Beyond Good and Evil
UPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what so? Is at that place non land for surmising that all philosophers. in so far as they have been doctrinaires. hold failed to understand women—that the awful earnestness and gawky urgency with which they have normally paid their references to Truth. have been unskilled and indecent methods for winning a adult female? Certainly she has ne’er allowed herself to be won ; and at present every sort of tenet bases with sad and demoralized mien—IF. so. it stands at all! For there are gorgers who maintain that it has fallen. that all tenet lies on the ground—nay more. that it is at its last pant.
But to talk earnestly. there are good evidences for trusting that all dogmatizing in doctrine. whatever solemn. whatever conclusive and decided poses it has assumed. may hold been merely a baronial puerilism and tyronism ; and likely the clip is at manus when it will be one time and once more understood WHAT has really sufficed for the footing of such imposing and absolute philosophical buildings as the doctrinaires have hitherto reared: possibly some popular superstitious notion of immemorial clip ( such as the soul-superstition. which. in the signifier of subject- and ego-superstition. has non yet ceased making mischievousness ) : possibly some drama upon words. a misrepresentation on the portion of grammar. or an brave generalisation of really restricted. really personal. really human—all-too-human facts.
Beyond Good and Evil S The doctrine of the doctrinaires. it is to be hoped. was merely a promise for 1000s of old ages afterwards. as was star divination in still earlier times. in the service of which likely more labour. gold. acuteness. and forbearance have been spent than on any existent scientific discipline hitherto: we owe to it. and to its ‘super- terrestrial’ pretenses in Asia and Egypt. the expansive manner of architecture.
It seems that in order to scratch themselves upon the bosom of humanity with everlasting claims. all great things have first to roll about the Earth as tremendous and awe- inspiring imitations: dogmatic doctrine has been a imitation of this kind—for case. the Vedanta philosophy in Asia. and Platonism in Europe. Let us non be thankless to it. although it must surely be confessed that the worst. the most boring. and the most unsafe of mistakes hitherto has been a doctrinaire error—namely. Plato’s innovation of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself.
But now when it has been surmounted. when Europe. rid of this incubus. can once more pull breath freely and at least bask a healthier—sleep. we. WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF. are the inheritors of all the strength which the battle against this mistake has fostered.
It amounted to the very inversion of truth. and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE— the cardinal condition—of life. to talk of Spirit and the Good as Plato radius of them ; so one might inquire. as a doctor: ‘How did such a malady onslaught that finest merchandise of antiquity. Plato? Had the wicked Socrates truly corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of young persons. and deserved his hemlock? ’ But the battle against Plato. or—to speak plainer. and for the ‘people’—the strugFree eBooks at Planet eBook. com gle against the ecclesiastical subjugation of millenaries of Christianity ( FOR CHRISITIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE ‘PEOPLE’ ) . produced in Europe a brilliant tenseness of psyche. such as had non existed anyplace antecedently ; with such a tensely strained bow one can now take at the furthest ends.
As a affair of fact. the European feels this tenseness as a province of hurt. and twice efforts have been made in expansive manner to straighten the bow: one time by agencies of Jesuitism. and the 2nd clip by agencies of democratic enlightenment—which. with the assistance of autonomy of the imperativeness and newspaper-reading. might. in fact. convey it about that the spirit would non so easy happen itself in ‘distress’ ! ( The Germans invented gunpowder-all recognition to them! but they once more made things square—they invented printing. )
But we. who are neither Jesuits. nor democrats. nor even sufficiently Germans. we Good EUROPEANS. and free. Very free spirits—we have it still. all the hurt of spirit and all the tenseness of its bow! And possibly besides the pointer. the responsibility. and. who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT… . Sils Maria Upper Engadine. JUNE. 1885. Beyond Good and Evil CHAPTER I: Bias OF PHILOSOPHERS 1.
The Will to Truth. which is to allure us to many a risky endeavor. the celebrated Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with regard. what inquiries has this Will to Truth non laid before us! What unusual. perplexing. questionable inquiries! It is already a long narrative ; yet it seems as if it were barely commenced. Is it any inquire if we at last grow distrustful. lose forbearance. and turn impatiently off? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to inquire inquiries ourselves? WHO is it truly that puts inquiries to us here? WHAT truly is this ‘Will to Truth’ in us?
In fact we made a long arrest at the inquiry as to the beginning of this Will—until at last we came to an absolute deadlock before a yet more cardinal inquiry. We inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER falsehood? And uncertainness?
Even ignorance? The job of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the job? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would look to be a rendezvous of inquiries and notes of question. And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the job had ne’er been propounded earlier. as if we were the first to spot it. acquire a sight of it. Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com. and RISK RAISING it?
For there is hazard in raising it. possibly there is no greater hazard. 2. ‘HOW COULD anything originate out of its antonym? For illustration. truth out of mistake? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous title out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise adult male out of covetousness? Such generation is impossible ; whoever dreams of it is a sap. nay. worse than a sap ; things of the highest value must hold a different beginning. an beginning of THEIR own—in this transitory. seductive. illusory. paltry universe. in this convulsion of psychotic belief and avarice. they can non hold their beginning. But instead in the lap of Being. in the intransitory. in the hidden God. in the ‘Thing-in-itself— THERE must be their beginning. and nowhere else! ’
—This manner of concluding discloses the typical bias by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized. this manner of rating is at the dorsum of all their logical process ; through this ‘belief’ of theirs. they exert themselves for their ‘knowledge. ’ for something that is in the terminal solemnly christened ‘the Truth. ’ The cardinal belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It ne’er occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the really threshold ( where uncertainty. nevertheless. was most necessary ) ; though they had made a grave vow. ‘DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM.
’ For it may be doubted. foremost. whether antitheses exist at all ; and secondly. whether the popular ratings and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal. are non possibly simply superficial estimations. simply provi Beyond Good and Evil sional positions. besides being likely made from some corner. possibly from below—‘frog positions. ’ as it were. to borrow an look current among painters. In malice of all the value which may belong to the true. the positive. and the unselfish. it might be possible that a higher and more cardinal value for life by and large should be assigned to pretence. to the will to delusion. to selfishness. and avarice.
It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and well-thought-of things. consists exactly in their being perniciously related. knotted. and crocheted to these immoralities and seemingly opposed things—perhaps even in being basically indistinguishable with them. Possibly! But who wishes to concern himself with such unsafe ‘Perhapses’ ! For that probe one must expect the coming of a new order of philosophers. such as will hold other gustatory sensations and dispositions. the contrary of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the unsafe ‘Perhaps’ in every sense of the term. And to talk in all earnestness. I see such new philosophers get downing to look. 3.
Having kept a crisp oculus on philosophers. and holding read between their lines long plenty. I now say to myself that the greater portion of witting thought must be counted among the natural maps. and it is so even in the instance of philosophical thought ; one has here to larn afresh. as one learned anew about heredity and ‘innateness. ’ Equally small as the act of birth comes into consideration in the whole procedure and process of heredity. merely as small is ‘being-conscious’ OPPOSED to the natural in any decisive Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com sense ; the greater portion of the witting thought of a philosopher is in secret influenced by his inherent aptitudes. and forced into definite channels.
And behind all logic and its apparent sovereignty of motion. there are ratings. or to talk more obviously. physiological demands. for the care of a definite manner of life For illustration. that the certain is worth more than the unsure. that semblance is less valuable than ‘truth’ such ratings. in malice of their regulatory importance for US. might notwithstanding be merely superficial ratings. particular sorts of maiserie. such as may be necessary for the care of existences such as ourselves. Supposing. in consequence. that adult male is non merely the ‘measure of things. ’ 4. The falsity of an sentiment is non for us any expostulation to it: it is here. possibly. that our new linguistic communication sounds most queerly.
The inquiry is. how far an sentiment is lifefurthering. life- preserving. species-preserving. possibly species-rearing. and we are basically inclined to keep that the falsest sentiments ( to which the man-made judgements a priori belong ) . are the most indispensable to us. that without a acknowledgment of logical fictions. without a comparing of world with the strictly IMAGINED universe of the absolute and changeless. without a changeless counterfeiting of the universe by agencies of Numberss. adult male could non live—that the repudiation of false sentiments would be a repudiation of life. a negation of life.
TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE ; that is surely to impugn the traditional thoughts of value in a unsafe mode. and a phi Beyond Good and Evil losophy which ventures to make so. has thereby entirely placed itself beyond good and evil. 5.
That which causes philosophers to be regarded halfdistrustfully and half-mockingly. is non the oft-repeated find how guiltless they are—how frequently and easy they make errors and lose their manner. in short. how infantile and childlike they are. —but that there is non adequate honest covering with them. whereas they all raise a loud and virtuous call when the job of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest mode.
They all pose as though their existent sentiments had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold. pure. divinely apathetic dialectic ( in contrast to all kinds of mystics. who. fairer and foolisher. talk of ‘inspiration’ ) . whereas. in fact. a prejudiced proposition. thought. or ‘suggestion. ’ which is by and large their heart’s desire abstracted and refined. is defended by them with statements sought out after the event.
They are all advocators who do non wish to be regarded as such. by and large sharp guardians. besides. of their biass. which they dub ‘truths. ’— and VERY far from holding the scruples which courageously admits this to itself. really far from holding the good gustatory sensation of the bravery which goes so far as to allow this be understood. possibly to warn friend or enemy. or in cheerful assurance and self-ridicule. The spectacle of the Tartuffery of old Kant. every bit stiff and nice. with which he entices us into the dialectic by-ways that lead ( more right mislead ) to his ‘categorical imperative’— makes us fastidious 1s smile. we who find no little amusement in descrying out Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com the elusive fast ones of old moralists and ethical sermonizers.
Or. still more so. the trickery in mathematical signifier. by agencies of which Spinoza has. as it were. dress his doctrine in mail and mask—in fact. the ‘love of HIS wisdom. ’ to interpret the term reasonably and squarely—in order thereby to strike panic at one time into the bosom of the attacker who should make bold to project a glimpse on that unbeatable maiden. that Pallas Athene: —how much of personal timidness and exposure does this mask of a sallow hermit betray!
6. It has bit by bit become clear to me what every great doctrine up boulder clay now has consisted of—namely. the confession of its conceiver. and a species of nonvoluntary and unconscious auto-biography ; and moreover that the moral ( or immoral ) intent in every doctrine has constituted the true critical source out of which the full works has ever grown. Indeed. to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical averments of a philosopher have been arrived at. it is ever good ( and wise ) to first inquire oneself: ‘What morality do they ( or does he ) purpose at?
’ Accordingly. I do non believe that an ‘impulse to knowledge’ is the male parent of doctrine ; but that another urge. here as elsewhere. has merely made usage of cognition ( and misidentify cognition! ) as an instrument. But whoever considers the cardinal urges of adult male with a position to find how far they may hold here acted as INSPIRING GENII ( or as devils and cobolds ) . will happen that they have all practiced doctrine at one clip or another. and that each one of them would hold been merely excessively glad to look upon itself as the ultimate terminal of being 10 Beyond Good and Evil and the legitimate LORD over all the other urges. For every urge is disdainful. and as SUCH. efforts to philosophise.
To be certain. in the instance of bookmans. in the instance of truly scientific work forces. it may be otherwise—‘better. ’ if you will ; there there may truly be such a thing as an ‘impulse to knowledge. ’ some sort of little. independent clock-work. which. when good injure up. works off industriously to that terminal. WITHOUT the remainder of the scholarly urges taking any material portion therein.
The existent ‘interests’ of the bookman. therefore. are by and large in rather another direction— in the household. possibly. or in money-making. or in political relations ; it is. in fact. about indifferent at what point of research his small machine is placed. and whether the hopeful immature worker becomes a good philologue. a mushroom specializer. or a chemist ; he is non CHARACTERISED by going this or that.
In the philosopher. on the contrary. there is perfectly nil impersonal ; and above all. his morality furnishes a distinct and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS. —that is to state. in what order the deepest urges of his nature base to each other. 7. How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nil more stinging than the gag Epicurus took the autonomy of doing on Plato and the Platonists ; he called them Dionysiokolakes. In its original sense. and on the face of it. the word signifies ‘Flatterers of Dionysius’—consequently. tyrants’ accoutrements and lick-spittles ; besides this. nevertheless. it is every bit much as to state. ‘They are all ACTORS. there is nil echt about them’ ( for Dionysiokolax was a popular Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 11 name for an histrion ) .
And the latter is truly the malignant reproach that Epicurus cast upon Plato: he was annoyed by the grandiose mode. the mise en scene manner of which Plato and his bookmans were masters—of which Epicurus was non a maestro! He. the old school-teacher of Samos. who sat concealed in his small garden at Athens. and wrote three hundred books. possibly out of fury and ambitious enviousness of Plato. who knows! Greece took a hundred old ages to happen out who the garden-god Epicurus truly was.
Did she of all time happen out? 8. There is a point in every doctrine at which the ‘conviction’ of the philosopher appears on the scene ; or. to set it in the words of an ancient enigma: Adventavit asinus. Pulcher et fortissimus. 9. You desire to Populate ‘according to Nature’ ? Oh. you baronial Stoics. what fraud of words!
Imagine to yourselves a being similar Nature. immeasurably excessive. immeasurably apathetic. without intent or consideration. without commiseration or justness. at one time fruitful and wastes and unsure: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in conformity with such indifference? To live—is non that merely endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature?
Is non populating valuing. preferring. being unfair. being limited. endeavoring to be different? And granted that your imperative. ‘living harmonizing to Nature. ’ means actu1 Beyond Good and Evil ally the same as ‘living harmonizing to life’—how could you make DIFFERENTLY? Why should you do a rule out of what you yourselves are. and must be? In world. nevertheless. it is rather otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with ecstasy the canon of your jurisprudence in Nature. you want something quite the contrary. you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders!
In your pride you wish to order your ethical motives and ideals to Nature. to Nature herself. and to integrate them in this ; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa. ’ and would wish everything to be made after your ain image. as a huge. ageless glory and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth. you have forced yourselves so long. so persistently. and with such hypnotic rigidness to see Nature FALSELY. that is to state. Stoically. that you are no longer able to see it otherwise— and to coronate all. some unfathomable condescension gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannise over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will besides let herself to be tyrannized over: is non the Stoic a PART of Nature?
… But this is an old and ageless narrative: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today. every bit shortly as of all time a doctrine begins to believe in itself. It ever creates the universe in its ain image ; it can non make otherwise ; doctrine is this oppressive urge itself. the most religious Will to Power. the will to ‘creation of the universe. ’ the will to the lawsuit Prima. 10. The avidity and nuance. I should even state cunning. with which the job of ‘the existent and the evident world’ Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 is dealt with at present throughout Europe. furnishes nutrient for idea and attending ; and he who hears merely a ‘Will to Truth’ in the background. and nil else. can non surely self-praise of the sharpest ears.
In rare and stray instances. it may truly hold happened that such a Will to Truth—a certain extravagant and adventuresome gutsiness. a metaphysician’s aspiration of the forlorn hope—has participated therein: that which in the terminal ever prefers a smattering of ‘certainty’ to a whole cartload of beautiful possibilities ; there may even be puritanical fiends of scruples. who prefer to set their last trust in a certain nil. instead than in an unsure something. But that is Nihilism. and the mark of a despairing. mortally jaded psyche. notwithstanding the brave bearing such a virtuousness may expose. It seems. nevertheless. to be otherwise with stronger and livelier minds who are still eager for life.
In that they side AGAINST visual aspect. and speak superciliously of ‘perspective. ’ in that they rank the credibleness of their ain organic structures about every bit low as the credibleness of the optic grounds that ‘the Earth bases still. ’ and therefore. seemingly. leting with complacence their securest ownership to get away ( for what does one at present believe in more steadfastly than in one’s organic structure? ) . —who knows if they are non truly seeking to win back something which was once an even securer ownership. something of the old sphere of the religion of former times. possibly the ‘immortal psyche. ’ possibly ‘the old God. ’ in short. thoughts by which they could populate better. that is to state. more smartly and more gleefully. than by ‘modern ideas’ ? There is DISTRUST of these modern thoughts in this manner of looking at things. a 1 Beyond Good and Evil
incredulity in all that has been constructed yesterday and today ; there is possibly some little alloy of repletion and contempt. which can no longer digest the BRIC-A-BRAC of thoughts of the most varied beginning. such as alleged Positivism at present throws on the market ; a disgust of the more refined gustatory sensation at the village-fair motleyness and patchiness of all these reality-philosophasters. in whom there is nil either new or true. except this motleyness. Therein it seems to me that we should hold with those disbelieving anti-realists and knowledge-microscopists of the present twenty-four hours ; their inherent aptitude. which repels them from MODERN world. is unrefuted … what do their retrograde by-paths concern us!
The chief thing about them is NOT that they wish to travel ‘back. ’ but that they wish to acquire AWAY therefrom. A little MORE strength. swing. bravery. and artistic power. and they would be OFF—and non back! 11. It seems to me that there is everyplace an effort at present to deviate attending from the existent influence which Kant exercised on German doctrine. and particularly to disregard providentially the value which he set upon himself. Kant was foremost and foremost proud of his Table of Classs ; with it in his manus he said: ‘This is the most hard thing that could of all time be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics. ’ Let us merely understand this ‘could be’ ! He was proud of holding DISCOVERED a new module in adult male. the module of man-made judgement a priori.
Allowing that he deceived himself in this affair ; the development and rapid flourishing of German doctrine depended however on his pride. and on the Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 eager competition of the younger coevals to detect if possible something—at all events ‘new faculties’—of which to be still prouder! —But allow us reflect for a moment—it is high clip to make so. ‘How are man-made judgements a priori POSSIBLE? ’ Kant asks himself—and what is truly his reply? ‘BY MEANS OF A MEANS ( module ) ’—but unluckily non in five words. but so circumstantially. impressively. and with such show of German reconditeness and verbal flourishes. that one raw loses sight of the amusing niaiserie allemande involved in such an reply.
Peoples were beside themselves with delectation over this new module. and the exultation reached its flood tide when Kant farther discovered a moral module in man—for at that clip Germans were still moral. non yet dabbling in the ‘Politics of difficult fact. ’ Then came the honeymoon of German doctrine. All the immature theologists of the Tubingen establishment went instantly into the groves—all seeking for ‘faculties. ’ And what did they non find—in that inexperienced person. rich. and still vernal period of the German spirit. to which Romanticism. the malicious faery. piped and American ginseng. when 1 could non yet distinguish between ‘finding’ and ‘inventing’ ! Above all a module for the ‘transcendental” ;
Schelling christened it. rational intuition. and thereby gratified the most sincere yearnings of the of course pious-inclined Germans. One can make no greater incorrect to the whole of this exuberant and bizarre motion ( which was truly youthfulness. notwithstanding that it disguised itself so boldly. in grey and doddering constructs ) . than to take it earnestly. or even handle it with moral outrage. Enough. however—the universe 1 Beyond Good and Evil grew older. and the dream vanished.
A clip came when people rubbed their brows. and they still rub them today. Peoples had been woolgathering. and first and foremost—old Kant. ‘By means of a agency ( module ) ’—he had said. or at least meant to state. But. is that—an reply? An account? Or is it non instead simply a repeat of the inquiry? How does opium bring on sleep? ‘By agencies of a agency ( module ) . ‘namely the vertu dormitiva. replies the physician in Moliere. Quia est in eo vertu dormitiva. Cujus est natura sensus assoupire.
But such answers belong to the kingdom of comedy. and it is high clip to replace the Kantian inquiry. ‘How are man-made judgements a PRIORI possible? ’ by another inquiry. ‘Why is belief in such judgements necessary? ’—in consequence. it is high clip that we should understand that such judgements must be believed to be true. for the interest of the saving of animals like ourselves ; though they still might of course be false judgements!
Or. more obviously spoken. and approximately and readily—synthetic judgements a priori should non ‘be possible’ at all ; we have no right to them ; in our oral cavities they are nil but false judgements. Merely. of class. the belief in their truth is necessary. as plausible belief and optic grounds belonging to the perspective position of life.
And eventually. to name to mind the tremendous influence which ‘German philosophy’—I hope you understand its right to inverted commas ( goosefeet ) ? —has Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 exercised throughout the whole of Europe. there is no uncertainty that a certain VIRTUS DORMITIVA had a portion in it ; thanks to German doctrine. it was a delectation to the baronial loafers. the virtuous. the mystics. the artiste. the three-fourths Christians. and the political obscurantists of all states. to happen an counterpoison to the still overpowering sensuality which overflowed from the last century into this. in short—‘sensus assoupire. ’ … 12.
As respects mercenary atomism. it is one of the best- refuted theories that have been advanced. and in Europe there is now possibly no 1 in the erudite universe so unscholarly as to attach serious meaning to it. except for convenient everyday usage ( as an abbreviation of the agencies of look ) — thanks chiefly to the Pole Boscovich: he and the Pole Copernicus have hitherto been the greatest and most successful oppositions of optic grounds.
For while Copernicus has persuaded us to believe. contrary to all the senses. that the Earth does NOT stand fast. Boscovich has taught us to recant the belief in the last thing that ‘stood fast’ of the earth—the belief in ‘substance. ’ in ‘matter. ’ in the earth-residuum. and particle- atom: it is the greatest victory over the senses that has hitherto been gained on Earth.
One must. nevertheless. travel still farther. and besides declare war. grim war to the knife. against the ‘atomistic requirements’ which still lead a unsafe after-life in topographic points where no 1 suspects them. like the more famed ‘metaphysical requirements” : 1 must besides above all give the coating shot to that other and more prodigious atomism which Christianity has 1 Beyond Good and Evil taught best and longest. the SOUL- ATOMISM.
Let it be permitted to denominate by this look the belief which regards the psyche as something indestructible. ageless. indivisible. as a monad. as an atomon: this belief ought to be expelled from scientific discipline! Between ourselves. it is non at all necessary to acquire rid of ‘the soul’ thereby. and therefore abdicate one of the oldest and most venerated hypotheses—as happens often to the awkwardness of naturalists. who can barely touch on the psyche without instantly losing it.
But the manner is unfastened for new acceptations and polishs of the soul-hypothesis ; and such constructs as ‘mortal psyche. ’ and ‘soul of subjective multiplicity. ’ and ‘soul as societal construction of the inherent aptitudes and passions. ’ want henceforth to hold legitimate rights in scientific discipline.
In that the NEW psychologist is about to set an terminal to the superstitious notions which have hitherto flourished with about tropical lushness around the thought of the psyche. he is truly. as it were. thrusting himself into a new desert and a new distrust—it is possible that the older psychologists had a merrier and more comfy clip of it ; finally. nevertheless. he finds that exactly thereby he is besides condemned to INVENT—and. who knows?
possibly to Detect the new. 13. Psychologists should bethink themselves before seting down the inherent aptitude of self-preservation as the central inherent aptitude of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to DISCHARGE its strength—life itself is WILL TO POWER ; self-preservation is merely one of the indirect and most frequent RESULTS thereof. In short. here. as everyplace else. Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 allow us mind of SUPERFLUOUS teleological rules! — one of which is the inherent aptitude of self- saving ( we owe it to Spinoza’s incompatibility ) . It is therefore. in consequence. that method ordains. which must be basically economic system of rules. 14.
It is possibly merely clicking on five or six heads that natural doctrine is merely a world-exposition and worldarrangement ( harmonizing to us. if I may state so! ) and NOT a world-explanation ; but in so far as it is based on belief in the senses. it is regarded as more. and for a long clip to come must be regarded as more—namely. as an account. It has eyes and fingers of its ain. it has optic grounds and palpableness of its ain: this operates fascinatingly. persuasively. and CONVINCINGLY upon an age with basically common tastes—in fact. it follows instinctively the canon of truth of ageless popular sensuality. What is clear. what is ‘explained’ ? Merely that which can be seen and felt—one must prosecute every job therefore far.
Obversely. nevertheless. the appeal of the Platonic manner of idea. which was an ARISTOCRATIC manner. consisted exactly in RESISTANCE to obvious sense-evidence—perhaps among work forces who enjoyed even stronger and more fastidious senses than our coevalss. but who knew how to happen a higher victory in staying Masterss of them: and this by agencies of picket. cold. gray ideational webs which they threw over the assorted commotion of the senses—the rabble of the senses. as Plato said. In this overcoming of the universe. and interpretation of the universe in the mode of Plato. there was an ENJOYMENT different from that which the physicists 0 Beyond Good and Evil of today offer us—and likewise the Darwinists and antiteleologists among the physiological workers. with their rule of the ‘smallest possible attempt. ’ and the greatest possible blooper.
‘Where there is nil more to see or to hold on. there is besides nil more for work forces to do’—that is surely an imperative different from the Platonic 1. but it may however be the right jussive mood for a Hardy. arduous race of mechanics and bridge- builders of the hereafter. who have nil but ROUGH work to execute. 15. To analyze physiology with a clear scruples. one must take a firm stand on the fact that the sense-organs are non phenomena in the sense of the idealistic doctrine ; as such they surely could non be causes!
Sensuality. hence. at least as regulatory hypothesis. if non as heuristic rule. What? And others say even that the external universe is the work of our variety meats? But so our organic structure. as a portion of this external universe. would be the work of our variety meats! But so our variety meats themselves would be the work of our variety meats! It seems to me that this is a complete REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. if the construct CAUSA SUI is something basically absurd.
Consequently. the external universe is NOT the work of our organs— ? 16. There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are ‘immediate certainties” ; for case. ‘I think. ’ or as the superstitious notion of Schopenhauer puts it. ‘I will” ; as though knowledge here got clasp of its object strictly and merely as ‘the thing in itself. ’ without any disproof taking topographic point eiFree eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 ther on the portion of the topic or the object. I would reiterate it. nevertheless. a 100 times. that ‘immediate certainty. ’ every bit good as ‘absolute knowledge’ and the ‘thing in itself. ’ involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO ; we truly ought to liberate ourselves from the deceptive significance of words!
The people on their portion may believe that knowledge is cognizing all about things. but the philosopher must state to himself: ‘When I analyze the procedure that is expressed in the sentence. ‘I think. ’ I find a whole series of make bolding averments. the argumentative cogent evidence of which would be hard. possibly impossible: for case. that it is I who think. that there must needfully be something that thinks. that thought is an activity and operation on the portion of a being who is thought of as a cause. that there is an ‘ego. ’ and eventually. that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thought is. For if I had non already decided within myself what it is. by what criterion could I find whether that which is merely go oning is non possibly ‘willing’ or ‘feeling’ ?