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-57 [2015/07/19 11:59] (current)
babrak ↷ Page moved from en:nietzsche:works:ac:ac-57 to en:nietzsche:werke:ac:ac-57
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== FN.-AC. §57 ======
 +===== The Antichrist. =====
 +<​tab>​One catches the //​unholiness//​ of Christian means //in flagranti// by the simple process of putting the ends sought by Christianity beside the ends sought by the Code of Manu–by putting these enormously antithetical ends under a strong light. The critic of Christianity cannot evade the necessity of making Christianity //​contemptible//​.–A book of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other good law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the ethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a conclusion; it no longer creates. The prerequisite to a codification of this sort is recognition of the fact that the means which establish the authority of a slowly and painfully attained //truth// are fundamentally different from those which one would make use of to prove it. A law-book never recites the utility, the grounds, the casuistical antecedents of a law: for if it did so it would lose the imperative tone, the “thou shall,” on which obedience is based. The problem lies exactly here.–At a certain point in the evolution of a people, the class within it of the greatest insight, which is to say, the greatest hindsight and foresight, declares that the series of experiences determining how all shall live–or //can// live–has come to an end. The object now is to reap as rich and as complete a harvest as possible from the days of experiment and //hard// experience. In consequence,​ the thing that is to be avoided above everything is further experimentation–the continuation of the state in which values are fluent, and are tested, chosen and criticized //ad infinitum//​. Against this a double wall is set up: on the one hand, //​revelation//,​ which is the assumption that the reasons lying behind the laws are //not// of human origin, that they were //not// sought out and found by a slow process and after many errors, but that they are of divine ancestry, and came into being complete, perfect, without a history, as a free gift, a miracle...; and on the other hand, //​tradition//,​ which is the assumption that the law has stood unchanged from time immemorial, and that it is impious and a crime against one’s forefathers to bring it into question. The authority of the law is thus grounded on the thesis: God gave it, and the fathers //lived// it.–The higher motive of such procedure lies in the design to distract consciousness,​ step by step, from its concern with notions of right living (that is to say, those that have been //proved// to be right by wide and carefully considered experience),​ so that instinct attains to a perfect automatism–a primary necessity to every sort of mastery, to every sort of perfection in the art of life. To draw up such a law-book as Manu’s means to lay before a people the possibility of future mastery, of attainable perfection–it permits them to aspire to the highest reaches of the art of life. //To that end the thing must be made unconscious//:​ that is the aim of every holy lie.–The //order of castes//, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an //order of nature//, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no “modern idea,” can exert any influence. In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. It is //not// Manu but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual,​ in another those who are marked by muscular strength and temperament,​ and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only mediocrity–the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select. The superior caste–I call it the //​fewest//​–has,​ as the most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. //Pulchrum est paucorum hominum//:​((Few men are noble.[--Ed.])) goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees //​ugliness//​–or indignation against the general aspect of things. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. “//The world is perfect//​”–so prompts the instinct of the intellectual,​ the instinct of the man who says yes to life. “Imperfection,​ whatever is //​inferior//​ to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala themselves are parts of this perfection.” The most intelligent men, like the //​strongest//,​ find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery;​ in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a //​recreation//​ to play with burdens that would crush all others.... Knowledge–a form of asceticism.–They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they want to, but because they //are//; they are not at liberty to play second.–The //second caste//: to this belong the guardians of the law, the keepers of order and security, the more noble warriors, above all, the king as the highest form of warrior, judge and preserver of the law. The second in rank constitute the executive arm of the intellectuals,​ the next to them in rank, taking from them all that is //rough// in the business of ruling–their followers, their right hand, their most apt disciples.–In all this, I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary, nothing “made up”; whatever is to the //​contrary//​ is made up–by it nature is brought to shame.... The order of castes, the //order of rank//, simply formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution of higher types, and the highest types–the //​inequality//​ of rights is essential to the existence of any rights at all.–A right is a privilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the //​mediocre//​. Life is always harder as one mounts the //​heights//​–the cold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts,​ commerce, agriculture,​ //​science//,​ the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of //​occupational//​ activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition;​ it is not //​society//,​ but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is, in fact, the //first// prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional:​ it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of heart–it is simply his //​duty//​.... Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence–who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights.... What is //bad//? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from //​revenge//​.–The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....
 +===== Similarities to aphorisms by Nietzsche =====
 +===== Similarities to aphorisms by others =====
 +===== Academic interpretations =====
 +===== Other connections =====
Back to top
en/nietzsche/werke/ac/ac-57.txt · Last modified: 2015/07/19 11:59 by babrak