Reading Help Beyond good and evil
alternative: in minds strong and original enough to initiate `
` opposite estimates of value, to transvalue and invert "eternal `
` valuations"; in forerunners, in men of the future, who in the `
` present shall fix the constraints and fasten the knots which will `
` compel millenniums to take NEW paths. To teach man the future of `
` humanity as his WILL, as depending on human will, and to make `
` preparation for vast hazardous enterprises and collective `
` attempts in rearing and educating, in order thereby to put an end `
` to the frightful rule of folly and chance which has hitherto gone `
` by the name of "history" (the folly of the "greatest number" is `
` only its last form)--for that purpose a new type of philosopher `
` and commander will some time or other be needed, at the very idea `
` of which everything that has existed in the way of occult, `
` terrible, and benevolent beings might look pale and dwarfed. The `
` image of such leaders hovers before OUR eyes:--is it lawful for `
` me to say it aloud, ye free spirits? The conditions which one `
` would partly have to create and partly utilize for their genesis; `
` the presumptive methods and tests by virtue of which a soul `
` should grow up to such an elevation and power as to feel a `
` CONSTRAINT to these tasks; a transvaluation of values, under the `
` new pressure and hammer of which a conscience should be steeled `
` and a heart transformed into brass, so as to bear the weight of `
` such responsibility; and on the other hand the necessity for such `
` leaders, the dreadful danger that they might be lacking, or `
` miscarry and degenerate:--these are OUR real anxieties and `
` glooms, ye know it well, ye free spirits! these are the heavy `
` distant thoughts and storms which sweep across the heaven of OUR `
` life. There are few pains so grievous as to have seen, divined, `
` or experienced how an exceptional man has missed his way and `
` deteriorated; but he who has the rare eye for the universal `
` danger of "man" himself DETERIORATING, he who like us has `
` recognized the extraordinary fortuitousness which has hitherto `
` played its game in respect to the future of mankind--a game in `
` which neither the hand, nor even a "finger of God" has `
` participated!--he who divines the fate that is hidden under the `
` idiotic unwariness and blind confidence of "modern ideas," and `
` still more under the whole of Christo-European morality-suffers `
` from an anguish with which no other is to be compared. He sees at `
` a glance all that could still BE MADE OUT OF MAN through a `
` favourable accumulation and augmentation of human powers and `
` arrangements; he knows with all the knowledge of his conviction `
` how unexhausted man still is for the greatest possibilities, and `
` how often in the past the type man has stood in presence of `
` mysterious decisions and new paths:--he knows still better from `
` his painfulest recollections on what wretched obstacles promising `
` developments of the highest rank have hitherto usually gone to `
` pieces, broken down, sunk, and become contemptible. The UNIVERSAL `
` DEGENERACY OF MANKIND to the level of the "man of the future"--as `
` idealized by the socialistic fools and shallow-pates--this `
` degeneracy and dwarfing of man to an absolutely gregarious animal `
` (or as they call it, to a man of "free society"), this `
` brutalizing of man into a pigmy with equal rights and claims, is `
` undoubtedly POSSIBLE! He who has thought out this possibility to `
` its ultimate conclusion knows ANOTHER loathing unknown to the `
` rest of mankind--and perhaps also a new MISSION! `
` `
` `
` CHAPTER VI `
` `
` WE SCHOLARS `
` `
` `
` 204. At the risk that moralizing may also reveal itself here as `
` that which it has always been--namely, resolutely MONTRER SES `
` PLAIES, according to Balzac--I would venture to protest against `
` an improper and injurious alteration of rank, which quite `
` unnoticed, and as if with the best conscience, threatens nowadays `
` to establish itself in the relations of science and philosophy. I `
` mean to say that one must have the right out of one's own `
` EXPERIENCE--experience, as it seems to me, always implies `
` unfortunate experience?--to treat of such an important question `
` of rank, so as not to speak of colour like the blind, or AGAINST `
` science like women and artists ("Ah! this dreadful science!" sigh `
` their instinct and their shame, "it always FINDS THINGS OUT!"). `
` The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his `
` emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects `
` of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- `
` glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now `
` everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime--which does `
` not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. `
` Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all `
` masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, `
` resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now `
` proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for `
` philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master"--what am I `
` saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account. My memory-- `
` the memory of a scientific man, if you please!--teems with the `
` naivetes of insolence which I have heard about philosophy and `
` philosophers from young naturalists and old physicians (not to `
` mention the most cultured and most conceited of all learned men, `
` the philologists and schoolmasters, who are both the one and the `
` other by profession). On one occasion it was the specialist and `
` the Jack Horner who instinctively stood on the defensive against `
` all synthetic tasks and capabilities; at another time it was the `
` industrious worker who had got a scent of OTIUM and refined `
` luxuriousness in the internal economy of the philosopher, and `
` felt himself aggrieved and belittled thereby. On another occasion `
` it was the colour-blindness of the utilitarian, who sees nothing `
` in philosophy but a series of REFUTED systems, and an extravagant `
` expenditure which "does nobody any good". At another time the `
` fear of disguised mysticism and of the boundary-adjustment of `
` knowledge became conspicuous, at another time the disregard of `
` individual philosophers, which had involuntarily extended to `
` disregard of philosophy generally. In fine, I found most `
` frequently, behind the proud disdain of philosophy in young `
` scholars, the evil after-effect of some particular philosopher, `
` to whom on the whole obedience had been foresworn, without, `
` however, the spell of his scornful estimates of other `
` philosophers having been got rid of--the result being a general `
` ill-will to all philosophy. (Such seems to me, for instance, the `
` after-effect of Schopenhauer on the most modern Germany: by his `
` unintelligent rage against Hegel, he has succeeded in severing `
` the whole of the last generation of Germans from its connection `
` with German culture, which culture, all things considered, has `
` been an elevation and a divining refinement of the HISTORICAL `
` SENSE, but precisely at this point Schopenhauer himself was poor, `
` irreceptive, and un-German to the extent of ingeniousness.) On `
` the whole, speaking generally, it may just have been the `
` humanness, all-too-humanness of the modern philosophers `
` themselves, in short, their contemptibleness, which has injured `
` most radically the reverence for philosophy and opened the doors `
` to the instinct of the populace. Let it but be acknowledged to `
` what an extent our modern world diverges from the whole style of `
` the world of Heraclitus, Plato, Empedocles, and whatever else all `
` the royal and magnificent anchorites of the spirit were called, `
` and with what justice an honest man of science MAY feel himself `
` of a better family and origin, in view of such representatives of `
` philosophy, who, owing to the fashion of the present day, are `
` just as much aloft as they are down below--in Germany, for `
` instance, the two lions of Berlin, the anarchist Eugen Duhring `
` and the amalgamist Eduard von Hartmann. It is especially the `
` sight of those hotch-potch philosophers, who call themselves `
` "realists," or "positivists," which is calculated to implant a `
` dangerous distrust in the soul of a young and ambitious scholar `
` those philosophers, at the best, are themselves but scholars and `
` specialists, that is very evident! All of them are persons who `
` have been vanquished and BROUGHT BACK AGAIN under the dominion of `
` science, who at one time or another claimed more from themselves, `
` without having a right to the "more" and its responsibility--and `
` who now, creditably, rancorously, and vindictively, represent in `
` word and deed, DISBELIEF in the master-task and supremacy of `
` philosophy After all, how could it be otherwise? Science `
` flourishes nowadays and has the good conscience clearly visible `
` on its countenance, while that to which the entire modern `
` philosophy has gradually sunk, the remnant of philosophy of the `
` present day, excites distrust and displeasure, if not scorn and `
` pity Philosophy reduced to a "theory of knowledge," no more in `
` fact than a diffident science of epochs and doctrine of `
` forbearance a philosophy that never even gets beyond the `
` threshold, and rigorously DENIES itself the right to enter--that `
` is philosophy in its last throes, an end, an agony, something `
` that awakens pity. How could such a philosophy--RULE! `
` `
` 205. The dangers that beset the evolution of the philosopher are, `
` in fact, so manifold nowadays, that one might doubt whether this `
` fruit could still come to maturity. The extent and towering `
` structure of the sciences have increased enormously, and `
` therewith also the probability that the philosopher will grow `
` tired even as a learner, or will attach himself somewhere and `
` "specialize" so that he will no longer attain to his elevation, `
` that is to say, to his superspection, his circumspection, and his `
` DESPECTION. Or he gets aloft too late, when the best of his `
` maturity and strength is past, or when he is impaired, coarsened, `
` and deteriorated, so that his view, his general estimate of `
` things, is no longer of much importance. It is perhaps just the `
` refinement of his intellectual conscience that makes him hesitate `
` and linger on the way, he dreads the temptation to become a `
` dilettante, a millepede, a milleantenna, he knows too well that `
` as a discerner, one who has lost his self-respect no longer `
` commands, no longer LEADS, unless he should aspire to become a `
` great play-actor, a philosophical Cagliostro and spiritual rat- `
` catcher--in short, a misleader. This is in the last instance a `
` question of taste, if it has not really been a question of `
` conscience. To double once more the philosopher's difficulties, `
` there is also the fact that he demands from himself a verdict, a `
` Yea or Nay, not concerning science, but concerning life and the `
` worth of life--he learns unwillingly to believe that it is his `
` right and even his duty to obtain this verdict, and he has to `
` seek his way to the right and the belief only through the most `
` extensive (perhaps disturbing and destroying) experiences, often `
` hesitating, doubting, and dumbfounded. In fact, the philosopher `
` has long been mistaken and confused by the multitude, either with `
` the scientific man and ideal scholar, or with the religiously `
` elevated, desensualized, desecularized visionary and God- `
` intoxicated man; and even yet when one hears anybody praised, `
` because he lives "wisely," or "as a philosopher," it hardly means `
` anything more than "prudently and apart." Wisdom: that seems to `
` the populace to be a kind of flight, a means and artifice for `
` withdrawing successfully from a bad game; but the GENUINE `
` philosopher--does it not seem so to US, my friends?--lives `
` "unphilosophically" and "unwisely," above all, IMPRUDENTLY, and `
` feels the obligation and burden of a hundred attempts and `
` temptations of life--he risks HIMSELF constantly, he plays THIS `
` bad game. `
` `
` 206. In relation to the genius, that is to say, a being who `
` either ENGENDERS or PRODUCES--both words understood in their `
` fullest sense--the man of learning, the scientific average man, `
` has always something of the old maid about him; for, like her, he `
` is not conversant with the two principal functions of man. To `
` both, of course, to the scholar and to the old maid, one concedes `
`
` opposite estimates of value, to transvalue and invert "eternal `
` valuations"; in forerunners, in men of the future, who in the `
` present shall fix the constraints and fasten the knots which will `
` compel millenniums to take NEW paths. To teach man the future of `
` humanity as his WILL, as depending on human will, and to make `
` preparation for vast hazardous enterprises and collective `
` attempts in rearing and educating, in order thereby to put an end `
` to the frightful rule of folly and chance which has hitherto gone `
` by the name of "history" (the folly of the "greatest number" is `
` only its last form)--for that purpose a new type of philosopher `
` and commander will some time or other be needed, at the very idea `
` of which everything that has existed in the way of occult, `
` terrible, and benevolent beings might look pale and dwarfed. The `
` image of such leaders hovers before OUR eyes:--is it lawful for `
` me to say it aloud, ye free spirits? The conditions which one `
` would partly have to create and partly utilize for their genesis; `
` the presumptive methods and tests by virtue of which a soul `
` should grow up to such an elevation and power as to feel a `
` CONSTRAINT to these tasks; a transvaluation of values, under the `
` new pressure and hammer of which a conscience should be steeled `
` and a heart transformed into brass, so as to bear the weight of `
` such responsibility; and on the other hand the necessity for such `
` leaders, the dreadful danger that they might be lacking, or `
` miscarry and degenerate:--these are OUR real anxieties and `
` glooms, ye know it well, ye free spirits! these are the heavy `
` distant thoughts and storms which sweep across the heaven of OUR `
` life. There are few pains so grievous as to have seen, divined, `
` or experienced how an exceptional man has missed his way and `
` deteriorated; but he who has the rare eye for the universal `
` danger of "man" himself DETERIORATING, he who like us has `
` recognized the extraordinary fortuitousness which has hitherto `
` played its game in respect to the future of mankind--a game in `
` which neither the hand, nor even a "finger of God" has `
` participated!--he who divines the fate that is hidden under the `
` idiotic unwariness and blind confidence of "modern ideas," and `
` still more under the whole of Christo-European morality-suffers `
` from an anguish with which no other is to be compared. He sees at `
` a glance all that could still BE MADE OUT OF MAN through a `
` favourable accumulation and augmentation of human powers and `
` arrangements; he knows with all the knowledge of his conviction `
` how unexhausted man still is for the greatest possibilities, and `
` how often in the past the type man has stood in presence of `
` mysterious decisions and new paths:--he knows still better from `
` his painfulest recollections on what wretched obstacles promising `
` developments of the highest rank have hitherto usually gone to `
` pieces, broken down, sunk, and become contemptible. The UNIVERSAL `
` DEGENERACY OF MANKIND to the level of the "man of the future"--as `
` idealized by the socialistic fools and shallow-pates--this `
` degeneracy and dwarfing of man to an absolutely gregarious animal `
` (or as they call it, to a man of "free society"), this `
` brutalizing of man into a pigmy with equal rights and claims, is `
` undoubtedly POSSIBLE! He who has thought out this possibility to `
` its ultimate conclusion knows ANOTHER loathing unknown to the `
` rest of mankind--and perhaps also a new MISSION! `
` `
` `
` CHAPTER VI `
` `
` WE SCHOLARS `
` `
` `
` 204. At the risk that moralizing may also reveal itself here as `
` that which it has always been--namely, resolutely MONTRER SES `
` PLAIES, according to Balzac--I would venture to protest against `
` an improper and injurious alteration of rank, which quite `
` unnoticed, and as if with the best conscience, threatens nowadays `
` to establish itself in the relations of science and philosophy. I `
` mean to say that one must have the right out of one's own `
` EXPERIENCE--experience, as it seems to me, always implies `
` unfortunate experience?--to treat of such an important question `
` of rank, so as not to speak of colour like the blind, or AGAINST `
` science like women and artists ("Ah! this dreadful science!" sigh `
` their instinct and their shame, "it always FINDS THINGS OUT!"). `
` The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his `
` emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects `
` of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- `
` glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now `
` everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime--which does `
` not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. `
` Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all `
` masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, `
` resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now `
` proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for `
` philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master"--what am I `
` saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account. My memory-- `
` the memory of a scientific man, if you please!--teems with the `
` naivetes of insolence which I have heard about philosophy and `
` philosophers from young naturalists and old physicians (not to `
` mention the most cultured and most conceited of all learned men, `
` the philologists and schoolmasters, who are both the one and the `
` other by profession). On one occasion it was the specialist and `
` the Jack Horner who instinctively stood on the defensive against `
` all synthetic tasks and capabilities; at another time it was the `
` industrious worker who had got a scent of OTIUM and refined `
` luxuriousness in the internal economy of the philosopher, and `
` felt himself aggrieved and belittled thereby. On another occasion `
` it was the colour-blindness of the utilitarian, who sees nothing `
` in philosophy but a series of REFUTED systems, and an extravagant `
` expenditure which "does nobody any good". At another time the `
` fear of disguised mysticism and of the boundary-adjustment of `
` knowledge became conspicuous, at another time the disregard of `
` individual philosophers, which had involuntarily extended to `
` disregard of philosophy generally. In fine, I found most `
` frequently, behind the proud disdain of philosophy in young `
` scholars, the evil after-effect of some particular philosopher, `
` to whom on the whole obedience had been foresworn, without, `
` however, the spell of his scornful estimates of other `
` philosophers having been got rid of--the result being a general `
` ill-will to all philosophy. (Such seems to me, for instance, the `
` after-effect of Schopenhauer on the most modern Germany: by his `
` unintelligent rage against Hegel, he has succeeded in severing `
` the whole of the last generation of Germans from its connection `
` with German culture, which culture, all things considered, has `
` been an elevation and a divining refinement of the HISTORICAL `
` SENSE, but precisely at this point Schopenhauer himself was poor, `
` irreceptive, and un-German to the extent of ingeniousness.) On `
` the whole, speaking generally, it may just have been the `
` humanness, all-too-humanness of the modern philosophers `
` themselves, in short, their contemptibleness, which has injured `
` most radically the reverence for philosophy and opened the doors `
` to the instinct of the populace. Let it but be acknowledged to `
` what an extent our modern world diverges from the whole style of `
` the world of Heraclitus, Plato, Empedocles, and whatever else all `
` the royal and magnificent anchorites of the spirit were called, `
` and with what justice an honest man of science MAY feel himself `
` of a better family and origin, in view of such representatives of `
` philosophy, who, owing to the fashion of the present day, are `
` just as much aloft as they are down below--in Germany, for `
` instance, the two lions of Berlin, the anarchist Eugen Duhring `
` and the amalgamist Eduard von Hartmann. It is especially the `
` sight of those hotch-potch philosophers, who call themselves `
` "realists," or "positivists," which is calculated to implant a `
` dangerous distrust in the soul of a young and ambitious scholar `
` those philosophers, at the best, are themselves but scholars and `
` specialists, that is very evident! All of them are persons who `
` have been vanquished and BROUGHT BACK AGAIN under the dominion of `
` science, who at one time or another claimed more from themselves, `
` without having a right to the "more" and its responsibility--and `
` who now, creditably, rancorously, and vindictively, represent in `
` word and deed, DISBELIEF in the master-task and supremacy of `
` philosophy After all, how could it be otherwise? Science `
` flourishes nowadays and has the good conscience clearly visible `
` on its countenance, while that to which the entire modern `
` philosophy has gradually sunk, the remnant of philosophy of the `
` present day, excites distrust and displeasure, if not scorn and `
` pity Philosophy reduced to a "theory of knowledge," no more in `
` fact than a diffident science of epochs and doctrine of `
` forbearance a philosophy that never even gets beyond the `
` threshold, and rigorously DENIES itself the right to enter--that `
` is philosophy in its last throes, an end, an agony, something `
` that awakens pity. How could such a philosophy--RULE! `
` `
` 205. The dangers that beset the evolution of the philosopher are, `
` in fact, so manifold nowadays, that one might doubt whether this `
` fruit could still come to maturity. The extent and towering `
` structure of the sciences have increased enormously, and `
` therewith also the probability that the philosopher will grow `
` tired even as a learner, or will attach himself somewhere and `
` "specialize" so that he will no longer attain to his elevation, `
` that is to say, to his superspection, his circumspection, and his `
` DESPECTION. Or he gets aloft too late, when the best of his `
` maturity and strength is past, or when he is impaired, coarsened, `
` and deteriorated, so that his view, his general estimate of `
` things, is no longer of much importance. It is perhaps just the `
` refinement of his intellectual conscience that makes him hesitate `
` and linger on the way, he dreads the temptation to become a `
` dilettante, a millepede, a milleantenna, he knows too well that `
` as a discerner, one who has lost his self-respect no longer `
` commands, no longer LEADS, unless he should aspire to become a `
` great play-actor, a philosophical Cagliostro and spiritual rat- `
` catcher--in short, a misleader. This is in the last instance a `
` question of taste, if it has not really been a question of `
` conscience. To double once more the philosopher's difficulties, `
` there is also the fact that he demands from himself a verdict, a `
` Yea or Nay, not concerning science, but concerning life and the `
` worth of life--he learns unwillingly to believe that it is his `
` right and even his duty to obtain this verdict, and he has to `
` seek his way to the right and the belief only through the most `
` extensive (perhaps disturbing and destroying) experiences, often `
` hesitating, doubting, and dumbfounded. In fact, the philosopher `
` has long been mistaken and confused by the multitude, either with `
` the scientific man and ideal scholar, or with the religiously `
` elevated, desensualized, desecularized visionary and God- `
` intoxicated man; and even yet when one hears anybody praised, `
` because he lives "wisely," or "as a philosopher," it hardly means `
` anything more than "prudently and apart." Wisdom: that seems to `
` the populace to be a kind of flight, a means and artifice for `
` withdrawing successfully from a bad game; but the GENUINE `
` philosopher--does it not seem so to US, my friends?--lives `
` "unphilosophically" and "unwisely," above all, IMPRUDENTLY, and `
` feels the obligation and burden of a hundred attempts and `
` temptations of life--he risks HIMSELF constantly, he plays THIS `
` bad game. `
` `
` 206. In relation to the genius, that is to say, a being who `
` either ENGENDERS or PRODUCES--both words understood in their `
` fullest sense--the man of learning, the scientific average man, `
` has always something of the old maid about him; for, like her, he `
` is not conversant with the two principal functions of man. To `
` both, of course, to the scholar and to the old maid, one concedes `
`