Aphorisms -- in context.

User Tools

Site Tools



This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

en:nietzsche:werke:ac:ac-32 [2015/07/19 11:59] (current)
babrak ↷ Page moved from en:nietzsche:works:ac:ac-32 to en:nietzsche:werke:ac:ac-32
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== FN.-AC. §32 ======
 +===== The Antichrist. =====
 +<​tab>​I can only repeat that I set myself against all efforts to intrude the fanatic into the figure of the Saviour: the very word //​impérieux//,​ used by Renan, is alone enough to //annul// the type. What the “glad tidings” tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions;​ the kingdom of heaven belongs to //​children//;​ the faith that is voiced here is no more an embattled faith–it is at hand, it has been from the beginning, it is a sort of recrudescent childishness of the spirit. The physiologists,​ at all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in the living organism, the result of degeneration. A faith of this sort is not furious, it does not denounce, it does not defend itself: it does not come with “the sword”–it does not realize how it will one day set man against man. It does not manifest itself either by miracles, or by rewards and promises, or by “scriptures”:​ it is itself, first and last, its own miracle, its own reward, its own promise, its own “kingdom of God.” This faith does not formulate itself–it simply //lives//, and so guards itself against formulae. To be sure, the accident of environment,​ of educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain sort: in primitive Christianity one finds //only// concepts of a Judaeo-Semitic character (–that of eating and drinking at the last supper belongs to this category–an idea which, like everything else Jewish, has been badly mauled by the church). But let us be careful not to see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics((The word //​Semiotik//​ is in the text, but it is probable that //​Semantik//​ is what Nietzsche had in mind.[--Ed.])) an opportunity to speak in parables. It is only on the theory that no work is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of Sankhya,​((One of the six great systems of Hindu philosophy.[--Ed.])) and among Chinese he would have employed those of Lao-tse((The reputed founder of Taoism.[--Ed.]))–and in neither case would it have made any difference to him.–With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”((Nietzsche’s name for one accepting his own philosophy.[--Ed.]))–he cares nothing for what is established:​ the word //​killeth//,​((That is, the strict letter of the law–the chief target of Jesus’s early preaching.[--Ed.])) whatever is established //​killeth//​. The idea of “life” as an //​experience//,​ as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He speaks only of inner things: “life” or “truth” or “light” is his word for the innermost–in his sight everything else, the whole of reality, all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as allegory.–Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by the temptations lying in Christian, or rather //​ecclesiastical//​ prejudices: such a symbolism //par excellence//​ stands outside all religion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all worldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books, all art–his “wisdom” is precisely a //pure ignorance//​((A reference to the “pure ignorance” (//reine Thorheit//) of Parsifal.[--Ed.])) of all such things. He has never heard of //​culture//;​ he doesn’t have to make war on it–he doesn’t even deny it.... The same thing may be said of the //state//, of the whole bourgeoise social order, of labour, of war–he has no ground for denying “the world,” for he knows nothing of the ecclesiastical concept of “the world”.... //Denial// is precisely the thing that is impossible to him.–In the same way he lacks argumentative capacity, and has no belief that an article of faith, a “truth,​” may be established by proofs (–//his// proofs are inner “lights,​” subjective sensations of happiness and self-approval,​ simple “proofs of power”–). Such a doctrine //cannot// contradict: it doesn’t know that other doctrines exist, or //can// exist, and is wholly incapable of imagining anything opposed to it.... If anything of the sort is ever encountered,​ it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy–for it alone has “light”–but it does not offer objections....
 +===== Similarities to aphorisms by Nietzsche =====
 +===== Similarities to aphorisms by others =====
 +===== Academic interpretations =====
 +===== Other connections =====
Back to top
en/nietzsche/werke/ac/ac-32.txt · Last modified: 2015/07/19 11:59 by babrak