to say, free, deliberate, and\r\nneither a matter of chance nor of surprise. Finally let me whisper a\r\nword of advice to our friends the pessimists and all other decadents.\r\nWe have not the power to prevent ourselves from being born: but this\r\nerror—for sometimes it is an error—can be rectified if we choose. The\r\nman who does away with himself, performs the most estimable of deeds:\r\nhe almost deserves to live for having done so. Society—nay, life\r\nitself, derives more profit from such a deed than from any sort of life\r\nspent in renunciation, anæmia and other virtues,—at least the suicide\r\nfrees others from the sight of him, at least he removes one objection\r\nagainst life. Pessimism \u003ci\u003epur et vert,\u003c/i\u003e can \u003ci\u003ebe proved only\u003c/i\u003e by the\r\nself-refutation of the pessimists themselves: one should go a step\r\nfurther in one’s\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_90\"\u003e[Pg 90]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e consistency; one should not merely deny life with\r\n“The World as Will and Idea,” as Schopenhauer did; one should in the\r\nfirst place \u003ci\u003edeny Schopenhauer.\u003c/i\u003e … Incidentally, Pessimism, however\r\ninfectious it may be, does not increase the morbidness of an age or of\r\na whole species; it is rather the expression of that morbidness. One\r\nfalls a victim to it in the same way as one falls a victim to cholera;\r\none must already be predisposed to the disease. Pessimism in itself\r\ndoes not increase the number of the world’s \u003ci\u003edecadents\u003c/i\u003e by a single\r\nunit. Let me remind you of the statistical fact that in those years in\r\nwhich cholera rages, the total number of deaths does not exceed that of\r\nother years.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eHave we become more moral?\u003c/i\u003e—As might have been expected, the whole\r\n\u003ci\u003eferocity\u003c/i\u003e of moral stultification, which, as is well known, passes\r\nfor morality itself in Germany, hurled itself against my concept\r\n“Beyond Good and Evil.” I could tell you some nice tales about this.\r\nAbove all, people tried to make me see the “incontestable superiority”\r\nof our age in regard to moral sentiment, and the \u003ci\u003eprogress\u003c/i\u003e we had\r\nmade in these matters. Compared with us, a Cæsar Borgia was by no\r\nmeans to be represented as “higher man,” the sort of \u003ci\u003eSuperman,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nwhich I declared him to be. The editor of the Swiss paper the \u003ci\u003eBund\u003c/i\u003e\r\nwent so far as not only to express his admiration for the courage\r\ndisplayed by my enterprise, but also to pretend to “understand” that\r\nthe intended purpose of my work was to abolish all decent feeling.\r\nMuch obliged!—In reply, I venture to raise the following question:\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_91\"\u003e[Pg 91]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003ci\u003ehave we really become more moral?\u003c/i\u003e The fact that everybody believes\r\nthat we have is already an objection to the belief. We modern men,\r\nso extremely delicate and susceptible, full of consideration one for\r\nthe other, actually dare to suppose that the pampering fellow-feeling\r\nwhich we all display, this unanimity which we have at last acquired\r\nin sparing and helping and trusting one another marks a definite step\r\nforward, and shows us to be far ahead of the man of the Renaissance.\r\nBut every age thinks the same, it is \u003ci\u003ebound\u003c/i\u003e to think the same. This\r\nat least, is certain, that we should not dare to stand amid the\r\nconditions which prevailed at the Renaissance, we should not even dare\r\nto imagine ourselves in those conditions: our nerves could not endure\r\nthat reality, not to speak of our muscles. The inability to do this\r\nhowever does not denote any progress; but simply the different and\r\nmore senile quality of our particular nature, its greater weakness,\r\ndelicateness, and susceptibility, out of which a morality \u003ci\u003emore rich\r\nin consideration\u003c/i\u003e was bound to arise. If we imagine our delicateness\r\nand senility, our physiological decrepitude as non-existent, our\r\nmorality of “humanisation” would immediately lose all value—no\r\nmorality has any value \u003ci\u003eper se\u003c/i\u003e—it would even fill us with scorn. On\r\nthe other hand, do not let us doubt that we moderns, wrapped as we are\r\nin the thick cotton wool of our humanitarianism which would shrink\r\neven from grazing a stone, would present a comedy to Cæsar Borgia’s\r\ncontemporaries which would literally make them die of laughter. We are\r\nindeed, without knowing it, exceedingly ridiculous with our modern\r\n“virtues.” … The decline of the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_92\"\u003e[Pg 92]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e instincts of hostility and of\r\nthose instincts that arouse suspicion,—for this if anything is what\r\nconstitutes our progress—is only one of the results manifested by\r\nthe general decline in \u003ci\u003evitality\u003c/i\u003e: it requires a hundred times more\r\ntrouble and caution to live such a dependent and senile existence.\r\nIn such circumstances everybody gives everybody else a helping hand,\r\nand, to a certain extent, everybody is either an invalid or an\r\ninvalid’s attendant. This is then called “virtue”: among those men\r\nwho knew a different life—that is to say, a fuller, more prodigal,\r\nmore superabundant sort of life, it might have been called by another\r\nname,—possibly “cowardice,” or “vileness,” or “old woman’s morality.”\r\n… Our mollification of morals—this is my cry; this it you will is\r\nmy \u003ci\u003einnovation\u003c/i\u003e—is the outcome of our decline; conversely hardness\r\nand terribleness in morals may be the result of a surplus of life.\r\nWhen the latter state prevails, much is dared, much is challenged,\r\nand much is also \u003ci\u003esquandered\u003c/i\u003e. That which formerly was simply the\r\nsalt of life, would now be our \u003ci\u003epoison\u003c/i\u003e. To be indifferent—even this\r\nis a form of strength—for that, likewise, we are too senile, too\r\ndecrepit: our morality of fellow-feeling, against which I was the\r\nfirst to raise a finger of warning, that which might be called \u003ci\u003emoral\r\nimpressionism\u003c/i\u003e, is one symptom the more of the excessive physiological\r\nirritability which is peculiar to everything decadent. That movement\r\nwhich attempted to introduce itself in a scientific manner on the\r\nshoulders of Schopenhauer’s morality of pity—a very sad attempt!—is\r\nin its essence the movement of decadence in morality, and as such\r\nit is intimately related to Christian morality. Strong\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_93\"\u003e[Pg 93]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e ages and\r\nnoble cultures see something contemptible in pity, in the “love of\r\none’s neighbour,” and in a lack of egoism and of self-esteem.—Ages\r\nshould be measured according to their \u003ci\u003epositive forces\u003c/i\u003e;—valued\r\nby this standard that prodigal and fateful age of the Renaissance,\r\nappears as the last \u003ci\u003egreat\u003c/i\u003e age, while we moderns with our anxious\r\ncare of ourselves and love of our neighbours, with all our unassuming\r\nvirtues of industry, equity, and scientific method—with our lust of\r\ncollection, of economy and of mechanism—represent a \u003ci\u003eweak\u003c/i\u003e age….\r\nOur virtues are necessarily determined, and are even stimulated, by our\r\nweakness. “Equality,” a certain definite process of making everybody\r\nuniform, which only finds its expression in the theory of equal rights,\r\nis essentially bound up with a declining culture: the chasm between\r\nman and man, class and class, the multiplicity of types, the will to\r\nbe one’s self, and to distinguish one’s self—that, in fact, which I\r\ncall the \u003ci\u003epathos of distance\u003c/i\u003e is proper to all \u003ci\u003estrong\u003c/i\u003e ages. The force\r\nof tension,—nay, the tension itself, between extremes grows slighter\r\nevery day,—the extremes themselves are tending to become obliterated\r\nto the point of becoming identical. All our political theories and\r\nstate constitutions, not by any means excepting “The German Empire,”\r\nare the logical consequences, the necessary consequences of decline;\r\nthe unconscious effect of \u003ci\u003edecadence\u003c/i\u003e has begun to dominate even the\r\nideals of the various sciences. My objection to the whole of English\r\nand French sociology still continues to be this, that it knows only\r\nthe \u003ci\u003edecadent form\u003c/i\u003e of society from experience, and with perfectly\r\nchildlike innocence takes the instincts of decline as the norm,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_94\"\u003e[Pg 94]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the\r\nstandard, of sociological valuations. \u003ci\u003eDescending\u003c/i\u003e life, the decay\r\nof all organising power—that is to say, of all that power which\r\nseparates, cleaves gulfs, and establishes rank above and below,\r\nformulated itself in modern sociology as \u003ci\u003ethe\u003c/i\u003e ideal. Our socialists\r\nare decadents: but Herbert Spencer was also a \u003ci\u003edecadent,\u003c/i\u003e—he saw\r\nsomething to be desired in the triumph of altruism!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eMy Concept of Freedom.\u003c/i\u003e—Sometimes the value of a thing does not lie\r\nin that which it helps us to achieve, but in the amount we have to\r\npay for it,—what it \u003ci\u003ecosts\u003c/i\u003e us. For instance, liberal institutions\r\nstraightway cease from being liberal, the moment they are soundly\r\nestablished: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough\r\nenemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions! One knows, of\r\ncourse, what they bring about: they undermine the Will to Power,\r\nthey are the levelling of mountain and valley exalted to a morality,\r\nthey make people small, cowardly and pleasure-loving,—by means of\r\nthem the gregarious animal invariably triumphs. Liberalism, or, in\r\nplain English, the \u003ci\u003etransformation of mankind into cattle.\u003c/i\u003e The\r\nsame institutions, so long as they are fought for, produce quite\r\nother results; then indeed they promote the cause of freedom quite\r\npowerfully. Regarded more closely, it is war which produces these\r\nresults, war in favour of liberal institutions, which, as war, allows\r\nthe illiberal instincts to subsist. For war trains men to be free.\r\nWhat in sooth is freedom? Freedom is the will to be responsible\r\nfor ourselves. It is to preserve the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_95\"\u003e[Pg 95]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e distance which separates us\r\nfrom other men. To grow more indifferent to hardship, to severity,\r\nto privation, and even to life itself. To be ready to sacrifice\r\nmen for one’s cause, one’s self included. Freedom denotes that the\r\nvirile instincts which rejoice in war and in victory, prevail over\r\nother instincts; for instance, over the instincts of “happiness.”\r\nThe man who has won his freedom, and how much more so, therefore,\r\nthe spirit that has won its freedom, tramples ruthlessly upon that\r\ncontemptible kind of comfort which tea-grocers, Christians, cows,\r\nwomen, Englishmen and other democrats worship in their dreams. The\r\nfree man is a \u003ci\u003ewarrior.\u003c/i\u003e—How is freedom measured in individuals\r\nas well as in nations? According to the resistance which has to be\r\novercome, according to the pains which it costs to remain \u003ci\u003euppermost.\u003c/i\u003e\r\nThe highest type of free man would have to be sought where the\r\ngreatest resistance has continually to be overcome: five paces away\r\nfrom tyranny, on the very threshold of the danger of thraldom. This\r\nis psychologically true if, by the word “Tyrants” we mean inexorable\r\nand terrible instincts which challenge the \u003ci\u003emaximum\u003c/i\u003e amount of\r\nauthority and discipline to oppose them—the finest example of this\r\nis Julius Cæsar; it is also true politically: just examine the course\r\nof history. The nations which were worth anything, which \u003ci\u003egot to\r\nbe\u003c/i\u003e worth anything, never attained to that condition under liberal\r\ninstitutions: \u003ci\u003egreat danger\u003c/i\u003e made out of them something which deserves\r\nreverence, that danger which alone can make us aware of our resources,\r\nour virtues, our means of defence, our weapons, our \u003ci\u003egenius,\u003c/i\u003e—which\r\n\u003ci\u003ecompels\u003c/i\u003e us to be strong.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_96\"\u003e[Pg 96]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003ci\u003eFirst\u003c/i\u003e principle: a man must need to be\r\nstrong, otherwise he will never attain it.—Those great forcing-houses\r\nof the strong, of the strongest kind of men that have ever existed on\r\nearth, the aristocratic communities like those of Rome and Venice,\r\nunderstood freedom precisely as I understand the word: as something\r\nthat one has and that one has \u003ci\u003enot,\u003c/i\u003e as something that one \u003ci\u003ewill\u003c/i\u003e have\r\nand that one \u003ci\u003eseizes by force.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eA Criticism of Modernity.\u003c/i\u003e—Our institutions are no longer any good;\r\non this point we are all agreed. But the fault does not lie with\r\nthem; but with \u003ci\u003eus.\u003c/i\u003e Now that we have lost all the instincts out\r\nof which institutions grow, the latter on their part are beginning\r\nto disappear from our midst because we are no longer fit for them.\r\nDemocracy has always been the death agony of the power of organisation:\r\nalready in “Human All-too-Human,” Part I., Aph. 472, I pointed out\r\nthat modern democracy, together with its half-measures, of which the\r\n“German Empire” is an example, was a decaying form of the State. For\r\ninstitutions to be possible there must exist a sort of will, instinct,\r\nimperative, which cannot be otherwise than antiliberal to the point of\r\nwickedness: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility\r\nfor centuries to come, to \u003ci\u003esolidarity\u003c/i\u003e in long family lines forwards\r\nand backwards \u003ci\u003ein infinitum.\u003c/i\u003e If this will is present, something is\r\nfounded which resembles the \u003ci\u003eimperium Romanum;\u003c/i\u003e or Russia, the \u003ci\u003eonly\u003c/i\u003e\r\ngreat nation to-day that has some lasting power and grit in her, that\r\ncan bide her time, that can still promise something.—Russia the\r\nopposite of all\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_97\"\u003e[Pg 97]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e wretched European petty-statism and neurasthenia,\r\nwhich the foundation of the German Empire has brought to a crisis. The\r\nwhole of the Occident no longer possesses those instincts from which\r\ninstitutions spring, out of which a \u003ci\u003efuture\u003c/i\u003e grows: maybe nothing is\r\nmore opposed to its “modern spirit” than these things. People live\r\nfor the present, the live at top speed,—they certainly live without\r\nany sense of responsibility; and this is precisely what they call\r\n“freedom.” Everything in institutions which makes them institutions,\r\nis scorned, loathed and repudiated: everybody is in mortal fear of a\r\nnew slavery, wherever the word “authority” is so much as whispered.\r\nThe decadence of the valuing instinct, both in our politicians and in\r\nour political parties, goes so far, that they instinctively prefer\r\nthat which acts as a solvent, that which precipitates the final\r\ncatastrophe…. As an example of this behold \u003ci\u003emodern\u003c/i\u003e marriage. All\r\nreason has obviously been divorced from modern marriage: but this is\r\nno objection to matrimony itself but to modernity. The rational basis\r\nof marriage—it lay in the exclusive legal responsibility of the man:\r\nby this means some ballast was laid in the ship of matrimony, whereas\r\nnowadays it has a list, now on this side, now on that. The rational\r\nbasis of marriage—it lay in its absolute indissolubleness: in this way\r\nit was given a gravity which knew how to make its influence felt, in\r\nthe face of the accident of sentiment, passion and momentary impulse:\r\nit lay also in the fact that the responsibility of choosing the parties\r\nto the contract, lay with the families. By showing ever more and more\r\nfavour to love-marriages, the very foundation\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_98\"\u003e[Pg 98]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of matrimony, that which\r\nalone makes it an institution, has been undermined. No institution\r\never has been nor ever will be built upon an idiosyncrasy; as I say,\r\nmarriage cannot be based upon “love.” It can be based upon sexual\r\ndesire; upon the instinct of property (wife and child as possessions);\r\nupon the instinct of dominion, which constantly organises for itself\r\nthe smallest form of dominion,—the family which \u003ci\u003erequires\u003c/i\u003e children\r\nand heirs in order to hold fast, also in the physiological sense, to\r\na certain quantum of acquired power, influence and wealth, so as to\r\nprepare for lasting tasks, and for solidarity in the instincts from\r\none century to another. Marriage as an institution presupposes the\r\naffirmation of the greatest and most permanent form of organisation; if\r\nsociety cannot as a whole \u003ci\u003estand security\u003c/i\u003e for itself into the remotest\r\ngenerations, marriage has no meaning whatsoever.—Modern marriage \u003ci\u003ehas\r\nlost\u003c/i\u003e its meaning; consequently it is being abolished.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe question of the Working-man.\u003c/i\u003e—The mere fact that there is such\r\na thing as the question of the working-man is due to stupidity, or at\r\nbottom to degenerate instincts which are the cause of all the stupidity\r\nof modern times. Concerning certain things \u003ci\u003eno questions ought to be\r\nput:\u003c/i\u003e the first imperative principle of instinct. For the life of me\r\nI cannot see what people want to do with the working-man of Europe,\r\nnow that they have made a question of him. He is far too comfortable\r\nto cease from questioning ever more and more, and with ever less\r\nmodesty. After all, he has the majority on his side.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_99\"\u003e[Pg 99]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e There is now\r\nnot the slightest hope that an unassuming and contented sort of man,\r\nafter the style of the Chinaman, will come into being in this quarter:\r\nand this would have been the reasonable course, it was even a dire\r\nnecessity. What has been done? Everything has been done with the view\r\nof nipping the very pre-requisite of this accomplishment in the bud,\r\n—with the most frivolous thoughtlessness those selfsame instincts by\r\nmeans of which a working-class becomes possible, and \u003ci\u003etolerable even\u003c/i\u003e\r\nto its members themselves, have been destroyed root and branch. The\r\nworking-man has been declared fit for military service; he has been\r\ngranted the right of combination, and of voting: can it be wondered at\r\nthat he already regards his condition as one of distress (expressed\r\nmorally, as an injustice)? But, again I ask, what do people want? If\r\nthey desire a certain end, then they should desire the means thereto.\r\nIf they will have slaves, then it is madness to educate them to be\r\nmasters.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“The kind of freedom I do \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e mean….”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_6_13\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_6_13\"\u003e[6]\u003c/a\u003e—In an age like the\r\npresent, it simply adds to one’s perils to be left to one’s instincts.\r\nThe instincts contradict, disturb, and destroy each other; I have\r\nalready defined modernism as physiological self-contradiction. A\r\nreasonable system of education would insist upon at least one of\r\nthese instinct-systems being \u003ci\u003eparalysed\u003c/i\u003e beneath an iron pressure, in\r\norder to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_100\"\u003e[Pg 100]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e allow others to assert their power, to grow strong, and to\r\ndominate. At present, the only conceivable way of making the individual\r\npossible would be to \u003ci\u003eprune\u003c/i\u003e him:—of making him possible—that is to\r\nsay, \u003ci\u003ewhole.\u003c/i\u003e The very reverse occurs. Independence, free development,\r\nand \u003ci\u003elaisser aller\u003c/i\u003e are clamoured for most violently precisely by\r\nthose for whom no restraint \u003ci\u003ecould be too severe\u003c/i\u003e—this is true \u003ci\u003ein\r\npolitics,\u003c/i\u003e it is true in Art. But this is a symptom of decadence: our\r\nmodern notion of “freedom” is one proof the more of the degeneration of\r\ninstinct.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eWhere faith is necessary.\u003c/i\u003e—Nothing is more rare among moralists and\r\nsaints than uprightness; maybe they say the reverse is true, maybe\r\nthey even believe it. For, when faith is more useful, more effective,\r\nmore convincing than \u003ci\u003econscious\u003c/i\u003e hypocrisy, by instinct that hypocrisy\r\nforthwith becomes \u003ci\u003einnocent:\u003c/i\u003e first principle towards the understanding\r\nof great saints. The same holds good of philosophers, that other order\r\nof saints; their whole business compels them to concede only certain\r\ntruths—that is to say, those by means of which their particular trade\r\nreceives the \u003ci\u003epublic\u003c/i\u003e sanction,—to speak “Kantingly”: the truths of\r\n\u003ci\u003epractical\u003c/i\u003e reason. They know what they \u003ci\u003emust\u003c/i\u003e prove; in this respect\r\nthey are practical,—they recognise each other by the fact that\r\nthey agree upon “certain truths.”—“Thou shalt not lie”—in plain\r\nEnglish:—\u003ci\u003eBeware,\u003c/i\u003e Mr Philosopher, of speaking the truth….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_101\"\u003e[Pg 101]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eA quiet hint to Conservatives.\u003c/i\u003e—That which we did not know\r\nformerly, and know now, or might know if we chose,—is the fact that\r\na \u003ci\u003eretrograde formation,\u003c/i\u003e a reversion in any sense or degree, is\r\nabsolutely impossible. We physiologists, at least, are aware of this.\r\nBut all priests and moralists have believed in it,—they wished to\r\ndrag and screw man back to a former standard of virtue. Morality has\r\nalways been a Procrustean bed. Even the politicians have imitated\r\nthe preachers of virtue in this matter. There are parties at the\r\npresent day whose one aim and dream is to make all things adopt the\r\n\u003ci\u003ecrab-march.\u003c/i\u003e But not everyone can be a crab. It cannot be helped: we\r\nmust go forward,—that is to say step by step further and further into\r\ndecadence (—this is my definition of modern “progress”). We can hinder\r\nthis development, and by so doing dam up and accumulate degeneration\r\nitself and render it more convulsive, more \u003ci\u003evolcanic:\u003c/i\u003e we cannot do\r\nmore.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eMy concept of Genius.\u003c/i\u003e—Great men, like great ages, are explosive\r\nmaterial, in which a stupendous amount of power is accumulated;\r\nthe first conditions of their existence are always historical and\r\nphysiological; they are the outcome of the fact that for long ages\r\nenergy has been collected, hoarded up, saved up and preserved for their\r\nuse, and that no explosion has taken place. When, the tension in the\r\nbulk has become sufficiently excessive, the most fortuitous stimulus\r\nsuffices in order to call “genius,”\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_102\"\u003e[Pg 102]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e “great deeds,” and momentous\r\nfate into the world. What then is the good of all environment,\r\nhistorical periods, “\u003ci\u003eZeitgeist\u003c/i\u003e” (Spirit of the age) and “public\r\nopinion”?—Take the case of Napoleon. France of the Revolution,\r\nand still more of the period preceding the Revolution, would have\r\nbrought forward a type which was the very reverse of Napoleon: it\r\nactually \u003ci\u003edid\u003c/i\u003e produce such a type. And because Napoleon was something\r\ndifferent, the heir of a stronger, more lasting and older civilisation\r\nthan that which in France was being smashed to atoms he became master\r\nthere, he was the only master there. Great men are necessary, the age\r\nin which they appear is a matter of chance; the fact that they almost\r\ninvariably master their age is accounted for simply by the fact that\r\nthey are stronger, that they are older, and that power has been stored\r\nlonger for them. The relation of a genius to his age is that which\r\nexists between strength and weakness and between maturity and youth:\r\nthe age is relatively always very much younger, thinner, less mature,\r\nless resolute and more childish. The fact that the general opinion in\r\nFrance at the present day, is utterly different on this very point (in\r\nGermany too, but that is of no consequence); the fact that in that\r\ncountry the theory of environment—a regular neuropathic notion—has\r\nbecome sacrosanct and almost scientific, and finds acceptance even\r\namong the physiologists, is a very bad, and exceedingly depressing\r\nsign. In England too the same belief prevails: but nobody will be\r\nsurprised at that. The Englishman knows only two ways of understanding\r\nthe genius and the “great man”: either \u003ci\u003edemocratically\u003c/i\u003e in the style\r\nof\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_103\"\u003e[Pg 103]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Buckle, or religiously after the manner of Carlyle.—The danger\r\nwhich great men and great ages represent, is simply extraordinary;\r\nevery kind of exhaustion and of sterility follows in their wake. The\r\ngreat man is an end; the great age—the Renaissance for instance,—is\r\nan end. The genius—in work and in deed,—is necessarily a squanderer:\r\nthe fact that he spends himself constitutes his greatness. The instinct\r\nof self-preservation is as it were suspended in him; the overpowering\r\npressure of out-flowing energy in him forbids any such protection and\r\nprudence. People call this “self-sacrifice,” they praise his “heroism,”\r\nhis indifference to his own well-being, his utter devotion to an idea,\r\na great cause, a father-land: All misunderstandings…. He flows out,\r\nhe flows over, he consumes himself, he does not spare himself,—and\r\ndoes all this with fateful necessity, irrevocably, involuntarily, just\r\nas a river involuntarily bursts its dams. But, owing to the fact that\r\nhumanity has been much indebted to such explosives, it has endowed them\r\nwith many things, for instance, with a kind of \u003ci\u003ehigher morality\u003c/i\u003e….\r\nThis is indeed the sort of gratitude that humanity is capable of: it\r\n\u003ci\u003emisunderstands\u003c/i\u003e its benefactors.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe criminal and his like.\u003c/i\u003e—The criminal type is the type of the\r\nstrong man amid unfavourable conditions, a strong man made sick. He\r\nlacks the wild and savage state, a form of nature and existence which\r\nis freer and more dangerous, in which everything that constitutes\r\nthe shield and the sword in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_104\"\u003e[Pg 104]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the instinct of the strong man, takes\r\na place by right. Society puts a ban upon his virtues; the most\r\nspirited instincts inherent in him immediately become involved with\r\nthe depressing passions, with suspicion, fear and dishonour. But this\r\nis almost the recipe for physiological degeneration. When a man has\r\nto do that which he is best suited to do, which he is most fond of\r\ndoing, not only clandestinely, but also with long suspense, caution and\r\nruse, he becomes anæmic; and inasmuch as he is always having to pay\r\nfor his instincts in the form of danger, persecution and fatalities,\r\neven his feelings begin to turn against these instincts—he begins to\r\nregard them as fatal. It is society, our tame, mediocre, castrated\r\nsociety, in which an untutored son of nature who comes to us from his\r\nmountains or from his adventures at sea, must necessarily degenerate\r\ninto a criminal. Or almost necessarily: for there are cases in which\r\nsuch a man shows himself to be stronger than society: the Corsican\r\nNapoleon is the most celebrated case of this. Concerning the problem\r\nbefore us, Dostoiewsky’s testimony is of importance—Dostoiewsky who,\r\nincidentally, was the only psychologist from whom I had anything\r\nto learn: he belongs to the happiest windfalls of my life, happier\r\neven than the discovery of Stendhal. This profound man, who was\r\nright ten times over in esteeming the superficial Germans low, found\r\nthe Siberian convicts among whom he lived for many years,—those\r\nthoroughly hopeless criminals for whom no road back to society stood\r\nopen—very different from what even he had expected,—that is to say\r\ncarved from about the best, hardest and most\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_105\"\u003e[Pg 105]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e valuable material that\r\ngrows on Russian soil.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_7_14\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_7_14\"\u003e[7]\u003c/a\u003e Let us generalise the case of the criminal;\r\nlet us imagine creatures who for some reason or other fail to meet\r\nwith public approval, who know that they are regarded neither as\r\nbeneficent nor useful,—the feeling of the Chandala, who are aware\r\nthat they are not looked upon as equal, but as proscribed, unworthy,\r\npolluted. The thoughts and actions of all such natures are tainted\r\nwith a subterranean mouldiness; everything in them is of a paler hue\r\nthan in those on whose existence the sun shines. But almost all those\r\ncreatures whom, nowadays, we honour and respect, formerly lived in this\r\nsemi-sepulchral atmosphere: the man of science, the artist, the genius,\r\nthe free spirit, the actor, the business man, and the great explorer.\r\nAs long as the \u003ci\u003epriest\u003c/i\u003e represented the highest type of man, every\r\nvaluable kind of man was depreciated…. The time is coming—this I\r\nguarantee—when he will pass as the \u003ci\u003elowest\u003c/i\u003e type, as our Chandala, as\r\nthe falsest and most disreputable kind of man…. I call your attention\r\nto the fact that even now, under the sway of the mildest customs and\r\nusages which have ever ruled on earth or at least in Europe, every\r\nform of standing aside, every kind of prolonged, excessively prolonged\r\nconcealment, every unaccustomed and obscure form of existence tends to\r\napproximate to that type which the criminal exemplifies to perfection.\r\nAll pioneers of the spirit have, for a while, the grey and fatalistic\r\nmark of the Chandala on their brows: \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e because they are regarded as\r\nChandala, but because they\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_106\"\u003e[Pg 106]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e themselves feel the terrible chasm which\r\nseparates them from all that is traditional and honourable. Almost\r\nevery genius knows the “Catilinarian life” as one of the stages in his\r\ndevelopment, a feeling of hate, revenge and revolt against everything\r\nthat exists, that has ceased to evolve…. Catiline—the early stage of\r\nevery Cæsar.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eHere the outlook is free.\u003c/i\u003e—When a philosopher holds his tongue it may\r\nbe the sign of the loftiness of his soul: when he contradicts himself\r\nit may be love; and the very courtesy of a knight of knowledge may\r\nforce him to lie. It has been said, and not without subtlety:—\u003ci\u003eil\r\nest indigne des grands cœurs de répandre le trouble qu’ils\r\nressentent\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_8_15\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_8_15\"\u003e[8]\u003c/a\u003e:\u003c/i\u003e but it is necessary to add that there may also be\r\n\u003ci\u003egrandeur de cœur\u003c/i\u003e in not shrinking \u003ci\u003efrom the most undignified\r\nproceeding.\u003c/i\u003e A woman who loves sacrifices her honour; a knight of\r\nknowledge who “loves,” sacrifices perhaps his humanity; a God who\r\nloved, became a Jew….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eBeauty no accident\u003c/i\u003e—Even the beauty of a race or of a family,\r\nthe charm and perfection of all its movements, is attained with\r\npains: like genius it is the final result of the accumulated work\r\nof generations. Great sacrifices must have been made on the altar\r\nol good taste, for its sake many things must have been done, and\r\nmuch must have been left undone—the seventeenth century in France\r\nis admirable for both of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_107\"\u003e[Pg 107]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e these things,—in this century there must\r\nhave been a principle of selection in respect to company, locality,\r\nclothing, the gratification of the instinct of sex; beauty must have\r\nbeen preferred to profit, to habit, to opinion and to indolence. The\r\nfirst rule of all:—nobody must “let himself go,” not even when he is\r\nalone.—Good things are exceedingly costly:; and in all cases the law\r\nobtains that he who possesses them is a different person from him who\r\nis \u003ci\u003eacquiring\u003c/i\u003e them. Everything good is an inheritance: that which is\r\nnot inherited is imperfect, it is simply a beginning. In Athens at\r\nthe time of Cicero—who expresses his surprise at the fact—the men\r\nand youths were by far superior in beauty to the women: but what hard\r\nwork and exertions the male sex had for centuries imposed upon itself\r\nin the service of beauty! We must not be mistaken in regard to the\r\nmethod employed here: the mere discipline of feelings and thoughts\r\nis little better than nil (—it is in this that the great error of\r\nGerman culture, which is quite illusory, lies): the \u003ci\u003ebody\u003c/i\u003e must be\r\npersuaded first. The strict maintenance of a distinguished and tasteful\r\ndemeanour, the obligation of frequenting only those who do not “let\r\nthemselves go,” is amply sufficient to render one distinguished and\r\ntasteful: in two or three generations everything has already \u003ci\u003etaken\r\ndeep root.\u003c/i\u003e The fate of a people and of humanity is decided according\r\nto whether they begin culture at the \u003ci\u003eright place—not\u003c/i\u003e at the “soul”\r\n(as the fatal superstition of the priests and half-priests would have\r\nit): the right place is the body, demeanour, diet, physiology—the rest\r\nfollows as the night the day…. That is why the Greeks remain the\r\n\u003ci\u003efirst event in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_108\"\u003e[Pg 108]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e culture\u003c/i\u003e—they knew and they \u003ci\u003edid\u003c/i\u003e what was needful.\r\nChristianity with its contempt of the body is the greatest mishap that\r\nhas ever befallen mankind.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eProgress in my sense.\u003c/i\u003e—I also speak of a “return to nature,” although\r\nit is not a process of going back but of going up—up into lofty, free\r\nand even terrible nature and naturalness; such a nature as can play\r\nwith great tasks and \u003ci\u003emay\u003c/i\u003e play with them…. To speak in a \u003ci\u003eparable.\u003c/i\u003e\r\nNapoleon was an example of a “return to nature,” as I understand it\r\n(for instance \u003ci\u003ein rebus tacticis,\u003c/i\u003e and still more, as military experts\r\nknow, in strategy). But Rousseau—whither did he want to return?\r\nRousseau this first modern man, idealist and \u003ci\u003ecanaille\u003c/i\u003e in one person;\r\nwho was in need of moral “dignity,” in order even to endure the sight\r\nof his own person,—ill with unbridled vanity and wanton self-contempt;\r\nthis abortion, who planted his tent on the threshold of modernity,\r\nalso wanted a “return to nature”; but, I ask once more, whither did\r\nhe wish to return? I hate Rousseau, even \u003ci\u003ein\u003c/i\u003e the Revolution itself:\r\nthe latter was the historical expression of this hybrid of idealist\r\nand \u003ci\u003ecanaille.\u003c/i\u003e The bloody farce which this Revolution ultimately\r\nbecame, its “immorality,” concerns me but slightly; what I loathe\r\nhowever is its Rousseauesque \u003ci\u003emorality\u003c/i\u003e—the so-called “truths” of the\r\nRevolution, by means of which it still exercises power and draws all\r\nflat and mediocre things over to its side. The doctrine of equality!\r\n… But there is no more deadly poison than this; for it \u003ci\u003eseems\u003c/i\u003e to\r\nproceed from the very lips of justice, whereas in reality it draws\r\nthe curtain\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_109\"\u003e[Pg 109]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e down on all justice…. “To equals equality, to unequals\r\ninequality”—that would be the real speech of justice and that which\r\nfollows from it “Never make unequal things equal.” The fact that so\r\nmuch horror and blood are associated with this doctrine of equality,\r\nhas lent this “modern idea” \u003ci\u003epar excellence\u003c/i\u003e such a halo of fire and\r\nglory, that the Revolution as a drama has misled even the most noble\r\nminds.—That after all is no reason for honouring it the more.—I can\r\nsee only one who regarded it as it should be regarded—that is to say,\r\nwith \u003ci\u003eloathing;\u003c/i\u003e I speak of Goethe.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eGoethe\u003c/i\u003e.—No mere German, but a European event: a magnificent attempt\r\nto overcome the eighteenth century by means of a return to nature, by\r\nmeans of an ascent to the naturalness of the Renaissance, a kind of\r\nself-overcoming on the part of the century in question.—He bore the\r\nstrongest instincts of this century in his breast: its sentimentality,\r\nand idolatry of nature, its anti-historic, idealistic, unreal, and\r\nrevolutionary spirit (—the latter is only a form of the unreal). He\r\nenlisted history, natural science, antiquity, as well as Spinoza, and\r\nabove all practical activity, in his service. He drew a host of very\r\ndefinite horizons around him; far from liberating himself from life, he\r\nplunged right into it; he did not give in; he took as much as he could\r\non his own shoulders, and into his heart. That to which he aspired was\r\n\u003ci\u003etotality\u003c/i\u003e; he was opposed to the sundering of reason, sensuality,\r\nfeeling and will (as preached with most repulsive scholasticism\r\nby Kant, the antipodes of Goethe); he disciplined himself into a\r\nharmonious whole, he \u003ci\u003ecreated\u003c/i\u003e himself. Goethe in the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_110\"\u003e[Pg 110]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e midst of an age\r\nof unreal sentiment, was a convinced realist: he said yea to everything\r\nthat was like him in this regard,—there was no greater event in his\r\nlife than that \u003ci\u003eens realissimum\u003c/i\u003e, surnamed Napoleon. Goethe conceived\r\na strong, highly-cultured man, skilful in all bodily accomplishments,\r\nable to keep himself in check, having a feeling of reverence for\r\nhimself, and so constituted as to be able to risk the full enjoyment\r\nof naturalness in all its rich profusion and be strong enough for this\r\nfreedom; a man of tolerance, not out of weakness but out of strength,\r\nbecause he knows how to turn to his own profit that which would ruin\r\nthe mediocre nature; a man unto whom nothing is any longer forbidden,\r\nunless it be weakness either as a vice or as a virtue. Such a spirit,\r\n\u003ci\u003ebecome free\u003c/i\u003e, appears in the middle of the universe with a feeling\r\nof cheerful and confident fatalism; he believes that only individual\r\nthings are bad, and that as a whole the universe justifies and, affirms\r\nitself—\u003ci\u003eHe no longer denies\u003c/i\u003e…. But such a faith is the highest Of\r\nall faiths: I christened it with the name of Dionysus.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt might be said that, in a certain sense, the nineteenth century\r\nalso strove after all that Goethe himself aspired to: catholicity in\r\nunderstanding, in approving; a certain reserve towards everything,\r\ndaring realism, and a reverence for every fact. How is it that\r\nthe total result of this is not a Goethe, but a state of chaos, a\r\nnihilistic groan, an inability to discover where one is, an instinct\r\nof fatigue which \u003ci\u003ein praxi\u003c/i\u003e is persistently driving Europe \u003ci\u003eto hark\r\nback to the eighteenth century\u003c/i\u003e? (—For instance in the form of maudlin\r\nromanticism, altruism, hyper-sentimentality,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_111\"\u003e[Pg 111]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e pessimism in taste,\r\nand socialism in politics). Is not the nineteenth century, at least\r\nin its closing years, merely an accentuated, brutalised eighteenth\r\ncentury,—that is to say a century of decadence? And has not Goethe\r\nbeen—not alone for Germany, but also for the whole of Europe,—merely\r\nan episode, a beautiful “in vain”? But great men are misunderstood when\r\nthey are regarded from the wretched standpoint of public utility. The\r\nfact that no advantage can be derived from them—\u003ci\u003ethis in itself may\r\nperhaps be peculiar to greatness.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eGoethe is the last German whom I respect: he had understood three\r\nthings as I understand them. We also agree as to the “cross.”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_9_16\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_9_16\"\u003e[9]\u003c/a\u003e People\r\noften ask me why on earth I write in \u003ci\u003eGerman:\u003c/i\u003e nowhere am I less read\r\nthan in the Fatherland. But who knows whether I even \u003ci\u003edesire\u003c/i\u003e to be\r\nread at present?—To create things on which time may try its teeth in\r\nvain; to be concerned both in the form and the substance of my writing,\r\nabout a certain degree of immortality—never have I been modest enough\r\nto demand less of myself. The aphorism, the sentence, in both of\r\nwhich I, as the first among Germans, am a master, are the forms of\r\n“eternity”; it is my ambition to say in ten sentences what everyone\r\nelse says in a whole book,—what everyone else does \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e say in a\r\nwhole book.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI have given mankind the deepest book it possesses, my \u003ci\u003eZarathustra;\u003c/i\u003e\r\nbefore long I shall give it the most independent one.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"r5\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1_8\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_8\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e The German word \u003ci\u003eRausch\u003c/i\u003e as used by Nietzsche here,\r\nsuggests a blend of our two English words “intoxication” and\r\n“elation.”—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_2_9\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_2_9\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[2]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e An allusion to a verse in Luther’s hymn: “\u003ci\u003eLass fahren\r\ndahin\u003c/i\u003e … \u003ci\u003edas Reich muss uns doch bleiben,\u003c/i\u003e” which Nietzsche applies\r\nto the German Empire.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_3_10\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_3_10\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[3]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e A disciple of Schopenhauer who blunted the sharpness\r\nof his master’s Pessimism and who watered it down for modern\r\nrequirements.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_4_11\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_4_11\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[4]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Quotation from the Libretto of Mozart’s “Magic Flute” Act\r\nI, Sc. 3.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_5_12\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_5_12\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[5]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e This alludes to Parsifal. See my note on p. 96, vol. i.,\r\n“The Will to Power.”—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_6_13\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_6_13\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[6]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e This is a playful adaptation of Max von Schenkendorfs poem\r\n“\u003ci\u003eFreiheit\u003c/i\u003e” The proper line reads: “\u003ci\u003eFreiheit die ich meine\u003c/i\u003e” (The\r\nfreedom that I do mean).—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_7_14\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_7_14\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[7]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e See “Memoirs of a House of the Dead,” by Dostoiewsky\r\n(translation by Marie von Thilo: “Buried Alive”).—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_8_15\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_8_15\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[8]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Clothilde de Veaux.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_9_16\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_9_16\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[9]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e See my note on p. 147 of Vol. I. of the \u003ci\u003eWill to\r\nPower.\u003c/i\u003e—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_112\"\u003e[Pg 112]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"THINGS_I_OWE_TO_THE_ANCIENTS\"\u003eTHINGS I OWE TO THE ANCIENTS\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion I will just say a word concerning that world to which I\r\nhave sought new means of access, to which I may perhaps have found a\r\nnew passage—the ancient world. My taste, which is perhaps the reverse\r\nof tolerant, is very far from saying yea through and through even to\r\nthis world: on the whole it is not over eager to say \u003ci\u003eYea,\u003c/i\u003e it would\r\nprefer to say \u003ci\u003eNay,\u003c/i\u003e and better still nothing whatever…. This is true\r\nof whole cultures; it is true of books,—it is also true of places\r\nand of landscapes. Truth to tell, the number of ancient books that\r\ncount for something in my life is but small; and the most famous are\r\nnot of that number. My sense of style, for the epigram as style, was\r\nawakened almost spontaneously upon my acquaintance with Sallust. I have\r\nnot forgotten the astonishment of my respected teacher Corssen, when\r\nhe was forced to give his worst Latin pupil the highest marks,—at one\r\nstroke I had learned all there was to learn. Condensed, severe, with as\r\nmuch substance as possible in the background, and with cold but roguish\r\nhostility towards all “beautiful words” and “beautiful feelings”—in\r\nthese things I found my own particular bent. In my writings up to my\r\n“Zarathustra,” there will be found a very earnest ambition to attain\r\nto the \u003ci\u003eRoman\u003c/i\u003e style, to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_113\"\u003e[Pg 113]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the “\u003ci\u003eære perennius\u003c/i\u003e” in style.—The same\r\nthing happened on my first acquaintance with Horace. Up to the present\r\nno poet has given me the same artistic raptures as those which from\r\nthe first I received from an Horatian ode. In certain languages it\r\nwould be absurd even to aspire to what is accomplished by this poet.\r\nThis mosaic of words, in which every unit spreads its power to the\r\nleft and to the right over the whole, by its sound, by its place in\r\nthe sentence, and by its meaning, this \u003ci\u003eminimum\u003c/i\u003e in the compass and\r\nnumber of the signs, and the \u003ci\u003emaximum\u003c/i\u003e of energy in the signs which is\r\nthereby achieved—all this is Roman, and, if you will believe me, noble\r\n\u003ci\u003epar excellence.\u003c/i\u003e By the side of this all the rest of poetry becomes\r\nsomething popular,—nothing more than senseless sentimental twaddle.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI am not indebted to the Greeks for anything like such strong\r\nimpressions; and, to speak frankly, they cannot be to us what the\r\nRomans are. One cannot \u003ci\u003elearn\u003c/i\u003e from the Greeks—their style is too\r\nstrange, it is also too fluid, to be imperative or to have the effect\r\nof a classic. Who would ever have learnt writing from a Greek! Who\r\nwould ever have learned it without the Romans!… Do not let anyone\r\nsuggest Plato to me. In regard to Plato I am a thorough sceptic, and\r\nhave never been able to agree to the admiration of Plato the \u003ci\u003eartist,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nwhich is traditional among scholars. And after all, in this matter,\r\nthe most refined judges of taste in antiquity are on my side. In my\r\nopinion Plato bundles all the forms of style pell-mell together,\r\nin this respect he is one\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_114\"\u003e[Pg 114]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of the first decadents of style: he has\r\nsomething similar on his conscience to that which the Cynics had\r\nwho invented the \u003ci\u003esatura Menippea.\u003c/i\u003e For the Platonic dialogue—this\r\nrevoltingly self-complacent and childish kind of dialectics—to\r\nexercise any charm over you, you must never have read any good French\r\nauthors,—Fontenelle for instance. Plato is boring. In reality my\r\ndistrust of Plato is fundamental. I find him so very much astray\r\nfrom all the deepest instincts of the Hellenes, so steeped in moral\r\nprejudices, so pre-existently Christian—the concept “good” is already\r\nthe highest value with him,—that rather than use any other expression\r\nI would prefer to designate the whole phenomenon Plato with the hard\r\nword “superior bunkum,” or, if you would like it better, “idealism.”\r\nHumanity has had to pay dearly for this Athenian having gone to school\r\namong the Egyptians (—or among the Jews in Egypt?…) In the great\r\nfatality of Christianity, Plato is that double-faced fascination\r\ncalled the “ideal,” which made it possible for the more noble natures\r\nof antiquity to misunderstand themselves and to tread the \u003ci\u003ebridge\u003c/i\u003e\r\nwhich led to the “cross.” And what an amount of Plato is still to be\r\nfound in the concept “church,” and in the construction, the system\r\nand the practice of the church!—My recreation, my predilection, my\r\ncure, after all Platonism, has always been Thucydides. Thucydides and\r\nperhaps Machiavelli’s \u003ci\u003eprincipe\u003c/i\u003e are most closely related to me owing\r\nto the absolute determination which they show of refusing to deceive\r\nthemselves and of seeing reason in \u003ci\u003ereality,\u003c/i\u003e—not in “rationality,”\r\nand still less in “morality.” There is no more radical cure than\r\nThucydides for the lamentably\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_115\"\u003e[Pg 115]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e rose-coloured idealisation of the\r\nGreeks which the “classically-cultured” stripling bears with him into\r\nlife, as a reward for his public school training. His writings must be\r\ncarefully studied line by line, and his unuttered thoughts must be read\r\nas distinctly as what he actually says. There are few thinkers so rich\r\nin unuttered thoughts. In him the culture “of the Sophists”—that is to\r\nsay, the culture of realism, receives its most perfect expression: this\r\ninestimable movement in the midst of the moral and idealistic knavery\r\nof the Socratic Schools which was then breaking out in all directions.\r\nGreek philosophy is the decadence of the Greek instinct: Thucydides is\r\nthe great summing up, the final manifestation of that strong, severe\r\npositivism which lay in the instincts of the ancient Hellene. After\r\nall, it is courage in the face of reality that distinguishes such\r\nnatures as Thucydides from Plato: Plato is a coward in the face of\r\nreality—consequently he takes refuge in the ideal: Thucydides is\r\nmaster of himself,—consequently he is able to master life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo rout up cases of “beautiful souls,” “golden means” and other\r\nperfections among the Greeks, to admire, say, their calm grandeur,\r\ntheir ideal attitude of mind, their exalted simplicity—from this\r\n“exalted simplicity,” which after all is a piece of \u003ci\u003eniaiserie\r\nallemande,\u003c/i\u003e I was preserved by the psychologist within me. I saw their\r\nstrongest instinct, the Will to Power, I saw them quivering with the\r\nfierce violence of this instinct,—I saw all their institutions grow\r\nout of measures of security calculated to preserve\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_116\"\u003e[Pg 116]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e each member of\r\ntheir society from the inner \u003ci\u003eexplosive material\u003c/i\u003e that lay in his\r\nneighbour’s breast. This enormous internal tension thus discharged\r\nitself in terrible and reckless hostility outside the state: the\r\nvarious states mutually tore each other to bits, in order that each\r\nindividual state could remain at peace with itself. It was then\r\nnecessary to be strong; for danger lay close at hand,—it lurked in\r\nambush everywhere. The superb suppleness of their bodies, the daring\r\nrealism and immorality which is peculiar to the Hellenes, was a\r\nnecessity not an inherent quality. It was a result, it had not been\r\nthere from the beginning. Even their festivals and their arts were but\r\nmeans in producing a feeling of superiority, and of showing it: they\r\nare measures of self-glorification; and in certain circumstances of\r\nmaking one’s self terrible…. Fancy judging the Greeks in the German\r\nstyle, from their philosophers; fancy using the suburban respectability\r\nof the Socratic schools as a key to what is fundamentally Hellenic!…\r\nThe philosophers are of course the decadents of Hellas, the\r\ncounter-movement directed against the old and noble taste(—against the\r\nagonal instinct, against the \u003ci\u003ePolls,\u003c/i\u003e against the value of the race,\r\nagainst the authority of tradition), Socratic virtues were preached to\r\nthe Greeks, \u003ci\u003ebecause\u003c/i\u003e the Greeks had lost virtue: irritable, cowardly,\r\nunsteady, and all turned to play-actors, they had more than sufficient\r\nreason to submit to having morality preached to them. Not that it\r\nhelped them in any way; but great words and attitudes are so becoming\r\nto decadents.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_117\"\u003e[Pg 117]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI was the first who, in order to understand the ancient, still rich and\r\neven superabundant Hellenic instinct, took that marvellous phenomenon,\r\nwhich bears the name of Dionysus, seriously: it can be explained only\r\nas a manifestation of excessive energy. Whoever had studied the Greeks,\r\nas that most profound of modern connoisseurs of their culture, Jakob\r\nBurckhardt of Bâle, had done, knew at once that something had been\r\nachieved by means of this interpretation. And in his “\u003ci\u003eCultur der\r\nGriechen\u003c/i\u003e” Burckhardt inserted a special chapter on the phenomenon\r\nin question. If you would like a glimpse of the other side, you have\r\nonly to refer to the almost laughable poverty of instinct among German\r\nphilologists when they approach the Dionysian question. The celebrated\r\nLobeck, especially, who with the venerable assurance of a worm dried up\r\nbetween books, crawled into this world of mysterious states, succeeded\r\ninconvincing himself that he was scientific, whereas he was simply\r\nrevoltingly superficial and childish,—Lobeck, with all the pomp of\r\nprofound erudition, gave us to understand that, as a matter of fact,\r\nthere was nothing at all in all these curiosities. Truth to tell, the\r\npriests may well have communicated not a few things of value to the\r\nparticipators in such orgies; for instance, the fact that wine provokes\r\ndesire, that man in certain circumstances lives on fruit, that plants\r\nbloom in the spring and fade in the autumn. As regards the astounding\r\nwealth of rites, symbols and myths which take their origin in the orgy,\r\nand with which the world of antiquity\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_118\"\u003e[Pg 118]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is literally smothered, Lobeck\r\nfinds that it prompts him to a feat of even greater ingenuity than\r\nthe foregoing phenomenon did. “The Greeks,” he says, (\u003ci\u003eAglaophamus,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nI. p. 672), “when they had nothing better to do, laughed, sprang and\r\nromped about, or, inasmuch as men also like a change at times, they\r\nwould sit down, weep and bewail their lot. Others then came up who tried\r\nto discover some reason for this strange behaviour; and thus, as an\r\nexplanation of these habits, there arose an incalculable number of\r\nfestivals, legends, and myths. On the other hand it was believed that\r\nthe \u003ci\u003efarcical performances\u003c/i\u003e which then perchance began to take place\r\non festival days, necessarily formed part of the celebrations, and\r\nthey were retained as an indispensable part of the ritual.”—This is\r\ncontemptible nonsense, and no one will take a man like Lobeck seriously\r\nfor a moment We are very differently affected when we examine the\r\nnotion “Hellenic,” as Winckelmann and Goethe conceived it, and find it\r\nincompatible with that element out of which Dionysian art springs—I\r\nspeak of orgiasm. In reality I do not doubt that Goethe would have\r\ncompletely excluded any such thing from the potentialities of the Greek\r\nsoul. \u003ci\u003eConsequently Goethe did not understand the Greeks.\u003c/i\u003e For it is\r\nonly in the Dionysian mysteries, in the psychology of the Dionysian\r\nstate, that the \u003ci\u003efundamental fact\u003c/i\u003e of the Hellenic instinct—its “will\r\nto life”—is expressed. What did the Hellene secure himself with these\r\nmysteries? \u003ci\u003eEternal\u003c/i\u003e life, the eternal recurrence of life; the future\r\npromised and hallowed in the past; the triumphant Yea to life despite\r\ndeath and change; real life conceived as the collective prolongation\r\nof\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_119\"\u003e[Pg 119]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e life through procreation, through the mysteries of sexuality.\r\nTo the Greeks, the symbol of sex was the most venerated of symbols,\r\nthe really deep significance of all the piety of antiquity. All the\r\ndetails of the act of procreation, pregnancy and birth gave rise to\r\nthe loftiest and most solemn feelings. In the doctrine of mysteries,\r\n\u003ci\u003epain\u003c/i\u003e was pronounced holy: the “pains of childbirth” sanctify pain in\r\ngeneral,—all becoming and all growth, everything that guarantees the\r\nfuture \u003ci\u003einvolves\u003c/i\u003e pain…. In order that there may be eternal joy in\r\ncreating, in order that the will to life may say Yea to itself in all\r\neternity, the “pains of childbirth” must also be eternal. All this is\r\nwhat the word Dionysus signifies: I know of no higher symbolism than\r\nthis Greek symbolism, this symbolism of the Dionysian phenomenon. In\r\nit the profoundest instinct of life, the instinct that guarantees the\r\nfuture of life and life eternal, is understood religiously,—the road\r\nto life itself, procreation, is pronounced \u003ci\u003eholy,\u003c/i\u003e … It was only\r\nChristianity which, with its fundamental resentment against life, made\r\nsomething impure out of sexuality: it flung \u003ci\u003efilth\u003c/i\u003e at the very basis,\r\nthe very first condition of our life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe psychology of orgiasm conceived as the feeling of a superabundance\r\nof vitality and strength, within the scope of which even pain \u003ci\u003eacts\r\nas a stimulus,\u003c/i\u003e gave me the key to the concept \u003ci\u003etragic\u003c/i\u003e feeling,\r\nwhich has been misunderstood not only by Aristotle, but also even\r\nmore by our pessimists. Tragedy is so far from proving anything in\r\nregard to the pessimism of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_120\"\u003e[Pg 120]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the Greeks, as Schopenhauer maintains,\r\nthat it ought rather to be considered as the categorical repudiation\r\nand \u003ci\u003econdemnation\u003c/i\u003e thereof. The saying of Yea to life, including\r\neven its most strange and most terrible problems, the will to life\r\nrejoicing over its own inexhaustibleness in the \u003ci\u003esacrifice\u003c/i\u003e of its\r\nhighest types—this is what I called Dionysian, this is what I\r\ndivined as the bridge leading to the psychology of the \u003ci\u003etragic\u003c/i\u003e poet.\r\nNot in order to escape from terror and pity, not to purify one’s self\r\nof a dangerous passion by discharging it with vehemence—this is how\r\nAristotle understood it—but to be far beyond terror and pity and to\r\nbe the eternal lust of Becoming itself—that lust which also involves\r\nthe \u003ci\u003elust of destruction.\u003c/i\u003e And with this I once more come into touch\r\nwith the spot from which I once set out—-the “Birth of Tragedy” was\r\nmy first transvaluation of all values: with this I again take my stand\r\nupon the soil from out of which my will and my capacity spring—I, the\r\nlast disciple of the philosopher Dionysus,—I, the prophet of eternal\r\nrecurrence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003eTHE END.\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_121\"\u003e[Pg 121]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"THE_HAMMER_SPEAKETH\"\u003eTHE HAMMER SPEAKETH\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Why so hard!”—said the diamond once unto the charcoal; “are we then\r\nnot next of kin?”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Why so soft? O my brethren; this is my question to you. For are ye\r\nnot—my brothers?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Why so soft, so servile and yielding? Why are your hearts so fond of\r\ndenial and self-denial? How is it that so little fate looketh out from\r\nyour eyes?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“And if ye will not be men of fate and inexorable, how can ye hope one\r\nday to conquer with me?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“And if your hardness will not sparkle, cut and divide, how can ye hope\r\none day to create with me?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“For all creators are hard. And it must seem to you blessed to stamp\r\nyour hand upon millenniums as upon wax,—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—Blessed to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder\r\nthan brass, nobler than brass.—Hard through and through is only the\r\nnoblest.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis new table of values, O my brethren, I set over your heads: Become\r\nhard.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—“Thus Spake Zarathustra,”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIII., 29.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_125\"\u003e[Pg 125]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch3\u003e \u003ca id=\"THE_ANTICHRIST\"\u003eTHE ANTICHRIST\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAn Attempted Criticism of Christianity\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"PREFACE2\"\u003ePREFACE\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis book belongs to the very few. Maybe not one of them is yet alive;\r\nunless he be of those who understand my Zarathustra. How \u003ci\u003ecan\u003c/i\u003e I\r\nconfound myself with those who to-day already find a hearing?—Only the\r\nday after to-morrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI am only too well aware of the conditions under which a man\r\nunderstands me, and then \u003ci\u003enecessarily\u003c/i\u003e understands. He must be\r\nintellectually upright to the point of hardness, in order even to\r\nendure my seriousness and my passion. He must be used to living on\r\nmountain-tops,—and to feeling the wretched gabble of politics and\r\nnational egotism \u003ci\u003ebeneath\u003c/i\u003e him. He must have become indifferent; he\r\nmust never inquire whether truth is profitable or whether it may\r\nprove fatal…. Possessing from strength a predilection for questions\r\nfor which no one has enough courage nowadays; the courage for the\r\n\u003ci\u003eforbidden;\u003c/i\u003e his predestination must be the labyrinth. The experience\r\nof seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for the most\r\nremote things. A new conscience for truths which hitherto have\r\nremained dumb. And the will to economy on a large scale: to husband\r\nhis strength and his enthusiasm…. He must honour himself, he must\r\nlove himself; he must be absolutely free with regard\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_126\"\u003e[Pg 126]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e to himself….\r\nVery well then! Such men alone are my readers, my proper readers,\r\nmy preordained readers: of what account are the rest?—the rest are\r\nsimply—humanity.—One must be superior to humanity in power, in\r\nloftiness of soul,—in contempt.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 65%; font-size: 0.8em;\"\u003eFRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_127\"\u003e[Pg 127]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us look each other in the face. We are hyperboreans,—we know\r\nwell enough how far outside the crowd we stand. “Thou wilt find the\r\nway to the Hyperboreans neither by land nor by water”: Pindar already\r\nknew this much about us. Beyond the north, the ice, and death—\u003ci\u003eour\r\nlife, our happiness….\u003c/i\u003e We discovered happiness; we know the way; we\r\nfound the way out of thousands of years of labyrinth. Who \u003ci\u003eelse\u003c/i\u003e would\r\nhave found it?—Not the modern man, surely?—“I do not know where I\r\nam or what I am to do; I am everything that knows not where it is or\r\nwhat to do,”—sighs the modern man. We were made quite ill by \u003ci\u003ethis\u003c/i\u003e\r\nmodernity,—with its indolent peace, its cowardly compromise, and the\r\nwhole of the virtuous filth of its Yea and Nay. This tolerance and\r\n\u003ci\u003elargeur de cœur\u003c/i\u003e which “forgives” everything because it “understands”\r\neverything, is a Sirocco for us. We prefer to live amid ice than to\r\nbe breathed upon by modern virtues and other southerly winds!… We\r\nwere brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor others: but we\r\nwere very far from knowing whither to direct our bravery. We were\r\nbecoming gloomy; people called us fatalists. \u003ci\u003eOur\u003c/i\u003e fate—it was the\r\nabundance, the tension\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_128\"\u003e[Pg 128]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e and the storing up of power. We thirsted for\r\nthunderbolts and great deeds; we kept at the most respectful distance\r\nfrom the joy of the weakling, from “resignation.” … Thunder was in\r\nour air, that part of nature which we are, became overcast—\u003ci\u003efor we had\r\nno direction.\u003c/i\u003e The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight\r\nline, a goal.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to\r\nPower, and power itself in man. What is bad?—All that proceeds\r\nfrom weakness. What is happiness?—The feeling that power is\r\n\u003ci\u003eincreasing,\u003c/i\u003e—that resistance has been overcome.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNot contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not\r\nvirtue, but efficiency\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_1_17\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_1_17\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e (virtue in the Renaissance sense, \u003ci\u003evirtu,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nfree from all moralic acid). The weak and the botched shall perish:\r\nfirst principle of our humanity. And they ought even to be helped to\r\nperish.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy with all the\r\nbotched and the weak—Christianity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe problem I set in this work is not what will replace mankind in the\r\norder of living being! (—Man is an \u003ci\u003eend\u003c/i\u003e—); but, what type of man\r\nmust be \u003ci\u003ereared,\u003c/i\u003e must be \u003ci\u003ewilled,\u003c/i\u003e as having the higher value, as\r\nbeing the most worthy of life and the surest guarantee of the future.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_129\"\u003e[Pg 129]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis more valuable type has appeared often enough already: but as a\r\nhappy accident, as an exception, never as \u003ci\u003ewilled.\u003c/i\u003e He has rather been\r\nprecisely the most feared; hitherto he has been almost the terrible in\r\nitself;—and from out the very fear he provoked there arose the will\r\nto rear the type which has how been reared, \u003ci\u003eattained:\u003c/i\u003e the domestic\r\nanimal, the gregarious animal, the sick animal man,—the Christian.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMankind does \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e represent a development towards a better, stronger\r\nor higher type, in the sense in which this is supposed to occur to-day.\r\n“Progress” is merely a modern idea—that is to say, a false idea.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_2_18\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_2_18\"\u003e[2]\u003c/a\u003e\r\nThe modern European is still far below the European of the Renaissance\r\nin value. The process of evolution does not by any means imply\r\nelevation, enhancement and increasing strength.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand isolated and individual cases are continually\r\nsucceeding in different places on earth, as the outcome of the most\r\ndifferent cultures, and in these a \u003ci\u003ehigher type\u003c/i\u003e certainly manifests\r\nitself: something which by the side of mankind in general, represents a\r\nkind of superman. Such lucky strokes of great success have always been\r\npossible and will perhaps always be possible. And even whole races,\r\ntribes and nations may in certain circumstances represent such \u003ci\u003elucky\r\nstrokes.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_130\"\u003e[Pg 130]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must not deck out and adorn Christianity: it has waged a deadly\r\nwar upon this \u003ci\u003ehigher\u003c/i\u003e type of man, it has set a ban upon all the\r\nfundamental instincts of this type, and has distilled evil and the\r\ndevil himself out of these instincts:—the strong man as the typical\r\npariah, the villain. Christianity has sided with everything weak, low,\r\nand botched; it has made an ideal out of \u003ci\u003eantagonism\u003c/i\u003e towards all the\r\nself-preservative instincts of strong life: it has corrupted even the\r\nreason of the strongest intellects, by teaching that the highest values\r\nof intellectuality are sinful, misleading and full of temptations.\r\nThe most lamentable example of this was the corruption of Pascal, who\r\nbelieved in the perversion of his reason through original sin, whereas\r\nit had only been perverted by his Christianity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA painful and ghastly spectacle has just risen before my eyes. I tore\r\ndown the curtain which concealed mankind’s \u003ci\u003ecorruption.\u003c/i\u003e This word in\r\nmy mouth is at least secure from the suspicion that it contains a moral\r\ncharge against mankind. It is—I would fain emphasise this again—free\r\nfrom moralic acid: to such an extent is this so, that I am most\r\nthoroughly conscious of the corruption in question precisely in those\r\nquarters in which hitherto people have aspired with most determination\r\nto “virtue” and to “godliness.” As you have already surmised, I\r\nunderstand corruption in the sense of \u003ci\u003edecadence.\u003c/i\u003e What I maintain is\r\nthis, that all the values upon\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_131\"\u003e[Pg 131]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e which mankind builds its highest hopes\r\nand desires are \u003ci\u003edecadent\u003c/i\u003e values.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its\r\ninstincts, when it selects and \u003ci\u003eprefers\u003c/i\u003e that which is detrimental to\r\nit. A history of the “higher feelings,” of “human ideals”—and it is\r\nnot impossible that I shall have to write it—would almost explain why\r\nman is so corrupt. Life itself, to my mind, is nothing more nor less\r\nthan the instinct of growth, of permanence, of accumulating forces,\r\nof power: where the will to power is lacking, degeneration sets in.\r\nMy contention is that all the highest values of mankind \u003ci\u003elack\u003c/i\u003e this\r\nwill,—that the values of decline and of \u003ci\u003enihilism\u003c/i\u003e are exercising the\r\nsovereign power under the cover of the holiest names.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eChristianity is called the religion of \u003ci\u003epity.\u003c/i\u003e—Pity is opposed to\r\nthe tonic passions which enhance the energy of the feeling of life:\r\nits action is depressing. A man loses power when he pities. By\r\nmeans of pity the drain on strength which suffering itself already\r\nintroduces into the world is multiplied a thousandfold. Through pity,\r\nsuffering itself becomes infectious; in certain circumstances it may\r\nlead to a total loss of life and vital energy, which is absurdly\r\nput of proportion to the magnitude of the cause (—the case of the\r\ndeath of the Nazarene). This is the first standpoint; but there is a\r\nstill more important one. Supposing one measures pity according to\r\nthe value of the reactions it usually stimulates, its danger to life\r\nappears in a much more telling light On the whole, pity thwarts the\r\nlaw\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_132\"\u003e[Pg 132]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of development which is the law of selection. It preserves that\r\nwhich is ripe for death, it fights in favour of the disinherited and\r\nthe condemned of life; thanks to the multitude of abortions of all\r\nkinds which it maintains in life, it lends life itself a sombre and\r\nquestionable aspect. People have dared to call pity a virtue (—in\r\nevery \u003ci\u003enoble\u003c/i\u003e culture it is considered as a weakness—); people went\r\nstill further, they exalted it to \u003ci\u003ethe\u003c/i\u003e virtue, the root and origin\r\nof all virtues,—but, of course, what must never be forgotten is the\r\nfact that this was done from the standpoint of a philosophy which\r\nwas nihilistic, and on whose shield the device \u003ci\u003eThe Denial of Life\u003c/i\u003e\r\nwas inscribed. Schopenhauer was right in this respect: by means of\r\npity, life is denied and made \u003ci\u003emore worthy of denial,\u003c/i\u003e—pity is\r\nthe \u003ci\u003epraxis\u003c/i\u003e of Nihilism. I repeat, this depressing and infectious\r\ninstinct thwarts those instincts which aim at the preservation and\r\nenhancement of the value life: by \u003ci\u003emultiplying\u003c/i\u003e misery quite as much\r\nas by preserving all that is miserable, it is the principal agent in\r\npromoting decadence,—pity exhorts people to nothing, to \u003ci\u003enonentity!\u003c/i\u003e\r\nBut they do not say “\u003ci\u003enonentity\u003c/i\u003e” they say “Beyond,” or “God,” or “the\r\ntrue life”; or Nirvana, or Salvation, or Blessedness, instead. This\r\ninnocent rhetoric, which belongs to the realm of the religio-moral\r\nidiosyncrasy, immediately appears to be \u003ci\u003every much less innocent\u003c/i\u003e if\r\none realises what the tendency is which here tries to drape itself in\r\nthe mantle of sublime expressions—the tendency of hostility to life.\r\nSchopenhauer was hostile to life: that is why he elevated pity to a\r\nvirtue…. Aristotle, as you know, recognised in pity a morbid and\r\ndangerous\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_133\"\u003e[Pg 133]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e state, of which it was wise to rid one’s self from time to\r\ntime by a purgative: he regarded tragedy as a purgative. For the sake\r\nof the instinct of life, it would certainly seem necessary to find some\r\nmeans of lancing any such morbid and dangerous accumulation of pity, as\r\nthat which possessed Schopenhauer (and unfortunately the whole of our\r\nliterary and artistic decadence as well, from St Petersburg to Paris,\r\nfrom Tolstoi to Wagner), if only to make it \u003ci\u003eburst….\u003c/i\u003e Nothing is\r\nmore unhealthy in the midst of our unhealthy modernity, than Christian\r\npity. To be doctors \u003ci\u003ehere,\u003c/i\u003e to be inexorable \u003ci\u003ehere,\u003c/i\u003e to wield the knife\r\neffectively \u003ci\u003ehere,—\u003c/i\u003e all this is our business, all this is \u003ci\u003eour\u003c/i\u003e\r\nkind of love to our fellows, this is what makes \u003ci\u003eus\u003c/i\u003e philosophers, us\r\nhyperboreans!—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is necessary to state whom we regard as our antithesis:—the\r\ntheologians, and all those who have the blood of theologians in their\r\nveins—the whole of our philosophy…. A man must have had his very\r\nnose upon this fatality, or better still he must have experienced it\r\nin his own soul; he must almost have perished through it, in order\r\nto be unable to treat this matter lightly (—the free-spiritedness\r\nof our friends the naturalists and physiologists is, in my opinion,\r\na \u003ci\u003ejoke,\u003c/i\u003e—what they lack in these questions is passion, what they\r\nlack is having suffered from these questions—). This poisoning\r\nextends much further than people think: I unearthed the “arrogant”\r\ninstinct of the theologian, wherever nowadays people feel themselves\r\nidealists,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_134\"\u003e[Pg 134]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e—wherever, thanks to superior antecedents, they claim the\r\nright to rise above reality and to regard it with suspicion…. Like\r\nthe priest the idealist has every grandiloquent concept in his hand\r\n(—and not only in his hand!), he wields them all with kindly contempt\r\nagainst the “understanding,” the “senses,” “honours,” “decent living,”\r\n“science”; he regards such things as \u003ci\u003ebeneath\u003c/i\u003e him, as detrimental and\r\nseductive forces, upon the face of which, “the Spirit” moves in pure\r\nabsoluteness:—as if humility, chastity, poverty, in a word \u003ci\u003eholiness,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nhad not done incalculably more harm to life hitherto, than any sort of\r\nhorror and vice…. Pure spirit is pure falsehood…. As long as the\r\npriest, the \u003ci\u003eprofessional\u003c/i\u003e denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is\r\nconsidered as the \u003ci\u003ehighest\u003c/i\u003e kind of man, there can be no answer to the\r\nquestion, what \u003ci\u003eis\u003c/i\u003e truth? Truth has already been turned topsy-turvy,\r\nwhen the conscious advocate of nonentity and of denial passes as the\r\nrepresentative of “truth.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is upon this theological instinct that I wage war. I find traces\r\nof it everywhere. Whoever has the blood of theologians in his veins,\r\nstands from the start in a false and dishonest position to all things.\r\nThe pathos which grows out of this state, is called \u003ci\u003eFaith:\u003c/i\u003e that is\r\nto say, to shut one’s eyes once and for all, in order not to suffer\r\nat the sight of incurable falsity. People convert this faulty view of\r\nall things into a moral, a virtue, a thing of holiness. They endow\r\ntheir distorted vision with a good conscience,—they claim that no\r\n\u003ci\u003eother\u003c/i\u003e point of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_135\"\u003e[Pg 135]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e view is any longer of value, once theirs has been\r\nmade sacrosanct with the names “God,” “Salvation,” “Eternity.” I\r\nunearthed the instinct of the theologian everywhere: it is the most\r\nuniversal, and actually the most subterranean form of falsity on earth.\r\nThat which a theologian considers true, \u003ci\u003emust\u003c/i\u003e of necessity be false:\r\nthis furnishes almost the criterion of truth. It is his most profound\r\nself-preservative instinct which forbids reality ever to attain to\r\nhonour in any way, or even to raise its voice. Whithersoever the\r\ninfluence of the theologian extends, \u003ci\u003evaluations\u003c/i\u003e are topsy-turvy,\r\nand the concepts “true” and “false” have necessarily changed places:\r\nthat which is most deleterious to life, is here called “true,” that\r\nwhich enhances it, elevates it, says Yea to it, justifies it and\r\nrenders it triumphant, is called “false.” … If it should happen that\r\ntheologians, \u003ci\u003evia\u003c/i\u003e the “conscience” either of princes or of the people,\r\nstretch out their hand for power, let us not be in any doubt as to\r\nwhat results therefrom each time, namely:—the will to the end, the\r\n\u003ci\u003enihilistic\u003c/i\u003e will to power….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmong Germans I am immediately understood when I say, that philosophy\r\nis ruined by the blood of theologians. The Protestant minister is\r\nthe grand-father of German philosophy, Protestantism itself is the\r\nlatter’s \u003ci\u003epeccatum originale.\u003c/i\u003e Definition of Protestantism: the\r\npartial paralysis of Christianity—and of reason…. One needs only to\r\npronounce the words “Tübingen Seminary,” in order to understand what\r\nGerman philosophy really is at bottom,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_136\"\u003e[Pg 136]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e theology \u003ci\u003ein disguise\u003c/i\u003e…. The\r\nSwabians are the best liars in Germany, they lie innocently…. Whence\r\ncame all the rejoicing with which the appearance of Kant was greeted\r\nby the scholastic world of Germany, three-quarters of which consist of\r\nclergymen’s and schoolmasters’ sons? Whence came the German conviction,\r\nwhich finds an echo even now, that Kant inaugurated a change for the\r\n\u003ci\u003ebetter?\u003c/i\u003e The theologian’s instinct in the German scholar divined what\r\nhad once again been made possible…. A back-staircase leading into\r\nthe old ideal was discovered, the concept “true world,” the concept\r\nmorality as the \u003ci\u003eessence\u003c/i\u003e of the world (—those two most vicious errors\r\nthat have ever existed!), were, thanks to a subtle and wily scepticism,\r\nonce again, if not demonstrable, at least no longer \u003ci\u003erefutable….\u003c/i\u003e\r\nReason, the \u003ci\u003eprerogative\u003c/i\u003e of reason, does not extend so far…. Out of\r\nreality they had made “appearance”; and an absolutely false world—that\r\nof being—had been declared to be reality. Kant’s success is merely a\r\ntheologian’s success. Like Luther, and like Leibniz, Kant was one brake\r\nthe more upon the already squeaky wheel of German uprightness.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne word more against Kant as a \u003ci\u003emoralist.\u003c/i\u003e A virtue \u003ci\u003emust\u003c/i\u003e be \u003ci\u003eour\u003c/i\u003e\r\ninvention, our most personal defence and need: in every other sense it\r\nis merely a danger. That which does not constitute a condition of our\r\nlife, is merely harmful to it: to possess a virtue merely because one\r\nhappens to respect the concept “virtue,” as Kant would have us do, is\r\npernicious. “Virtue,” “Duty,” “Goodness in itself,”\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_137\"\u003e[Pg 137]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e goodness stamped\r\nwith the character of impersonality and universal validity—these\r\nthings are mere mental hallucinations, in which decline the final\r\ndevitalisation of life and Königsbergian Chinadom find expression. The\r\nmost fundamental laws of preservation and growth, demand precisely the\r\nreverse, namely:—that each should discover \u003ci\u003ehis\u003c/i\u003e own virtue, his own\r\nCategorical Imperative. A nation goes to the dogs when it confounds\r\nits concept of duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing is more\r\nprofoundly, more thoroughly pernicious, than every impersonal feeling\r\nof duty, than every sacrifice to the Moloch of abstraction.—Fancy no\r\none’s having thought Kant’s Categorical Imperative \u003ci\u003edangerous to life!\u003c/i\u003e\r\n… The instinct of the theologist alone took it under its wing!—An\r\naction stimulated by the instinct of life, is proved to be a proper\r\naction by the happiness that accompanies it: and that nihilist with the\r\nbowels of a Christian dogmatist regarded happiness as an \u003ci\u003eobjection\r\n…\u003c/i\u003e. What is there that destroys a man more speedily than to work,\r\nthink, feel, as an automaton of “duty,” without internal promptings,\r\nwithout a profound personal predilection, without joy? This is the\r\nrecipe \u003ci\u003epar excellence\u003c/i\u003e of decadence and even of idiocy…. Kant became\r\nan idiot—And he was the contemporary of Goethe! This fatal spider was\r\nregarded as \u003ci\u003ethe\u003c/i\u003e German philosopher,—is still regarded as such!… I\r\nrefrain from saying what I think of the Germans…. Did Kant not see in\r\nthe French Revolution the transition of the State from the inorganic to\r\nthe \u003ci\u003eorganic\u003c/i\u003e form? Did he not ask himself whether there was a single\r\nevent on record which could be explained\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_138\"\u003e[Pg 138]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e otherwise than as a moral\r\nfaculty of mankind; so that by means of it, “mankind’s tendency towards\r\ngood,” might be \u003ci\u003eproved\u003c/i\u003e once and for all? Kant’s reply: “that is the\r\nRevolution.” Instinct at fault in anything and everything, hostility to\r\nnature as an instinct, German decadence made into philosophy\u003ci\u003e—that is\r\nKant!\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eExcept for a few sceptics, the respectable type in the history of\r\nphilosophy, the rest do not know the very first pre-requisite of\r\nintellectual uprightness. They all behave like females, do these great\r\nenthusiasts and animal prodigies,—they regard “beautiful feelings”\r\nthemselves as arguments, the “heaving breast” as the bellows of\r\ndivinity, and conviction as the \u003ci\u003ecriterion\u003c/i\u003e of truth. In the end,\r\neven Kant, with “Teutonic” innocence, tried to dress this lack of\r\nintellectual conscience up in a scientific garb by means of the concept\r\n“practical reason.” He deliberately invented a kind of reason which\r\nat times would allow one to dispense with reason, that is to say when\r\n“morality,” when the sublime command “thou shalt,” makes itself heard.\r\nWhen one remembers that in almost all nations the philosopher is only a\r\nfurther development of the priestly type, this heirloom of priesthood,\r\nthis \u003ci\u003efraud towards one’s self,\u003c/i\u003e no longer surprises one. When a man\r\nhas a holy life-task, as for instance to improve, save, or deliver\r\nmankind, when a man bears God in his breast, and is the mouthpiece of\r\nimperatives from another world,—with such a mission he stands beyond\r\nthe pale of all merely reasonable valuations. He is even sanctified by\r\nsuch a taste,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_139\"\u003e[Pg 139]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e and is already the type of a higher order! What does a\r\npriest care about science! He stands too high for that!—And until now\r\nthe priest has \u003ci\u003eruled!\u003c/i\u003e—He it was who determined the concept “true\r\nand false.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDo not let us undervalue the fact that we \u003ci\u003eourselves,\u003c/i\u003e we free spirits,\r\nare already a “transvaluation of all values,” an incarnate declaration\r\nof war against all the old concepts “true” and “untrue” and of a\r\ntriumph over them. The most valuable standpoints are always the last\r\nto be found: but the most valuable standpoints are the methods. AH the\r\nmethods and the first principles of our modern scientific procedure,\r\nhad for years to encounter the profoundest contempt: association\r\nwith them meant exclusion from the society of decent people—one was\r\nregarded as an “enemy of God,” as a scoffer at truth and as “one\r\npossessed.” With one’s scientific nature, one belonged to the Chandala.\r\nWe have had the whole feeling of mankind against us; hitherto their\r\nnotion of that which ought to be truth, of that which ought to serve\r\nthe purpose of truth: every “thou shalt,” has been directed against\r\nus…. Our objects, our practices, our calm, cautious distrustful\r\nmanner—everything about us seemed to them absolutely despicable and\r\nbeneath contempt After all, it might be asked with some justice,\r\nwhether the thing which kept mankind blindfold so long, were not an\r\næsthetic taste: what they demanded of truth was a \u003ci\u003epicturesque\u003c/i\u003e effect,\r\nand from the man of science what they expected was that he should make\r\na forcible appeal to their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_140\"\u003e[Pg 140]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e senses. It was our \u003ci\u003emodesty\u003c/i\u003e which ran\r\ncounter to their taste so long … And oh! how well they guessed this,\r\ndid these divine turkey-cocks!—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have altered our standpoint. In every respect we have become\r\nmore modest We no longer derive man from the “spirit,” and from the\r\n“godhead”; we have thrust him back among the beasts. We regard him as\r\nthe strongest animal, because he is the craftiest: one of the results\r\nthereof is his intellectuality. On the other hand we guard against the\r\nvain pretension, which even here would fain assert itself: that man is\r\nthe great \u003ci\u003earrière pensée\u003c/i\u003e of organic evolution! He is by no means the\r\ncrown of creation, beside him, every other creature stands at the same\r\nstage of perfection…. And even in asserting this we go a little too\r\nfar; for, relatively speaking, man is the most botched and diseased\r\nof animals, and he has wandered furthest from his instincts. Be all\r\nthis as it may, he is certainly the most \u003ci\u003einteresting!\u003c/i\u003e As regards\r\nanimals, Descartes was the first, with really admirable daring, to\r\nventure the thought that the beast was \u003ci\u003emachina,\u003c/i\u003e and the whole of\r\nour physiology is endeavouring to prove this proposition. Moreover,\r\nlogically we do not set man apart, as Descartes did: the extent\r\nto which man is understood to-day goes only so far as he has been\r\nunderstood mechanistically. Formerly man was given “free will,” as his\r\ndowry from a higher sphere; nowadays we have robbed him even of will,\r\nin view of the fact that no such faculty is any longer known. The only\r\npurpose served by the old word\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_141\"\u003e[Pg 141]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e “will,” is to designate a result, a\r\nsort of individual reaction which necessarily follows upon a host of\r\npartly discordant and partly harmonious stimuli:—the will no longer\r\n“effects” or “moves” anything…. Formerly people thought that man’s\r\nconsciousness, his “spirit,” was a proof of his lofty origin, of his\r\ndivinity. With the idea of perfecting man, he was conjured to draw his\r\nsenses inside himself, after the manner of the tortoise, to cut off all\r\nrelations with terrestrial things, and to divest himself of his mortal\r\nshell. Then the most important thing about him, the “pure spirit,”\r\nwould remain over. Even concerning these things we have improved our\r\nstandpoint Consciousness, “spirit,” now seems to us rather a symptom of\r\nrelative imperfection in the organism, as an experiment, a groping, a\r\nmisapprehension, an affliction which absorbs an unnecessary quantity of\r\nnervous energy. We deny that anything can be done perfectly so long as\r\nit is done consciously. “Pure spirit” is a piece of “pure stupidity”:\r\nif we discount the nervous system, the senses and the “mortal shell,”\r\nwe have miscalculated—that it is all!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn Christianity neither morality nor religion comes in touch at all\r\nwith reality. Nothing but imaginary \u003ci\u003ecauses\u003c/i\u003e (God, the soul, the ego,\r\nspirit, free will—or even non-free will); nothing but imaginary\r\n\u003ci\u003eeffects\u003c/i\u003e (sin, salvation, grace, punishment, forgiveness of sins).\r\nImaginary beings are supposed to have intercourse (God, spirits,\r\nsouls); imaginary Natural History (anthropocentric: total lack of\r\nthe notion “natural causes”); an imaginary \u003ci\u003epsychology\u003c/i\u003e (nothing\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_142\"\u003e[Pg 142]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nbut misunderstandings of self, interpretations of pleasant or\r\nunpleasant general feelings; for instance of the states of the \u003ci\u003enervus\r\nsympathicus,\u003c/i\u003e with the help of the sign language of a religio-moral\r\nidiosyncrasy,—repentance, pangs of conscience, the temptation of\r\nthe devil, the presence of God); an imaginary teleology (the Kingdom\r\nof God, the Last Judgment, Everlasting Life).—This purely fictitious\r\nworld distinguishes itself very unfavourably from the world of\r\ndreams: the latter \u003ci\u003ereflects\u003c/i\u003e reality, whereas the former falsifies,\r\ndepreciates and denies it Once the concept “nature” was taken to mean\r\nthe opposite of the concept God, the word “natural” had to acquire the\r\nmeaning of abominable,—the whole of that fictitious world takes its\r\nroot in the hatred of nature (—reality!—), it is the expression of\r\nprofound discomfiture in the presence of reality…. \u003ci\u003eBut this explains\r\neverything.\u003c/i\u003e What is the only kind of man who has reasons for wriggling\r\nout of reality by lies? The man who suffers from reality. But in\r\norder to suffer from reality one must be a bungled portion of it. The\r\npreponderance of pain over pleasure is the \u003ci\u003ecause\u003c/i\u003e of that fictitious\r\nmorality and religion: but any such preponderance furnishes the formula\r\nfor decadence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA criticism of the Christian concept of God inevitably leads to the\r\nsame conclusion.—A nation that still believes in itself, also has\r\nits own God. In him it honours the conditions which enable it to\r\nremain uppermost,—that is to say, its virtues. It projects its joy\r\nover itself, its feeling of power, into a being, to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_143\"\u003e[Pg 143]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e whom it can be\r\nthankful for such things. He who is rich, will give of his riches: a\r\nproud people requires a God, unto whom it can \u003ci\u003esacrifice\u003c/i\u003e things….\r\nReligion, when restricted to these principles, is a form of gratitude.\r\nA man is grateful for his own existence; for this he must have a\r\nGod.—Such a God must be able to benefit and to injure him, he must be\r\nable to act the friend and the foe. He must be esteemed for his good\r\nas well as for his evil qualities. The monstrous castration of a God\r\nby making him a God only of goodness, would lie beyond the pale of the\r\ndesires of such a community. The evil God is just as urgently needed\r\nas the good God: for a people in such a form of society certainly does\r\nnot owe its existence to toleration and humaneness…. What would be\r\nthe good of a God who knew nothing of anger, revenge, envy, scorn,\r\ncraft, and violence?—who had perhaps never experienced the rapturous\r\n\u003ci\u003eardeurs\u003c/i\u003e of victory and of annihilation? No one would understand such\r\na God: why should one possess him?—Of course, when a people is on\r\nthe road to ruin; when it feels its belief in a future, its hope of\r\nfreedom vanishing for ever; when it becomes conscious of submission\r\nas the most useful quality, and of the virtues of the submissive as\r\nself-preservative measures, then its God must also modify himself.\r\nHe then becomes a tremulous and unassuming sneak; he counsels “peace\r\nof the soul,” the cessation of all hatred, leniency and “love” even\r\ntowards friend and foe. He is for ever moralising, he crawls into\r\nthe heart of every private virtue, becomes a God for everybody, he\r\nretires from active service and becomes a Cosmopolitan…. Formerly\r\nhe\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_144\"\u003e[Pg 144]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e represented a people, the strength of a people, everything\r\naggressive and desirous of power lying concealed in the heart of a\r\nnation: now he is merely the good God…. In very truth Gods have no\r\nother alternative, they are \u003ci\u003eeither\u003c/i\u003e the Will to Power—in which case\r\nthey are always the Gods of whole nations,—or, on the other hand, the\r\nincapacity for power—in which case they necessarily become good.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWherever the Will to Power, no matter in what form, begins to decline,\r\na physiological retrogression, decadence, always supervenes. The\r\ngodhead of \u003ci\u003edecadence,\u003c/i\u003e shorn of its masculine virtues and passions\r\nis perforce converted into the God of the physiologically degraded,\r\nof the weak. Of course they do not call themselves the weak, they\r\ncall themselves “the good.” … No hint will be necessary to help you\r\nto understand at what moment in history the dualistic fiction of a\r\ngood and an evil God first became possible. With the same instinct by\r\nwhich the subjugated reduce their God to “Goodness in itself,” they\r\nalso cancel the good qualities from their conqueror’s God; they avenge\r\nthemselves on their masters by diabolising the latter’s God.—The \u003ci\u003egood\r\nGod\u003c/i\u003e and the devil as well:—both the abortions of decadence.—How\r\nis it possible that we are still so indulgent towards the simplicity\r\nof Christian theologians to-day, as to declare with them that the\r\nevolution of the concept God, from the “God of Israel,” the God of\r\na people, to the Christian God, the quintessence of all goodness,\r\nmarks a \u003ci\u003estep forward?\u003c/i\u003e—But even Renan does this. As if Renan\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_145\"\u003e[Pg 145]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e had\r\na right to simplicity! Why the very contrary stares one in the face.\r\nWhen the pre-requisites of \u003ci\u003eascending\u003c/i\u003e life, when everything strong,\r\nplucky, masterful and proud has been eliminated from the concept\r\nof God, and step by step he has sunk down to the symbol of a staff\r\nfor the weary, of a last straw for all those who are drowning; when\r\nhe becomes the pauper’s God, the sinner’s God, the sick man’s God\r\n\u003ci\u003epar excellence,\u003c/i\u003e and the attribute “Saviour,” “Redeemer,” remains\r\n\u003ci\u003eover\u003c/i\u003e as the one essential attribute of divinity: what does such a\r\nmetamorphosis, such an abasement of the godhead imply?—Undoubtedly,\r\n“the kingdom of God” has thus become larger. Formerly all he had was\r\nhis people, his “chosen” people. Since then he has gone travelling\r\nover foreign lands, just as his people have done; since then he has\r\nnever rested anywhere: until one day he felt at home everywhere, the\r\nGreat Cosmopolitan,—until he got the “greatest number,” and half the\r\nworld on his side. But the God of the “greatest number,” the democrat\r\namong gods, did not become a proud heathen god notwithstanding: he\r\nremained a Jew, he remained the God of the back streets, the God of\r\nall dark corners and hovels, of all the unwholesome quarters of the\r\nworld!… His universal empire is now as ever a netherworld empire,\r\nan infirmary, a subterranean empire, a ghetto-empire…. And he\r\nhimself is so pale, so weak, so decadent … Even the palest of the\r\npale were able to master him—our friends the metaphysicians, those\r\nalbinos of thought. They spun their webs around him so long that\r\nultimately he was hypnotised by their movements and himself\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_146\"\u003e[Pg 146]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e became a\r\nspider, a metaphysician. Thenceforward he once more began spinning the\r\nworld out of his inner being—\u003ci\u003esub specie Spinozæ,\u003c/i\u003e—thenceforward\r\nhe transfigured himself into something ever thinner and ever more\r\nanæmic, became “ideal,” became “pure spirit,” became \u003ci\u003e“absotutum”\u003c/i\u003e and\r\n“thing-in-itself.” … \u003ci\u003eThe decline and fall of a god:\u003c/i\u003e God became the\r\n“thing-in-itself.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Christian concept of God—God as the deity of the sick, God as a\r\nspider, God as spirit—is one of the most corrupt concepts of God that\r\nhas ever been attained on earth. Maybe it represents the low-water\r\nmark in the evolutionary ebb of the godlike type God degenerated into\r\nthe \u003ci\u003econtradiction of life,\u003c/i\u003e instead of being its transfiguration and\r\neternal Yea! With God war is declared on life, nature, and the will to\r\nlife! God is the formula for every calumny of this world and for every\r\nlie concerning a beyond! In God, nonentity is deified, and the will to\r\nnonentity is declared holy!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe fact that the strong races of Northern Europe did not repudiate\r\nthe Christian God, certainly does not do any credit to their religious\r\npower, not to speak of their taste They ought to have been able\r\nsuccessfully to cope with such a morbid and decrepit offshoot of\r\ndecadence. And a curse lies on their heads; because they were unable to\r\ncope with him: they made illness, decrepitude and contradiction a part\r\nof all their instincts,—since then they have not\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_147\"\u003e[Pg 147]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003ci\u003ecreated\u003c/i\u003e any other\r\nGod! Two thousand years have passed and not a single new God! But still\r\nthere exists, and as if by right,—like an \u003ci\u003eultimum\u003c/i\u003e and \u003ci\u003emaximum\u003c/i\u003e of\r\ngod-creating power,—the \u003ci\u003ecreator spiritus\u003c/i\u003e in man, this miserable God\r\nof Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid creature of decay, nonentity,\r\nconcept and contradiction, in which all the instincts of decadence, all\r\nthe cowardices and languors of the soul find their sanction!——\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith my condemnation of Christianity I should not like to have done\r\nan injustice to a religion which is related to it and the number of\r\nwhose followers is even greater; I refer to Buddhism. As nihilistic\r\nreligions, they are akin,—they are religions of decadence,—while\r\neach is separated from the other in the most extraordinary fashion.\r\nFor being able to compare them at all, the critic of Christianity is\r\nprofoundly grateful to Indian scholars.—Buddhism is a hundred times\r\nmore realistic than Christianity,—it is part of its constitutional\r\nheritage to be able to face problems objectively and coolly, it is\r\nthe outcome of centuries of lasting philosophical activity. The\r\nconcept “God” was already exploded when it appeared. Buddhism is\r\nthe only really \u003ci\u003epositive\u003c/i\u003e religion to be found in history, even\r\nin its epistemology (which is strict phenomenalism)—it no longer\r\nspeaks of the “struggle with \u003ci\u003esin\u003c/i\u003e” but fully recognising the true\r\nnature of reality it speaks of the “struggle with \u003ci\u003epain.\u003c/i\u003e” It already\r\nhas—and this distinguishes it fundamentally from Christianity,—the\r\nself-deception of moral concepts beneath it,—to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_148\"\u003e[Pg 148]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e use my own\r\nphraseology, it stands \u003ci\u003eBeyond Good and Evil.\u003c/i\u003e The two physiological\r\nfacts upon which it rests and upon which it bestows its attention\r\nare: in the first place excessive irritability of feeling, which\r\nmanifests itself as a refined susceptibility to pain, \u003ci\u003eand also\u003c/i\u003e as\r\nsuper-spiritualisation, an all-too-lengthy sojourn amid concepts and\r\nlogical procedures, under the influence of which the personal instinct\r\nhas suffered in favour of the “impersonal.” (—Both of these states\r\nwill be known to a few of my readers, the objective ones, who, like\r\nmyself, will know them from experience.) Thanks to these physiological\r\nconditions, a state of depression set in, which Buddha sought to combat\r\nby means of hygiene. Against it, he prescribes life in the open, a life\r\nof travel; moderation and careful choice in food; caution in regard to\r\nall intoxicating liquor, as also in regard to all the passions which\r\ntend to create bile and to heat the blood; and he deprecates care\r\neither on one’s own or on other people’s account He recommends ideas\r\nthat bring one either peace or good cheer,—he invents means whereby\r\nthe habit of contrary ideas may be lost He understands goodness—being\r\ngood—as promoting health. \u003ci\u003ePrayer\u003c/i\u003e is out of the question, as is\r\nalso \u003ci\u003easceticism;\u003c/i\u003e there is neither a Categorical Imperative nor any\r\ndiscipline whatsoever, even within the walls of a monastery (—it is\r\nalways possible to leave it if one wants to). All these things would\r\nhave been only a means of accentuating the excessive irritability\r\nalready referred to. Precisely on this account he does not exhort his\r\nfollowers to wage war upon those who do not share their views; nothing\r\nis more abhorred\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_149\"\u003e[Pg 149]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e in his doctrine than the feeling of revenge, of\r\naversion, and of resentment (—“not through hostility doth hostility\r\nend”: the touching refrain of the whole of Buddhism….) And in this\r\nhe was right; for it is precisely these passions which are thoroughly\r\nunhealthy in view of the principal dietetic object The mental fatigue\r\nwhich he finds already existent and which expresses itself in\r\nexcessive “objectivity” (\u003ci\u003ei.e.\u003c/i\u003e, the enfeeblement of the individual’s\r\ninterest—loss of ballast and of “egoism”), he combats by leading\r\nthe spiritual interests as well imperatively back to the individual\r\nIn Buddha’s doctrine egoism is a duty: the thing which is above all\r\nnecessary, \u003ci\u003ei.e.,\u003c/i\u003e “how canst thou be rid of suffering” regulates\r\nand defines the whole of the spiritual diet (—let anyone but think\r\nof that Athenian who also declared war upon pure “scientificality,”\r\nSocrates, who made a morality out of personal egoism even in the realm\r\nof problems).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe pre-requisites for Buddhism are a very mild climate, great\r\ngentleness and liberality in the customs of a people and \u003ci\u003eno\u003c/i\u003e\r\nmilitarism. The movement must also originate among the higher and\r\neven learned classes. Cheerfulness, peace and absence of desire, are\r\nthe highest of inspirations, and they are \u003ci\u003erealised.\u003c/i\u003e Buddhism is not\r\na religion in which perfection is merely aspired to: perfection is\r\nthe normal case. In Christianity all the instincts of the subjugated\r\nand oppressed come to the fore: it is the lowest classes who seek\r\ntheir salvation in this religion. Here the pastime, the manner of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_150\"\u003e[Pg 150]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nkilling time is to practise the casuistry of sin, self-criticism, and\r\nconscience inquisition. Here the ecstasy in the presence of a \u003ci\u003epowerful\r\nbeing,\u003c/i\u003e called “god,” is constantly maintained by means of prayer;\r\nwhile the highest thing is regarded as unattainable, as a gift, as an\r\nact of “grace” Here plain dealing is also entirely lacking: concealment\r\nand the darkened room are Christian. Here the body is despised, hygiene\r\nis repudiated as sensual; the church repudiates even cleanliness (—the\r\nfirst Christian measure after the banishment of the Moors was the\r\nclosing of the public baths, of which Cordova alone possessed 270).\r\nA certain spirit of cruelty towards one’s self and others is also\r\nChristian: hatred of all those who do not share one’s views; the will\r\nto persecute Sombre and exciting ideas are in the foreground; the most\r\ncoveted states and those which are endowed with the finest names, are\r\nreally epileptic in their nature; diet is selected in such a way as\r\nto favour morbid symptoms and to over-excite the nerves. Christian,\r\ntoo, is the mortal hatred of the earth’s rulers,—the “noble,”—and\r\nat the same time a sort of concealed and secret competition with them\r\n(the subjugated leave the “body” to their master—all they want is\r\nthe “soul”). Christian is the hatred of the intellect, of pride, of\r\ncourage, freedom, intellectual \u003ci\u003elibertinage;\u003c/i\u003e Christian is the hatred\r\nof the \u003ci\u003esenses,\u003c/i\u003e of the joys of the senses, of joy in general.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen Christianity departed from its native soil, which consisted of the\r\nlowest classes, the \u003ci\u003esubmerged\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_151\"\u003e[Pg 151]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e masses\u003c/i\u003e of the ancient world, and set\r\nforth in quest of power among barbaric nations, it no longer met with\r\nexhausted men but inwardly savage and self-lacerating men—the strong\r\nbut bungled men. Here, dissatisfaction with one’s self, suffering\r\nthrough one’s self, is not as in the case of Buddhism, excessive\r\nirritability and susceptibility to pain, but rather, conversely, it\r\nis an inordinate desire for inflicting pain, for a discharge of the\r\ninner tension in hostile deeds and ideas. Christianity was in need of\r\n\u003ci\u003ebarbaric\u003c/i\u003e ideas and values, in order to be able to master barbarians:\r\nsuch are for instance, the sacrifice of the first-born, the drinking\r\nof blood at communion, the contempt of the intellect and of culture;\r\ntorture in all its forms, sensual and non-sensual; the great pomp of\r\nthe cult Buddhism is a religion for \u003ci\u003esenile\u003c/i\u003e men, for races which\r\nhave become kind, gentle, and over-spiritual, and which feel pain too\r\neasily (—Europe is not nearly ripe for it yet—); it calls them back\r\nto peace and cheerfulness, to a regimen for the intellect, to a certain\r\nhardening of the body. Christianity aims at mastering \u003ci\u003ebeasts of prey\u003c/i\u003e;\r\nits expedient is to make them \u003ci\u003eill,\u003c/i\u003e—to render feeble is the Christian\r\nrecipe for taming, for “civilisation.” Buddhism is a religion for the\r\nclose and exhaustion of civilisation; Christianity does not even find\r\ncivilisation at hand when it appears, in certain circumstances it lays\r\nthe foundation of civilisation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBuddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times colder, more truthful,\r\nmore objective. It no longer requires\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_152\"\u003e[Pg 152]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e to justify pain and its\r\nsusceptibility to suffering by the interpretation of sin,—it simply\r\nsays what it thinks, “I suffer.” To the barbarian, on the other hand,\r\nsuffering in itself is not a respectable thing: in order to acknowledge\r\nto himself that he suffers, what he requires, in the first place, is\r\nan explanation (his instinct directs him more readily to deny his\r\nsuffering, or to endure it in silence). In his case, the word “devil”\r\nwas a blessing: man had an almighty and terrible enemy,—he had no\r\nreason to be ashamed of suffering at the hands of such an enemy.—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt bottom there are in Christianity one or two subtleties which belong\r\nto the Orient In the first place it knows that it is a matter of\r\nindifference whether a thing be true or not; but that it is of the\r\nhighest importance that it should be believed to be true. Truth and\r\nthe belief that something is true: two totally separate worlds of\r\ninterest, almost \u003ci\u003eopposite worlds,\u003c/i\u003e the road to the one and the road to\r\nthe other lie absolutely apart To be initiated into this fact almost\r\nconstitutes one a sage in the Orient: the Brahmins understood it thus,\r\nso did Plato, and so does every disciple of esoteric wisdom. If for\r\nexample it give anyone pleasure to believe himself delivered from sin,\r\nit is \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e a necessary prerequisite thereto that he should be sinful,\r\nbut only that he should \u003ci\u003efeel\u003c/i\u003e sinful. If, however, \u003ci\u003efaith\u003c/i\u003e is above\r\nall necessary, then reason, knowledge, and scientific research must be\r\nbrought into evil repute: the road to truth becomes the \u003ci\u003eforbidden\u003c/i\u003e\r\nroad.—Strong \u003ci\u003ehope\u003c/i\u003e is a much greater stimulant of life than any\r\nsingle realised joy could be. Sufferers must be sustained\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_153\"\u003e[Pg 153]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e by a hope\r\nwhich no actuality can contradict,—and which cannot ever be realised:\r\nthe hope of another world. (Precisely on account of this power that\r\nhope has of making the unhappy linger on, the Greeks regarded it as\r\nthe evil of evils, as the most \u003ci\u003emischievous\u003c/i\u003e evil: it remained behind\r\nin Pandora’s box.) In order that \u003ci\u003elove\u003c/i\u003e may be possible, God must be a\r\nperson. In order that the lowest instincts may also make their voices\r\nheard God must be young. For the ardour of the women a beautiful saint,\r\nand for the ardour of the men a Virgin Mary has to be pressed into the\r\nforeground. All this on condition that Christianity wishes to rule\r\nover a certain soil, on which Aphrodisiac or Adonis cults had already\r\ndetermined the \u003ci\u003enotion\u003c/i\u003e of a cult. To insist upon \u003ci\u003echastity\u003c/i\u003e only\r\nintensifies the vehemence and profundity of the religious instinct—it\r\nmakes the cult warmer, more enthusiastic, more soulful.—Love is the\r\nstate in which man sees things most widely different from what they\r\nare. The force of illusion reaches its zenith here, as likewise the\r\nsweetening and transfiguring power. When a man is in love he endures\r\nmore than at other times; he submits to everything. The thing was to\r\ndiscover a religion in which it was possible to love: by this means\r\nthe worst in life is overcome—it is no longer even seen.—So much\r\nfor three Christian virtues Faith, Hope, and Charity: I call them the\r\nthree Christian \u003ci\u003eprecautionary measures.\u003c/i\u003e—Buddhism is too full of aged\r\nwisdom, too positivistic to be shrewd in this way.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHere I only touch upon the problem of the origin\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_154\"\u003e[Pg 154]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of Christianity.\r\nThe first principle of its solution reads: Christianity can be\r\nunderstood only in relation to the soil out of which it grew,—it is\r\nnot a counter-movement against the Jewish instinct, it is the rational\r\noutcome of the latter, one step further in its appalling logic. In\r\nthe formula of the Saviour: “for Salvation is of the Jews.”—The\r\nsecond principle is: the psychological type of the Galilean is still\r\nrecognisable, but it was only in a state of utter degeneration (which\r\nis at once a distortion and an overloading with foreign features) that\r\nhe was able to serve the purpose for which he has been used,—namely,\r\nas the type of a Redeemer of mankind.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world,\r\nbecause when they were confronted with the question of Being or\r\nnon-Being, with simply uncanny deliberateness, they preferred Being\r\n\u003ci\u003eat any price:\u003c/i\u003e this price was the fundamental \u003ci\u003efalsification\u003c/i\u003e of all\r\nNature, all the naturalness and all the reality, of the inner quite\r\nas much as of the outer world. They hedged themselves in behind all\r\nthose conditions under which hitherto a people has been able to live,\r\nhas been allowed to live; of themselves they created an idea which was\r\nthe reverse of \u003ci\u003enatural\u003c/i\u003e conditions,—each in turn, they twisted first\r\nreligion, then the cult, then morality, history and psychology, about\r\nin a manner so perfectly hopeless that they were made \u003ci\u003eto contradict\r\ntheir natural value.\u003c/i\u003e We meet with the same phenomena again, and\r\nexaggerated to an incalculable degree, although only as a copy:—the\r\nChristian Church as compared with the “chosen people,” lacks all\r\nclaim to originality. Precisely on this account the Jews are the most\r\n\u003ci\u003efatal\u003c/i\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_155\"\u003e[Pg 155]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e people in the history of the world: their ultimate influence\r\nhas falsified mankind to such an extent, that even to this day the\r\nChristian can be anti-Semitic in spirit, without comprehending that he\r\nhimself is the \u003ci\u003efinal consequence of Judaism.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt was in my “Genealogy of Morals” that I first gave a\r\npsychological exposition of the idea of the antithesis noble and\r\n\u003ci\u003eresentment-morality,\u003c/i\u003e the latter having arisen out of an attitude\r\nof negation to the former: but this is Judæo-Christian morality\r\nheart and soul. In order to be able to say Nay to everything that\r\nrepresents the ascending movement of life, prosperity, power,\r\nbeauty, and self-affirmation on earth, the instinct of resentment,\r\nbecome genius, bad to invent \u003ci\u003eanother\u003c/i\u003e world, from the standpoint\r\nof which that \u003ci\u003eYea-saying\u003c/i\u003e to life appeared as \u003ci\u003ethe\u003c/i\u003e most evil and\r\nmost abominable thing. From the psychological standpoint the Jewish\r\npeople are possessed of the toughest vitality. Transplanted amid\r\nimpossible conditions, with profound self-preservative intelligence,\r\nit voluntarily took the side of all the instincts of decadence,—\u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e\r\nas though dominated by them, but because it detected a power in them\r\nby means of which it could assert itself \u003ci\u003eagainst\u003c/i\u003e “the world.” The\r\nJews are the opposite of all \u003ci\u003edecadents\u003c/i\u003e: they have been forced to\r\nrepresent them to the point of illusion, and with a \u003ci\u003enon plus ultra\u003c/i\u003e of\r\nhistrionic genius, they have known how to set themselves at the head\r\nof all decadent movements (St Paul and Christianity for instance), in\r\norder to create something from them which is stronger than every party\r\n\u003ci\u003esaying Yea to life.\u003c/i\u003e For the category of men which aspires to power in\r\nJudaism and Christianity,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_156\"\u003e[Pg 156]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e—that is to say, for the sacerdotal class,\r\ndecadence is but a \u003ci\u003emeans;\u003c/i\u003e this category of men has a vital interest\r\nin making men sick, and in turning the notions “good” and “bad,” “true”\r\nand “false,” upside down in a manner which is not only dangerous to\r\nlife, but also slanders it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe history of Israel is invaluable as the typical history of every\r\n\u003ci\u003edenaturalization\u003c/i\u003e of natural values: let me point to five facts\r\nwhich relate thereto. Originally, and above all in the period of\r\nthe kings, even Israel’s attitude to all things was the \u003ci\u003eright\u003c/i\u003e one\r\n—that is to say, the natural one. Its Jehovah was the expression of\r\nits consciousness of power, of its joy over itself, of its hope for\r\nitself: victory and salvation were expected from him, through him it\r\nwas confident that Nature would give what a people requires—above\r\nall rain. Jehovah is the God of Israel, and \u003ci\u003econsequently\u003c/i\u003e the God\r\nof justice: this is the reasoning of every people which is in the\r\nposition of power, and which has a good conscience in that position. In\r\nthe solemn cult both sides of this self-affirmation of a people find\r\nexpression: it is grateful for the great strokes of fate by means of\r\nwhich it became uppermost; it is grateful for the regularity in the\r\nsuccession of the seasons and for all good fortune in the rearing of\r\ncattle and in the tilling of the soil.—This state of affairs remained\r\nthe ideal for some considerable time, even after it had been swept away\r\nin a deplorable manner by anarchy from within and the Assyrians from\r\nwithout But the people still retained, as their highest desideratum,\r\nthat vision\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_157\"\u003e[Pg 157]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of a king who was a good soldier and a severe judge;\r\nand he who retained it most of all was that typical prophet (—that\r\nis to say, critic and satirist of the age), Isaiah.—But all hopes\r\nremained unrealised. The old God was no longer able to do what he had\r\ndone formerly. He ought to have been dropped. What happened? The idea\r\nof him was changed,—the idea of him was denaturalised: this was the\r\nprice they paid for retaining him.—Jehovah, the God of “Justice,”—is\r\nno longer one with Israel, no longer the expression of a people’s\r\nsense of dignity: he is only a god on certain conditions…. The\r\nidea of him becomes a weapon in the hands of priestly agitators who\r\nhenceforth interpret all happiness as a reward, all unhappiness as a\r\npunishment for disobedience to God, for “sin”: that most fraudulent\r\nmethod of interpretation which arrives at a so-called “moral order\r\nof the Universe,” by means of which the concept “cause” and “effect”\r\nis turned upside down. Once natural causation has been swept out of\r\nthe world by reward and punishment, a causation \u003ci\u003ehostile to nature\u003c/i\u003e\r\nbecomes necessary; whereupon all the forms of unnaturalness follow.\r\nA God who \u003ci\u003edemands,\u003c/i\u003e—in the place of a God who helps, who advises,\r\nwho is at bottom only a name for every happy inspiration of courage\r\nand of self-reliance…. Morality is no longer the expression of the\r\nconditions of life and growth, no longer the most fundamental instinct\r\nof life, but it has become abstract, it has become the opposite of\r\nlife,—Morality as the fundamental perversion of the imagination,\r\nas the “evil eye” for all things. What is Jewish morality, what is\r\nChristian morality? Chance robbed of its innocence; unhappiness\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_158\"\u003e[Pg 158]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\npolluted with the idea of “sin”; well-being interpreted as a danger, as\r\na “temptation”; physiological indisposition poisoned by means of the\r\ncanker-worm of conscience….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of God falsified; the concept of morality falsified: but\r\nthe Jewish priesthood did not stop at this. No use could be made of\r\nthe whole \u003ci\u003ehistory\u003c/i\u003e of Israel, therefore it must go! These priests\r\naccomplished that miracle of falsification, of which the greater part\r\nof the Bible is the document: with unparalleled contempt and in the\r\nteeth of all tradition and historical facts, they interpreted their own\r\npeople’s past in a religious manner,—that is to say, they converted\r\nit into a ridiculous mechanical process of salvation, on the principle\r\nthat all sin against Jehovah led to punishment, and that all pious\r\nworship of Jehovah led to reward. We would feel this shameful act of\r\nhistorical falsification far more poignantly if the ecclesiastical\r\ninterpretation of history through millenniums had not blunted almost\r\nall our sense for the demands of uprightness \u003ci\u003ein historicis.\u003c/i\u003e And\r\nthe church is seconded by the philosophers: \u003ci\u003ethe\u003c/i\u003e of “a moral order\r\nof the universe” permeates the whole development even of more modern\r\nphilosophy. What does a “moral order of the universe” mean? That once\r\nand for all there is such a thing as a will of God which determines\r\nwhat man has to do and what he has to leave undone; that the value\r\nof a people or of an individual is measured according to how much or\r\nhow little the one or the other obeys the will of God; that in the\r\ndestinies\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_159\"\u003e[Pg 159]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of a people or of an individual, the will of God shows\r\nitself dominant, that is to say it punishes or rewards according to\r\nthe degree of obedience. In the place of this miserable falsehood,\r\n\u003ci\u003ereality\u003c/i\u003e says: a parasitical type of man, who can flourish only at the\r\ncost of all the healthy elements of life, the priest abuses the name\r\nof God: he calls that state of affairs in which the priest determines\r\nthe value of things “the Kingdom of God”; he calls the means whereby\r\nsuch a state of affairs is attained or maintained, “the Will of God”;\r\nwith cold-blooded cynicism he measures peoples, ages and individuals\r\naccording to whether they favour or oppose the ascendancy of the\r\npriesthood. Watch him at work: in the hands of the Jewish priesthood\r\nthe Augustan Age in the history of Israel became an age of decline;\r\nthe exile, the protracted misfortune transformed itself into eternal\r\n\u003ci\u003epunishment\u003c/i\u003e for the Augustan Age—that age in which the priest did not\r\nyet exist Out of the mighty and thoroughly free-born figures of the\r\nhistory of Israel, they made, according to their requirements, either\r\nwretched bigots and hypocrites, or “godless ones”: they simplified\r\nthe psychology of every great event to the idiotic formula “obedient\r\nor disobedient to God.”—A step further: the “Will of God,” that is\r\nto say the self-preservative measures of the priesthood, must be\r\nknown—to this end a “revelation” is necessary. In plain English: a\r\nstupendous literary fraud becomes necessary, “holy scriptures” are\r\ndiscovered,—and they are published abroad with all hieratic pomp,\r\nwith days of penance and lamentations over the long state Of “sin.”\r\nThe “Will of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_160\"\u003e[Pg 160]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e God” has long stood firm: the whole of the trouble\r\nlies in the fact that the “Holy Scriptures” have been discarded….\r\nMoses was already the “Will of God” revealed…. What had happened?\r\nWith severity and pedantry, the priest had formulated once and for\r\nall—even to the largest and smallest contributions that were to be\r\npaid to him (—not forgetting the daintiest portions of meat; for the\r\npriest is a consumer of beef-steaks)—\u003ci\u003ewhat he wanted,\u003c/i\u003e “what the Will\r\nof God was.” … Hence-forward everything became so arranged that the\r\npriests were \u003ci\u003eindispensable everywhere.\u003c/i\u003e At all the natural events of\r\nlife, at birth, at marriage, at the sick-bed, at death,—not to speak\r\nof the sacrifice (“the meal”),—the holy parasite appears in order\r\nto denaturalise, or in his language, to “sanctify,” everything….\r\nFor this should be understood: every natural custom, every natural\r\ninstitution (the State, the administration of justice, marriage, the\r\ncare of the sick and the poor), every demand inspired by the instinct\r\nof life, in short everything that has a value in itself, is rendered\r\nabsolutely worthless and even dangerous through the parasitism of the\r\npriest (or of the “moral order of the universe”): a sanction after\r\nthe fact is required,—a \u003ci\u003epower which imparts value\u003c/i\u003e is necessary,\r\nwhich in so doing says, Nay to nature, and which by this means alone\r\n\u003ci\u003ecreates\u003c/i\u003e a valuation…. The priest depreciates and desecrates nature:\r\nit is only at this price that he exists at all.—Disobedience to God,\r\nthat is to say, to the priest, to the “law,” now receives the name of\r\n“sin”; the means of “reconciling one’s self with God” are of course\r\nof a nature which\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_161\"\u003e[Pg 161]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e render subordination to the priesthood all the\r\nmore fundamental: the priest alone is able to “save.” … From the\r\npsychological standpoint, in every society organised upon a hieratic\r\nbasis, “sins” are indispensable: they are the actual weapons of power,\r\nthe priest \u003ci\u003elives\u003c/i\u003e upon sins, it is necessary for him that people\r\nshould “sin.” … Supreme axiom: “God forgiveth him that repenteth”—in\r\nplain English: \u003ci\u003ehim that submitteth himself to the priest.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eChristianity grew out of an utterly \u003ci\u003efalse\u003c/i\u003e soil, in which all nature,\r\nevery natural value, every \u003ci\u003ereality\u003c/i\u003e had the deepest instincts of the\r\nruling class against it; it was a form of deadly hostility to reality\r\nwhich has never been surpassed. The “holy people” which had retained\r\nonly priestly values and priestly names for all things, and which, with\r\na logical consistency that is terrifying, had divorced itself from\r\neverything still powerful on earth as if it were “unholy,” “worldly,”\r\n“sinful,”—this people created a final formula for its instinct which\r\nwas consistent to the point of self-suppression; as \u003ci\u003eChristianity\u003c/i\u003e it\r\ndenied even the last form of reality, the “holy people,” the “chosen\r\npeople,” \u003ci\u003eJewish\u003c/i\u003e reality itself. The case is of supreme interest:\r\nthe small insurrectionary movement christened with the name of Jesus\r\nof Nazareth, is the Jewish instinct \u003ci\u003eover again,\u003c/i\u003e—in other words,\r\nit is the sacerdotal instinct which can no longer endure the priest\r\nas a fact; it is the discovery of a kind of life even more fantastic\r\nthan the one previously conceived, a vision of life which is even\r\nmore unreal than that which the organisation\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_162\"\u003e[Pg 162]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of a church stipulates.\r\nChristianity denies the church.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_3_19\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_3_19\"\u003e[3]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI fail to see against whom was directed the insurrection of which\r\nrightly or \u003ci\u003ewrongly\u003c/i\u003e Jesus is understood to have been the promoter,\r\nif it were not directed against the Jewish church,—the word “church”\r\nbeing used here in precisely the same sense in which it is used to-day.\r\nIt was an insurrection against the “good and the just,” against\r\nthe “prophets of Israel,” against the hierarchy of society—not\r\nagainst the latter’s corruption, but against caste, privilege, order,\r\nformality. It was the lack of faith in “higher men,” it was a “Nay”\r\nuttered against everything that was tinctured with the blood of priests\r\nand theologians. But the hierarchy which was set in question if only\r\ntemporarily by this movement, formed the construction of piles upon\r\nwhich, alone, the Jewish people was able to subsist in the midst of the\r\n“waters”; it was that people’s \u003ci\u003elast\u003c/i\u003e chance of survival wrested from\r\nthe world at enormous pains, the \u003ci\u003eresiduum\u003c/i\u003e of its political autonomy:\r\nto attack this construction was tantamount to attacking the most\r\nprofound popular instinct, the most tenacious national will to live\r\nthat has ever existed on earth. This saintly anarchist who called the\r\nlowest of the low, the outcasts and “sinners,” the Chandala of Judaism,\r\nto revolt against the established order of things (and in\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_163\"\u003e[Pg 163]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e language\r\nwhich, if the gospels are to be trusted, would get one sent to Siberia\r\neven to-day)—this man was a political criminal in so far as political\r\ncriminals were possible in a community so absurdly non-political. This\r\nbrought him to the cross: the proof of this is the inscription found\r\nthereon. He died for \u003ci\u003ehis\u003c/i\u003e sins—and no matter how often the contrary\r\nhas been asserted there is absolutely nothing to show that he died for\r\nthe sins of others.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs to whether he was conscious of this contrast, or whether he was\r\nmerely \u003ci\u003eregarded\u003c/i\u003e as such, is quite another question. And here, alone,\r\ndo I touch upon the problem of the psychology of the Saviour.—I\r\nconfess there are few books which I have as much difficulty in reading\r\nas the gospels. These difficulties are quite different from those which\r\nallowed the learned curiosity of the German, mind to celebrate one\r\nof its most memorable triumphs. Many years have now elapsed since I,\r\nlike every young scholar, with the sage conscientiousness of a refined\r\nphilologist, relished the work of the incomparable Strauss. I was then\r\ntwenty years of age; now I am too serious for that sort of thing. What\r\ndo I care about the contradictions of “tradition”? How can saintly\r\nlegends be called “tradition” at all! The stories of saints constitute\r\nthe most ambiguous literature on earth: to apply the scientific method\r\nto them, \u003ci\u003ewhen there are no other documents to hand,\u003c/i\u003e seems to me to be\r\na fatal procedure from the start—simply learned fooling.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_164\"\u003e[Pg 164]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe point that concerns me is the psychological type of the Saviour.\r\nThis type might be contained in the gospels, in spite of the gospels,\r\nand however much it may have been mutilated, or overladen with\r\nforeign features: just as that of Francis of Assisi is contained\r\nin his legends in spite of his legends. It is \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e a question of\r\nthe truth concerning what he has done, what he has said, and how he\r\nactually died; but whether his type may still be conceived in any way,\r\nwhether it has been handed down to us at all?—The attempts which\r\nto my knowledge have been made to read the \u003ci\u003ehistory\u003c/i\u003e of a “soul” out\r\nof the gospels, seem to me to point only to disreputable levity in\r\npsychological matters. M. Renan, that buffoon \u003ci\u003ein psychologies,\u003c/i\u003e has\r\ncontributed the two most monstrous ideas imaginable to the explanation\r\nof the type of Jesus: the idea of the \u003ci\u003egenius\u003c/i\u003e and the idea of the\r\n\u003ci\u003ehero\u003c/i\u003e (“\u003ci\u003ehéros\u003c/i\u003e”). But if there is anything thoroughly unevangelical\r\nsurely it is the idea of the hero. It is precisely the reverse of all\r\nstruggle, of all consciousness of taking part in the fight, that has\r\nbecome instinctive here: the inability to resist is here converted into\r\na morality (“resist not evil,” the profoundest sentence in the whole of\r\nthe gospels, their key in a certain sense), the blessedness of peace,\r\nof gentleness, of not \u003ci\u003ebeing able\u003c/i\u003e to be an enemy. What is the meaning\r\nof “glad tidings”?—True life, eternal life has been found—it is not\r\npromised, it is actually here, it is in \u003ci\u003eyou;\u003c/i\u003e it is life in love, in\r\nlove free from all selection or exclusion, free from all distance.\r\nEverybody is the child of God—Jesus does not by\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_165\"\u003e[Pg 165]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e any means claim\r\nanything for himself alone,—as the child of God everybody is equal to\r\neverybody else…. Fancy making Jesus a \u003ci\u003ehero!\u003c/i\u003e—And what a tremendous\r\nmisunderstanding the word “genius” is! Our whole idea of “spirit,”\r\nwhich is a civilised idea, could have had no meaning whatever in the\r\nworld in which Jesus lived. In the strict terms of the physiologist, a\r\nvery different word ought to be used here…. We know of a condition of\r\nmorbid irritability of the sense of \u003ci\u003etouch,\u003c/i\u003e which recoils shuddering\r\nfrom every kind of contact, and from every attempt at grasping a solid\r\nobject. Any such physiological \u003ci\u003ehabitus\u003c/i\u003e reduced to its ultimate\r\nlogical conclusion, becomes an instinctive hatred of all reality, a\r\nflight into the “intangible,” into the “incomprehensible”; a repugnance\r\nto all formulæ, to every notion of time and space, to everything that\r\nis established such as customs, institutions, the church; a feeling\r\nat one’s ease in a world in which no sign of reality is any longer\r\nvisible, a merely “inner” world, a “true” world, an “eternal” world….\r\n“The Kingdom of God is within you”…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe instinctive hatred of reality\u003c/i\u003e is the outcome of an extreme\r\nsusceptibility to pain and to irritation, which can no longer endure to\r\nbe “touched” at all, because every sensation strikes too deep.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eThe instinctive exclusion of all aversion, of all hostility, of all\r\nboundaries and distances in feeling,\u003c/i\u003e is the outcome of an extreme\r\nsusceptibility to pain and to irritation, which regards all resistance,\r\nall compulsory resistance as insufferable \u003ci\u003eanguish\u003c/i\u003e(—that is to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_166\"\u003e[Pg 166]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e say,\r\nas harmful, as \u003ci\u003edeprecated\u003c/i\u003e by the self-preservative instinct), and\r\nwhich knows blessedness (happiness) only when it is no longer obliged\r\nto offer resistance to anybody, either evil or detrimental,—love as\r\nthe Only ultimate possibility of life….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese are the two \u003ci\u003ephysiological realities\u003c/i\u003e upon which and out of which\r\nthe doctrine of salvation has grown. I call them a sublime further\r\ndevelopment of hedonism, upon a thoroughly morbid soil. Epicureanism,\r\nthe pagan theory of salvation, even though it possessed a large\r\nproportion of Greek vitality and nervous energy, remains the most\r\nclosely related to the above. Epicurus was a \u003ci\u003etypical\u003c/i\u003e decadent: and I\r\nwas the first to recognise him as such.—The terror of pain, even of\r\ninfinitely slight pain—such a state cannot possibly help culminating\r\nin a \u003ci\u003ereligion\u003c/i\u003e of love….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI have given my reply to the problem in advance. The prerequisite\r\nthereto was the admission of the fact that the type of the Saviour has\r\nreached us only in a very distorted form. This distortion in itself\r\nis extremely feasible: for many reasons a type of that kind could not\r\nbe pure, whole, and free from additions. The environment in which\r\nthis strange figure moved, must have left its mark upon him, and the\r\nhistory, the \u003ci\u003edestiny\u003c/i\u003e of the first Christian communities must have\r\ndone so to a still greater degree. Thanks to that destiny, the type\r\nmust have been enriched retrospectively with features which can be\r\ninterpreted only as serving the purposes of war and of propaganda\r\nThat strange and morbid world into which the gospels lead us—a\r\nworld which seems to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_167\"\u003e[Pg 167]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e have been drawn from a Russian novel, where\r\nthe scum and dross of society, diseases of the nerves and “childish”\r\nimbecility seem to have given each other rendezvous—must in any case\r\nhave \u003ci\u003ecoarsened\u003c/i\u003e the type: the first disciples especially must have\r\ntranslated an existence conceived entirely in symbols and abstractions\r\ninto their own crudities, in order at least to be able to understand\r\nsomething about it,—for them the type existed only after it had\r\nbeen cast in a more familiar mould…. The prophet, the Messiah, the\r\nfuture judge, the teacher of morals, the thaumaturgist, John the\r\nBaptist—all these were but so many opportunities of misunderstanding\r\nthe type…. Finally, let us not under-rate the \u003ci\u003eproprium\u003c/i\u003e of all great\r\nand especially sectarian veneration: very often it effaces from the\r\nvenerated object, all the original and frequently painfully un-familiar\r\ntraits and idiosyncrasies—\u003ci\u003eit does not even see them.\u003c/i\u003e It is greatly\r\nto be deplored that no Dostoiewsky lived in the neighbourhood of this\r\nmost interesting decadent,—I mean someone who would have known how to\r\nfeel the poignant charm of such a mixture of the sublime, the morbid,\r\nand the childlike. Finally, the type, as an example of decadence, may\r\nactually have been extraordinarily multifarious and contradictory:\r\nthis, as a possible alternative, is not to be altogether ignored.\r\nAlbeit, everything seems to point away from it; for, precisely in this\r\ncase, tradition would necessarily have been particularly true and\r\nobjective: whereas we have reasons for assuming the reverse. Meanwhile\r\na yawning chasm of contradiction separates the mountain, lake, and\r\npastoral preacher, who strikes us as a Buddha\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_168\"\u003e[Pg 168]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e on a soil only very\r\nslightly Hindu, from that combative fanatic, the mortal enemy of\r\ntheologians and priests, whom Renan’s malice has glorified as “\u003ci\u003ele\r\ngrand maître en ironie.\u003c/i\u003e” For my part, I do not doubt but what the\r\ngreater part of this venom (and even of \u003ci\u003eesprit\u003c/i\u003e) was inoculated into\r\nthe type of the Master only as the outcome of the agitated condition\r\nof Christian propaganda. For we have ample reasons for knowing the\r\nunscrupulousness of all sectarians when they wish to contrive their own\r\n\u003ci\u003eapology\u003c/i\u003e out of the person of their master. When the first Christian\r\ncommunity required a discerning, wrangling, quarrelsome, malicious and\r\nhair-splitting theologian, to oppose other theologians, it created its\r\n“God” according to its needs; just as it did not hesitate to put upon\r\nhis lips those utterly unevangelical ideas of “his second coming,” the\r\n“last judgment,”—ideas with which it could not then dispense,—and\r\nevery kind of expectation and promise which happened to be current.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI can only repeat that I am opposed to the importation of the fanatic\r\ninto the type of the Saviour: the word “\u003ci\u003eimpérieux,\u003c/i\u003e” which Renan\r\nuses, in itself annuls the type. The “glad tidings” are simply that\r\nthere are no longer any contradictions, that the Kingdom of Heaven is\r\nfor the \u003ci\u003echildren;\u003c/i\u003e the faith which raises its voice here is not a\r\nfaith that has been won by a struggle,—it is to hand, it was there\r\nfrom the beginning, it is a sort of spiritual return to childishness.\r\nThe case of delayed and undeveloped puberty in the organism, as the\r\nresult\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_169\"\u003e[Pg 169]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of degeneration is at least familiar to physiologists. A faith\r\nof this sort does not show anger, it does not blame, neither does it\r\ndefend itself: it does not bring “the sword,”—it has no inkling of\r\nhow it will one day establish feuds between man and man. It does not\r\ndemonstrate itself, either by miracles, or by reward and promises, or\r\nyet “through the scriptures”: it is in itself at every moment its own\r\nmiracle, its own reward, its own proof, its own “Kingdom of God.” This\r\nfaith cannot be formulated—it lives, it guards against formulas. The\r\naccident of environment, of speech, of preparatory culture, certainly\r\ndetermines a particular series of conceptions: early Christianity deals\r\nonly in Judæo-Semitic conceptions (—the eating and drinking at the\r\nlast supper form part of these,—this idea which like everything Jewish\r\nhas been abused so maliciously by the church). But one should guard\r\nagainst seeing anything more than a language of signs, semiotics, an\r\nopportunity for parables in all this. The very fact that no word is to\r\nbe taken literally, is the only condition on which this Anti-realist\r\nis able to speak at all. Among Indians he would have made use of the\r\nideas of Sankhyara, among Chinese, those of Lao-tze—and would not\r\nhave been aware of any difference. With a little terminological laxity\r\nJesus might be called a “free spirit”—he cares not a jot for anything\r\nthat is established: the word \u003ci\u003ekilleth,\u003c/i\u003e everything fixed \u003ci\u003ekilltth.\u003c/i\u003e\r\nThe idea, \u003ci\u003eexperience,\u003c/i\u003e “life” as he alone knows it, is, according to\r\nhim, opposed to every kind of word, formula, law, faith and dogma. He\r\nspeaks only of the innermost things: “life” or\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_170\"\u003e[Pg 170]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e “truth,” or “light,” is\r\nhis expression for the innermost thing,—everything else, the whole of\r\nreality, the whole of nature, language even, has only the value of a\r\nsign, of a simile for him.—It is of paramount importance not to make\r\nany mistake at this point, however great may be the temptation thereto\r\nthat lies in Christian—I mean to say, ecclesiastical prejudice. Any\r\nsuch essential symbolism stands beyond the pale of all religion, all\r\nnotions of cult, all history, all natural science, all experience of\r\nthe world, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books and\r\nall Art—for his “wisdom” is precisely the complete ignorance\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_4_20\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_4_20\"\u003e[4]\u003c/a\u003e of the\r\nexistence of such things. He has not even heard speak of \u003ci\u003eculture,\u003c/i\u003e he\r\ndoes not require to oppose it,—he does not deny it…. The same holds\r\ngood of the state, of the whole of civil and social order, of work\r\nand of war—he never had any reason to deny the world, he had not the\r\nvaguest notion of the ecclesiastical concept “the world.” … Denying\r\nis precisely what was quite impossible to him.—Dialectic is also\r\nquite absent, as likewise the idea that any faith, any “truth” can be\r\nproved by argument (—his proofs are inner “lights,” inward feelings of\r\nhappiness and self-affirmation, a host of “proofs of power”—). Neither\r\ncan such a doctrine contradict, it does not even realise the fact that\r\nthere are or can be other doctrines, it is absolutely incapable of\r\nimagining a contrary judgment…. Wherever it encounters such things,\r\nfrom a feeling of profound sympathy it\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_171\"\u003e[Pg 171]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e bemoans such “blindness,”—for\r\nit sees the “light,”—but it raises no objections.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe whole psychology of the “gospels” lacks the concept of guilt and\r\npunishment, as also that of reward. “Sin,” any sort of aloofness\r\nbetween God and man, is done away with,—\u003ci\u003ethis is precisely what\r\nconstitutes the “glad tidings”.\u003c/i\u003e Eternal bliss is not promised, it is\r\nnot bound up with certain conditions; it is the only reality—the rest\r\nconsists only of signs wherewith to speak about it….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of such a state project themselves into a new practice\r\nof life, the actual evangelical practice. It is not a “faith” which\r\ndistinguishes the Christians: the Christian acts, he distinguishes\r\nhimself by means of a \u003ci\u003edifferent\u003c/i\u003e mode of action. He does not resist\r\nhis enemy either by words or in his heart He draws no distinction\r\nbetween foreigners and natives, between Jews and Gentiles (“the\r\nneighbour” really means the co-religionist, the Jew). He is angry with\r\nno one, he despises no one. He neither shows himself at the tribunals\r\nnor does he acknowledge any of their claims (“Swear not at all”).\r\nHe never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when her\r\ninfidelity has been proved.—All this is at bottom one principle, it is\r\nall the outcome of one instinct—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of the Saviour was naught else than this practice,—neither\r\nwas his death. He no longer required any formulæ, any rites for his\r\nrelations with God—not even prayer. He has done with all\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_172\"\u003e[Pg 172]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the Jewish\r\nteaching of repentance and of atonement; he alone knows the \u003ci\u003emode\u003c/i\u003e\r\nof life which makes one feel “divine,” “saved,” “evangelical,” and\r\nat all times a “child of God.” \u003ci\u003eNot\u003c/i\u003e “repentance,” \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e “prayer and\r\nforgiveness” are the roads to God: the \u003ci\u003eevangelical mode of life\r\nalone\u003c/i\u003e leads to God, it \u003ci\u003eis\u003c/i\u003e “God.”—That which the gospels abolished\r\nwas the Judaism of the concepts “sin,” “forgiveness of sin,” “faith,”\r\n“salvation through faith,”—the whole doctrine of the Jewish church was\r\ndenied by the “glad tidings.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe profound instinct of how one must live in order to feel “in\r\nHeaven,” in order to feel “eternal,” while in every other respect\r\none feels by \u003ci\u003eno\u003c/i\u003e means “in Heaven”: this alone is the psychological\r\nreality of “Salvation.”—A new life and \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e a new faith….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is\r\nthis that he regarded only \u003ci\u003einner\u003c/i\u003e facts as facts, as “truths,”—that\r\nhe understood the rest, everything natural, temporal, material\r\nand historical, only as signs, as opportunities for parables. The\r\nconcept “the Son of Man,” is not a concrete personality belonging to\r\nhistory, anything individual and isolated, but an “eternal” fact,\r\na psychological symbol divorced from the concept of time. The same\r\nis true, and in the highest degree, of the \u003ci\u003eGod\u003c/i\u003e of this typical\r\nsymbolist, of the “Kingdom of God,” of the “Kingdom of Heaven,” and\r\nof the “Sonship of God.” Nothing is more un-Christlike than the\r\n\u003ci\u003eecclesiastical crudity\u003c/i\u003e of a personal God, of a Kingdom\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_173\"\u003e[Pg 173]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of God that\r\nis coming, of a “Kingdom of Heaven” beyond, of a “Son of God” as the\r\nsecond person of the Trinity. All this, if I may be forgiven the\r\nexpression, is as fitting as a square peg in a round hole—and oh!\r\nwhat a hole!—the gospels: a \u003ci\u003eworld-historic\u003c/i\u003e cynicism in the scorn\r\nof symbols…. But what is meant by the signs “Father” and “Son,” is\r\nof course obvious—not to everybody, I admit: with the word “Son,”\r\n\u003ci\u003eentrance\u003c/i\u003e into the feeling of the general transfiguration of all\r\nthings (beatitude) is expressed, with the word “Father,” \u003ci\u003ethis feeling\r\nitself\u003c/i\u003e the feeling of eternity and of perfection.—I blush to have to\r\nremind you of what the Church has done with this symbolism: has it not\r\nset an Amphitryon story at the threshold of the Christian “faith”? And\r\na dogma of immaculate conception into the bargain?… \u003ci\u003eBut by so doing\r\nit defiled conception.\u003c/i\u003e——\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe “Kingdom of Heaven” is a state of the heart—not something\r\nwhich exists “beyond this earth” or comes to you “after death.” The\r\nwhole idea of natural death is lacking in the gospels. Death is not\r\na bridge, not a means of access: it is absent because it belongs to\r\nquite a different and merely apparent world the only use of which is\r\nto furnish signs, similes. The “hour of death” is not a Christian\r\nidea—the “hour,” time in general, physical life and its crises do not\r\nexist for the messenger of “glad tidings.” … The “Kingdom of God” is\r\nnot some thing that is expected; it has no yesterday nor any day after\r\nto-morrow, it is not going to come in a “thousand years”—it is an\r\nexperience of a human heart; it is everywhere, it is nowhere….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_174\"\u003e[Pg 174]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis “messenger of glad tidings” died as he lived and as he\r\ntaught—\u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e in order “to save mankind,” but in order to show how one\r\nought to live. It was a mode of life that he bequeathed to mankind: his\r\nbehaviour before his judges, his attitude towards his executioners,\r\nhis accusers, and all kinds of calumny and scorn,—his demeanour on\r\nthe \u003ci\u003ecross.\u003c/i\u003e He offers no resistance; he does not defend his rights;\r\nhe takes no step to ward off the most extreme consequences, he does\r\nmore,—he provokes them. And he prays, suffers and loves with those, in\r\nthose, who treat him ill…. \u003ci\u003eNot\u003c/i\u003e to defend one’s self, \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e to show\r\nanger, not to hold anyone responsible…. But to refrain from resisting\r\neven the evil one,—to \u003ci\u003elove\u003c/i\u003e him….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—Only we spirits that have \u003ci\u003ebecome free,\u003c/i\u003e possess the necessary\r\ncondition for understanding something which nineteen centuries have\r\nmisunderstood,—that honesty which has become an instinct and a passion\r\nin us, and which wages war upon the “holy lie” with even more vigour\r\nthan upon every other lie…. Mankind was unspeakably far from our\r\nbeneficent and cautious neutrality, from that discipline of the mind,\r\nwhich, alone, renders the solution of such strange and subtle things\r\npossible: at all times, with shameless egoism, all that people sought\r\nwas their \u003ci\u003eown\u003c/i\u003e advantage in these matters, the Church was built up out\r\nof contradiction to the gospel….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhoever might seek for signs pointing to the guiding fingers of an\r\nironical deity behind the great\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_175\"\u003e[Pg 175]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e comedy of existence, would find no\r\nsmall argument in the \u003ci\u003ehuge note of interrogation\u003c/i\u003e that is called\r\nChristianity. The fact that mankind is on its knees before the reverse\r\nof that which formed the origin, the meaning and the \u003ci\u003erights\u003c/i\u003e of\r\nthe gospel; the fact that, in the idea “Church,” precisely that is\r\npronounced holy which the “messenger of glad tidings” regarded as\r\n\u003ci\u003ebeneath\u003c/i\u003e him, as \u003ci\u003ebehind\u003c/i\u003e him—one might seek in vain for a more\r\negregious example \u003ci\u003eof world-historic\u003c/i\u003e irony—-\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—Our age is proud of its historical sense: how could it allow\r\nitself to be convinced of the nonsensical idea that at the beginning\r\nChristianity consisted only of the \u003ci\u003eclumsy fable of the thaumaturgist\r\nand of the Saviour,\u003c/i\u003e and that all its spiritual and symbolic\r\nside was only developed later? On the contrary: the history of\r\nChristianity—from the death on the cross onwards—is the history of\r\na gradual and ever coarser misunderstanding of an original symbolism.\r\nWith every extension of Christianity over ever larger and ruder\r\nmasses, who were ever less able to grasp its first principles, the\r\nneed of \u003ci\u003evulgarising and barbarising it\u003c/i\u003e increased proportionately—it\r\nabsorbed the teachings and rites of all the \u003ci\u003esubterranean\u003c/i\u003e cults of the\r\n\u003ci\u003eimperium Romanum,\u003c/i\u003e as well as the nonsense of every kind of morbid\r\nreasoning. The fatal feature of Christianity lies in the necessary\r\nfact that its faith had to become as morbid, base and vulgar as the\r\nneeds to which it had to minister were morbid, base and vulgar. \u003ci\u003eMorbid\r\nbarbarism\u003c/i\u003e at last braces itself together for power in the form of the\r\nChurch\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_176\"\u003e[Pg 176]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e—the Church, this deadly hostility to all honesty, to all\r\nloftiness of the soul, to all discipline of the mind, to all frank and\r\nkindly humanity.—\u003ci\u003eChristian\u003c/i\u003e and \u003ci\u003enoble\u003c/i\u003e values: only we spirits \u003ci\u003ewho\r\nhave become free have\u003c/i\u003e re-established this contrast in values which is\r\nthe greatest that has ever existed on earth!—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—I cannot, at this point, stifle a sigh. There are days when I\r\nam visited by a feeling blacker than the blackest melancholy—the\r\n\u003ci\u003econtempt of man.\u003c/i\u003e And in order that I may leave you in no doubt as\r\nto what I despise, \u003ci\u003ewhom\u003c/i\u003e I despise: I declare that it is the man of\r\nto-day, the man with whom I am fatally contemporaneous. The man of\r\nto-day, I am asphyxiated by his foul breath…. Towards the past, like\r\nall knights of knowledge, I am profoundly tolerant,—that is to say,\r\nI exercise a sort of \u003ci\u003egenerous\u003c/i\u003e self-control: with gloomy caution I\r\npass through whole millennia of this mad-house world, and whether it\r\nbe called “Christianity,” “Christian Faith,” or “Christian Church,” I\r\ntake care not to hold mankind responsible for its mental disorders.\r\nBut my feeling suddenly changes, and vents itself the moment I enter\r\nthe modern age, \u003ci\u003eour\u003c/i\u003e age. Our age \u003ci\u003eknows….\u003c/i\u003e That which formerly\r\nwas merely morbid, is now positively indecent It is indecent nowadays\r\nto be a Christian. \u003ci\u003eAnd it is here that my loathing begins.\u003c/i\u003e I look\r\nabout me: not a word of what was formerly known as “truth” has remained\r\nstanding; we can no longer endure to hear a priest even pronounce the\r\nword “truth.” Even he who\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_177\"\u003e[Pg 177]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e makes but the most modest claims upon truth,\r\n\u003ci\u003emust\u003c/i\u003e know at present, that a theologian, a priest, or a pope, not\r\nonly errs but actually \u003ci\u003eties,\u003c/i\u003e with every word that he utters,—and\r\nthat he is no longer able to lie from “innocence,” from “ignorance.”\r\nEven the priest knows quite as well as everybody else does that there\r\nis no longer any “God,” any “sinner” or any “Saviour,” and that “free\r\nwill,” and “a moral order of the universe” are \u003ci\u003elies.\u003c/i\u003e Seriousness,\r\nthe profound self-conquest of the spirit no longer allows anyone to\r\nbe \u003ci\u003eignorant\u003c/i\u003e about this…. All the concepts of the Church have been\r\nrevealed in their true colours—that is to say, as the most vicious\r\nfrauds on earth, calculated to \u003ci\u003edepreciate\u003c/i\u003e nature and all natural\r\nvalues. The priest himself has been recognised as what he is—that is\r\nto say, as the most dangerous kind of parasite, as the actual venomous\r\nspider of existence…. At present we know, our \u003ci\u003econscience\u003c/i\u003e knows,\r\nthe real value of the gruesome inventions which the priests and the\r\nChurch have made, \u003ci\u003eand what end they served.\u003c/i\u003e By means of them that\r\nstate of self-profanation on the part of man has been attained, the\r\nsight of which makes one heave. The concepts “Beyond,” “Last Judgment,”\r\n“Immortality of the Soul,” the “soul” itself, are merely so many\r\ninstruments of torture, so many systems of cruelty, on the strength\r\nof which the priest became and remained master…. Everybody knows\r\nthis, \u003ci\u003eand nevertheless everything remains as it was.\u003c/i\u003e Whither has\r\nthe last shred of decency, of self-respect gone, if nowadays even\r\nour statesmen—a body of men who are otherwise so unembarrassed, and\r\nsuch thorough anti-Christians in deed—still declare themselves\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_178\"\u003e[Pg 178]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nChristians and still flock to communion?\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_5_21\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_5_21\"\u003e[5]\u003c/a\u003e…. Fancy a prince at the\r\nhead of his legions, magnificent as the expression of the egoism and\r\nself-exaltation of his people,—but \u003ci\u003eshameless\u003c/i\u003e enough to acknowledge\r\nhimself a Christian!… What then does Christianity deny? What does\r\nit call “world”? “The world” to Christianity means that a man is a\r\nsoldier, a judge, a patriot, that he defends himself, that he values\r\nhis honour, that he desires his own advantage, that he is \u003ci\u003eproud.\u003c/i\u003e\r\n… The conduct of every moment, every instinct, every valuation that\r\nleads to a deed, is at present anti-Christian: what an \u003ci\u003eabortion of\r\nfalsehood\u003c/i\u003e modern man must be, in order to be able \u003ci\u003ewithout a blush\u003c/i\u003e\r\nstill to call himself a Christian!——\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—I will retrace my steps, and will tell you the \u003ci\u003egenuine\u003c/i\u003e\r\nhistory of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a\r\nmisunderstanding,—truth to tell, there never was more than one\r\nChristian, and he \u003ci\u003edied\u003c/i\u003e on the Cross. The “gospel” \u003ci\u003edied\u003c/i\u003e on the\r\ncross. That which thenceforward was called “gospel” was the reverse\r\nof that “gospel” that Christ had lived: it was “evil tidings,” a\r\n\u003ci\u003edysangel\u003c/i\u003e It is false to the point of nonsense to see in “faith,”\r\nin the faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing trait\r\nof the Christian: the only thing that is Christian is the Christian\r\nmode of existence, a life such as he led who died on the Cross…. To\r\nthis day a life of this kind is still possible; for\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_179\"\u003e[Pg 179]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e certain men, it\r\nis even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will be possible\r\nin all ages…. \u003ci\u003eNot\u003c/i\u003e a faith, but a course of action, above all a\r\ncourse of inaction, non-interference, and a different life…. States\r\nof consciousness, any sort of faith, a holding of certain things\r\nfor true, as every psychologist knows, are indeed of absolutely no\r\nconsequence, and are only of fifth-rate importance compared with the\r\nvalue of the instincts: more exactly, the whole concept of intellectual\r\ncausality is false. To reduce the fact of being a Christian, or of\r\nChristianity, to a holding of something for true, to a mere phenomenon\r\nof consciousness, is tantamount to denying Christianity. \u003ci\u003eIn fact\r\nthere have never been any Christians.\u003c/i\u003e The “Christian,” he who for two\r\nthousand years has been called a Christian, is merely a psychological\r\nmisunderstanding of self. Looked at more closely, there ruled in\r\nhim, \u003ci\u003enotwithstanding\u003c/i\u003e all his faith, only instincts—and \u003ci\u003ewhat\r\ninstincts!\u003c/i\u003e—“Faith” in all ages, as for instance in the case of\r\nLuther, has always been merely a cloak, a pretext, a \u003ci\u003escreen,\u003c/i\u003e behind\r\nwhich the instincts played their game,—a prudent form of \u003ci\u003eblindness\u003c/i\u003e\r\nin regard to the dominion of \u003ci\u003ecertain\u003c/i\u003e instincts. “Faith” I have\r\nalready characterised as a piece of really Christian cleverness; for\r\npeople have always spoken of “faith” and acted according to their\r\ninstincts…. In the Christian’s world of ideas there is nothing which\r\neven touches reality: but I have already recognised in the instinctive\r\nhatred of reality the actual motive force, the only driving power at\r\nthe root of Christianity. What follows therefrom? That here, even\r\n\u003ci\u003ein psychologicis\u003c/i\u003e,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_180\"\u003e[Pg 180]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e error is fundamental,—that is to say capable\r\nof determining the spirit of things,—that is to say, \u003ci\u003esubstance.\u003c/i\u003e\r\nTake one idea away from the whole, and put one realistic fact in its\r\nstead,—and the whole of Christianity tumbles into nonentity!—Surveyed\r\nfrom above, this strangest of all facts,-a religion not only dependent\r\nupon error, but inventive and showing signs of genius only in those\r\nerrors which are dangerous and which poison life and the human\r\nheart—remains a \u003ci\u003espectacle for gods,\u003c/i\u003e for those gods who are at the\r\nsame time philosophers and whom I met for instance in those celebrated\r\ndialogues on the island of Naxos. At the moment when they get rid\r\nof their \u003ci\u003eloathing (—and we do as well!\u003c/i\u003e), they will be thankful\r\nfor the spectacle the Christians have offered: the wretched little\r\nplanet called Earth perhaps deserves on account of \u003ci\u003ethis\u003c/i\u003e curious\r\ncase alone, a divine glance, and divine interest…. Let us not\r\ntherefore underestimate the Christians: the Christian, false \u003ci\u003eto the\r\npoint of innocence in falsity,\u003c/i\u003e is far above the apes,—in regard to\r\nthe Christians a certain well-known theory of Descent becomes a mere\r\ngood-natured compliment.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—The fate of the gospel was decided at the moment of the death,—it\r\nhung on the “cross.” … It was only death, this unexpected and\r\nignominious death; it was only the cross which as a rule was reserved\r\nsimply for the \u003ci\u003ecanaille,\u003c/i\u003e—only this appalling paradox which\r\nconfronted the disciples with the actual riddle: \u003ci\u003eWho was that? what\r\nwas that?\u003c/i\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_181\"\u003e[Pg 181]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e—The state produced by the excited and profoundly wounded\r\nfeelings of these men, the suspicion that such a death might imply the\r\n\u003ci\u003erefutation\u003c/i\u003e of their cause, and the terrible note of interrogation:\r\n“why precisely thus?” will be understood only too well. In this case\r\neverything \u003ci\u003emust\u003c/i\u003e be necessary, everything must have meaning, a reason,\r\nthe highest reason. The love of a disciple admits of no such thing as\r\naccident. Only then did the chasm yawn: “who has killed him?” “who was\r\nhis natural enemy?”—this question rent the firmament like a flash of\r\nlightning. Reply: \u003ci\u003edominant\u003c/i\u003e Judaism, its ruling class. Thenceforward\r\nthe disciple felt himself in revolt \u003ci\u003eagainst\u003c/i\u003e established order; he\r\nunderstood Jesus, after the fact, as one in \u003ci\u003erevolt against established\r\norder.\u003c/i\u003e Heretofore this warlike, this nay-saying and nay-doing feature\r\nin Christ had been lacking; nay more, he was its contradiction. The\r\nsmall primitive community had obviously understood \u003ci\u003enothing\u003c/i\u003e of the\r\nprincipal factor of all, which was the example of freedom and of\r\nsuperiority to every form of \u003ci\u003eresentment\u003c/i\u003e which lay in this way of\r\ndying. And this shows how little they understood him altogether! At\r\nbottom Jesus could not have desired anything else by his death than to\r\ngive the strongest public \u003ci\u003eexample\u003c/i\u003e and \u003ci\u003eproof\u003c/i\u003e of his doctrine….\r\nBut his disciples were very far from \u003ci\u003eforgiving this\u003c/i\u003e death—though if\r\nthey had done so it would have been in the highest sense evangelical\r\non their part,—neither were they prepared, with a gentle and serene\r\ncalmness of heart, to \u003ci\u003eoffer\u003c/i\u003e themselves for a similar death….\r\nPrecisely the most unevangelical feeling, \u003ci\u003erevenge,\u003c/i\u003e became once more\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_182\"\u003e[Pg 182]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nascendant. It was impossible for the cause to end with this death:\r\n“compensation” and “judgment” were required (—and forsooth, what could\r\nbe more unevangelical than “compensation,” “punishment,” “judgment”!)\r\nThe popular expectation of a Messiah once more became prominent;\r\nattention was fixed upon one historical moment: the “Kingdom of God”\r\ndescends to sit in judgment upon his enemies. But this proves that\r\neverything was misunderstood: the “Kingdom of God” regarded as the last\r\nscene of the last act, as a promise! But the Gospel had clearly been\r\nthe living, the fulfilment, the \u003ci\u003ereality\u003c/i\u003e of this “Kingdom of God.”\r\nIt was precisely a death such as Christ’s that was this “Kingdom of\r\nGod.” It was only now that all the contempt for the Pharisees and the\r\ntheologians, and all bitter feelings towards them, were introduced\r\ninto the character of the Master,—and by this means he himself was\r\nconverted into a Pharisee and a theologian! On the other hand, the\r\nsavage veneration of these completely unhinged souls could no longer\r\nendure that evangelical right of every man to be the child of God,\r\nwhich Jesus had taught: their revenge consisted in \u003ci\u003eelevating\u003c/i\u003e Jesus in\r\na manner devoid of all reason, and in separating him from themselves:\r\njust as, formerly, the Jews, with the view of revenging themselves on\r\ntheir enemies, separated themselves from their God, and placed him high\r\nabove them. The Only God, and the Only Son of God:—both were products\r\nof resentment.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—And from this time forward an absurd problem\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_183\"\u003e[Pg 183]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e rose into prominence:\r\n“how \u003ci\u003ecould\u003c/i\u003e God allow it to happen?” To this question the disordered\r\nminds of the small community found a reply which in its absurdity\r\nwas literally terrifying: God gave his Son as a \u003ci\u003esacrifice\u003c/i\u003e for the\r\nforgiveness of sins. Alas! how prompt and sudden was the end of\r\nthe gospel! Expiatory sacrifice for guilt, and indeed in its most\r\nrepulsive and barbaric form,—the sacrifice of the \u003ci\u003einnocent\u003c/i\u003e for\r\nthe sins of the guilty! What appalling Paganism!—For Jesus himself\r\nhad done away with the concept “guilt,”—he denied any gulf between\r\nGod and man, he \u003ci\u003elived\u003c/i\u003e this unity between God and man, it was this\r\nthat constituted \u003ci\u003ehis\u003c/i\u003e “glad tidings.” … And he did \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e teach it\r\nas a privilege!—Thenceforward there was gradually imported into the\r\ntype of the Saviour the doctrine of the Last Judgment, and of the\r\n“second coming,” the doctrine of sacrificial death, and the doctrine\r\nof \u003ci\u003eResurrection,\u003c/i\u003e by means of which the whole concept “blessedness,”\r\nthe entire and only reality of the gospel, is conjured away—in favour\r\nof a state \u003ci\u003eafter\u003c/i\u003e death!… St Paul, with that rabbinic impudence\r\nwhich characterises all his doings, rationalised this conception, this\r\nprostitution of a conception, as follows: “if Christ did not rise from\r\nthe dead, our faith is vain.”—And, in a trice, the most contemptible\r\nof all unrealisable promises, the \u003ci\u003eimpudent\u003c/i\u003e doctrine of personal\r\nimmortality, was woven out of the gospel…. St Paul even preached this\r\nimmortality as a reward.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eYou now realise what it was that came to an end with the death on the\r\ncross: a new and thoroughly\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_184\"\u003e[Pg 184]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e original effort towards a Buddhistic\r\nmovement of peace, towards real and \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e merely promised \u003ci\u003ehappiness\r\non earth.\u003c/i\u003e For, as I have already pointed out, this remains the\r\nfundamental difference between the two religions \u003ci\u003eof decadence:\u003c/i\u003e\r\nBuddhism promises little but fulfils more, Christianity promises\r\neverything but fulfils nothing.—The “glad tidings” were followed\r\nclosely by the absolutely \u003ci\u003eworst\u003c/i\u003e tidings—those of St Paul. Paul is\r\nthe incarnation of a type which is the reverse of that of the Saviour;\r\nhe is the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the\r\nrelentless logic of hatred. And alas what did this dysangelist not\r\nsacrifice to his hatred! Above all the Saviour himself: he nailed him\r\nto \u003ci\u003ehis\u003c/i\u003e cross. Christ’s life, his example, his doctrine and death,\r\nthe sense and the right of the gospel—not a vestige of alt this\r\nwas left, once this forger, prompted by his hatred, had understood\r\nin it only that which could serve his purpose. \u003ci\u003eNot\u003c/i\u003e reality: \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e\r\nhistorical truth! … And once more, the sacerdotal instinct of\r\nthe Jew, perpetrated the same great crime against history,—he\r\nsimply cancelled the yesterday, and the day before that, out of\r\nChristianity; he \u003ci\u003econtrived of his own accord a history of the birth\r\nof Christianity.\u003c/i\u003e He did more: he once more falsified the history of\r\nIsrael, so as to make it appear as a prologue to \u003ci\u003ehis\u003c/i\u003e mission: all the\r\nprophets had referred to \u003ci\u003ehis\u003c/i\u003e “Saviour.” … Later on the Church even\r\ndistorted the history of mankind so as to convert it into a prelude to\r\nChristianity…. The type of the Saviour, his teaching, his life, his\r\ndeath, the meaning of his death, even the sequel to his death—nothing\r\nremained untouched, nothing was left which even\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_185\"\u003e[Pg 185]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e remotely resembled\r\nreality. St Paul simply transferred the centre of gravity of the whole\r\nof that great life, to a place \u003ci\u003ebehind\u003c/i\u003e this life,—in the \u003ci\u003elie\u003c/i\u003e of\r\nthe “resuscitated” Christ. At bottom, he had no possible use for the\r\nlife of the Saviour,—he needed the death on the cross, \u003ci\u003eand\u003c/i\u003e something\r\nmore. To regard as honest a man like St Paul (a man whose home was the\r\nvery headquarters of Stoical enlightenment) when he devises a proof\r\nof the continued existence of the Saviour out of a hallucination; or\r\neven to believe him when he declares that he had this hallucination,\r\nwould amount to foolishness on the part of a psychologist: St Paul\r\ndesired the end, consequently he also desired the means…. Even what\r\nhe himself did not believe, was believed in by the idiots among whom\r\nhe spread \u003ci\u003ehis\u003c/i\u003e doctrine.—What he wanted was power; with St Paul the\r\npriest again aspired to power,—he could make use only of concepts,\r\ndoctrines, symbols with which masses may be tyrannised over, and\r\nwith which herds are formed. What was the only part of Christianity\r\nwhich was subsequently borrowed by Muhamed? St Paul’s invention, his\r\nexpedient for priestly tyranny and to the formation of herds: the\r\nbelief in immortality—\u003ci\u003ethat is to say, the doctrine of the “Last\r\nJudgment.” …\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the centre of gravity of life is laid, \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e in life, but in a\r\nbeyond—\u003ci\u003ein nonentity,\u003c/i\u003e—life is utterly robbed of its balance. The\r\ngreat lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all nature in\r\nthe instincts,—everything in the instincts that is beneficent, that\r\npromotes life and that is a guarantee\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_186\"\u003e[Pg 186]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of the future, henceforward\r\naroused suspicion. The very meaning of life is now construed as the\r\neffort to live in such a way that life no longer has any point…. Why\r\nshow any public spirit? Why be grateful for one’s origin and one’s\r\nforebears? Why collaborate with one’s fellows, and be confident? Why\r\nbe concerned about the general weal or strive after it?… All these\r\nthings are merely so many “temptations,” so many deviations from the\r\n“straight path.” “One thing only is necessary.” … That everybody, as\r\nan “immortal soul,” should have equal rank, that in the totality of\r\nbeings, the “salvation” of each individual may lay claim to eternal\r\nimportance, that insignificant bigots and three-quarter-lunatics may\r\nhave the right to suppose that the laws of nature may be persistently\r\n\u003ci\u003ebroken\u003c/i\u003e on their account,—any such magnification of every kind\r\nof selfishness to infinity, to \u003ci\u003einsolence,\u003c/i\u003e cannot be branded with\r\nsufficient contempt And yet it is to this miserable flattery of\r\npersonal vanity that Christianity owes its \u003ci\u003etriumph,\u003c/i\u003e—by this means\r\nit lured all the bungled and the botched, all revolting and revolted\r\npeople, all abortions, the whole of the refuse and offal of humanity,\r\nover to its side. The “salvation of the soul”—in plain English: “the\r\nworld revolves around me” … The poison of the doctrine “\u003ci\u003eequal\u003c/i\u003e\r\nrights for all”—has been dispensed with the greatest thoroughness by\r\nChristianity: Christianity, prompted by the most secret recesses of\r\nbad instincts, has waged a deadly war upon all feeling of reverence\r\nand distance between man and man—that is to say, the \u003ci\u003eprerequisite\u003c/i\u003e\r\nof all elevation, of every growth in culture; out of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_187\"\u003e[Pg 187]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the resentment\r\nof the masses it wrought its \u003ci\u003eprincipal weapons\u003c/i\u003e against us, against\r\neverything noble, joyful, exalted on earth, against our happiness on\r\nearth…. To grant “immortality” to every St Peter and St Paul, was\r\nthe greatest, the most vicious outrage upon \u003ci\u003enoble\u003c/i\u003e humanity that has\r\never been perpetrated.—And do not let us underestimate the fatal\r\ninfluence which, springing from Christianity, has insinuated itself\r\neven into politics! Nowadays no one has the courage of special rights,\r\nof rights of t dominion, of a feeling of self-respect and of respect\r\nfor his equals,—of \u003ci\u003epathos of distance.\u003c/i\u003e Our politics are diseased\r\nwith this lack of courage!—The aristocratic attitude of mind has been\r\nmost thoroughly undermined by the lie of the equality of souls; and if\r\nthe belief in the “privilege of the greatest number” creates and will\r\ncontinue \u003ci\u003eto create revolutions,\u003c/i\u003e—it is Christianity, let there be no\r\ndoubt about it, and Christian values, which convert every revolution\r\ninto blood and crime! Christianity is the revolt of all things that\r\ncrawl on their bellies against everything that is lofty: the gospel of\r\nthe “lowly” \u003ci\u003elowers….\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—The Gospels are invaluable as a testimony of the corruption which\r\nwas already persistent \u003ci\u003ewithin\u003c/i\u003e the first Christian communities. That\r\nwhich St Paul, with the logician’s cynicism of a Rabbi, carried to its\r\nlogical conclusion, was nevertheless merely the process of decay which\r\nbegan with the death of the Saviour.—These gospels cannot be read\r\ntoo cautiously; difficulties lurk behind every word they\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_188\"\u003e[Pg 188]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e contain. I\r\nconfess, and people will not take this amiss, that they are precisely\r\non that account a joy of the first rank for a psychologist,—as the\r\nreverse of all naive perversity, as refinement \u003ci\u003epar excellence,\u003c/i\u003e as\r\na masterpiece of art in psychological corruption. The gospels stand\r\nalone. Altogether the Bible allows of no comparison. The \u003ci\u003efirst\u003c/i\u003e thing\r\nto be remembered if we do not wish to lose the scent here, is, that\r\nwe are among Jews. The dissembling of holiness which, here, literally\r\namounts to genius, and which has never been even approximately achieved\r\nelsewhere either by books or by men, this fraud in word and pose\r\nwhich in this book is elevated to an \u003ci\u003eArt,\u003c/i\u003e is not the accident of\r\nany individual gift, of any exceptional nature. These qualities are\r\na matter of \u003ci\u003erace.\u003c/i\u003e With Christianity, the art of telling holy lies,\r\nwhich constitutes the whole of Judaism, reaches its final mastership,\r\nthanks to many centuries of Jewish and most thoroughly serious training\r\nand practice. The Christian, this \u003ci\u003eultima ratio\u003c/i\u003e of falsehood, is the\r\nJew over again—he is even three times a Jew…. The fundamental will\r\nonly to make use of concepts, symbols and poses, which are demonstrated\r\nby the practice of the priests, the instinctive repudiation of every\r\nother kind of practice, every other standpoint of valuation and of\r\nutility—all this is not only tradition, it is \u003ci\u003ehereditary;\u003c/i\u003e only as\r\nan inheritance is it able to work like nature. The whole of mankind,\r\nthe best brains, and even the best ages—(one man only excepted who\r\nis perhaps only a monster)—have allowed themselves to be deceived.\r\nThe gospels were read as the \u003ci\u003ebook of innocence …\u003c/i\u003e this is no\r\ninsignificant\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_189\"\u003e[Pg 189]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e sign of the virtuosity with which deception has been\r\npractised here.—Of course, if we could only succeed in seeing all\r\nthese amazing bigots and pretended saints, even for a moment, all\r\nwould be at an end—and it is precisely because \u003ci\u003eI\u003c/i\u003e can read no\r\nsingle word of theirs, without seeing their pretentious poses, \u003ci\u003ethat\r\nI have made an end of them\u003c/i\u003e…. I cannot endure a certain way they\r\nhave of casting their eyes heavenwards.—Fortunately for Christianity,\r\nbooks are for the greatest number, merely literature. We must not let\r\nourselves be led away: “judge not!” they say, but they dispatch all\r\nthose to hell who stand in their way. Inasmuch as they let God do the\r\njudging, they themselves, judge; inasmuch as they glorify God, they\r\nglorify themselves; inasmuch as they exact those virtues of which\r\nthey themselves happen to be capable—nay more, of which they are in\r\nneed in order to be able to remain on top at all;—they assume the\r\ngrand airs of struggling for virtue, of struggling for the dominion of\r\nvirtue. “We live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves for the good” (—“the\r\nTruth,” “the Light,” “the Kingdom of God”): as a matter of fact they\r\ndo only what they cannot help doing. Like sneaks they have to play a\r\nhumble part; sit away in corners, and remain obscurely in the shade,\r\nand they make all this appear a duty; their humble life now appears as\r\na duty, and their humility is one proof the more of their piety!…\r\nOh, what a humble, chaste and compassionate kind of falsity! “Virtue\r\nitself shall bear us testimony.” … Only read the gospels as books\r\ncalculated to seduce by means of morality: morality is appropriated by\r\nthese petty people,—they know\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_190\"\u003e[Pg 190]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e what morality can do! The best way of\r\nleading mankind by the nose is with morality! The fact is that the most\r\nconscious \u003ci\u003econceit\u003c/i\u003e of people who believe themselves to be \u003ci\u003echosen,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nhere simulates modesty: in this way they, the Christian community, the\r\n“good and the just” place themselves once and for all on a certain\r\nside, the side “of Truth”—and the rest of mankind, “the world” on\r\nthe other…. This was the most fatal kind of megalomania that had\r\never yet existed on earth: insignificant little abortions of bigots\r\nand liars began to lay sole claim to the concepts “God,” “Truth,”\r\n“Light,” “Spirit,” “Love,” “Wisdom,” “Life,” as if these things were,\r\nso to speak, synonyms of themselves, in order to fence themselves off\r\nfrom “the world”; little ultra-Jews, ripe for every kind of madhouse,\r\ntwisted values round in order to suit themselves, just as if the\r\nChristian, alone, were the meaning, the salt, the standard and even the\r\n“\u003ci\u003eultimate tribunal\u003c/i\u003e” of all the rest of mankind…. The whole fatality\r\nwas rendered possible only because a kind of megalomania, akin to this\r\none and allied to it in race,—the Jewish kind—was already to hand in\r\nthe world: the very moment the gulf between Jews and Judæo-Christians\r\nwas opened, the latter had no alternative left, but to adopt the same\r\nself-preservative measures as the Jewish instinct suggested, even\r\n\u003ci\u003eagainst\u003c/i\u003e the Jews themselves, whereas the Jews, theretofore, had\r\nemployed these same measures only against the Gentiles. The Christian\r\nis nothing more than an anarchical Jew.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—Let me give you a few examples of what these\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_191\"\u003e[Pg 191]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e paltry people have\r\nstuffed into their heads, what they have laid \u003ci\u003eon the lips of their\r\nMaster\u003c/i\u003e: quite a host of confessions from “beautiful souls.”—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart\r\nthence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against\r\nthem. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom\r\nand Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (Mark vi.\r\n11.)—\u003ci\u003eHow evangelical!…\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in\r\nme, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,\r\nand he were cast into the sea.” (Mark ix. 42.)—How \u003ci\u003eevangelical!…\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it fa better for thee to\r\nenter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be\r\ncast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not\r\nquenched.” (Mark ix. 47, 48.)—The eye is not precisely what is meant\r\nin this passage….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here,\r\nwhich shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God\r\ncome with power.” (Mark ix. 1.)—Well \u003ci\u003elied,\u003c/i\u003e lion!\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_6_22\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_6_22\"\u003e[6]\u003c/a\u003e …\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his\r\ncross, and follow me. \u003ci\u003eFor\u003c/i\u003e …” (\u003ci\u003eA psychologist’s comment.\u003c/i\u003e Christian\r\nmorality is refuted by its “For’s”: its “reasons” refute,—this is\r\nChristian.) (Mark viii. 34.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_192\"\u003e[Pg 192]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge,\r\nye shall be judged.” (Matthew vii. I, 2.)—What a strange notion of\r\njustice on the part of a “just” judge!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even\r\nthe publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye\r\nmore \u003ci\u003ethan others?\u003c/i\u003e do not even the publicans so?” (Matthew v. 46, 47.)\r\nThe principle of “Christian love”: it insists upon being \u003ci\u003ewell paid\u003c/i\u003e….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“But if ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father\r\nforgive your trespasses.” (Matthew vi. 15.)—Very compromising for the\r\n“Father” in question.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all\r\nthese things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew vi. 33)—“All these\r\nthings”—that is to say, food, clothing, all the necessities of life.\r\nTo use a moderate expression, this is an \u003ci\u003eerror …\u003c/i\u003e. Shortly before\r\nthis God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward\r\n\u003ci\u003eis\u003c/i\u003e great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto\r\nthe prophets.” (Luke vi. 23.)—\u003ci\u003eImpudent\u003c/i\u003e rabble! They dare to compare\r\nthemselves with the prophets….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and \u003ci\u003ethat\u003c/i\u003e the Spirit of God\r\ndwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, \u003ci\u003ehim shall God\r\ndestroy;\u003c/i\u003e for the temple of God is holy, which \u003ci\u003etemple ye are.\u003c/i\u003e” (St\r\nPaul, I Corinthians iii. 16, 17.)—One cannot have too much contempt\r\nfor this sort of thing….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_193\"\u003e[Pg 193]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world\r\nshall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?”\r\n(St Paul, I Corinthians vi. 2.)—Unfortunately this is not merely the\r\nspeech of a lunatic…. This \u003ci\u003eappalling impostor\u003c/i\u003e proceeds thus: “Know\r\nye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to\r\nthis life?”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in\r\nthe wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by\r\nthe foolishness of preaching to save them that believe … not many\r\nwise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble \u003ci\u003eare called;\u003c/i\u003e\r\nBut God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the\r\nwise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound\r\nthe things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things\r\nwhich are despised, hath God chosen; \u003ci\u003eyea,\u003c/i\u003e and things which are not,\r\nto bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in\r\nhis presence.” (St Paul, I Corinthians i. 20 \u003ci\u003eet seq.\u003c/i\u003e)—In order to\r\n\u003ci\u003eunderstand\u003c/i\u003e this passage, which is of the highest importance as an\r\nexample of the psychology of every Chandala morality, the reader should\r\nrefer to my \u003ci\u003eGenealogy of Morals:\u003c/i\u003e in this book, the contrast between\r\na \u003ci\u003enoble\u003c/i\u003e and a Chandala morality born of \u003ci\u003eresentment\u003c/i\u003e and impotent\r\nrevengefulness, is brought to light for the first time. St Paul was the\r\ngreatest of all the apostles of revenge….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eWhat follows from this?\u003c/i\u003e That one does well to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_194\"\u003e[Pg 194]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e put on one’s gloves\r\nwhen reading the New Testament The proximity of so much pitch almost\r\ndefiles one. We should feel just as little inclined to hobnob with\r\n“the first Christians” as with Polish Jews: not that we need explain\r\nour objections…. They simply smell bad.—In vain have I sought for a\r\nsingle sympathetic feature in the New Testament; there is not a trace\r\nof freedom, kindliness, open-heartedness and honesty to be found in\r\nit. Humaneness has not even made a start in this book, while \u003ci\u003ecleanly\u003c/i\u003e\r\ninstincts are entirely absent from it…. Only evil instincts are to be\r\nfound in the New Testament, it shows no sign of courage, these people\r\nlack even the courage of their evil instincts. All is cowardice, all is\r\na closing of one’s eyes and self-deception. Every book becomes clean,\r\nafter one has just read the New Testament: for instance, immediately\r\nafter laying down St Paul, I read with particular delight that most\r\ncharming and most wanton of scoffers, Petronius, of whom someone might\r\nsay what Domenico Boccaccio wrote to the Duke of Parma about Cæsar\r\nBorgia: “\u003ci\u003eè tutto festo\u003c/i\u003e”—immortally healthy, immortally cheerful\r\nand well-constituted. … These petty bigots err in their calculations\r\nand in the most important thing of all. They certainly attack; but\r\neverything they assail is, by that very fact alone, \u003ci\u003edistinguished.\u003c/i\u003e\r\nHe whom a “primitive Christian” attacks, is \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e thereby sullied….\r\nConversely it is an honour to be opposed by “primitive Christians.”\r\nOne cannot read the New Testament without feeling a preference for\r\neverything in it which is the subject of abuse—not to speak of the\r\n“wisdom of this world,”\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_195\"\u003e[Pg 195]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e which an impudent windbag tries in vain to\r\nconfound “by the foolishness of preaching.” Even the Pharisees and the\r\nScribes derive advantage from such opposition: they must certainly\r\nhave been worth something in order to have been hated in such a\r\ndisreputable way. Hypocrisy—as if this were a reproach which the\r\n“first Christians” \u003ci\u003ewere at liberty\u003c/i\u003e to make!—After all the Scribes\r\nand Pharisees were the \u003ci\u003eprivileged ones;\u003c/i\u003e this was quite enough, the\r\nhatred of the Chandala requires no other reasons. I very much fear\r\nthat the “first Christian”—as also the “\u003ci\u003elast Christian” whom I may\r\nyet be able to meet,—\u003c/i\u003e is in his deepest instincts a rebel against\r\neverything privileged; he lives and struggles unremittingly for “equal\r\nrights”!… Regarded more closely, he has no alternative…. If one’s\r\ndesire be personally to represent “one of the chosen of God”—or a\r\n“temple of God,” or “a judge of angels,”—then every \u003ci\u003eother\u003c/i\u003e principle\r\nof selection, for instance that based upon a standard of honesty,\r\nintellect, manliness and pride, or upon beauty and freedom of heart,\r\nbecomes the “world,”—\u003ci\u003eevil in itself.\u003c/i\u003e Moral: every word on the lips\r\nof a “first Christian” is a lie, every action he does is an instinctive\r\nfalsehood,—all his values, all his aims are pernicious; but the man\r\nhe, hates, \u003ci\u003ethe thing\u003c/i\u003e he hates, \u003ci\u003ehas value.\u003c/i\u003e … The Christian, more\r\nparticularly the Christian priest, is a \u003ci\u003ecriterion of values\u003c/i\u003e—Do I\r\nrequire to add that in the whole of the New Testament only \u003ci\u003eone\u003c/i\u003e figure\r\nappears which we cannot help respecting? Pilate, the Roman Governor. To\r\ntake a Jewish quarrel \u003ci\u003eseriously\u003c/i\u003e was a thing he could not get himself\r\nto do. One Jew more or less—what did it matter?… The noble\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_196\"\u003e[Pg 196]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e scorn\r\nof a Roman, in whose presence the word “truth” had been shamelessly\r\nabused, has enriched the New Testament with the only saying which \u003ci\u003eis\r\nof value,\u003c/i\u003e—and this saying is not only the criticism, but actually the\r\nshattering of that Testament: “What is truth!”…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—That which separates us from other people is not the fact that\r\nwe can discover no God, either in history, or in nature, or behind\r\nnature,—but that we regard what has been revered as “God,” not as\r\n“divine,” but as wretched, absurd, pernicious; not as an error, but as\r\na \u003ci\u003ecrime against life.\u003c/i\u003e … We deny God as God…. If the existence\r\nof this Christian God were \u003ci\u003eproved\u003c/i\u003e to us, we should feel even less\r\nable to believe in him.—In a formula: \u003ci\u003edeus qualem Paulus creavit,\r\ndei negatio.\u003c/i\u003e—A religion such as Christianity which never once comes\r\nin touch with reality, and which collapses the very moment reality\r\nasserts its rights even on one single point, must naturally be a mortal\r\nenemy of the “wisdom of this world”—that is to say, \u003ci\u003escience.\u003c/i\u003e It\r\nwill call all those means good with which mental discipline, lucidity\r\nand severity in intellectual matters, nobility and freedom of the\r\nintellect may be poisoned, calumniated and \u003ci\u003edecried\u003c/i\u003e. “Faith” as an\r\nimperative is a \u003ci\u003eveto\u003c/i\u003e against science,—\u003ci\u003ein praxi,\u003c/i\u003e it means lies\r\nat any price. St Paul \u003ci\u003eunderstood\u003c/i\u003e that falsehood—that “faith” was\r\nnecessary; subsequently the Church understood St Paul.—That “God”\r\nwhich St Paul invented for himself, a God who “confounds” the “wisdom\r\nof this world” (in a narrower sense, the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_197\"\u003e[Pg 197]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e two great opponents of all\r\nsuperstition, philology and medicine), means, in very truth, simply St\r\nPaul’s firm \u003ci\u003eresolve\u003c/i\u003e to do so: to call his own will “God”, \u003ci\u003ethora,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nthat is arch-Jewish. St Paul insists upon confounding the “wisdom of\r\nthis world”: his enemies are the \u003ci\u003egood old\u003c/i\u003e philologists and doctors of\r\nthe Alexandrine schools; it is on them that he wages war. As a matter\r\nof fact no one is either a philologist or a doctor, who is not also an\r\n\u003ci\u003eAntichrist.\u003c/i\u003e As a philologist, for instance, a man sees \u003ci\u003ebehind\u003c/i\u003e the\r\n“holy books,” as a doctor he sees \u003ci\u003ebehind\u003c/i\u003e the physiological rottenness\r\nof the typical Christian. The doctor says “incurable,” the philologist\r\nsays “forgery.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—Has anybody ever really understood the celebrated story which stands\r\nat the beginning of the Bible,—concerning God’s deadly panic over\r\n\u003ci\u003escience?\u003c/i\u003e … Nobody has understood it This essentially sacerdotal\r\nbook naturally begins with the great inner difficulty of the priest:\r\n\u003ci\u003ehe\u003c/i\u003e knows only one great danger, \u003ci\u003econsequently\u003c/i\u003e “God” has only one\r\ngreat danger.—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe old God, entirely “spirit,” a high-priest through and through, and\r\nwholly perfect, is wandering in a leisurely fashion round his garden;\r\nbut he is bored. Against boredom even the gods themselves struggle in\r\nvain.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_7_23\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_7_23\"\u003e[7]\u003c/a\u003e What does he do? He invents man,—man is entertaining…. But,\r\nbehold,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_198\"\u003e[Pg 198]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e even man begins to be bored. God’s compassion for the only\r\nform of misery which is peculiar to all paradises, exceeds all bounds:\r\nso forthwith he creates yet other animals. God’s \u003ci\u003efirst\u003c/i\u003e mistake: man\r\ndid not think animals entertaining,—he dominated them, he did not even\r\nwish to be an “animal.” Consequently God created woman. And boredom did\r\nindeed cease from that moment,—but many other things ceased as well!\r\nWoman was God’s \u003ci\u003esecond\u003c/i\u003e mistake.—“Woman in her innermost nature is a\r\nserpent, Heva”—every priest knows this: “all evil came into this world\r\nthrough woman,”—every priest knows this too. “\u003ci\u003eConsequently science\u003c/i\u003e\r\nalso comes from woman.” … Only through woman did man learn to taste\r\nof the tree of knowledge.—What had happened? Panic had seized the\r\nold God Man himself had been his \u003ci\u003egreatest\u003c/i\u003e mistake, he had created\r\na rival for himself, science makes you \u003ci\u003eequal to God,\u003c/i\u003e—it is all up\r\nwith priests and gods when man becomes scientific!—Moral: science is\r\nthe most prohibited thing of all,—it alone, is forbidden. Science is\r\nthe \u003ci\u003efirst,\u003c/i\u003e the germ of all sins, the original sin. \u003ci\u003eThis alone is\r\nmorality.\u003c/i\u003e—“Thou shalt \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e know”:—the rest follows as a matter of\r\ncourse, God’s panic did not deprive him of his intelligence. How can\r\none \u003ci\u003eguard\u003c/i\u003e against science? For ages this was his principal problem.\r\nReply: man must be kicked out of paradise! Happiness, leisure leads to\r\nthinking,—all thoughts are bad thoughts…. Man \u003ci\u003emust\u003c/i\u003e not think.—And\r\nthe “priest-per-se” proceeds to invent distress, death, the vital\r\ndanger of pregnancy, every kind of misery, decrepitude, and affliction,\r\nand above all \u003ci\u003edisease,\u003c/i\u003e—all these are but weapons\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_199\"\u003e[Pg 199]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e employed in the\r\nstruggle with science! Trouble prevents man from thinking…. And\r\nnotwithstanding all these precautions! Oh, horror! the work of science\r\ntowers aloft, it storms heaven itself, it rings the death-knell of the\r\ngods,—what’s to be done?—The old God invents \u003ci\u003ewar;\u003c/i\u003e he separates the\r\nnations, and contrives to make men destroy each other mutually (—the\r\npriests have always been in need of war….) War, among other things,\r\nis a great disturber of science!—Incredible! Knowledge, \u003ci\u003ethe rejection\r\nof the sacerdotal yoke,\u003c/i\u003e nevertheless increases.—So the old God\r\narrives at this final decision: “Man has become scientific,—\u003ci\u003ethere is\r\nno help for it, he must be drowned!\u003c/i\u003e” …\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eYou have understood me The beginning of the Bible contains the whole\r\npsychology of the priest—The priest knows only one great danger, and\r\nthat is science,—the healthy concept of cause and effect But, on the\r\nwhole, science flourishes onlyunder happy conditions,—a man must\r\nhave time, he must also have superfluous mental energy in order to\r\n“pursue knowledge” … “\u003ci\u003eConsequently\u003c/i\u003e man must be made unhappy,”—this\r\nhas been the argument of the priest of all ages.—You have already\r\ndivined what, in accordance with such a manner of arguing, must\r\nfirst have come into the world:—“sin.” … The notion of guilt and\r\npunishment, the whole “moral order of the universe,” was invented\r\nagainst science,—against the deliverance of man from the priest….\r\nMan must \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e cast his glance upon the outer world, he must turn it\r\ninwards into himself; he must not as\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_200\"\u003e[Pg 200]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e a learner look cleverly and\r\ncautiously \u003ci\u003einto\u003c/i\u003e things; he must not see at all: he must \u003ci\u003esuffer.\u003c/i\u003e\r\n… And he must suffer, so that he may be in need of the priest every\r\nminute.—Away with doctors! What is needed is a Saviour!—The notion of\r\nguilt and punishment, including the doctrine of “grace,” of “salvation”\r\nand of “forgiveness”—all \u003ci\u003elies\u003c/i\u003e through and through without a shred\r\nof psychological reality—were invented in order to destroy man’s\r\n\u003ci\u003esense of causality:\u003c/i\u003e they are an attack on the concept of cause and\r\neffect!—And \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e an attack with the fist, with the knife, with\r\nhonesty in hate and love! But one actuated by the most cowardly, most\r\ncrafty, and most ignoble instincts! A \u003ci\u003epriests\u003c/i\u003e attack! A \u003ci\u003eparasite’s\u003c/i\u003e\r\nattack! A vampyrism of pale subterranean leeches!—… When the natural\r\nconsequences of an act are no longer “natural,” but are thought to\r\nbe conjured up by phantom concepts of superstition, by “God,” by\r\n“spirits,” and by “souls,” as merely moral consequences, in the form\r\nof rewards, punishments, hints, and educational means,—then the whole\r\nbasis of knowledge is destroyed,—\u003ci\u003ethen the greatest crime against man\r\nhas been perpetrated.\u003c/i\u003e—Sin, I repeat, this form of self-pollution \u003ci\u003epar\r\nexcellence\u003c/i\u003e on the part of man, was invented in order to make science,\r\nculture and every elevation and noble trait in man quite impossible; by\r\nmeans of the invention of sin the priest is able to \u003ci\u003erule.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—I cannot here dispense with a psychology of “faith” and of the\r\n“faithful,” which will naturally be to the advantage of the “faithful.”\r\nIf to-day there\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_201\"\u003e[Pg 201]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e are still many who do not know how very \u003ci\u003eindecent\u003c/i\u003e it\r\nis to be a “believer”—\u003ci\u003eor\u003c/i\u003e to what extent such a state is the sign\r\nof decadence, and of the broken will to Life,—they will know it no\r\nlater than to-morrow. My voice can make even those hear who are hard\r\nof hearing.—If perchance my ears have not deceived me, it seems that\r\namong Christians there is such a thing as a kind of criterion of truth,\r\nwhich is called “the proof of power.” “Faith saveth; \u003ci\u003etherefore\u003c/i\u003e it\r\nis true.”—It might be objected here that it is precisely salvation\r\nwhich is not proved but only \u003ci\u003epromised:\u003c/i\u003e salvation is bound up with\r\nthe condition “faith,”—one \u003ci\u003eshall\u003c/i\u003e be saved, \u003ci\u003ebecause\u003c/i\u003e one has\r\nfaith…. But how prove \u003ci\u003ethat\u003c/i\u003e that which the priest promises to the\r\nfaithful really will take place, to wit: the “Beyond” which defies\r\nall demonstration?—The assumed “proof of power” is at bottom once\r\nagain only a belief in the fact that the effect which faith promises\r\nwill not fail to take place. In a formula: “I believe that faith\r\nsaveth;—\u003ci\u003econsequently\u003c/i\u003e it is true.”—But with this we are at the end\r\nof our tether. This “consequently” would be the \u003ci\u003eabsurdum\u003c/i\u003e itself as\r\na criterion of truth.—Let us be indulgent enough to assume, however,\r\nthat salvation is proved by faith (—\u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e only desired, and \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e\r\nmerely promised by the somewhat suspicious lips of a priest): could\r\nsalvation—or, in technical terminology, \u003ci\u003ehappiness\u003c/i\u003e—ever be a proof\r\nof truth? So little is it so that, when pleasurable sensations make\r\ntheir influence felt in replying to the question “what is true,” they\r\nfurnish almost the contradiction of truth, or at any rate they make\r\nit in the highest degree suspicious. The proof through “happiness,”\r\nis a proof of happiness—and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_202\"\u003e[Pg 202]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e nothing else; why in the world should\r\nwe take it for granted that \u003ci\u003etrue\u003c/i\u003e judgments cause more pleasure than\r\nfalse ones, and that in accordance with a pre-established harmony, they\r\nnecessarily bring pleasant feelings in their wake?—The experience of\r\nall strict and profound minds teaches the \u003ci\u003ereverse.\u003c/i\u003e Every inch of\r\ntruth has been conquered only after a struggle, almost everything to\r\nwhich our heart, our love and our trust in life cleaves, has had to be\r\nsacrificed for it Greatness of soul is necessary for this: the service\r\nof truth is the hardest of all services.—What then is meant by honesty\r\nin things intellectual? It means that a man is severe towards his own\r\nheart, that he scorns “beautiful feelings,” and that he makes a matter\r\nof conscience out of every Yea and Nay!—-Faith saveth: \u003ci\u003econsequently\u003c/i\u003e\r\nit lies….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe fact that faith may in certain circumstances save, the fact that\r\nsalvation as the result of an \u003ci\u003eidée fixe\u003c/i\u003e does not constitute a true\r\nidea, the fact that faith moves \u003ci\u003eno\u003c/i\u003e mountains, but may very readily\r\nraise them where previously they did not exist—all these things are\r\nmade sufficiently clear by a mere casual stroll through a \u003ci\u003elunatic\r\nasylum.\u003c/i\u003e Of course \u003ci\u003eno\u003c/i\u003e priest would find this sufficient: for he\r\ninstinctively denies that illness is illness or that lunatic asylums\r\nare lunatic asylums. Christianity is in \u003ci\u003eneed\u003c/i\u003e of illness, just as\r\nAncient Greece was in need of a superabundance of health. The actual\r\nulterior motive of the whole of the Church’s system of salvation\r\nis to \u003ci\u003emake people ill.\u003c/i\u003e And is not the Church itself the Catholic\r\nmadhouse as an ultimate\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_203\"\u003e[Pg 203]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e ideal?—The earth as a whole converted into a\r\nmadhouse?—The kind of religious man which the Church aims at producing\r\nis a typical \u003ci\u003edecadent\u003c/i\u003e The moment of time at which a religious crisis\r\nattains the ascendancy over a people, is always characterised by\r\nnerve-epidemics; the “inner world” of the religious man is ridiculously\r\nlike the “inner world” of over-irritable and exhausted people; the\r\n“highest” states which Christianity holds up to mankind as the value\r\nof values, are epileptic in character,—the Church has pronounced only\r\nmadmen \u003ci\u003eor\u003c/i\u003e great swindlers \u003ci\u003ein majorem dei honorem\u003c/i\u003e holy. Once I\r\nventured to characterise the whole of the Christian training of penance\r\nand salvation (which nowadays is best studied in England) as a \u003ci\u003efolie\r\ncirculaire\u003c/i\u003e methodically generated upon a soil which, of course, is\r\nalready prepared for it,—that is to say, which is thoroughly morbid.\r\nNot every one who likes can be a Christian: no man is “converted”\r\nto Christianity,—he must be sick enough for it … We others who\r\npossess enough courage both for health and for contempt, how rightly\r\n\u003ci\u003ewe\u003c/i\u003e may despise a religion which taught men to misunderstand the\r\nbody I which would not rid itself of the superstitions of the soul!\r\nwhich made a virtue of taking inadequate nourishment! which in health\r\ncombats a sort of enemy, devil, temptation! which persuaded itself that\r\nit was possible to bear a perfect soul about in a cadaverous body,\r\nand which, to this end, had to make up for itself a new concept of\r\n“perfection,” a pale, sickly, idiotically gushing ideal,—so-called\r\n“holiness,”—holiness, which in itself is simply a symptom of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_204\"\u003e[Pg 204]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e an\r\nimpoverished, enervated and incurably deteriorated body!… The\r\nmovement of Christianity, as a European movement, was from first to\r\nlast, a general accumulation of the ruck and scum of all sorts and\r\nkinds (—and these, by means of Christianity, aspire to power). It\r\ndoes \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e express the downfall of a race, it is rather a conglomerate\r\nassembly of all the decadent elements from everywhere which seek each\r\nother and crowd together. It was not, as some believe, the corruption\r\nof antiquity, of \u003ci\u003enoble\u003c/i\u003e antiquity, which made Christianity possible:\r\nthe learned idiocy which nowadays tries to support such a notion cannot\r\nbe too severely contradicted. At the time when the morbid and corrupted\r\nChandala classes became Christianised in the whole of the \u003ci\u003eimperium,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nthe very \u003ci\u003econtrary type,\u003c/i\u003e nobility, was extant in its finest and\r\nmaturest forms. The greatest number became master; the democracy of\r\nChristian instincts triumphed…. Christianity was not “national,” it\r\nwas not determined by race,—it appealed to all the disinherited forms\r\nof life, it had its allies everywhere. Christianity is built upon the\r\nrancour of the sick; its instinct is directed \u003ci\u003eagainst\u003c/i\u003e the sound,\r\nagainst health. Everything well-constituted, proud, high-spirited,\r\nand beautiful is offensive to its ears and eyes. Again I remind you\r\nof St Paul’s priceless words: “And God hath chosen the \u003ci\u003eweak\u003c/i\u003e things\r\nof the world, the \u003ci\u003efoolish\u003c/i\u003e things of the world; and \u003ci\u003ebase\u003c/i\u003e things of\r\nthe world, and things which are \u003ci\u003edespised”\u003c/i\u003e: this was the formula, \u003ci\u003ein\r\nhoc signo\u003c/i\u003e decadence triumphed.—\u003ci\u003eGod on the Cross\u003c/i\u003e—does no one yet\r\nunderstand the terrible ulterior motive of this\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_205\"\u003e[Pg 205]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e symbol?—Everything\r\nthat suffers, everything that hangs on the cross, is \u003ci\u003edivine….\u003c/i\u003e All\r\nof us hang on the cross, consequently we are \u003ci\u003edivine …\u003c/i\u003e. We alone are\r\ndivine…. Christianity was a victory; a \u003ci\u003enobler\u003c/i\u003e type of character\r\nperished through it,—Christianity has been humanity’s greatest\r\nmisfortune hitherto.——\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eChristianity also stands opposed to everything happily constituted\r\nin the \u003ci\u003emind,\u003c/i\u003e—it can make use only of morbid reason as Christian\r\nreason; it takes the side of everything idiotic, it utters a curse\r\nupon “intellect,” upon the \u003ci\u003esuperbia\u003c/i\u003e of the healthy intellect. Since\r\nillness belongs to the essence of Christianity, the typically Christian\r\nstate, “faith,” \u003ci\u003emust\u003c/i\u003e also be a form of illness, and all straight,\r\nhonest and scientific roads to knowledge must be repudiated by the\r\nChurch as forbidden…. Doubt in itself is already a sin…. The total\r\nlack of psychological cleanliness in the priest, which reveals itself\r\nin his look, is a \u003ci\u003eresult\u003c/i\u003e of decadence. Hysterical women, as also\r\nchildren with scrofulous constitutions, should be observed as a proof\r\nof how invariably instinctive falsity, the love of lying for the sake\r\nof lying, and the in ability either to look or to walk straight, are\r\nthe expression of decadence. “Faith” simply means the refusal to know\r\nwhat is true. The pious person, the priest of both sexes, is false\r\nbecause he is ill: his instinct \u003ci\u003edemands\u003c/i\u003e that truth should not assert\r\nits right anywhere. “That which makes ill is good: that which proceeds\r\nfrom abundance, from superabundance and from power, is evil”: that\r\nis the view of the faithful. The \u003ci\u003econstraint to lie\u003c/i\u003e—that is\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_206\"\u003e[Pg 206]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e the\r\nsign by which I recognise every predetermined theologian.—Another\r\ncharacteristic of the theologian is his lack of \u003ci\u003ecapacity\u003c/i\u003e for\r\n\u003ci\u003ephilology.\u003c/i\u003e What I mean here by the word philology is, in a general\r\nsense to be understood as the art of reading well, of being able to\r\ntake account of facts \u003ci\u003ewithout\u003c/i\u003e falsifying them by interpretation,\r\nwithout losing either caution, patience or subtlety owing to one’s\r\ndesire to understand. Philology as \u003ci\u003eephexis\u003c/i\u003e\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_8_24\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_8_24\"\u003e[8]\u003c/a\u003e in interpretation,\r\nwhether one be dealing with books, newspaper reports, human destinies\r\nor meteorological records,—not to speak of the “salvation of the\r\nsoul.” … The manner in which a theologian, whether in Berlin or in\r\nRome, interprets a verse from the “Scriptures,” or an experience, or\r\nthe triumph of his nation’s army for instance, under the superior\r\nguiding light of David’s Psalms, is always so exceedingly \u003ci\u003edaring,\u003c/i\u003e\r\nthat it is enough to make a philologist’s hair stand on end. And what\r\nis he to do, when pietists and other cows from Swabia explain their\r\nmiserable every-day lives in their smoky hovels by means of the “Finger\r\nof God,” a miracle of “grace,” of “Providence,” of experiences of\r\n“salvation”! The most modest effort of the intellect, not to speak of\r\ndecent feeling, ought at least to lead these interpreters to convince\r\nthemselves of the absolute childishness and unworthiness of any such\r\nabuse of the dexterity of God’s fingers. However small an amount of\r\nloving piety we might\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_207\"\u003e[Pg 207]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e possess, a god who cured us in time of a cold in\r\nthe nose, or who arranged for us to enter a carriage just at the moment\r\nwhen a cloud burst over our heads, would be such an absurd God, that he\r\nwould have to be abolished, even if he existed.\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_9_25\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_9_25\"\u003e[9]\u003c/a\u003e God as a domestic\r\nservant, as a postman, as a general provider,—in short, merely a word\r\nfor the most foolish kind of accidents…. “Divine Providence,” as it\r\nis believed in to-day by almost every third man in “cultured Germany,”\r\nwould be an argument against God, in fact it would be the strongest\r\nargument against God that could be Imagined. And in any case it is an\r\nargument against the Germans.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—The notion that martyrs prove anything at all in favour of a thing,\r\nis so exceedingly doubtful, that I would fain deny that there has ever\r\nyet existed a martyr who had anything to do with truth. In the very\r\nmanner in which a martyr flings his little parcel of truth at the\r\nhead of the world, such a low degree of intellectual honesty and such\r\nobtuseness in regard to the question “truth” makes itself felt, that\r\none never requires to refute a martyr. Truth is not a thing which one\r\nmight have and another be without:\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_208\"\u003e[Pg 208]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e only peasants or peasant-apostles,\r\nafter the style of Luther, can think like this about truth. You may be\r\nquite sure, that the greater a man’s degree of conscientiousness may\r\nbe in matters intellectual, the more modest he will show himself on\r\nthis point To \u003ci\u003eknow\u003c/i\u003e about five things, and with a subtle wave of the\r\nhand to refuse to know \u003ci\u003eothers.\u003c/i\u003e … “Truth” as it is understood by\r\nevery prophet, every sectarian, every free thinker, every socialist and\r\nevery church-man, is an absolute proof of the fact that these people\r\nhaven’t even begun that discipline of the mind and that process of\r\nself-mastery, which is necessary for the discovery of any small, even\r\nexceedingly small truth.—Incidentally, the deaths of martyrs have\r\nbeen a great misfortune in the history of the world: they led people\r\nastray…. The conclusion which all idiots, women and common people\r\ncome to, that there must be something in a cause for which someone lays\r\ndown his life (or which, as in the case of primitive Christianity,\r\nprovokes an epidemic of sacrifices),—this conclusion put a tremendous\r\ncheck upon all investigation, upon the spirit of investigation and of\r\ncaution. Martyrs have \u003ci\u003eharmed\u003c/i\u003e the cause of truth. … Even to this day\r\nit only requires the crude fact of persecution, in order to create an\r\nhonourable name for any obscure sect who does not matter in the least\r\nWhat? is a cause actually changed in any way by the fact that some\r\none has laid down his life for it? An error which becomes honourable,\r\nis simply an error that possesses one seductive charm the more: do\r\nyou suppose, dear theologians, that we shall give you the chance of\r\nacting the martyrs for your lies?—A thing is refuted by being laid\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_209\"\u003e[Pg 209]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nrespectfully on ice, and theologians are refuted in the same way. This\r\nwas precisely the world-historic foolishness of all persecutors; they\r\nlent the thing they combated a semblance of honour by conferring the\r\nfascination of martyrdom upon it…. Women still lie prostrate before\r\nan error to-day, because they have been told that some one died on the\r\ncross for it \u003ci\u003eIs the cross then an argument?\u003c/i\u003e—But concerning all these\r\nthings, one person alone has said what mankind has been in need of for\r\nthousands of years,—\u003ci\u003eZarathustra.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Letters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly\r\ntaught that truth is proved by blood.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“But blood is the very worst testimony of truth; blood poisoneth even\r\nthe purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and into blood feuds.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“And when a man goeth through fire for his teaching—what does that\r\nprove? Verily, it is more when out of one’s own burning springeth one’s\r\nown teaching.”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_10_26\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_10_26\"\u003e[10]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDo not allow yourselves to be deceived: great minds are sceptical.\r\nZarathustra is a sceptic. Strength and the \u003ci\u003efreedom\u003c/i\u003e which proceeds\r\nfrom the power and excessive power of the mind, \u003ci\u003emanifests\u003c/i\u003e itself\r\nthrough scepticism. Men of conviction are of no account whatever\r\nin regard to any principles of value or of non-value. Convictions\r\nare prisons. They never see far enough, they do not look down from\r\na sufficient height: but in order to have any\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_210\"\u003e[Pg 210]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e say in questions of\r\nvalue and non-value, a man must see five hundred convictions \u003ci\u003ebeneath\u003c/i\u003e\r\nhim,—\u003ci\u003ebehind\u003c/i\u003e him…. A spirit who desires great things, and who also\r\ndesires the means thereto, is necessarily a sceptic. Freedom from every\r\nkind of conviction \u003ci\u003ebelongs\u003c/i\u003e to strength, to the \u003ci\u003eability\u003c/i\u003e to open\r\none’s eyes freely…. The great passion of a sceptic, the basis and\r\npower of his being, which is more enlightened and more despotic than he\r\nis himself, enlists all his intellect into its service; it makes him\r\nunscrupulous; it even gives him the courage to employ unholy means;\r\nin certain circumstances it even allows him convictions. Conviction\r\nas a \u003ci\u003emeans:\u003c/i\u003e much is achieved merely by means of a conviction. Great\r\npassion makes use of and consumes convictions, it does not submit to\r\nthem—it knows that it is a sovereign power. Conversely; the need of\r\nfaith, of anything either absolutely affirmative or negative, Carlylism\r\n(if I may be allowed this expression), is the need of \u003ci\u003eweakness.\u003c/i\u003e\r\nThe man of beliefs, the “believer” of every sort and condition, is\r\nnecessarily a dependent man;—he is one who cannot regard \u003ci\u003ehimself\u003c/i\u003e as\r\nan aim, who cannot postulate aims from the promptings of his own heart\r\nThe “believer” does not belong to himself, he can be only a means,\r\nhe must be \u003ci\u003eused up,\u003c/i\u003e he is in need of someone who uses him up. His\r\ninstinct accords the highest honour to a morality of self-abnegation:\r\neverything in him, his prudence, his experience, his vanity, persuade\r\nhim to adopt this morality. Every sort of belief is in itself an\r\nexpression of self-denial, of self-estrangement. … If one considers\r\nhow necessary a regulating code of conduct is to the majority of\r\npeople, a\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_211\"\u003e[Pg 211]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e code of conduct which constrains them and fixes them from\r\noutside; and how control, or in a higher sense, \u003ci\u003eslavery,\u003c/i\u003e is the only\r\nand ultimate condition under which the weak-willed man, and especially\r\nwoman, flourish; one also understands conviction, “faith.” The man\r\nof conviction finds in the latter his \u003ci\u003ebackbone.\u003c/i\u003e To be \u003ci\u003eblind\u003c/i\u003e to\r\nmany things, to be impartial about nothing, to belong always to a\r\nparticular side, to hold a strict and necessary point of view in all\r\nmatters of values—these are the only conditions under which such a man\r\ncan survive at all. But all this is the reverse of, the \u003ci\u003eantagonist\u003c/i\u003e\r\nof, the truthful man,—of truth…. The believer is not at liberty to\r\nhave a conscience for the question “true” and “untrue”: to be upright\r\non \u003ci\u003ethis\u003c/i\u003e point would mean his immediate downfall. The pathological\r\nlimitations of his standpoint convert the convinced man into the\r\nfanatic—Savonarola, Luther Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon,—these\r\nare the reverse type of the strong spirit that has become \u003ci\u003efree.\u003c/i\u003e But\r\nthe grandiose poses of these \u003ci\u003emorbid\u003c/i\u003e spirits, of these epileptics\r\nof ideas, exercise an influence over the masses,—fanatics are\r\npicturesque, mankind prefers to look at poses than to listen to reason.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne step further in the psychology of conviction of “faith.” It\r\nis already some time since I first thought of considering whether\r\nconvictions were not perhaps more dangerous enemies of truth than lies\r\n(“Human All-too-Human,” Part I, Aphs. 54 and 483). Now I would fain put\r\nthe decisive question:\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_212\"\u003e[Pg 212]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is there any difference at all between a lie\r\nand a conviction?—All the world believes that there is, but what in\r\nHeaven’s name does not all the world believe! Every conviction has its\r\nhistory, its preliminary stages, its period of groping and of mistakes:\r\nit becomes a conviction only after it has \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e been one for a long\r\ntime, only after it has \u003ci\u003escarcely\u003c/i\u003e been one for a long time. What?\r\nmight not falsehood be the embryonic form of conviction?—At times\r\nall that is required is a change of personality: very often what was\r\na lie in the father becomes a conviction in the son.—I call a lie,\r\nto refuse to see something that one sees, to refuse to see it exactly\r\n\u003ci\u003eas\u003c/i\u003e one sees it: whether a lie is perpetrated before witnesses or not\r\nis beside the point.—The most common sort of lie is the one uttered\r\nto one’s self; to lie to others is relatively exceptional. Now this\r\nrefusal to see what one sees, this refusal to see a thing exactly as\r\none sees it, is almost the first condition for all those who belong\r\nto a \u003ci\u003eparty\u003c/i\u003e in any sense whatsoever: the man who belongs to a party\r\nperforce becomes a liar. German historians, for instance, are convinced\r\nthat Rome stood for despotism, whereas the Teutons introduced the\r\nspirit of freedom into the world: what difference is there between\r\nthis conviction and a lie? After this is it to be wondered at, that\r\nall parties, including German historians, instinctively adopt the\r\ngrandiloquent phraseology of morality,—that morality almost owes\r\nits \u003ci\u003esurvival\u003c/i\u003e to the fact that the man who belongs to a party, no\r\nmatter what it may be, is in need of morality every moment?—“This\r\nis our conviction: we confess it to the whole\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_213\"\u003e[Pg 213]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e world, we live and die\r\nfor it,—let us respect every thing that has a conviction!”—I have\r\nactually heard antisemites speak in this way. On the contrary, my dear\r\nsirs! An antisemite does not become the least bit more respectable\r\nbecause he lies on principle…. Priests, who in such matters are\r\nmore subtle, and who perfectly understand the objection to which the\r\nidea of a conviction lies open—that is to say of a falsehood which\r\nis perpetrated on principle \u003ci\u003ebecause\u003c/i\u003e it serves a purpose, borrowed\r\nfrom the Jews the prudent measure of setting the concept “God,” “Will\r\nof God,” “Revelation of God,” at this place. Kant, too, with his\r\ncategorical imperative, was on the same road: this was his \u003ci\u003epractical\u003c/i\u003e\r\nreason.—There are some questions in which it is \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e given to man\r\nto decide between true and false; all the principal questions, all\r\nthe principal problems of value, stand beyond human reason…. To\r\ncomprehend the limits of reason—this alone is genuine philosophy. For\r\nwhat purpose did God give man revelation? Would God have done anything\r\nsuperfluous? Man cannot of his own accord know what is good and what is\r\nevil, that is why God taught man his will…. Moral: the priest does\r\n\u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e lie, such questions as “truth” or “falseness” have nothing to do\r\nwith the things concerning which the priest speaks; such things do not\r\nallow of lying. For, in order to lie, it would be necessary to know\r\n\u003ci\u003ewhat\u003c/i\u003e is true in this respect. But that is precisely what man cannot\r\nknow: hence the priest is only the mouthpiece of God.—This sort of\r\nsacerdotal syllogism is by no means exclusively Judaic or Christian;\r\nthe right\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_214\"\u003e[Pg 214]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e to lie and the \u003ci\u003eprudent measure\u003c/i\u003e of “revelation” belongs\r\nto the priestly type, whether of decadent periods or of Pagan times\r\n(—Pagans are all those who say yea to life, and to whom “God” is the\r\nword for the great yea to all things). The “law,” the “will of God,”\r\nthe “holy book,” and inspiration.—All these things are merely words\r\nfor the conditions under which the priest attains to power, and with\r\nwhich he maintains his power,—these concepts are to be found at the\r\nbase of all sacerdotal organisations, of all priestly or philosophical\r\nand ecclesiastical governments. The “holy lie,” which is common to\r\nConfucius, to the law-book of Manu, to Muhamed, and to the Christian\r\nchurch, is not even absent in Plato. “Truth is here”; this phrase\r\nmeans, wherever it is uttered: \u003ci\u003ethe priest lies….\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAfter all, the question is, to what \u003ci\u003eend\u003c/i\u003e are falsehoods perpetrated?\r\nThe fact that, in Christianity, “holy” ends are entirely absent,\r\nconstitutes \u003ci\u003emy\u003c/i\u003e objection to the means it employs. Its ends are only\r\n\u003ci\u003ebad\u003c/i\u003e ends: the poisoning, the calumniation and the denial of life,\r\nthe contempt of the body, the degradation and self-pollution of man by\r\nvirtue of the concept sin,—consequently its means are bad as well.—My\r\nfeelings are quite the reverse when I read the law-book of \u003ci\u003eManu, an\u003c/i\u003e\r\nincomparably superior and more intellectual work, which it would be\r\na sin against the \u003ci\u003espirit\u003c/i\u003e even to \u003ci\u003emention\u003c/i\u003e in the same breath with\r\nthe Bible. You will guess immediately why: it has a genuine philosophy\r\nbehind it, \u003ci\u003ein\u003c/i\u003e it, not merely an evil-smelling Jewish distillation\r\nof Rabbinism and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_215\"\u003e[Pg 215]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e superstition,—it gives something to chew even\r\nto the most fastidious psychologist. And, \u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e to forget the most\r\nimportant point of all, it is fundamentally different from every kind\r\nof Bible: by means of it the \u003ci\u003enoble classes,\u003c/i\u003e the philosophers and the\r\nwarriors guard and guide the masses; it is replete with noble values,\r\nit is filled with a feeling of perfection, with a saying of yea to\r\nlife, and a triumphant sense of well-being in regard to itself and to\r\nlife,—the sun shines upon the whole book.—All those things which\r\nChristianity smothers with its bottomless vulgarity: procreation,\r\nwoman, marriage, are here treated with earnestness, with revere nee,\r\nwith love and confidence. How can one possibly place in the hands of\r\nchildren and women, a book that contains those vile words: “to avoid\r\nfornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman\r\nhave her own husband … it is better to marry than to burn.”\u003ca id=\"FNanchor_11_27\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_11_27\"\u003e[11]\u003c/a\u003e\r\nAnd is it decent to be a Christian so long as the very origin of\r\nman is Christianised,—that is to say, befouled, by the idea of the\r\n\u003ci\u003eimmaculata conceptio?\u003c/i\u003e … I know of no book in which so many delicate\r\nand kindly things are said to woman, as in the Law-Rook of Manu; these\r\nold grey-beards and saints have a manner of being gallant to women\r\nwhich, perhaps, cannot be surpassed. “The mouth of a woman,” says Manu\r\non one occasion, “the breast of a maiden, the prayer of a child, and\r\nthe smoke of the sacrifice, are always pure.” Elsewhere he says: “there\r\nis nothing purer than the light of the sun, the shadow cast by a cow,\r\nair, water, fire and the breath of a maiden.” And finally—perhaps this\r\nis also a holy lie:—“all the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_216\"\u003e[Pg 216]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e openings of the body above the navel are\r\npure, all those below the navel are impure. Only in a maiden is the\r\nwhole body pure.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe unholiness of Christian means is caught \u003ci\u003ein flagranti,\u003c/i\u003e if only\r\nthe end aspired to by Christianity be compared with that of the\r\nLaw-Book of Manu; if only these two utterly opposed aims be put under\r\na strong light The critic of Christianity simply cannot avoid making\r\nChristianity \u003ci\u003econtemptible.\u003c/i\u003e—A Law-Book like that of Manu comes into\r\nbeing like every good law-book: it epitomises the experience, the\r\nprecautionary measures, and the experimental morality of long ages,\r\nit settles things definitely, it no longer creates. The prerequisite\r\nfor a codification of this kind, is the recognition of the fact that\r\nthe means which procure authority for a \u003ci\u003etruth\u003c/i\u003e to which it has cost\r\nboth time and great pains to attain, are fundamentally different from\r\nthose with which that same truth would be proved. A law-book never\r\nrelates the utility, the reasons, the preliminary casuistry, of a\r\nlaw: for it would be precisely in this way that it would forfeit its\r\nimperative tone, the “thou shalt,” the first condition of its being\r\nobeyed. The problem lies exactly in this.—At a certain stage in the\r\ndevelopment of a people, the most far-seeing class within it (that is\r\nto say, the class that sees farthest backwards and forwards), declares\r\nthe experience of how its fellow-creatures ought to live—\u003ci\u003ecan\u003c/i\u003e\r\nlive—to be finally settled. Its object is, to reap as rich and as\r\ncomplete a harvest as possible, in return for the ages of experiment\r\nand \u003ci\u003eterrible\u003c/i\u003e experience it has traversed. Consequently, that which\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_217\"\u003e[Pg 217]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nhas to be avoided, above all, is any further experimentation, the\r\ncontinuation of the state when values are still fluid, the testing,\r\nchoosing, and criticising of values \u003ci\u003ein infinitum. \u003c/i\u003e Against all this a\r\ndouble wall is built up: in the first place, \u003ci\u003eRevelation,\u003c/i\u003e which is the\r\nassumption that the rationale of every law is not human in its origin,\r\nthat it was not sought and found after ages of error, but that it is\r\ndivine in its origin, completely and utterly without a history, gift, a\r\nmiracle, a mere communication…. And secondly, \u003ci\u003etradition,\u003c/i\u003e which is\r\nthe assumption that the law has obtained since the most primeval times,\r\nthat it is impious and a crime against one’s ancestors to attempt to\r\ndoubt it. The authority of law is established on the principles: God\r\n\u003ci\u003egave\u003c/i\u003e it, the ancestors \u003ci\u003elived\u003c/i\u003e it.—The superior reason of such a\r\nprocedure lies in the intention to draw consciousness off step by step\r\nfrom that mode of life which has been recognised as correct (\u003ci\u003ei.e.,\r\nproved\u003c/i\u003e after enormous and carefully examined experience), so that\r\nperfect automatism of the instincts may be attained,—this being the\r\nonly possible basis of all mastery of every kind of perfection in\r\nthe Art of Life. To draw up a law-book like Manu’s, is tantamount\r\nto granting a people mastership for the future, perfection for the\r\nfuture,—the right to aspire to the highest Art of Life. \u003ci\u003eTo that\r\nend it must be made unconscious;\u003c/i\u003e this is the object of every holy\r\nlie.—\u003ci\u003eThe order of castes,\u003c/i\u003e the highest, the dominating law, is only\r\nthe sanction of a \u003ci\u003enatural order,\u003c/i\u003e of a natural legislation of the\r\nfirst rank, over which no arbitrary innovation, no “modern idea” has\r\nany power. Every healthy society falls into three distinct types, which\r\nreciprocally\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_218\"\u003e[Pg 218]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e condition one another and which gravitate differently in\r\nthe physiological sense; and each of these has its own hygiene, its\r\nown sphere of work, its own special feeling of perfection, and its\r\nown mastership. It is Nature, not Manu, that separates from the rest,\r\nthose individuals preponderating in intellectual power, those excelling\r\nin muscular strength and temperament, and the third class which is\r\ndistinguished neither in one way nor the other, the mediocre,—the\r\nlatter as the greatest number, the former as the \u003ci\u003eélite.\u003c/i\u003e The superior\r\ncaste—I call them the \u003ci\u003efewest,\u003c/i\u003e—has, as the perfect caste, the\r\nprivileges of the fewest: it devolves upon them to represent happiness,\r\nbeauty and goodness on earth. Only the most intellectual men have\r\nthe right to beauty, to the beautiful: only in them is goodness not\r\nweakness. \u003ci\u003ePulchrum est paucorum hominum:\u003c/i\u003e goodness is a privilege.\r\nOn the other hand there is nothing which they should be more strictly\r\nforbidden than repulsive manners or a pessimistic look, a look that\r\nmakes everything \u003ci\u003eseem ugly,\u003c/i\u003e—or even indignation at the general\r\naspect of things. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala, and so\r\nis pessimism. “\u003ci\u003eThe world is perfect\u003c/i\u003e”—that is what the instinct of\r\nthe most intellectual says, the yea-saying instinct; “imperfection,\r\nevery kind of \u003ci\u003einferiority\u003c/i\u003e to us, distance, the pathos of distance,\r\neven the Chandala belongs to this perfection.” The most intellectual\r\nmen, as the \u003ci\u003estrongest\u003c/i\u003e find their happiness where others meet\r\nwith their ruin: in the labyrinth, in hardness towards themselves\r\nand others, in endeavour; their delight is self-mastery: with them\r\nasceticism becomes a second nature, a need, an\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_219\"\u003e[Pg 219]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e instinct They regard\r\na difficult task as their privilege; to play with burdens which crush\r\ntheir fellows is to them a \u003ci\u003erecreation….\u003c/i\u003e Knowledge, a form of\r\nasceticism.—They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does\r\nnot prevent them from being the most cheerful and most gracious. They\r\nrule, not because they will, but because they \u003ci\u003eare;\u003c/i\u003e they are not at\r\nliberty to take a second place.—The second in rank are the guardians\r\nof the law, the custodians of order and of security, the noble\r\nwarriors, the king, above all, as the highest formula of the warrior,\r\nthe judge, and keeper of the law. The second in rank are the executive\r\nof the most intellectual, the nearest to them in duty, relieving them\r\nof all that is \u003ci\u003ecoarse\u003c/i\u003e in the work of ruling,—their retinue, their\r\nright hand, their best disciples. In all this, I repeat, there is\r\nnothing arbitrary, nothing “artificial,” that which is \u003ci\u003eotherwise\u003c/i\u003e is\r\nartificial,—by that which is otherwise, nature is put to shame…. The\r\norder of castes, and the order of rank merely formulates the supreme\r\nlaw of life itself; the differentiation of the three types is necessary\r\nfor the maintenance of society, and for enabling higher and highest\r\ntypes to be reared,—the \u003ci\u003einequality\u003c/i\u003e of rights is the only condition\r\nof there being rights at all.—A right is a privilege. And in his\r\nway, each has his privilege. Let us not underestimate the privileges\r\nof the \u003ci\u003emediocre.\u003c/i\u003e Life always gets harder towards the summit,—the\r\ncold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilisation is a\r\npyramid: it can stand only upon a broad base, its first prerequisite is\r\na strongly and soundly consolidated mediocrity. Handicraft, commerce,\r\nagriculture, science, the greater part of\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_220\"\u003e[Pg 220]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e art,—in a word, the whole\r\nrange of professional and business callings, is compatible only with\r\nmediocre ability and ambition; such pursuits would be out of place\r\namong exceptions, the instinct pertaining thereto would oppose not\r\nonly aristocracy but anarchy as well. The fact that one is publicly\r\nuseful, a wheel, a function, presupposes a certain natural destiny: it\r\nis not \u003ci\u003esociety,\u003c/i\u003e but the only kind of \u003ci\u003ehappiness\u003c/i\u003e of which the great\r\nmajority are capable, that makes them intelligent machines. For the\r\nmediocre it is a joy to be mediocre; in them mastery in one thing, a\r\nspeciality, is a natural instinct. It would be absolutely unworthy of\r\na profound thinker to see any objection in mediocrity \u003ci\u003eper se.\u003c/i\u003e For\r\nin itself it is the first essential condition under which exceptions\r\nare possible; a high culture is determined by it. When the exceptional\r\nman treats the mediocre with more tender care than he does himself or\r\nhis equals, this is not mere courtesy of heart on his part—but simply\r\nhis \u003ci\u003eduty.\u003c/i\u003e … Whom do I hate most among the rabble of the present\r\nday? The socialistic rabble, the Chandala apostles, who undermine the\r\nworking man’s instinct, his happiness and his feeling of contentedness\r\nwith his insignificant existence,—who make him envious, and who teach\r\nhim revenge. … The wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the\r\nclaim to equal rights. What is \u003ci\u003ebad?\u003c/i\u003e But I have already replied to\r\nthis: Everything that proceeds from weakness, envy and \u003ci\u003erevenge.\u003c/i\u003e—The\r\nanarchist and the Christian are offspring of the same womb….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn point of fact, it matters greatly to what end\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_221\"\u003e[Pg 221]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e one lies: whether one\r\npreserves or \u003ci\u003edestroys\u003c/i\u003e by means of falsehood. It is quite justifiable\r\nto bracket the \u003ci\u003eChristian\u003c/i\u003e and the \u003ci\u003eAnarchist\u003c/i\u003e together: their object,\r\ntheir instinct, is concerned only with destruction. The proof of this\r\nproposition can be read quite plainly from history: history spells it\r\nwith appalling distinctness. Whereas we have just seen a religious\r\nlegislation, whose object was to render the highest possible means of\r\nmaking life \u003ci\u003eflourish,\u003c/i\u003e and of making a grand organisation of society,\r\neternal,—Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an\r\norganisation, \u003ci\u003eprecisely because life flourishes through it.\u003c/i\u003e In the\r\none case, the net profit to the credit of reason, acquired through\r\nlong ages of experiment and of insecurity, is applied usefully to the\r\nmost remote ends, and the harvest, which is as large, as rich and\r\nas complete as possible, is reaped and garnered: in the other case,\r\non the contrary, the harvest is \u003ci\u003eblighted\u003c/i\u003e in a single night That\r\nwhich stood there, \u003ci\u003eære perennius,\u003c/i\u003e the \u003ci\u003eimperium Romanum,\u003c/i\u003e the most\r\nmagnificent form of organisation, under difficult conditions, that has\r\never been achieved, and compared with which everything that preceded,\r\nand everything which followed it, is mere patchwork, gimcrackery,\r\nand dilettantism,—those holy anarchists made it their “piety,” to\r\ndestroy “the world”—that is to say, the \u003ci\u003eimperium Romanum,\u003c/i\u003e until\r\nno two stones were left standing one on the other,—until even the\r\nTeutons and other clodhoppers were able to become master of it The\r\nChristian and the anarchist are both decadents; they are both incapable\r\nof acting in any other way than disintegratingly, poisonously and\r\nwitheringly,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_222\"\u003e[Pg 222]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e like \u003ci\u003eblood-suckers;\u003c/i\u003e they are both actuated by an\r\ninstinct of \u003ci\u003emortal hatred\u003c/i\u003e of everything that stands erect, that is\r\ngreat, that is lasting, and that is a guarantee of the future….\r\nChristianity was the vampire of the \u003ci\u003eimperium Romanum,\u003c/i\u003e—in a night\r\nit shattered the stupendous achievement of the Romans, which was to\r\nacquire the territory for a vast civilisation which could \u003ci\u003ebide its\r\ntime.\u003c/i\u003e—Does no one understand this yet? The \u003ci\u003eimperium Romanum\u003c/i\u003e that\r\nwe know, and which the history of the Roman province teaches us to\r\nknow ever more thoroughly, this most admirable work of art on a grand\r\nscale, was the beginning, its construction was calculated \u003ci\u003eto prove\u003c/i\u003e\r\nits worth by millenniums,—unto this day nothing has ever again been\r\nbuilt in this fashion, nor have men even dreamt since of building on\r\nthis scale \u003ci\u003esub specie aterni!\u003c/i\u003e—This organisation was sufficiently\r\nfirm to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personalities must\r\nhave nothing to do with such matters—the \u003ci\u003efirst\u003c/i\u003e principle of all\r\ngreat architecture. But it was not sufficiently firm to resist the\r\n\u003ci\u003ecorruptest\u003c/i\u003e form of corruption, to resist the Christians…. These\r\nstealthy canker-worms, which under the shadow of night, mist and\r\nduplicity, insinuated themselves into the company of every individual,\r\nand proceeded to drain him of all seriousness for \u003ci\u003ereal\u003c/i\u003e things,\r\nof all his instinct for \u003ci\u003erealities;\u003c/i\u003e this cowardly, effeminate and\r\nsugary gang have step by step alienated all “souls” from this colossal\r\nedifice,—those valuable, virile and noble natures who felt that\r\nthe cause of Rome was their own personal cause, their own personal\r\nseriousness, their own personal \u003ci\u003epride.\u003c/i\u003e The stealth of the bigot,\r\nthe\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_223\"\u003e[Pg 223]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell such as\r\nthe sacrifice of the innocent, the \u003ci\u003eunto mystica\u003c/i\u003e in the drinking\r\nof blood, above all the slowly kindled fire of revenge, of Chandala\r\nrevenge—such things became master of Rome, the same kind of religion\r\non the pre-existent form of which Epicurus had waged war. One has\r\nonly to read Lucretius in order to understand what Epicurus combated,\r\n\u003ci\u003enot\u003c/i\u003e Paganism, but “Christianity,” that is to say the corruption of\r\nsouls through the concept of guilt, through the concept of punishment\r\nand immortality. He combated the \u003ci\u003esubterranean\u003c/i\u003e cults, the whole of\r\nlatent Christianity—to deny immortality was at that time a genuine\r\n\u003ci\u003edeliverance.\u003c/i\u003e—And Epicurus had triumphed, every respectable thinker\r\nin the Roman Empire was an Epicurean: \u003ci\u003ethen St Paul appeared\u003c/i\u003e … St\r\nPaul, the Chandala hatred against Rome, against “the world,” the Jew,\r\nthe eternal Jew \u003ci\u003epar excellence,\u003c/i\u003e become flesh and genius. … What\r\nhe divined was, how, by the help of the small sectarian Christian\r\nmovement, independent of Judaism, a universal conflagration could be\r\nkindled; how, with the symbol of the “God on the Cross,” everything\r\nsubmerged, everything secretly insurrectionary, the whole offspring\r\nof anarchical intrigues could be gathered together to constitute an\r\nenormous power. “For salvation is of the Jews.”—Christianity is\r\nthe formula for the supersession, \u003ci\u003eand\u003c/i\u003e epitomising of all kinds of\r\nsubterranean cults, that of Osiris, of the Great Mother, of Mithras for\r\nexample: St Paul’s genius consisted in his discovery of this. In this\r\nmatter his instinct was so certain, that, regardless of doing violence\r\nto truth, he laid the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_224\"\u003e[Pg 224]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e ideas by means of which those Chandala religions\r\nfascinated, upon the very lips of the “Saviour” he had invented, and\r\nnot only upon his lips,—that he \u003ci\u003emade\u003c/i\u003e out of him something which even\r\na Mithras priest could understand…. This was his moment of Damascus:\r\nhe saw that he had \u003ci\u003eneed of\u003c/i\u003e the belief in immortality in order to\r\ndepreciate “the world,” that the notion of “hell” would become master\r\nof Rome, that with a “Beyond” \u003ci\u003ethis life\u003c/i\u003e can be killed. … Nihilist\r\nand Christian,—they rhyme in German, and they do not only rhyme.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe whole labour of the ancient world \u003ci\u003ein vain:\u003c/i\u003e I am at a loss for a\r\nword which could express my feelings at something so atrocious.—And\r\nin view of the fact that its labour was only preparatory, that with\r\nadamantine self-consciousness it laid the substructure, alone, to\r\na work which was to last millenniums, the whole \u003ci\u003esignificance\u003c/i\u003e of\r\nthe ancient world was certainly in vain!… What was the use of the\r\nGreeks? what was the use of the Romans?—All the prerequisites of a\r\nlearned culture, all the scientific methods already existed, the great\r\nand peerless art of reading well had already been established—that\r\nindispensable condition to tradition, to culture and to scientific\r\nunity; natural science hand in hand with mathematics and mechanics\r\nwas on the best possible road,—the sense for facts, the last and\r\nmost valuable of all senses, had its schools, and its tradition was\r\nalready centuries old! Is this understood? Everything \u003ci\u003eessential\u003c/i\u003e had\r\nbeen discovered to make it possible\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_225\"\u003e[Pg 225]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e for work to be begun:—methods,\r\nand this cannot be said too often, are the essential thing, also the\r\nmost difficult thing, while they moreover have to wage the longest war\r\nagainst custom and indolence. That which to-day we have successfully\r\nreconquered for ourselves, by dint of unspeakable self-discipline—for\r\nin some way or other all of us still have the bad instincts, the\r\nChristian instincts, in our body,—the impartial eye for reality,\r\nthe cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the smallest details,\r\ncomplete \u003ci\u003euprightness\u003c/i\u003e in knowledge,—all this was already there; it\r\nhad been there over two thousand years before! And in addition to this\r\nthere was also that excellent and subtle tact and taste! \u003ci\u003eNot\u003c/i\u003e in the\r\nform of brain drilling! \u003ci\u003eNot\u003c/i\u003e in the form of “German” culture with the\r\nmanners of a boor! But incarnate, manifesting itself in men’s bearing\r\nand in their instinct,—in short constituting reality…. \u003ci\u003eAll this\r\nin vain!\u003c/i\u003e In one night it became merely a memory!—The Greeks! The\r\nRomans! Instinctive nobility, instinctive taste, methodic research,\r\nthe genius of organisation and administration, faith, the \u003ci\u003ewill\u003c/i\u003e to\r\nthe future of mankind, the great \u003ci\u003eyea\u003c/i\u003e to all things materialised\r\nin the \u003ci\u003eimperium Romanum,\u003c/i\u003e become visible to all the senses, grand\r\nstyle no longer manifested in mere art, but in reality, in truth,\r\nin \u003ci\u003elife.\u003c/i\u003e—And buried in a night, not by a natural catastrophe!\r\nNot stamped to death by Teutons and other heavy-footed vandals!\r\nBut destroyed by crafty, stealthy, invisible anæmic vampires! Not\r\nconquered,—but only drained of blood!… The concealed lust of\r\nrevenge, miserable envy\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_226\"\u003e[Pg 226]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e become \u003ci\u003emaster!\u003c/i\u003e Everything wretched, inwardly\r\nailing, and full of ignoble feelings, the whole Ghetto-world of souls,\r\nwas in a trice \u003ci\u003euppermost!\u003c/i\u003e—One only needs to read any one of the\r\nChristian agitators—St Augustine, for instance,—in order to realise,\r\nin order to \u003ci\u003esmell,\u003c/i\u003e what filthy fellows came to the top in this\r\nmovement. You would deceive yourselves utterly if you supposed that the\r\nleaders of the Christian agitation showed any lack of understanding\r\n—Ah! they were shrewd, shrewd to the point of holiness were these\r\ndear old Fathers of the Church I What they lack is something quite\r\ndifferent. Nature neglected them,—it forgot to give them a modest\r\ndowry of decent, of respectable and of \u003ci\u003ecleanly\u003c/i\u003e instincts…. Between\r\nourselves, they are not even men. If Islam despises Christianity, it is\r\njustified a thousand times over; for Islam presupposes men.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eChristianity destroyed the harvest we might have reaped from the\r\nculture of antiquity, later it also destroyed our harvest of the\r\nculture of Islam. The wonderful Moorish world of Spanish culture, which\r\nin its essence is more closely related to \u003ci\u003eus,\u003c/i\u003e and which appeals\r\nmore to our sense and taste than Rome and Greece, was \u003ci\u003etrampled to\r\ndeath\u003c/i\u003e(—I do not say by what kind of feet), why?—because it owed\r\nits origin to noble, to manly instincts, because it said yea to life,\r\neven that life so full of the rare and refined luxuries of the Moors!\r\n… Later on the Crusaders waged war upon something before which it\r\nwould have been more seemly in them to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_227\"\u003e[Pg 227]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e grovel in the dust,—a culture,\r\nbeside which even our Nineteenth Century would seem very poor and\r\nvery “senile.”—Of course they wanted booty: the Orient was rich….\r\nFor goodness’ sake let us forget our prejudices! Crusades—superior\r\npiracy, that is all! German nobility—that is to say, a Viking nobility\r\nat bottom, was in its element in such wars: the Church was only too\r\nwell aware of how German nobility is to be won…. German nobility\r\nwas always the “Swiss Guard” of the Church, always at the service of\r\nall the bad instincts of the Church; but it was \u003ci\u003ewell paid for it\r\nall….\u003c/i\u003e Fancy the Church having waged its deadly war upon everything\r\nnoble on earth, precisely with the help of German swords, German blood\r\nand courage! A host of painful \u003ci\u003equestions\u003c/i\u003e might be raised on this\r\npoint German nobility scarcely takes a place in the history of higher\r\nculture: the reason of this is obvious; Christianity, alcohol—the two\r\n\u003ci\u003egreat\u003c/i\u003e means of corruption. As a matter of fact choice ought to be\r\njust as much out of the question between Islam and Christianity, as\r\nbetween an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already self-evident; nobody\r\nis at liberty to exercise a choice in this matter. A man is either of\r\nthe Chandala or he is \u003ci\u003enot …\u003c/i\u003e “War with Rome to the knife! Peace\r\nand friendship with Islam”: this is what that great free spirit, that\r\ngenius among German emperors,—Frederick the Second, not only felt\r\nbut also \u003ci\u003edid.\u003c/i\u003e What? Must a German in the first place be a genius, a\r\nfree-spirit, in order to have \u003ci\u003edecent\u003c/i\u003e feelings? I cannot understand\r\nhow a German was ever able to have \u003ci\u003eChristian\u003c/i\u003e feelings.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_228\"\u003e[Pg 228]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHere it is necessary to revive a memory which will be a hundred times\r\nmore painful to Germans. The Germans have destroyed the last great\r\nharvest of culture which was to be garnered for Europe,—it destroyed\r\nthe \u003ci\u003eRenaissance.\u003c/i\u003e Does anybody at last understand, \u003ci\u003ewill\u003c/i\u003e anybody\r\nunderstand what the Renaissance was? \u003ci\u003eThe transvaluation of Christian\r\nvalues,\u003c/i\u003e the attempt undertaken with all means, all instincts and all\r\ngenius to make the \u003ci\u003eopposite\u003c/i\u003e values, the \u003ci\u003enoble\u003c/i\u003e values triumph,…\r\nHitherto there has been only \u003ci\u003ethis\u003c/i\u003e great war: there has never yet\r\nbeen a more decisive question than the Renaissance,—\u003ci\u003emy\u003c/i\u003e question\r\nis the question of the Renaissance:—there has never been a more\r\nfundamental, a more direct and a more severe \u003ci\u003eattack,\u003c/i\u003e delivered with\r\na whole front upon the centre of the foe. To attack at the decisive\r\nquarter, at the very seat of Christianity, and there to place \u003ci\u003enoble\u003c/i\u003e\r\nvalues on the throne,—that is to say, to \u003ci\u003eintroduce\u003c/i\u003e them into the\r\ninstincts, into the most fundamental needs and desires of those\r\nsitting there…. I see before me a possibility perfectly magic in\r\nits charm and glorious colouring—it seems to me to scintillate\r\nwith all the quivering grandeur of refined beauty, that there is\r\nan art at work within it which is so divine, so infernally divine,\r\nthat one might seek through millenniums in vain for another such\r\npossibility; I see a spectacle so rich in meaning and so wonderfully\r\nparadoxical to boot, that it would be enough to make all the gods of\r\nOlympus rock with immortal laughter,—\u003ci\u003eCæsar Borgia as Pope.\u003c/i\u003e …\r\nDo you understand me?\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_229\"\u003e[Pg 229]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e … Very well then, this would have been the\r\ntriumph which I alone am longing for to-day:—this would have \u003ci\u003eswept\u003c/i\u003e\r\nChristianity \u003ci\u003eaway!\u003c/i\u003e—What happened? A German monk, Luther, came to\r\nRome. This monk, with all the vindictive instincts of an abortive\r\npriest in his body, foamed with rage over the Renaissance in Rome….\r\nInstead of, with the profoundest gratitude, understanding the vast\r\nmiracle that had taken place, the overcoming of Christianity at its\r\n\u003ci\u003eheadquarters,\u003c/i\u003e—the fire of his hate knew only how to draw fresh fuel\r\nfrom this spectacle. A religious man thinks only of himself.—Luther\r\nsaw the corruption of the Papacy when the very reverse stared him in\r\nthe face: the old corruption, the \u003ci\u003epeceatum originate,\u003c/i\u003e Christianity\r\n\u003ci\u003eno\u003c/i\u003e longer sat upon the Papal chair! But Life! The triumph of\r\nLife! The great yea to all lofty, beautiful and daring things!…\r\nAnd Luther reinstated the Church; he attacked it The Renaissance\r\nthus became an event without meaning, a great \u003ci\u003ein vain!\u003c/i\u003e—Ah these\r\nGermans, what have they not cost us already! In vain—this has always\r\nbeen the achievement of the Germans.—The Reformation, Leibniz,\r\nKant and so-called German philosophy, the Wars of Liberation, the\r\nEmpire—in each case are in vain for something which had already\r\nexisted, for something which \u003ci\u003ecannot be recovered.\u003c/i\u003e … I confess it,\r\nthese Germans are my enemies: I despise every sort of uncleanliness\r\nin concepts and valuations in them, every kind of cowardice in the\r\nface of every honest yea or nay. For almost one thousand years, now,\r\nthey have tangled and confused everything they have laid their hands\r\non; they have on their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_230\"\u003e[Pg 230]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e conscience all the half-measures, all the\r\nthree-eighth measures of which Europe is sick; they also have the\r\nmost unclean, the most incurable, and the most irrefutable kind of\r\nChristianity—Protestantism—on their conscience…. If we shall never\r\nbe able to get rid of Christianity, the \u003ci\u003eGermans\u003c/i\u003e will be to blame.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e—With this I will now conclude and pronounce my judgment. I \u003ci\u003econdemn\u003c/i\u003e\r\nChristianity and confront it with the most terrible accusation that\r\nan accuser has ever had in his mouth. To my mind it is the greatest\r\nof all conceivable corruptions, it has had the will to the last\r\nimaginable corruption. The Christian Church allowed nothing to escape\r\nfrom its corruption; it converted every value into its opposite, every\r\ntruth into a He, and every honest impulse into an ignominy of the\r\nsoul. Let anyone dare to speak to me of its humanitarian blessings!\r\nTo \u003ci\u003eabolish\u003c/i\u003e any sort of distress was opposed to its profoundest\r\ninterests; its very existence depended on states of distress; it\r\ncreated states of distress in order to make itself immortal…. The\r\ncancer germ of sin, for instance: the Church was the first to enrich\r\nmankind with this misery!—The “equality of souls before God,” this\r\nfalsehood, this \u003ci\u003epretext\u003c/i\u003e for the \u003ci\u003erancunes\u003c/i\u003e of all the base-minded,\r\nthis anarchist bomb of a concept, which has ultimately become the\r\nrevolution, the modern idea, the principle of decay of the whole of\r\nsocial order,—this is \u003ci\u003eChristian\u003c/i\u003e dynamite … The “humanitarian”\r\nblessings of Christianity! To breed a self-contradiction, an art of\r\nself-profanation, a will to lie at any price, an aversion,\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_231\"\u003e[Pg 231]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e a contempt\r\nof all good and honest instincts out of \u003ci\u003ehumanitas!\u003c/i\u003e Is this what you\r\ncall the blessings of Christianity?—Parasitism as the only method of\r\nthe Church; sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope of life\r\nout of mankind with anæmic and sacred ideals. A “Beyond” as the will to\r\ndeny all reality; the cross as the trade-mark of the most subterranean\r\nform of conspiracy that has ever existed,—against health, beauty,\r\nwell-constitutedness, bravery, intellect, kindliness of soul, \u003ci\u003eagainst\r\nLife itself….\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis eternal accusation against Christianity I would fain write on all\r\nwalls, wherever there are walls,—I have letters with which I can make\r\neven the blind see…. I call Christianity the one great curse, the one\r\nenormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge,\r\nfor which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and\r\ntoo \u003ci\u003epetty,\u003c/i\u003e—I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd \u003ci\u003etime\u003c/i\u003e is reckoned from the \u003ci\u003edies nefastus\u003c/i\u003e upon which this\r\nfatality came into being—from the first day of Christianity!—\u003ci\u003ewhy\r\nnot rather from its last day?—From to-day?\u003c/i\u003e—Transvaluation of all\r\nValues!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"r5\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_1_17\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_17\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e The German “\u003ci\u003eTüchtigkeit\u003c/i\u003e” has a nobler ring than our word\r\n“efficiency.”—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_2_18\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_2_18\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[2]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e \u003ci\u003eCf.\u003c/i\u003e Disraeli: “But enlightened Europe is not happy.\r\nIts existence is a fever which it calls progress. Progress to what?”\r\n(“Tancred,” Book III., Chap, vii.).—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_3_19\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_3_19\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[3]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e It will be seen from this that in spite of Nietzsche’s\r\nruthless criticism of the priests, he draws a sharp distinction between\r\nChristianity and the Church. As the latter still contained elements\r\nof order, it was more to his taste than the denial of authority\r\ncharacteristic of real Christianity.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_4_20\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_4_20\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[4]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e “\u003ci\u003ereine Thorheit\u003c/i\u003e” in the German text, referring once\r\nagain to Parsifal.—Tr.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_5_21\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_5_21\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[5]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e This applies apparently to Bismarck, the forger of the Ems\r\ntelegram and a sincere Christian.—Tr.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_6_22\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_6_22\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[6]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e An adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Well roared, lion” (\u003ci\u003eMid.\r\nN. D.,\u003c/i\u003e Act 5, Sc. i.), the lion, as is well known, being the symbol\r\nfor St Mark in Christian literature and Art—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_7_23\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_7_23\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[7]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e A parody on a line in Schiller’s \u003ci\u003e“Jungfrau von Orleans”\u003c/i\u003e\r\n(Act 3, Sc. vi.): “\u003ci\u003eMit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.\u003c/i\u003e”\r\n(With stupidity even the gods themselves struggle in vain).—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_8_24\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_8_24\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[8]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e ἒφεξις = Lat. Retentio, Inhibitio (Stephanus, Thesaurus\r\nGræcæ Linguæ); therefore: reserve, caution. The Greek Sceptics were\r\nalso called Ephectics owing to their caution in judging and in\r\nconcluding from facts.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_9_25\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_9_25\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[9]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e The following passage from Multatuti will throw light on\r\nthis passage:—\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n“Father:—‘Behold, my son, how wisely Providence has arranged\r\neverything! This bird lays its eggs in its nest and the young will be\r\nhatched just about the time when there will be worms and flies with\r\nwhich to feed them. Then they will sing a song of praise in honour of\r\nthe Creator who overwhelms his creatures with blessings.’—\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\r\n”Son:—‘Will the worms join in the song, Dad?’“.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_10_26\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_10_26\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[10]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e “Thus Spake Zarathustra.” The Priests.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca id=\"Footnote_11_27\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_11_27\" class=\"pginternal\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[11]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e I Corinthians vii. 2, 9.—TR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_232\"\u003e[Pg 232]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch3\u003e \u003ca id=\"THE_ETERNAL_RECURRENCE\"\u003eTHE ETERNAL RECURRENCE\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003eAND\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003ch3\u003eEXPLANATORY NOTES TO “THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA.”\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_235\"\u003e[Pg 235]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003eTRANSLATOR’S PREFACE\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe notes concerning the Eternal Recurrence, in this volume, are said\r\nby Mrs Foerster-Nietzsche to have been the first that Nietzsche ever\r\nwrote on the subject of his great doctrine. This being so, they must\r\nhave been composed towards the autumn of the year 1881.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI have already pointed out elsewhere (\u003ci\u003eWill to Power,\u003c/i\u003e vol. ii.,\r\nTranslator’s Preface) how much importance Nietzsche himself ascribed\r\nto this doctrine, and how, until the end, he regarded it as the\r\ninspiration which had led to his chief work, \u003ci\u003eThus Spake Zarathustra.\u003c/i\u003e\r\nFor the details relating to its inception, however, I would refer the\r\nreader to Mrs Foerster-Nietzsche’s Introduction to her brother’s chief\r\nwork, which was translated for the eleventh volume of this Edition of\r\nthe Complete Works.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn reading these notes it would be well to refer to Nietzsche’s other\r\nutterances on the subject which are to be found at the end of vol.\r\nii. of the \u003ci\u003eWill to Power,\u003c/i\u003e and also, if possible, to have recourse\r\nto the original German text. Despite the greatest care, I confess\r\nthat in some instances, I have felt a little doubt as to the precise\r\nEnglish equivalent for the thoughts expressed under the heading\r\n\u003ci\u003eEternal Recurrence;\u003c/i\u003e and, though I have attributed this difficulty to\r\nthe extreme novelty of the manner in which the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_236\"\u003e[Pg 236]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e subject is presented,\r\nit is well that the reader should be aware that such doubt has been\r\nentertained. For I disbelieve utterly in mere verbal translation,\r\nhowever accurate, and would question anybody’s right to convert a\r\nGerman sentence into English—even though he were so perfect in\r\nboth languages as to be almost absolutely bilingual,—if he did not\r\ncompletely grasp the thought behind the sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe writing of the collected Explanatory Notes to \u003ci\u003eThus Spake\r\nZarathustra\u003c/i\u003e, cannot be given any exact date. Some of them consist of\r\ncomments, written down by Nietzsche after the completion of the book,\r\nand kept as the nucleus of an actual commentary to Zarathustra, which\r\nit seems to have been his intention, one day, to write; while others\r\nare merely memoranda and rough sketches, probably written before the\r\ncompletion of the work, and which served the purpose of a draft of his\r\noriginal plan. The reader who knows \u003ci\u003eThus Spake Zarathustra\u003c/i\u003e will be\r\nable to tell wherein the book ultimately differed from the plan visible\r\nin these preliminary notes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs an authoritative, though alas! all too fragmentary elucidation of a\r\nfew of the more obscure passages of Zarathustra, some of these notes\r\nare of the greatest value; and, in paragraph 73, for instance, there\r\nis an interpretation of the Fourth and Last Part, which I myself would\r\nhave welcomed with great enthusiasm, at the time when I was having my\r\nfirst struggles with the spirit of this great German sage’s life work.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 65%; font-size: 0.8em;\"\u003eANTHONY M. LUDOVICI.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003chr class=\"chap\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_237\"\u003e[Pg 237]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"I_ETERNAL_RECURRENCE\"\u003eI. ETERNAL RECURRENCE\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003e1. THE DOCTRINE EXPOUNDED AND SUBSTANTIATED.\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe extent of universal energy is limited; it is not “infinite”: we\r\nshould beware of such excesses in our concepts! Consequently the number\r\nof states, changes, combinations, and evolutions of this energy,\r\nalthough it may be enormous and practically incalculable, is at any\r\nrate definite and not unlimited. The time, however, in which this\r\nuniversal energy works its changes is infinite—that is to say, energy\r\nremains eternally the same and is eternally active:—at this moment an\r\ninfinity has already elapsed, that is to say, every possible evolution\r\nmust already have taken place. Consequently the present process of\r\nevolution must be a repetition, as was also the one before it, as will\r\nalso be the one which will follow. And so on forwards and backwards!\r\nInasmuch as the entire state of all forces continually returns,\r\neverything has existed an infinite number of times. Whether, apart from\r\nthis, anything exactly like something that formerly existed has ever\r\nappeared, is completely beyond proof. It would seem that each complete\r\nstate of energy forms all qualities afresh even to the smallest\r\ndegree, so that two different complete states could have nothing in\r\ncommon.\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_238\"\u003e[Pg 238]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Is it to be supposed that in one and the same complete states\r\ntwo precisely similar things could appear—for instance two leaves?\r\nI doubt it: it would take for granted that they had both had an\r\nabsolutely similar origin, and in that case we should have to assume\r\nthat right back in infinity two similar things had also existed despite\r\nall the changes in the complete states and their creation of new\r\nqualities—an impossible assumption.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFormerly it was thought that unlimited energy was a necessary corollary\r\nto unlimited activity in time, and that this energy could be exhausted\r\nby no form of consumption. Now it is thought that energy remains\r\nconstant and docs not require to be infinite. It is eternally active\r\nbut it is no longer able eternally to create new forms, it must repeat\r\nitself: that is my conclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAn incalculable number of complete states of energy have existed,\r\nbut these have not been infinitely different: for if they had been,\r\nunlimited energy would have been necessary. The energy of the universe\r\ncan only have a given number of possible qualities.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe endless evolution of new forms is a contradiction, for it would\r\nimply eternally increasing energy. But whence would it grow? Whence\r\nwould it derive its nourishment and its surplus of nourishment?\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_239\"\u003e[Pg 239]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e The\r\nassumption that the universe is an organism contradicts the very\r\nessence of the organic.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn what principle and belief is that decisive turning point in\r\nphilosophical thought best expressed which has come into being thanks\r\nto the preponderance of the scientific spirit over the religious and\r\nGod-creating one? We insist upon the fact that the world as a sum of\r\nenergy must not be regarded as unlimited—we forbid ourselves the\r\nconcept infinite energy, because it seems incompatible with the concept\r\nenergy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAn unlimited number of new changes and states on the part of limited\r\nenergy is a contradiction, however extensive one may imagine it to be,\r\nand however economical the changes may be, provided it is infinite.\r\nWe are therefore forced to conclude: (1) either that the universe\r\nbegan its activity at a given moment of time and will end in a similar\r\nfashion,—but the beginning of activity is absurd; if a state of\r\nequilibrium had been reached it would have persisted to all eternity;\r\n(2) Or there is no such thing as an endless number of changes, but\r\na circle consisting of a definite number of them which continually\r\nrecurs: activity is eternal, the number of the products and states of\r\nenergy is limited.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf all the possible combinations and relations of forces had not\r\nalready been exhausted, then an infinity would not yet lie behind\r\nus. Now since\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_240\"\u003e[Pg 240]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e infinite time must be assumed, no fresh possibility\r\ncan exist and everything must have appeared already, and moreover an\r\ninfinite number of times.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe present world of forces leads back to a state of greatest\r\nsimplicity in these forces: it likewise leads forwards to such a\r\nstate,—cannot and must not \u003ci\u003eboth\u003c/i\u003e states be identical? No incalculable\r\nnumber of states can evolve out of a system of limited forces, that\r\nis to say, out of a given quantity of energy which may be precisely\r\nmeasured. Only when we falsely assume that space is unlimited, and that\r\ntherefore energy gradually becomes dissipated, can the final state be\r\nan unproductive and lifeless one.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFirst principles.—The last physical state of energy which we can\r\nimagine must necessarily be the first also. The absorption of energy\r\nin latent energy must be the cause of the production of the most vital\r\nenergy. For a highly positive state must follow a negative state Space\r\nlike matter is a subjective form, time is not. The notion of space\r\nfirst arose from the assumption that space could be empty. But there is\r\nno such thing as empty space. Everything is energy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe cannot think of that which moves and that which is moved together,\r\nbut both these things constitute matter and space. We isolate.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eConcerning the resurrection of the world.—Out\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_241\"\u003e[Pg 241]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of two negatives, when\r\nthey are forces, a positive arises. (Darkness comes of light opposed to\r\nlight, cold arises from warmth opposed to warmth, \u0026amp;c., \u0026amp;c.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAn uncertain state of equilibrium occurs just as seldom in nature as\r\ntwo absolutely equal triangles. Consequently anything like a static\r\nstate of energy in general is impossible. If stability were possible it\r\nwould already have been reached.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEither complete equilibrium must in itself be an impossibility, or\r\nthe changes of energy introduce themselves in the circular process\r\nbefore that equilibrium which is in itself possible has appeared.—But\r\nit would be madness to ascribe a feeling of self-preservation to\r\nexistence! And the same applies to the conception of a contest of pain\r\nand pleasure among atoms.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePhysics supposes that energy may be divided up: but every one of its\r\npossibilities must first be adjusted to reality. There can therefore\r\nbe no question of dividing energy into equal parts; in every one of\r\nits states it manifests a certain quality, and qualities cannot be\r\nsubdivided: hence a state of equilibrium in energy is impossible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf energy had ever reached a stage of equilibrium that stage would\r\nhave persisted: it has therefore\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_242\"\u003e[Pg 242]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e never reached such a stage. The\r\npresent condition of things contradicts this assumption. If we assume\r\nthat there has ever been a state absolutely like the present one this\r\nassumption is in no wise refuted by the present state. For, among\r\nall the endless possibilities, this case must already have occurred,\r\nas an infinity is already behind us. If equilibrium were possible it\r\nwould already have been reached.—And if this momentary state has\r\nalready existed then that which bore it and the previous one also would\r\nlikewise have existed and so on backwards,—and from this it follows\r\nthat it has already existed not only twice but three times,—just as it\r\nwill exist again not only twice but three times,—in fact an infinite\r\nnumber of times backwards and forwards. That is to say, the whole\r\nprocess of Becoming consists of a repetition of a definite number of\r\nprecisely similar states.—Clearly the human brain cannot be left to\r\nimagine the whole series of possibilities: but in any case, quite apart\r\nfrom our ability to judge or our inability to conceive the whole range\r\nof possibilities, the present state at least is a possible one—because\r\nit is a real one. We should therefore say: in the event of the number\r\nof possibilities not being infinite, and assuming that in the course of\r\nunlimited time a limited number of these must appear, all real states\r\nmust have been preceded by similar states? Because from every given\r\nmoment a whole infinity is to be calculated backwards? The stability of\r\nforces and their equilibrium is a possible alternative: but it has not\r\nbeen reached; consequently the number of possibilities is greater than\r\nthe number of real states. The fact that nothing similar recurs could\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_243\"\u003e[Pg 243]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\nnot be explained by appealing to accident, but only by supposing that a\r\ncertain intention, that no similar things should recur, were actually\r\ninherent in the essence of energy: for, if we grant that the number of\r\ncases is enormous, the occurrence of like cases is more probable than\r\nabsolute disparity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us think backwards a moment If the world had a goal, this goal\r\nmust have been reached: if a certain (unintentional) final state\r\nexisted for the world, this state also would have been reached. If\r\nit were in any way capable of a stationary or stable condition, and\r\nif in the whole course of its existence only one second of Being, in\r\nthe strict sense of the word, had been possible, then there could\r\nno longer be such a process as evolution, and therefore no thinking\r\nand no observing of such a process. If on the other hand the world\r\nwere something which continually renovated itself, it would then be\r\nunderstood to be something miraculous and free to create itself—in\r\nfact something divine. Eternal renovation presupposes that energy\r\nvoluntarily increases itself, that it not only has the intention, but\r\nalso the power, to avoid repeating itself or to avoid returning into a\r\nprevious form, and that every instant it adjusts itself in every one of\r\nits movements to prevent such a contingency,—or that it was incapable\r\nof returning to a state it had already passed through. That would\r\nmean that the whole sum of energy was not constant, any more than its\r\nattributes were But a sum of energy which would be inconstant and which\r\nwould fluctuate is quite unthinkable Let us not indulge\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_244\"\u003e[Pg 244]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e our fancy\r\nany longer with unthinkable things in order to fall once more before\r\nthe concept of a Creator (multiplication out of nothing, reduction\r\nout of nothing, absolute arbitrariness and freedom in growth and in\r\nqualities):—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHe who does not believe in the circular process of the universe must\r\npin his faith to an arbitrary God—thus my doctrine becomes necessary\r\nas opposed to all that has been said hitherto in matters of Theism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesis which I would oppose to that of the eternal circular\r\nprocess:—Would it be just as possible to explain the laws of the\r\nmechanical world as exceptions and seemingly as accidents among the\r\nthings of the universe, as one possibility only among an incalculable\r\nnumber of possibilities? Would it be possible to regard ourselves\r\nas accidentally thrust into this corner of the mechanical universal\r\narrangement?—That all chemical philosophy is likewise an exception\r\nand an accident in the world’s economy, and finally that organic life\r\nis a mere exception and accident in the chemical world? Should we have\r\nto assume as the most general form of existence a world which was\r\nnot yet mechanical, which was outside all mechanical laws (although\r\naccessible to them)?—and that as a matter of fact this world would\r\nbe the most general now and for evermore, so that the origin of the\r\nmechanical world would be a lawless game which would ultimately acquire\r\nsuch consistency as the organic laws seem to have now\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_245\"\u003e[Pg 245]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e from our point\r\nof view? So that all our mechanical laws would be not eternal, but\r\nevolved, and would have survived innumerable different mechanical\r\nlaws, or that they had attained supremacy in isolated corners of the\r\nworld and not in others?—It would seem that we need caprice, actual\r\nlawlessness, and only a capacity for law, a primeval state of stupidity\r\nwhich is not even able to concern itself with mechanics? The origin of\r\nqualities presupposes the existence of quantities, and these, for their\r\npart, might arise from a thousand kinds of mechanical processes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIs not the existence of some sort of irregularity and incomplete\r\ncircular form in the world about us, a sufficient refutation of\r\nthe regular circularity of everything that exists? Whence comes\r\nthis variety within the circular process? Is not everything far too\r\ncomplicated to have been the outcome of unity? And are not the many\r\nchemical laws and likewise the organic species and forms inexplicable\r\nas the result of homogeneity? or of duality?—Supposing there were\r\nsuch a thing as a regular contracting energy in all the centres of\r\nforce in the universe, the question would be, whence could the most\r\ninsignificant difference spring? For then the whole world would have\r\nto be resolved into innumerable completely equal rings and spheres of\r\nexistence and we should have an incalculable number of exactly equal\r\nworlds side by side. Is it necessary for me to assume this? Must I\r\nsuppose that an eternal sequence of like worlds also involves eternal\r\njuxta-position of like worlds? But the multifariousness and disorder\r\nin the world which we have known\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_246\"\u003e[Pg 246]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e hitherto contradicts this; no such\r\nuniversal similarity has existed in evolution, for in that case even\r\nfor our part of the cosmos a regular spherical form must have been\r\nformed. Should the production of qualities not be subject to any strict\r\nlaws? Can it be possible that different things have been derived from\r\n“energy”? Arbitrarily? Is the conformity to law which we observe\r\nperhaps only a deception? Is it possible that it is not a primeval law?\r\nIs it possible that the multifariousness of qualities even in our part\r\nof the world is the result of the absolute occurrence of arbitrary\r\ncharacteristics? But that these characteristics no longer appear in our\r\ncorner of the globe? Or that our corner of existence has adopted a rule\r\nwhich we call cause and effect when all the while it is no such thing\r\n(an arbitrary phenomenon become a rule, as for instance oxygen and\r\nhydrogen in chemistry)??? Is this rule simply a protracted kind of mood?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf the universe had been able to become an organism it would have\r\nbecome one already. \u003ci\u003eAs\u003c/i\u003e a whole we must try and regard it in the\r\nlight of a thing \u003ci\u003eas\u003c/i\u003e remote \u003ci\u003eas possible\u003c/i\u003e from the organic. I believe\r\nthat even our chemical affinity and coherence may be perhaps recently\r\nevolved and that these appearances only occur in certain corners of\r\nthe universe at certain epochs. Let us believe in absolute necessity\r\nin the universe but let us guard against postulating any sort of law,\r\neven if it be a primitive and mechanical one of our own experience,\r\nas ruling over the whole and constituting one of its eternal\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_247\"\u003e[Pg 247]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncharacteristics.—All chemical qualities might have been evolved and\r\nmight disappear and return. Innumerable characteristics might have been\r\ndeveloped which for us,—from our limited point of view in time and\r\nspace, defy observation. The transformation of a chemical quality may\r\nperhaps now be taking place, but so slowly that it escapes our most\r\ndelicate calculations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInorganic matter, even though in most cases it may once have\r\nbeen organic, can have stored up no experience,—it is always\r\nwithout a pastl If the reverse were the case a repetition would be\r\nimpossible—for then matter would for ever be producing new qualities\r\nwith new pasts.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must guard against ascribing any aspiration or any goal to this\r\ncircular process: Likewise we must not, from the point of view of our\r\nown needs, regard it as either monotonous or foolish, \u0026amp;c. We may grant\r\nthat the greatest possible irrationality, as also its reverse, may be\r\nan essential feature of it: but we must not value it according to this\r\nhypothesis. Rationality or irrationality cannot stand as attributes of\r\nthe universe.—We must not think of the law of this circular process as\r\na thing evolved, by drawing false analogies with the circular motions\r\noccurring \u003ci\u003ewithin\u003c/i\u003e the circle. There was no primitive chaos followed\r\ngradually by a more harmonious and finally definite circular motion of\r\nall forces: On the contrary everything is eternal and unevolved. If\r\nthere ever was a chaos of forces, then that chaos\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_248\"\u003e[Pg 248]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e itself was eternal\r\nand was repeated at its particular moment of time in the turn of the\r\nworld wheel. The circular process is not the outcome of evolution, it\r\nis a primitive principle like the quantum of energy, and allows of no\r\nexception or violation. All Becoming takes place within the circular\r\nprocess and the quantum of energy which constitutes it: therefore we\r\nmust not apply ephemeral processes like those for instance of heavenly\r\nbodies, of the ebb and flow of tides, of day and night, of the seasons,\r\nto the drawing of analogies for characterising the eternal circular\r\nprocess.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe “chaos of the universe,” inasmuch as it excludes any aspiration to\r\na goal, does not oppose the thought of the circular process: the latter\r\nis simply an irrational necessity, absolutely free from any formal\r\nethical or æsthetical significance. Arbitrariness in small things as in\r\ngreat is completely lacking here.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us guard against believing that the universe has a tendency to\r\nattain to certain forms, or that it aims at becoming more beautiful,\r\nmore perfect, more complicated! All that is anthropomorphism! Anarchy,\r\nugliness, form—are unrelated concepts. There is no such thing as\r\nimperfection in the realm of mechanics.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEverything has returned: Sirius, and the spider, and thy thoughts at\r\nthis moment, and this last thought of thine that all these things will\r\nreturn.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_249\"\u003e[Pg 249]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOur whole world consists of the ashes of an incalculable number of\r\nliving creatures: and even if living matter is ever so little compared\r\nwith the whole, everything has already been transformed into life once\r\nbefore and thus the process goes on. If we grant eternal time we must\r\nassume the eternal change of matter.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhoever thou mayest be, beloved stranger, whom I meet here for the\r\nfirst time, avail thyself of this happy hour and of the stillness\r\naround us, and above us, and let me tell thee something of the thought\r\nwhich has suddenly risen before me like a star which would fain shed\r\ndown its rays upon thee and every one, as befits the nature of light—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe world of energy suffers no diminution: otherwise with eternal\r\ntime it would have grown weak and finally have perished altogether.\r\nThe world of energy suffers no stationary state, otherwise this would\r\nalready have been reached, and the clock of the universe would be at\r\na standstill. The world of energy does not therefore reach a state of\r\nequilibrium; for no instant in its career has it had rest; its energy\r\nand its movement have been the same for all time. Whatever state this\r\nworld could have reached must ere now have been attained, and not\r\nonly once but an incalculable number of times. This applies to this\r\nvery moment It has already been here once before, and several times,\r\nand will recur\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_250\"\u003e[Pg 250]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e in the same way, with all forces distributed as they\r\nare to-day: and the same holds good of the moment of time which bore\r\nthe present and of that which shall be the child of the present.\r\nFellow-man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed\r\nand will ever run out again,—a long minute of time will elapse until\r\nall those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel\r\nof the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every\r\npleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error,\r\nevery blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole\r\nfabric of things that makes up your life. This ring in which you are\r\nbut a grain will glitter afresh for ever. And in every one of these\r\ncycles of human life there will be one hour where for the first time\r\none man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal\r\nrecurrence of all things:—and for mankind this is always the hour of\r\nNoon.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch5\u003e2. THE EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE UPON MANKIND\u003c/h5\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow can we give weight to our inner life without making it evil and\r\nfanatical towards people who think otherwise. Religious belief is\r\ndeclining and man is beginning to regard himself as ephemeral and\r\nunessential, a point of view which is making him weak; he does not\r\nexercise so much effort in striving or enduring. What he wants is\r\nmomentary enjoyment He would make things light for himself,—and a good\r\ndeal of his spirit gets squandered in this endeavour.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_251\"\u003e[Pg 251]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe political mania at which I smile just as merrily as my\r\ncontemporaries smile at the religious mania of former times is above\r\nall Materialism, a belief in the world, and in the repudiation of a\r\n“Beyond,” of a “back-world.” The object of those who believe in the\r\nlatter is the well-being of the ephemeral individual: that is why\r\nSocialism is its fruit; for with Socialism ephemeral individuals wish\r\nto secure their happiness by means of socialisation. They have no\r\nreason to wait, as those men had who believed in eternal souls, in\r\neternal development and eternal amelioration. My doctrine is: Live\r\nso that thou mayest desire to live again,—that is thy duty,—for in\r\nany case thou wilt live again He unto whom striving is the greatest\r\nhappiness, let him strive; he unto whom peace is the greatest\r\nhappiness, let him rest; he unto whom subordination, following,\r\nobedience, is the greatest happiness, let him obey. All that is\r\nnecessary is that he should know what it is that gives him the highest\r\nhappiness, and to fight shy of no means! Eternity is at stake!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“But if everything is necessary, what control have I over my actions?”\r\nThought and faith are a form of ballast which burden thee in addition\r\nto other burdens thou mayest have, and which are even more weighty than\r\nthe latter. Sayest thou that nutrition, the land of thy birth, air, and\r\nsociety change thee and determine thee? Well, thy opinions do this to\r\na much greater degree, for they even prescribe\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_252\"\u003e[Pg 252]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e thy nourishment, thy\r\nland of adoption, thy atmosphere, and thy society for thee.—If thou\r\never assimilatest the thought of thoughts it will also alter thee. The\r\nquestion which thou wilt have to answer before every deed that thou\r\ndoest: “is this such a deed as I am prepared to perform an incalculable\r\nnumber of times?” is the best ballast.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe mightiest of all thoughts absorbs a good deal of energy which\r\nformerly stood at the disposal of other aspirations, and in this way\r\nit exercises a modifying influence; it creates new laws of motion in\r\nenergy, though no new energy. But it is precisely in this respect that\r\nthere lies some possibility of determining new emotions and new desires\r\nin men.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us try and discover how the thought that something gets repeated\r\nhas affected mankind hitherto (the year, for instance, or periodical\r\nillnesses, waking and sleeping, \u0026amp;). Even supposing the recurrence of\r\nthe cycle is only a probability or a possibility, even a thought, even\r\na possibility, can shatter us and transform us. It is not only feelings\r\nand definite expectations that do this! See what effect the thought of\r\neternal damnation has had!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the moment when this thought begins to prevail all colours will\r\nchange their hue and a new history will begin.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_253\"\u003e[Pg 253]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe history of the future: this thought will tend to triumph ever more\r\nand more, and those who disbelieve in it will be forced, according to\r\ntheir nature, ultimately to die out.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHe, alone, who will regard his existence as capable of eternal\r\nrecurrence will remain over: but among such as these a state will be\r\npossible of which the imagination of no utopist has ever dreamt!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eYe fancy that ye will have a long rest ere your second birth takes\r\nplace,—but do not deceive yourselves! ’Twixt your last moment of\r\nconsciousness and the first ray of the dawn of your new life no time\r\nwill elapse,—as a flash of lightning will the space go by, even though\r\nliving creatures think it is billions of years, and are not even able\r\nto reckon it. Timelessness and immediate re-birth are compatible, once\r\nintellect is eliminated!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThou feelest that thou must soon take thy leave perhaps—and the sunset\r\nglow of this feeling pierces through thy happiness. Give heed to this\r\nsign: it means that thou lovest life and thyself, and life as it has\r\nhitherto affected thee and moulded thee,—and that thou cravest for its\r\neternity—\u003ci\u003eNon alia sed hac vita sempiterna!\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eKnow also, that transiency singeth its short song for ever afresh and\r\nthat at the sound of the first verse thou wilt almost die of longing\r\nwhen thou thinkest that it might be for the last time.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_254\"\u003e[Pg 254]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us stamp the impress of eternity upon our lives! This thought\r\ncontains more than all the religions which taught us to contemn this\r\nlife as a thing ephemeral, which bade us squint upwards to another and\r\nindefinite existence.—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must not strive after distant and unknown states of bliss and\r\nblessings and acts of grace, but we must live so that we would fain\r\nlive again and live for ever so, to all eternity!—Our duty is present\r\nwith us every instant.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe leading tendencies: (1) We must implant the love of life, the\r\nlove of every man’s own life in every conceivable way! However each\r\nindividual may understand this love of self his neighbour will\r\nacquiesce, and will have to learn great tolerance towards it: however\r\nmuch it may often run counter to his taste,—provided the individual in\r\nquestion really helps to increase his joy in his own life!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e(2) We must all be one in our hostility towards everything and\r\neverybody who tends to cast a slur upon the value of life: towards\r\nall gloomy, dissatisfied and brooding natures. We must prevent these\r\nfrom procreating! But our hostility itself must be a means to our joy!\r\nThus we shall laugh; we shall mock and we shall exterminate without\r\nbitterness I Let this be our mortal combat\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis life is thy eternal life!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_255\"\u003e[Pg 255]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat was the cause of the downfall of the Alexandrian culture? With all\r\nits useful discoveries and its desire to investigate the nature of this\r\nworld, it did not know how to lend this life its ultimate importance,\r\nthe thought of a Beyond was more important to it! To teach anew in\r\nthis regard is still the most important thing of all:—perhaps if\r\nmetaphysics are applied to this life in the most emphatic way,—as in\r\nthe case of my doctrine!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis doctrine is lenient towards those who do not believe in it It\r\nspeaks of no hells and it contains no threats. He who does not believe\r\nin it has but a fleeting life in his consciousness.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt would be terrible if we still believed in sin, but whatever we may\r\ndo, however often we may repeat it, it is all innocent. If the thought\r\nof the eternal recurrence of all things does not overwhelm thee, then\r\nit is not thy fault: and if it does overwhelm thee, this does not stand\r\nto thy merit either.—We think more leniently of our forebears than\r\nthey themselves thought of themselves; we mourn over the errors which\r\nwere to them constitutional; but we do not mourn over their evil.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us guard against teaching such a doctrine as if it were a suddenly\r\ndiscovered religion! It\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_256\"\u003e[Pg 256]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e must percolate through slowly, and whole\r\ngenerations must build on it and become fruitful through it,—in order\r\nthat it may grow into a large tree which will shelter all posterity.\r\nWhat are the two thousand years in which Christianity has maintained\r\nits sway? For the mightiest thought of all many millenniums will be\r\nnecessary,—long, long, long will it have to remain puny and weak!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFor this thought we do not require thirty years of glory with drums\r\nand fifes, and thirty years of grave-digging followed by an eternity\r\nof macaberesque stillness, as is the case with so many other famous\r\nthoughts.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSimple and well-nigh arid as it is, this thought must not even require\r\neloquence to uphold it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAre ye now prepared? Ye must have experienced every form of\r\nscepticism and ye must have wallowed with voluptuousness in ice-cold\r\nbaths,—otherwise ye have no right to this thought; I wish to protect\r\nmyself against those who are over-ready to believe, likewise against\r\nthose who gush over anything! I would defend my doctrine in advance.\r\nIt must be the religion of the freest, most cheerful and most sublime\r\nsouls, a delightful pastureland somewhere between golden ice and a pure\r\nheaven!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_259\"\u003e[Pg 259]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003ch4\u003e \u003ca id=\"THUS_SPAKE_ZARATHUSTRA\"\u003eEXPLANATORY NOTES TO “THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA”\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAll goals have been annihilated: valuations are turning against each\r\nother:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople call him good who hearkens to the dictates of his own heart, but\r\nthey also call him good who merely does his duty;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople call the mild and conciliating man good, but they also call him\r\ngood who is brave, inflexible and severe;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople call him good who does not do violence to himself, but they also\r\ncall the heroes of self-mastery good;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople call the absolute friend of truth good-, but they also call him\r\ngood who is pious and a transfigurer of things;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople call him good who can obey his own voice, but they also call the\r\ndevout man good;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople call the noble and the haughty man good, but also him who does\r\nnot despise and who does not assume condescending airs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople call him good who is kindhearted and who steps out of the way of\r\nbroils, but he who thirsts for fight and triumph is also called good;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePeople call him good who always wishes to be first, but they also call\r\nhim good who does not wish to be ahead of anybody in anything.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_260\"\u003e[Pg 260]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe possess a powerful store of moral \u003ci\u003efeelings,\u003c/i\u003e but we have no goal\r\nfor them all. They mutually contradict each other: they have their\r\norigin in different tables of values.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is a wonderful amount of moral power, but there is no longer any\r\ngoal towards which all this power can be directed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAll goals have been annihilated, mankind must give themselves a fresh\r\ngoal. It is an error to suppose that they had one: they gave themselves\r\nall the goals they ever had. But the prerequisites of all previous\r\ngoals have been annihilated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eScience traces the course of things but points to no goal: what it does\r\ngive consists of the fundamental facts upon which the new goal must be\r\nbased.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe profound sterility of the nineteenth century. I have not\r\nencountered a single man who really had a new ideal to bring\r\nforward. The character of German music kept me hoping longest, but\r\nin vain. A stronger type in which all our powers are synthetically\r\ncorrelated—this constitutes my faith.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eApparently everything is decadence. We should so direct this movement\r\nof decline that it may provide the strongest with a new form of\r\nexistence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe dissolution of morality, in its practical consequences, leads\r\nto the atomistic individual, and\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_261\"\u003e[Pg 261]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e further to the subdivision of the\r\nindividual into a quantity of parts—absolute liquefaction.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThat is why a goal is now more than ever necessary; and love, but a new\r\nlove.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003eI say: “As long as your morality hung over me I breathed like one\r\nasphyxiated. That is why I throttled this snake. I wished to live,\r\nconsequently it had to die.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs long as people are still \u003ci\u003eforced to\u003c/i\u003e act, that is to say as long as\r\ncommands are given, synthesis (the suppression of the moral man) will\r\nnot be realised To be unable to be otherwise: instincts and commanding\r\nreason extending beyond any immediate object: the ability to enjoy\r\none’s own nature in action.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNone of them wish to bear the burden of the commander; but they will\r\nperform the most strenuous task if only thou commandest them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must overcome the past in ourselves: we must combine the instincts\r\nafresh and direct the whole together to one goal:—an extremely\r\ndifficult undertaking! It is not only the evil instincts which have to\r\nbe overcome,—the so-called good instincts must be conquered also and\r\nconsecrated anew!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNo leaps must be made in virtue! But everyone must be given a different\r\npath! Not leading to the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_262\"\u003e[Pg 262]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e highest development of each! Yet everyone may\r\nbe a bridge and an example for others.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo help, to pity, to submit and to renounce personal attacks with a\r\ngood will,—these things may make even insignificant and superficial\r\nmen tolerable to the eye: such men must not be contradicted in their\r\nbelief that this good will is “virtue in itself.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMan makes a deed valuable: but how might a deed make man valuable?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMorality is the concern of those who cannot free themselves from\r\nit: for such people morality therefore belongs to the conditions of\r\nexistence. It is impossible to refute conditions of existence: the only\r\nthing one can do is not to have them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf it were true that life did not deserve to be welcomed, the moral\r\nman, precisely on account of his self-denial and obligingness, would\r\nthen be guilty of misusing his fellow to his own personal advantage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Love thy neighbour”—this would mean first and foremost: “Let thy\r\nneighbour go his own way”—and it is precisely this kind of virtue that\r\nis the most difficult!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_263\"\u003e[Pg 263]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe bad man as the parasite. We must not be merely feasters and\r\ngourmets of life: this is ignoble.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is a noble sense which forbids our being only feasters and gourmets\r\nof life—this sense revolts against hedonism—: we want to perform\r\nsomething in return!—But the fundamental feeling of the masses is that\r\none must live for nothing,—that is their vulgarity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe converse valuations hold good for the lower among men: in their\r\ncase therefore it is necessary to implant virtues. They must be\r\nelevated above their lives, by means of absolute commands and terrible\r\ntaskmasters.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is required: the new law must be made practicable—and out of its\r\nfulfilment, the overcoming of this law, and higher law, must evolve\r\nZarathustra defines the attitude towards law, inasmuch as he suppresses\r\nthe law of laws which is morality.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLaws as the backbone They must be worked at and created, by being\r\nfulfilled. The slavish attitude which has reigned hitherto towards law!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe self-overcoming of Zarathustra as the prototype of mankind’s\r\nself-overcoming for the benefit of Superman. To this end the overcoming\r\nof morality is necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_264\"\u003e[Pg 264]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe type of the lawgiver, his development and his suffering. What is\r\nthe purpose of giving laws at all?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eZarathustra is the herald who calls forth many lawgivers.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eIndividual instruments.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. The Commanders, the mighty—who do not love, unless it be that they\r\nlove the images according to which they create. The rich in vitality,\r\nthe versatile, the free, who overcome that which is extant\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. The obedient, the “emancipated”—love and reverence constitute their\r\nhappiness, they have a sense of what is higher (their deficiencies are\r\nmade whole by the sight of the lofty).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. The slaves, the order of “henchmen”—: they must be made\r\ncomfortable, they must cultivate pity for one another.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe giver, the creator, the teacher—these are preludes of the ruler.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAll virtue and all self-mastery has only one purpose: that of preparing\r\nfor the rule!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEvery sacrifice that the ruler makes is rewarded a hundredfold.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow much does not the warrior, the prince, the\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_265\"\u003e[Pg 265]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e man who is responsible\r\nfor himself, sacrifice!—this should be highly honoured.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe terrible task of the ruler who educates himself:—the kind of man\r\nand people over which he will rule must be forecast in him: it is in\r\nhimself therefore that he must first have become a ruler!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe great educator like nature must elevate obstacles in order that\r\nthese may be overcome.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe new teachers as preparatory stages for the highest Architect (they\r\nmust impose their type on things).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutions may be regarded as the after effects of great individuals\r\nand the means of giving great individuals root and soil—until the\r\nfruit ultimately appears.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs a matter of fact mankind is continually trying to be able to\r\ndispense with great individuals by means of corporations, \u0026amp;c. But they\r\nare utterly dependent upon such great individuals for their ideal.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe eudæmonistic and social ideals lead men backwards,—it may be that\r\nthey aim at a very useful working class,—they are creating the ideal\r\nslave\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_266\"\u003e[Pg 266]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of the future, the lower caste which must on no account be\r\nlacking!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEqual rights for all!—this is the most extraordinary form of\r\ninjustice, for with it the highest men do not get their due.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is not a matter of the rights of the stronger, for strong and weak\r\nare alike in this, that they all extend their power as far as they can.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA new form of estimating man: above all the question:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow much power has he got?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow manifold are his instincts?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow great is his capacity for communication and assimilation?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe ruler as the highest type.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eZarathustra rejoices that the war of the classes is at last over,\r\nand that now at length the time is ripe for an order of rank among\r\nindividuals. His hatred of the democratic system of levelling is only\r\na blind; as a matter of fact he is very pleased that this has gone so\r\nfar. Now he can perform his task.—\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHitherto his doctrines had been directed only at the ruling caste of\r\nthe future. These lords of the earth must now take the place of God,\r\nand must create for themselves the profound and absolute confidence\r\nof those they rule. Their new holiness, their\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_267\"\u003e[Pg 267]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e renunciation of\r\nhappiness and ease, must be their first principle. To the lowest they\r\ngrant the heirloom of happiness, not to themselves. They deliver the\r\nphysiologically botched by teaching them the doctrine of “swift death.”\r\nThey offer religions and philosophical systems to each according to his\r\nrank.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“The conflict in the heart of the ruler is the contest between the love\r\nwhich is in his heart for him who is most remote, and the love which he\r\nfeels for his neighbour.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo be a creator and to be capable of goodness are not at all things\r\nwhich exclude one another. They are rather one and the same thing; but\r\nthe creator is farsighted and the good man nearsighted.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe feeling of power. The strife of all egos to discover that thought\r\nwhich will remain poised above men like a star.—The ego is a \u003ci\u003eprimum\r\nmobile.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe struggle for the application of the power which mankind now\r\nrepresents! Zarathustra calls to the gladiators of this struggle.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must make our ideals prevail:—We must strive for power in such a\r\nway as our ideal commands.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence is the turning point of history.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_268\"\u003e[Pg 268]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuddenly the terrible chamber of truth is opened, an unconscious\r\nself-protectiveness, caution, ambush, defence keeps us from the gravest\r\nknowledge. Thus have I lived heretofore. I suppress something; but the\r\nrestless babbling and rolling down of stones has rendered my instinct\r\nover-powerful. Now I am rolling my last stone, the most appalling truth\r\nstands close to my hand.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTruth has been exorcised out of its grave:—we created it, we waked it:\r\nthe highest expression of courage and of the feeling of power. Scorn of\r\nall pessimism that has existed hitherto!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe fight with it,—we find out that our only means of enduring it is\r\nto create a creature who is able to endure it:—unless, of course, we\r\nvoluntarily dazzle ourselves afresh and blind ourselves in regard to it\r\nBut this we are no longer able to do!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe it was who created the gravest thought,—let us now create a being\r\nunto whom it will be not only light but blessed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to be able to create we must allow ourselves greater freedom\r\nthan has ever been vouch-safed us before; to this end we must be\r\nemancipated from morality, and we must be relieved by means of feasts\r\n(Premonitions of the future! We must celebrate the future and no longer\r\nthe past! We must compose the myth poetry of the future! We must live\r\nin hopes!) Blessed moments I And then we must once again pull down the\r\ncurtain and turn our thoughts to the next unswerving purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_269\"\u003e[Pg 269]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMankind must set its goal above itself—not in a false world, however,\r\nbut in one which would be a continuation of humanity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe half-way house is always present when the will to the future\r\narises: the greatest event stands immediately before it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOur very essence is to create a being higher than ourselves. We must\r\ncreate beyond ourselves. That is the instinct of procreation, that is\r\nthe instinct of action and of work.—Just as all willing presupposes a\r\npurpose, so does mankind presuppose a creature which is not yet formed\r\nbut which provides the aim of life. This is the freedom of all will.\r\nLove, reverence, yearning for perfection, longing, all these things are\r\ninherent in a purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMy desire: to bring forth creatures which stand sublimely above the\r\nwhole species man: and to sacrifice “one’s neighbours” and oneself to\r\nthis end.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe morality which has existed hitherto was limited within the confines\r\nof the species: all moralities that have existed hitherto have been\r\nuseful in the first place in order to give unconditional stability to\r\nthis species: once this has been achieved the aim can be elevated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne movement is absolute; it is nothing more than the levelling down of\r\nmankind, great ant-organisations, \u0026amp;c.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_270\"\u003e[Pg 270]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe other movement, my movement, is conversely the accentuation of all\r\ncontrasts and gulfs, and the elimination of equality, together with the\r\ncreation of supremely powerful creatures.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe first movement brings forth the last man, my movement brings forth\r\nthe Superman. It is by no means the goal to regard the latter as the\r\nmaster of the first: two races ought to exist side by side,—separated\r\nas far asunder as possible; the one, like the Epicurean gods, not\r\nconcerning themselves in the least with the others.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe opposite of the Superman is the last man: I created him\r\nsimultaneously with the former.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe more an individual is free and firm, the more exacting becomes his\r\nlove: at last he yearns for Superman, because nothing else is able to\r\nappease his love,\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHalf-way round the course Superman arises.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmong men I was frightened: among men I desired a host of things and\r\nnothing satisfied me. It was then that I went into solitude and created\r\nSuperman. And when I had created him I draped him in the great veil of\r\nBecoming and let the light of midday shine upon him.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_271\"\u003e[Pg 271]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“We wish to create a Being,” we all wish to have a hand in it, to love\r\nit. We all want to be pregnant—and to honour and respect ourselves on\r\nthat account.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must have a goal in view of which we may all love each other! All\r\nother goals are only fit for the scrap heap.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe strongest in body and soul are the best—Zarathustra’s fundamental\r\nproposition—; from them is generated that higher morality of the\r\ncreator. Man must be regenerated after his own image: this is what he\r\nwants, this is his honesty.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eGenius to Zarathustra seems like the incarnation of his thought.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLoneliness for a certain time is necessary in order that a creature\r\nmay become completely permeated with his own soul—cured and hard. A\r\nnew form of community would be one in which we should assert ourselves\r\nmartially. Otherwise the spirit becomes tame. No Epicurean “gardens”\r\nand mere “retirement from the masses.” War (but without powder) between\r\ndifferent thoughts and the hosts who support them I\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA new nobility, the result of breeding. Feasts celebrating the\r\nfoundation of families.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe day divided up afresh; bodily exercise for all ages. Ἀγών\r\nas a principle.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_272\"\u003e[Pg 272]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe love of the sexes as a contest around the principle in becoming and\r\ncoming.—Ruling will be taught and practised, its hardness as well as\r\nits mildness. As soon as one faculty is acquired in a masterly manner\r\nanother one must be striven after.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must let ourselves be taught by the evil, and allow them an\r\nopportunity of a contest. We must make use of the degenerate—The right\r\nof punishment will consist in this, that the offender may be used as\r\nan experimental subject (in dietetics): this is the consecration of\r\npunishment, that one man be used for the highest needs of a future\r\nbeing.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe protect our new community because it is the bridge to our ideal of\r\nthe future And for it we work and let others work.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe measure and mean must be found in striving to attain to something\r\nbeyond mankind: the highest and strongest kind of man must be\r\ndiscovered! The highest tendency must be represented continually\r\nin small things:—perfection, maturity, rosy-cheeked health, mild\r\ndischarges of power. Just as an artist works, must we apply ourselves\r\nto our daily task and bring ourselves to perfection in everything we\r\ndo. We must be honest in acknowledging our real motives to ourselves,\r\nas is becoming in the mighty man.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNo impatience! Superman is our next stage and to this end, to this\r\nlimit, moderation and manliness are necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_273\"\u003e[Pg 273]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMankind must surpass itself, as the Greeks did—and no fleshless\r\nfantasies must be indulged. The higher mind which is associated with a\r\nsickly and nervous character must be suppressed. The goal: the higher\r\nculture of the whole body and not only of the brain.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“Man is something that must be surpassed”:—it is a matter of tempo:\r\nthe Greeks were wonderful, there was no haste about them.—My\r\npredecessors: Heraclitus, Empedocles, Spinoza, Goethe.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. Dissatisfaction with ourselves. An antidote to repentance.\r\nThe transformation of temperament (\u003ci\u003ee.g.,\u003c/i\u003e by means of inorganic\r\nsubstances). Good will to this dissatisfaction. We should wait for our\r\nthirst and let it become great in order to discover its source.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. Death must be transformed into a means of victory and triumph.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. The attitude towards disease. Freedom where death is concerned.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. The love of the sexes is a means to an ideal (it is the striving of\r\na being to perish through his opposite). The love for a suffering deity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e5. Procreation is the holiest of all things. Pregnancy, the creation of\r\na woman and a man, who wish to enjoy their unity, and erect a monument\r\nto it by means of a child.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e6. Pity as a danger. Circumstances must be created which enable\r\neveryone to be able to help\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_274\"\u003e[Pg 274]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e himself, and which leave him to choose\r\nwhether he would be helped.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e7. Education must be directed at making men evil, at developing their\r\ninner devil.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e8. Inner war as “development”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e9. “The maintenance of the species,” and the thought of eternal\r\nrecurrence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePrincipal doctrine. We must strive to make every stage one of\r\nperfection, and rejoice therein,—we must make no leaps!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the first place, the promulgation of laws. After the Superman the\r\ndoctrine of eternal recurrence will strike us with horror: Now it is\r\nendurable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLife itself created this thought which is the most oppressive for life.\r\nLife wishes to get beyond its greatest obstacle I\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must desire to perish in order to arise afresh,—from one day to\r\nthe other. Wander through a hundred souls,—let that be thy life and\r\nthy fate! And then finally: desire to go through the whole process once\r\nmore!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe highest thing of all would be for us to be able to endure our\r\nimmortality.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe moment in which I begot recurrence is immortal, for the sake of\r\nthat moment alone I will endure recurrence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_275\"\u003e[Pg 275]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe teaching of eternal recurrence—it is at first oppressive to the\r\nmore noble souls and apparently a means of weeding them out,—then the\r\ninferior and less sensitive natures would remain over! “This doctrine\r\nmust be suppressed and Zarathustra killed.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe hesitation of the disciples. “We are already able to bear with this\r\ndoctrine, but we should destroy the many by means of it!”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eZarathustra laughs: “Ye shall be the hammer: I laid this hammer in your\r\nhands.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI do not speak to you as I speak to the people. The highest thing for\r\nthem would be to despise and to annihilate themselves: the next highest\r\nthing would be for them to despise and annihilate each other.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e66\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“My will to do good compels me to remain silent. But my will to the\r\nSuperman bids me speak and sacrifice even my friends.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“I would fain form and transform you, how could I endure things\r\notherwise!”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe history of higher man. The rearing of the better man is\r\nincalculably more painful. The ideal of the necessary sacrifice which\r\nit involves, as in the case of Zarathustra, should be demonstrated: A\r\nman should leave his home, his family and his native\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_276\"\u003e[Pg 276]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e land. Live under\r\nthe scorn of the prevailing morality. The anguish of experiments and\r\nerrors. The solution of all the joys offered by the older ideals (they\r\nare now felt to be partly hostile and partly strange).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is it which gives a meaning, a value, an importance to things?\r\nIt is the creative heart which yearns and which created out of this\r\nyearning. It created joy and woe. It wanted to sate itself also with\r\nwoe. Every kind of pain that man or beast has suffered, we must take\r\nupon ourselves and bless, and have a goal whereby such suffering would\r\nacquire some meaning.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePrincipal doctrine: the transfiguration of pain into a blessing, and of\r\npoison into food, lies in our power. The will to suffering.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eConcerning heroic greatness as the only state of pioneers. (A yearning\r\nfor utter ruin as a means of enduring one’s existence.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe must not desire one state only; we must rather desire to be\r\nperiodical creatures—like existence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAbsolute indifference to other people’s opinions (because we know their\r\nweights and measures), but their opinions of themselves should be the\r\nsubject of pity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDisciples must unite three qualities in themselves: they must be\r\ntrue, they must be able and willing to\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_277\"\u003e[Pg 277]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e be communicative, they must\r\nhave profound insight into each other.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e72\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAll kinds of higher men and their oppression and blighting (as a case\r\nin point, Duhring, who was ruined by isolation)—on the whole, this\r\nis the fate of higher men to-day, they seem to be a species that is\r\ncondemned to die out: this fact seems to come to Zarathustra’s ears\r\nlike a great cry for help. All kinds of insane degenerations of higher\r\nnatures seem to approach him (nihilism for instance).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eHigher Men who come to Zarathustra in Despair.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTemptations to return prematurely to the world—thanks to the\r\nprovocation of one’s sympathies.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. The rolling stone, the homeless one, the wanderer:—he who has\r\nunlearned the love of his people because he has learned to love many\r\npeoples,—the good European.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. The gloomy, ambitious son of the people, shy, lonely, and ready for\r\nanything,—who chooses rather to be alone than to be a destroyer,—he\r\noffers himself as an instrument.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. The ugliest man, who is obliged to adorn himself (historical sense)\r\nand who is always in search of a new garment: he desires to make his\r\nappearance becoming, and finally retires into solitude in order not to\r\nbe seen, he is ashamed of himself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. He who honours facts (“the brain of a leech”), the most subtle\r\nintellectual conscience, and because he has it in excess, a guilty\r\nconscience,—he wants to get rid of himself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_278\"\u003e[Pg 278]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e5. The poet, who at bottom thirsts, for savage freedom,—he chooses\r\nloneliness and the severity of knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e6. The discoverer of new intoxicants,—the musician, the sorcerer, who\r\nfinally drops on his knees before a loving heart and says: “Not to me\r\ndo I wish to lead you but yonder to him.”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThose who are sober to excess and who have a yearning for intoxication\r\nwhich they do not gratify. The Supersobersides.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e7. Genius (as an attack of insanity), becoming frozen through lack of\r\nlove: “I am neither a genius nor a god.” Great tenderness: “people must\r\nshow him more love!”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e8. The rich man who has given everything away and who asks everybody:\r\n“Have you anything you do not want? give me some of it!” as a beggar.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e9. The Kings who renounce dominion: “we seek him who is more worthy\r\nto rule”—against “equality”: the great man is lacking, consequently\r\nreverence is lacking too.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e10. The actor of happiness.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e11. The pessimistic soothsayer who detects fatigue everywhere.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e12. The fool of the big city.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e13. The youth from the mount\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e14. The woman (seeks the man).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e15. The envious emaciated toiler and \u003ci\u003earriviste.\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e16. The good, } and their mad fancy:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e17. The pious, }“For God” that\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e18. The self-centred and } means “For me.”\u003cbr\u003e\r\n and saints,\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_279\"\u003e[Pg 279]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e“I gave you the most weighty thought: maybe mankind will perish through\r\nit, perhaps also mankind will be elevated through it inasmuch as by\r\nits means the elements which are hostile to life will be overcome and\r\neliminated.” “Ye must not chide Life, but yourselves!”—The destiny\r\nof higher man is to be a creator. The organisation of higher men, the\r\neducation of the future ruler. “YE must rejoice in your superior power\r\nwhen ye rule and when ye form anew.” “Not only man but Superman will\r\nrecur eternally!”\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe typical suffering of the reformer and also his consolations. The\r\nseven solitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHe lives as though he were beyond all ages: his loftiness allows him to\r\nhave intercourse with the anchorites and the misunderstood of every age.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOnly his beauty is his defence. He lays his hands on the next thousand\r\nyears.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHis love increases as he sees the impossibility of avoiding the\r\naffliction of pain with it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eZarathustra’s mood is not one of mad impatience for Superman! It is\r\npeaceful, it can wait: but all action has derived some purpose from\r\nbeing the road and means thither,—and must be done well and perfectly.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe repose of the great stream! Consecration of the smallest thing.\r\nAll unrest, and violent longing, all loathing should be presented in\r\nthe third part\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_280\"\u003e[Pg 280]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e and be overcome! The gentleness, and mildness, \u0026amp;c., in\r\nthe first and second parts are both signs of a power which is not yet\r\nself-reliant!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith the recovery of Zarathustra, Cæsar stands there inexorable\r\nand kind:—the gulf separating creation, goodness, and wisdom is\r\nannihilated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eClearness, peace, no exaggerated craving, happiness in the moment which\r\nis properly occupied and immortalised!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eZarathustra, Part III.: “I myself am happy.”—When he had taken leave\r\nof mankind he returned unto himself. Like a cloud it vanishes from him.\r\nThe manner in which Superman must live: like an Epicurean God.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDivine suffering is the substance of the third part of Zarathustra. The\r\nhuman state of the legislator is only brought forward as an example.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHis intense love for his friends seems to him a disease,—once more he\r\nbecomes peaceful.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the invitations come he gently evades them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the fourth part it is necessary to say precisely why it is that the\r\ntime of the great noon has come: It is really a description of the age\r\ngiven by means of visits, but interpreted by Zarathustra.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the fourth part it is necessary to say precisely why “a chosen\r\npeople” has first to be created:—they are the lucky cases of nature\r\nas opposed to the unlucky (exemplified by the visitors): only to them\r\n—the lucky cases—is Zarathustra able to express himself concerning\r\nultimate problems, them alone\u003cspan class=\"pagenum\"\u003e\u003ca id=\"Page_281\"\u003e[Pg 281]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is he able to inspire with activity on\r\nbehalf of this theory. They are strong, healthy, hard and above all\r\nnoble enough for him to give them the hammer with which to remould the\r\nwhole world.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe unity in power of the creator, the lover and the knight of\r\nknowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLove alone shall judge—(the creative love which forgets itself in its\r\nwork).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eZarathustra can only dispense happiness once the order of rank is\r\nestablished. Therefore this doctrine must be taught first.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe order of rank develops into a system of earthly dominion: the lords\r\nof the earth come last, a new ruling caste. Here and there there arises\r\nfrom them a perfectly Epicurean God, a Superman, a transfigurer of\r\nexistence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Superhuman’s notion of the world. Dionysus. Returning from these\r\nmost strange of all pursuits Zarathustra comes back with love to the\r\nnarrowest and smallest things,—he blesses all his experiences and dies\r\nwith a blessing on his lips.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp class=\"parnum\"\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFrom people who merely pray we must become people who bless.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/article\u003e"}],"SectionSequence":["Back Link","Work Title","Deck","Author","Period","Era","Composition","Date Note","Region","Terra Avita","Terra Avita Region","Modern Country","Original Title","Language","Primary Discipline","Secondary Discipline","Tradition","Full Versions","Core Thesis","Classification","Arguments","Influence","Significance","Evidence Note","Full Text"],"Counts":{"ContextCards":3,"GeoCards":4,"DisciplineCards":2,"Links":11,"Sections":25,"Styles":3,"Scripts":1}}