A free spirit is a young spirit

Online library



[596] One admires and despises at a young age without that art of nuance, which constitutes the best gain in life, and has to reasonably atone hard for having attacked people and things with yes and no in such a way. Everything is set up so that the worst of all tastes, the taste for the unconditional, will be cruelly fooled and abused until man learns to put some art into his feelings and rather to dare to try the artificial: as they do right artists of life do. The angry and reverent that is inherent in youth does not seem to rest until it has forged people and things in such a way that it can go out on them - youth is in itself something that is falsified and deceitful. Later, when the young soul, tormented by sheer disappointments, finally turns back suspiciously on itself, still hot and wild, even in its suspicions and remorse: how angry it is now, how impatiently it tears itself, how does it take vengeance her long self-delusion, as if she had been an arbitrary blindness! In this transition one punishes oneself by distrusting one's feelings; one tortures one's enthusiasm with doubt, one already feels one's good conscience as a danger, as it were as a self-veiling and weariness of the finer honesty; and above all, you take sides, basically take sides against "the youth". - A decade later: and one understands that all of this, too, was still - youth!


Throughout the longest period of human history - it is called the prehistoric period - the value or the worthlessness of an action [596] was derived from its consequences: the action itself was just as little taken into account as its origin, but roughly as it is today nor in China a distinction or disgrace goes back from the child to the parents, it was the retroactive force of success or failure that guided people to think good or bad of an action. Let's call this period the pre-moral Period of humanity: the imperative "know yourself!" Was still unknown at the time. In the last ten millennia, on the other hand, in some large areas of the world, step by step, it is no longer the consequences but the origin of the action that decides its value: a great event as a whole, a considerable refinement of the view and Yardstick, the unconscious aftermath of the rule of aristocratic values ​​and the belief in "origins", the mark of a period which one in the narrower sense as the moral may denote: the first attempt at self-knowledge is made with it. Instead of the consequences, the origin: what a reversal of perspective! And certainly a reversal only achieved after long struggles and fluctuations! Of course: a fateful new superstition, a peculiar narrow-mindedness of interpretation came to dominate precisely with this: one interpreted the origin of an action in the most specific sense as originating from one intention; one became one believing that the value of an action lies in the value of its intention. The intention as the whole origin and prehistory of an action: under this prejudice has been morally praised, censured, judged, even philosophized on earth almost up to the most recent times. - Should we not have reached the need today to come to a conclusion about a reversal and fundamental shift in values, thanks to a renewed reflection and deepening of the human being, - we should not stand on the threshold of a period which, negative, initially as the extra-moral to be designated: today, when at least among us immoralists the suspicion arises that precisely in what not on purpose what is part of an action is that its decisive value is proven, and that all its intentionality, everything that can be seen, known, "conscious" of it, still belongs to its surface and skin - [597] which, like every skin, something reveals, but more hides? In short, we believe that the intention is only a sign and symptom that first needs to be interpreted, plus a sign that means too many things and consequently almost nothing in itself - that morality, in the previous sense, that is, intentional morality, a It was a prejudice, a hastiness, a provisionality perhaps, something of the order of astrology and alchemy, but in any case something that must be overcome. The overcoming of morality, in a certain sense even the self-overcoming of morality: may that be the name for that long secret work that was reserved for the finest and most honest, even the most malicious consciences of today, as living touchstones of the soul. -


It doesn't help: one has to mercilessly challenge feelings of devotion, sacrifice for one's neighbor, the whole morality of self-denial, and bring them to justice: just like the aesthetics of "disinterested intuition", under which the emasculation of art is seductive enough today seeks to create a clear conscience. There is far too much magic and sugar in those feelings of "for others", of "Not for me ", so that one would not have to be doubly suspicious here and to ask:" Isn't it perhaps - Seductions? ”- That she like - to those who have them and to those who enjoy their fruits, even to the mere spectator - this is not yet an argument For it off, but just asks for caution. So let's be careful!


Whatever point of view of philosophy one may take today: it can be seen from every point Mistake the world in which we believe we live, the safest and most solid of which our eyes can still get hold of - we find reasons and reasons for it, which would tempt us to speculate about a fraudulent principle in the "essence of things". But whoever makes our own thinking, that is, "the spirit", responsible for the falsehood of the world - an honorable way out, which everyone consciously or unconsciously advocatus dei goes -: who this world including space, time, shape, movement, as wrong opened up takes: such a thing would at least have a good reason to finally learn to distrust all thinking itself: has it not played us the greatest joke so far? and what guarantee would it be that it would not continue to do what it has always done? In all seriousness: the innocence of the thinker has something touching and awe inspiring about it, which allows them to stand before the consciousness even today, with the request that it be to them honest Answers are given: for example, whether it is "real" and why it actually keeps the outside world so resolutely at bay, and what other such questions are. Belief in "immediate certainties" is one moral Naivety, which makes us philosophers honor: but - we shouldn't "just moral «human beings! Apart from morality, that belief is a stupidity that does us little honor! In bourgeois life, distrust, which is always ready, counts as a sign of "bad character" and consequently belongs to the unwise: here among us, beyond the bourgeois world and its yes and no - what should prevent us from being unwise and saying: the Philosopher has just one Law to "bad character" as the being who has always been best fooled on earth - he has that today mandatory to mistrust, to the most malicious squint from every abyss of suspicion. - Forgive me for the joke of this gloomy grimace and twist: because I myself have long since learned to think differently about cheating and being cheated on, have learned to appreciate it differently and have at least a few nicks in the ribs ready for the blind rage with which the philosophers resist being cheated become. Why Not? It is nothing more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the worst proven assumption in the world. One must admit so much to oneself: there would be no life at all if not on the basis of perspective estimates and appearances; and one wanted, with the virtuous enthusiasm and foolishness of many philosophers, to do away with the "apparent world" altogether, well, settled down you could that - at least [599] there would be nothing left of your "truth" either! Indeed, what forces us to assume that there is an essential opposition between "true" and "false"? It is not enough to assume degrees of appearance and, at the same time, lighter and darker shadows and overall tones of appearance - different ones valeursto speak the language of painters? Why should the world that concerns us - not be a fiction? And whoever asks: "But does fiction include a creator?" - should not be given a round answer: Why? Isn't this "belongs" part of fiction? Isn't it permissible to be a little ironic against the subject, as against predicate and object? Shouldn't the philosopher rise above belief in grammar? All respect for the governesses: but isn't it about time that philosophy renounced the governess belief? -


O Voltaire! O humanity! O nonsense! With the "truth", with the Search the truth is about; and if the person does it too humanly - »il ne cherche le vrai que pour faire le bien«- I bet he won't find anything!


Assuming that nothing other than real is "given" than our world of desires and passions, that we cannot go down or up to any other "reality" than the reality of our instincts - because thinking is only a relationship of these instincts to one another -: is it does not permit us to make the attempt and to ask the question whether this is not given sufficientin order to understand the so-called mechanistic (or "material") world from its peers? I do not mean as an illusion, an "appearance", an "idea" (in the Berkeleyian and Schopenhauerian sense) but as of the same range of reality that our affect itself has - as a more primitive form of the world of affects in which everything is still in a powerful unity lies what branches off in the organic process [600] and developed (also, how cheap, pampered and weakened -), as a kind of instinctual life in which all organic functions, with self-regulation, assimilation, Nutrition, excretion, metabolism, are synthetically linked - as one Preform of life? - Lastly, it is not only permissible to make this attempt: it is, from the conscience of the method off, commanded. Do not assume several kinds of causality, as long as the attempt to suffice with a single one has not been pushed to its extreme limit (- to the point of nonsense, to say with all due respect): that is a moral of the method which one cannot escape today - it follows "from their definition," as a mathematician would say. The final question is whether we really consider the will acting acknowledge whether we believe in the causality of the will: do we - and at bottom is belief on it just our belief in causality itself - so have to we try to hypothetically position volitional-causality as the only one. "Will" can of course only work on "will" - and not on "substances" (not on "nerves", for example): enough, one must dare to hypothesize whether will not everywhere where "effects" are recognized Will works - and whether not all mechanical happening, insofar as a force is active in it, is willpower, will-effect. - Suppose, finally, that we succeed in our entire instinctual life as the development and ramification one To explain basic form of will - namely, the will to power like it my Sentence is -; suppose that all organic functions could be traced back to this will to power and in it the solution to the problem of procreation and nourishment - it is a Problem - if you found that would have given yourself the right to all effective force can be clearly determined as: Will to power. The world seen from within, the world determined and designated in terms of its "intelligible character" - it would be "will to power" and nothing else. -


"How? Doesn't that mean, popularly said: God has been refuted, but the devil is not -? «On the contrary! On the contrary, my friends! And, the hell too, who's forcing you to talk popular! -


As it happened in the end, in all the brightness of modern times, with the French Revolution, that gruesome and, judging from close up, superfluous farce, in which the noble and enthusiastic spectators from all over Europe from afar for so long and so have passionately interpreted their own outrages and enthusiasm, until the text disappeared under the interpretation: in this way noble posterity could once again misunderstand the whole past and perhaps only thereby make the sight of it bearable. - Or rather: has this not already happened? weren't we ourselves - this "noble posterity"? And is it not right now, insofar as we understand this, is it over?


Nobody will so easily consider a doctrine to be true simply because it makes one happy or virtuous: with the exception of the lovely "idealists", for example, who rave about the good, the true, the beautiful and in their pond all kinds of colorful, clumsy and good-natured desires swim through each other. Happiness and virtue are not arguments. But one likes to forget, even on the part of level-headed spirits, that making unhappy and making evil are just as little counter-arguments. Something should be true: whether it were in the highest degree harmful and dangerous; yes, it could even belong to the basic quality of existence that one would perish from one's complete knowledge - so that the strength of a spirit would be measured according to how much it could just endure the "truth", more clearly to what extent it dilutes it, veiled, sweetened, dulled, falsified would have needed. But there is no doubt that for the discovery of certain Parts the evil and the unfortunate are more fortunate and more likely to succeed in truth; not to mention the wicked who are happy - a species that the moralists keep silent about. Perhaps that harshness and cunning provide more favorable conditions for the emergence of a strong, independent spirit and philosopher than that gentle, subtle, indulgent benevolence and the art of lightheartedness that one appreciates and rightly appreciates in a scholar. Provided that what is stated above, that the term "philosopher" is not narrowed down to the philosopher who writes books - let alone his Bringing philosophy into books! - Stendhal brings one last trait to the image of the free-spirited philosopher, which I do not want to omit to underline for the sake of German taste - because he goes contrary the German taste. »Pour être bon philosophe"Says this last great psychologist,"il faut être sec, clair, sans illusion. Un banquier, qui a fait fortune, a une partie du caractère requis pour faire des découvertes en philosophie, c'est-à-dire pour voir clair dans ce qui est.«


Everything that is deep loves the mask; the very deepest things even have a hatred of image and likeness. Shouldn't the first contrast be the right disguise in which the shame of a god would go along? A questionable question: it would be strange if some mystic had not already dared to do this in himself. There are processes of such a delicate kind that it is good to cover them up with a rudeness and to make them unrecognizable; There are acts of love and extravagant generosity, behind which nothing is more advisable than to take a stick and beat the eyewitness through, that tarnishes his memory. Many a man knows how to cloud and mistreat his own memory in order to at least get his revenge on this only confidante - shame is inventive.It's not the worst things that are worst to be ashamed of: it's not just deceit behind a mask - there is so much goodness in ruse. I could imagine that a person who had something precious and vulnerable to hide would roll through life roughly and round like a green old, heavily steamed wine barrel: the delicacy of his shame wants it that way. A person who has depth in shame also encounters his fates and delicate decisions on paths which few ever reach and whose existence his neighbors and most familiar ones are not allowed to know: his mortal danger is hidden from their eyes, as is his recaptured [603] Life security. Such a concealer who instinctively needs to speak to silence and concealment and who is inexhaustible in evading communication, want it and it encourages that a mask of his wander around in his place in the hearts and minds of his friends; and assuming he doesn't want it, one day his eyes will open to the fact that there is still a mask of his there - and that it's all right. Every deep mind needs a mask: even more, a mask constantly grows around every deep mind, thanks to the constantly false ones, namely flat Interpretation of every word, every step, every sign of life that he gives. -