In practice everything resolved itself into theatricalness: and he who saw through
Pyrrho did, for instance, thought every body did--that say, that goodness and uprightness "paltry people" were far superior philosophers.
Pyrrho did, for instance, thought every body did--that say, that goodness and uprightness "paltry people" were far superior philosophers.
Nietzsche - Works - v14 - Will to Power - a
348
THE WILL TO POWER.
the decadence of every kind of Greek ability, but
also made it contagious. . . . This "virtue" made wholly abstract was the highest form of seduction; to make oneself abstract means to turn one's back on the world.
The moment is a very remarkable one: the
Sophists are within sight of the first criticism of morality, the first knowledge of morality:--they
classify the majority of moral valuations (in view
of their dependence upon local conditions) together;
--they lead one to understand that every form of morality is capable of being upheld dialectically:
that is to say, they guessed that all the funda mental principles of a morality must be sophistical
--a proposition which was afterwards proved in the grandest possible style by the ancient philoso
phers from Plato onwards (up to Kant);--they
postulate the primary truth that there is no such thing as a "moral per se," a "good per se," and that it is madness to talk of "truth" in this respect.
Wherever was intellectual uprightness to be found in those days?
The Greek culture of the Sophists had grown
out of all the Greek instincts; it belongs to the
culture of the age of Pericles as necessarily as Plato does not: it has its predecessors in Hera clitus, Democritus, and in the scientific types of the old philosophy; it finds expression in the
elevated culture of Thucydides, for instance, And
--it has ultimately shown itself to be right: every step in the science of epistemology and morality
has confirmed the attitude of the Sophists. . . . Our
? ? ? - CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY,
349
? great extent, Heraclitean, Democritean, and Protagorean
modern attitude of mind
say that Protagorean even sufficient: because Protagoras was himself synthesis
the two men Heraclitus and Democritus.
(Plato: great Cagliostro-let think how Epicurus judged him; how Timon, Pyrrho's friend, judged him Plato's integrity by any chance
beyond question?
But we
least know absolute truth him not even
what he wished have taught --namely, things which were
relative truths: the separate and immortal life "souls. ")
429.
The Sophists are nothing more nor less than realists: they elevate all the values and practices which are common property the rank values --they have the courage, peculiar all strong
intellects, which consists knowing their im morality.
be supposed that these small Greek independent republics, filled with rage and envy
that they would fain have devoured each other, were led by principles humanity and honesty
Thucydides by any chance reproached with the words he puts into the mouths the Athenian ambassadors when they were treating with the Melii anent the question destruction sub mission? Only the most perfect Tartuffes could have been able speak virtue the midst
that dreadful strain--or not Tartuffes, least detached philosophers, anchorites, exiles, and fleers
? ? ? if of
in
at
or of
of
? ofof.
to
to
.
is Is
Is
to
of so
. .
Is it
to . . .
a
it
in to
inof to atusaa
of
is, is to
to as
of
.
.
? 350
* THE WILL TO POWER.
from reality. . . . All of them, people who denied things in order to be able to exist.
The Sophists were Greeks: when Socrates and
Plato adopted the cause of virtue and justice, they
were Jews or I know not what. Grote's tactics
in the defence of the Sophists are false: he would like to raise them to the rank of men of honour
and moralisers--but it was their honour not to indulge in any humbug with grand words and virtues.
43O.
The great reasonableness underlying all moral education lay in the fact that it always attempted to attain to the certainty of an instinct: so that neither good intentions nor good means, as such, first required to enter consciousness. Just as the soldier learns his exercises, so should man learn how to act in life. In truth this unconsciousness belongs to every kind of perfection: even the
mathematician carries out his calculations un
? consciously.
What, then, does Socrates' reaction mean, which
recommended dialectics as the way to virtue, and which was amused when morality was unable to justify itself logically? But this is precisely what proves its superiority--without unconsciousness it is worth nothing!
In reality it means the dissolution of Greek instincts, when demonstrability is posited as the
first condition of personal excellence in virtue. All these great "men of virtue" and of words are themselves types of dissolution.
. . .
? ? ? -
CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
351
In practice, it means that moral judgments have been torn from the conditions among which they grew and in which alone they had some sense, from their Greek and Graeco-political soil, in order to be denaturalised under the cover of being sub limated. The great concepts "good" and "just"
are divorced from the first principles of which they form a part, and, as "ideas" become free, degenerate
into subjects for discussion. A certain truth is sought behind them; they are regarded as entities
or as symbols of entities: a world is invented where
they are "at home," and from which they are supposed to hail.
In short: the scandal reaches its apotheosis in
Plato. . . . And then it was necessary to invent the abstract perfect man also:--good, just, wise,
and a dialectician to boot--in short, the scarecrow ofthe ancient philosopher: a plant without any
soil whatsoever; a human race devoid of all definite ruling instincts; a virtue which "justifies"
itself with reasons. The perfectly absurd "in
dividual" per se! the highest form of Artifici ality. . . . .
Briefly, the denaturalisation of moral values resulted in the creation of a degenerate type of man--"the good man," "the happy man," "the
wise man. "--Socrates represents a moment of the most profound perversity in the history of values.
43 I.
Socrates. --This veering round of Greek taste in favour of dialectics is a great question. What
? ? ? ? 352
THE WILL TO POWER.
really happened then? Socrates, the roturier
who was responsible for was thus able
triumph over more noble taste, the taste the
noble --the mob gets the upper hand along with dialectics. Previous to Socrates dialectic manners
were repudiated good society; they were re garded indecent; the youths were warned
against them. What was the purpose this display reasons? Why demonstrate Against others one could use authority. One commanded, and that sufficed. Among friends, inter pares,
authority: and last but not least, one understood each other.
there was tradition--also form
? There was no room found for dialectics.
Besides,
all such modes presenting reasons were dis
trusted. All honest things do not carry their
reasons their hands such fashion.
indecent show all the five fingers the same time. That which can be "demonstrated
every party-speaker tells him that dialectics excites mistrust and
little worth. The instinct
carries little conviction. Nothing more easily wiped away than the effect dialectician. can
only
extremity; necessary
means self-defence. One must an have extort one's
rights; otherwise one makes no use dialectics. That why the Jews were dialecticians, Reynard the Fox was dialectician, and so was Socrates.
As dialectician
person has merciless instru
can play the tyrant with when conquers. The
his opponent demon strate that he not an idiot; he made furious
ment his hand: it; compromises
dialectician leaves
? ? is
a it is
a
it to
a of
of
in
he is
a
he in
is be a
toin
of as
he
a
of to to
is
at ofP
to of of a
in
a
it,
be It
in "It
of
of
is is
to
? CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY,
353
and helpless, while the dialectician himself remains calm and still possessed of his triumphant reason ing powers--he paralyses his opponent's intellect.
--The dialectician's irony is a form of mob revenge: the ferocity of the oppressed lies in the
cold knife-cuts of the syllogism. . . .
In Plato, as in all men of excessive sensuality
and wild fancies, the charm of concepts was so
great, that he involuntarily honoured and deified
the concept as a form of ideal. Dialectical intoxi
cation: as the consciousness of being able to
exercise control over one's self by means of it-- as an instrument of the Will to Power.
432.
The problem of Socrates. --The two antitheses: the tragic and the Socratic spirits -- measured according to the law of Life.
To what extent is the Socratic spirit a
decadent phenomenon ? to what extent are
robust health and power still revealed by the
whole attitude of the scientific man, his dialectics,
his ability, and his severity? (the health of the Plebeian; whose malice, esprit frondeur, whose
astuteness, whose rascally depths, are held in check by his cleverness; the whole type is "ugly"). Uglification : self-derision, dialectical dryness,
intelligence in the form of a tyrant against the "tyrant" (instinct). Everything in Socrates is
? exaggeration, eccentricity, caricature;
he is a buffoon with the blood of Voltaire in his veins,
VOL. I. Z
? ? ? THE WILL TO POWER.
354
He discovers a new form of agon; he is the first fencing-master in the superior classes of Athens;
he stands for nothing else than the highest form of cleverness: he calls it "virtue" (he regarded it as a means of salvation; he did not choose to be clever, cleverness was de rigueur); the proper
thing is to control one's self in suchwise that one
enters into a struggle not with passions but with reasons as one's weapons (Spinoza's stratagem
--the unravelment of the errors of passion);--it is desirable to discover how every one may be caught
once he is goaded into a passion, and to know how illogically passion proceeds; self-mockery is
practised in order to injure the very roots of the feelings of resentment.
It is my wish to understand which idiosyncratic
states form a part of the Socratic problem: its association of reason, virtue, and happiness. With
this absurd doctrine of the identity of these things it succeeded in charming the world: ancient philo sophy could not rid itself of this doctrine. . . .
Absolute lack of objective interest: hatred of science: the idiosyncrasy of considering one's self
a problem. Acoustic hallucinations in Socrates: morbid element. When the intellect is rich and
independent, it most strongly resists preoccupying
itself with morality. How is it that Socrates is a moral-maniac P--Every "practical" philosophy immediately steps into the foreground in times of
distress. When morality and religion become the
chief interests of a community, they are signs of a state of distress,
? ? ? ? CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY
433.
Intelligence, clearness, hardness, and logic as
weapons against
the wildness of the instincts.
The latter must be dangerous and must threaten
ruin, otherwise no purpose can be served by
developing intelligence to this degree of tyranny. In order to make a tyrant of intelligence the
instincts must first have proved themselves tyrants.
problem. very timely This is the Itwas a -one
in those days. Reason became virtue equalled happiness.
Solution ; Greek philosophers stand upon the same fundamental fact of their inner experiences as Socrates does; five feet from excess, from anarchy
They
regard him as a doctor: Logic as will to power, as
will to control self, as will to "happiness. " The
wildness and anarchy of Socrates' instincts is a
sign of decadence, as is also the superfoetation
of logic and clear reasoning in him. Both are abnormities, each belongs to the other.
Criticism. Decadence reveals itself in this con
cern about "happiness" (i. e. about the "salvation
of the soul"; i. e. to feel that one's condition is a
danger). Its fanatical interest in "happiness"
shows the pathological condition of the subcon scious self: it was a vital interest. The alternative
which faced them all was: to be reasonable or to perish. The morality of Greek philosophers shows that they felt they were in danger.
and from dissolution--all decadent men.
virtue
? ? ? ? 356
THE WILL TO POWER.
434.
Why everything resolved itself into mummery. -- Rudimentary psychology, which only considered
the conscious lapses of men (as causes), which re
garded "consciousness" as an attribute of the soul,
and which sought a will behind every action (i. e. an intention), could only answer "Happiness" to
the question: "What does man desire? " (it was
impossible to answer "Power," because that would have been immoral);--consequently behind all
men's actions there is the intention of attaining to happiness by means of them. Secondly: if
man as a matter of fact does not attain to happi ness, why is it? Because he mistakes the means
thereto. -- What is the unfailing means of acquiring happiness Answer: virtue. --Why virtue? Be
cause virtue is supreme rationalness, and rational ness makes mistakes in the choice of means
? impossible:
virtue in the form of reason is the
way to happiness. Dialectics is the constant occupation of virtue, because it does away with
passion and intellectual cloudiness.
As a matter of fact, man does not desire
"happiness. " Pleasure is a sensation of power:
if the passions are excluded, those states of the
mind are also excluded which afford the greatest
sensation of power and therefore of pleasure. The
highest rationalism is a state of cool clearness,
which is very far from being able to bring about
that feeling of power which every kind of exalta tion involves. . . .
The ancient philosophers combat everything
? ? ~ CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
-- >
-
that intoxicates and exalts--everything that im pairs the perfect coolness and impartiality of the
mind. . . . They were consistent with their first
false principle: that consciousness was the highest, the supreme state of mind, the prerequisite of
perfection--whereas the reverse is true. . .
Any kind of action is imperfect in proportion as
it has been willed or conscious. The philosophers of antiquity were the greatest duffers in practice,
because they condemned themselves theoretically to dufferdom. . . .
In practice everything resolved itself into theatricalness: and he who saw through
Pyrrho did, for instance, thought every body did--that say, that goodness and uprightness "paltry people" were far superior philosophers.
All the deeper natures antiquity were dis gusted the philosophers virtue; all people
saw them was brawlers and actors. (This was the judgment passed on Plato by Epicurus and
Pyrrho)
* --- -~
- |
- --
? 357
? practical life, patience, goodness, and mutual assistance, paltry people were above
them:--this something like the judgment
Dostoiewsky Tolstoy claims for his muzhiks: they are more philosophical practice, they are
more courageous their way dealing with the
exigencies
criticism the philosopher. --Philosophers and moralists merely deceive themselves when they
Result:
life.
435.
? ? A
of
in
at
it, as
of
. in
or is
In
.
is to
of in
in
of of
in
as to
*
? 358
THE WILL TO POWER.
imagine that they escape from decadence by
opposing That lies beyond their wills: and however little they may be aware the fact,
generally discovered subsequently that they were among the most *powerful promoters of decadence.
Let examine the philosophers Greece--
Plato, for instance. He was who separated the
instincts from the polis, from the love contest, from military efficiency, from art, beauty, the
mysteries,
ancestors. He was the seducer of the nobles:
and the belief tradition and
? he himself seduces through the roturier Socrates.
He denied all the first principles the
"noble Greek" sterling worth; he made dialectics an everyday practice, conspired with
the tyrants, dabbled politics for the future, and
was the example man whose instincts were
most perfectly separated from tradition. He profound and passionate everything that anti-Hellenic.
One after the other, these great philosophers
represent the typical forms decadence: the moral and religious idiosyncrasy, anarchy, nihilism,
(a? 8wdhopa), cynicism, hardening principles, hedon ism, and reaction.
The question "happiness,"
the "salvation the soul,"
"virtue," and the expression
physiological contradictoriness ? urpose.
these declining natures: their instincts lack all balance and
? ? in is
of
of . .
ofof . of
a in
of
is is
in
it
of
. .
of in
it in
.
is us
. . .
it.
of of
of
of
? >~ 436.
To what extent do dialectics and the faith in
reason rest upon moral prejudices? With Plato we are as the temporary inhabitants of an in telligible world of goodness, still in possession of
a bequest from former times: divine dialectics taking its root in goodness leads to everything
--- CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
good follows, therefore,
that must lead
"backwards"). Even the fact that, according
Descartes had notion thoroughly Christian
mind, which includes the Creator all things,
and moral attitude
belief good God
the truthfulness God guarantees the judgments
~~~
? our senses for us. But for this religious sanction and warrant of our senses and our reason, whence should we obtain our right trust existence?
That thinking must be measure
what cannot be the subject
exist--is coarse non plus ultra
confidence (in the essential principle
the root all things); this itself mad assumption which our experience contradicts every
minute. We cannot think as is.
437.
The real philosophers of Greece are those which
came before Socrates (with Socrates
usage; they have travelled; they are earnest
changes). They are all distinguished men, they
take their stand away from the people and from
reality,-that thought, cannot moral blind
truth anything precisely
something
? ? to
at
a of
it
of
in (it . ofa a
.
of
in
of a
is of a
a
as of
to
to of
a
of
in
of
it a
of
? 36o
THE WILL TO POWEEL
the point of sombreness, their eyes are calm, and
they are not unacquainted with the business of state and diplomacy. They anticipated all the
great concepts which coming sages were to have
concerning things in general: they themselves re
presented these concepts, they made systems out
of themselves. Nothing can give a higher idea of Greek intellect than this sudden fruitfulness in
types, than this involuntary completeness in the drawing up of all the great possibilities of the philosophical ideal. I can see only one original figure
in those that came afterwards: a late arrival, but necessarily the last--Pyrrho the
nihilist. His instincts were opposed to the in fluences which had become ascendant in the mean
time: the Socratic school, Plato, and the artistic optimism of Heraclitus. (Pyrrho goes back to Democritus via Protagoras. . . . )
2k
Wise weariness: Pyrrho. To live humbly
among the humble. Devoid of pride. To live
in the vulgar way; to honour and believe what
every one believes. To be on one's guard against science and intellect, and against everything that
puffs one out. . . . To be simply patient in the extreme, careless and mild;--a? ta? 6eta, or, better
still, Tpairns. A Buddhist for Greece, bred amid the tumult of the Schools; born after his time; weary; an example of the protest of weariness against the eagerness of dialecticians; the in
credulity of the tired man in regard to the im
? ? ? ? CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
361
portance of everything. He had seen Alexander; he had seen the Indian penitents. To such late
arrivals and creatures of great subtlety, every thing lowly, poor, and idiotic, is seductive. It
narcoticises: it gives them relaxation (Pascal). On the other hand, by mixing with the crowd,
and getting confounded with the rest, they get
a little warmth. These weary creatures need
warmth. . . . To overcome contradiction; to do
away with contests; to have no will to excel in
any way: to deny the Greek instincts. (Pyrrho
lived with his sister, who was a midwife. ) To rig
out wisdom in such a way that it no longer dis tinguishes; to give it the ragged mantle of poverty;
to perform the lowest offices, and to go to market and sell sucking-pigs. . . . Sweetness, clearness,
indifference; no need of virtues that require atti
tudes; to be equal to all even in virtue: final conquest of one's self, final indifference,
Pyrrho and Epicurus:--two forms of Greek
decadence: they are related in their hatred of dialectics and all theatrical virtues. These two
things together were then called philosophy; Pyrrho and Epicurus intentionally held that which
they loved in low esteem; they chose common and even contemptible names for and they re presented state which one neither ill, healthy, lively, nor dead. Epicurus was more naif, more idyllic, more grateful; Pyrrho had more experience the world, had travelled more, and
? was more nihilistic. His life was
the great doctrine Knowledge).
promoted by
science: wisdom does not make
protest against Identity (Happiness Virtue The proper way living not
? ? =
of
a
it, is
= is
of
in
of
a
. . .
? 362
THE WILL TO POWER.
"wise. " . . . The proper way of living does not desire happiness, it turns away from happiness. . . .
438.
The war against the "old faith," as Epicurus waged was, strictly speaking, struggle against
Pre-existing Christianity--the struggle against world then already gloomy, moralised, acidified throughout with feelings guilt, and grown old and sick.
Not the "moral corruption antiquity, but
precisely moral infectedness was the prerequisite which enabled Christianity become its master.
? destroyed paganism by transvaluing its values and poisoning
Moral fanaticism (in short: Plato)
its innocence. We ought last understand that what was then destroyed was higher than what
prevailed Christianity grew
psychological corruption, and could only take
root rotten ground.
439.
Science disciplinary measure
instinct. --I see decline of the instincts Greek
philosophers: otherwise they could not have been guilty the profound error regarding the conscious state as the more valuable state. The intensity
ratio sion. which
the ease and speed cerebral transmis Greek philosophy upheld the opposite view,
always the sign weakened instincts.
consciousness stands the inverse
on the soil
? ? is
to
in of; !
it,
of
of
of at to "
a
of
as
its
in
to
of
of
aa
in or as
an
of
a
? CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
363
We must, in sooth, seek perfect life there where it is least conscious (that is to say, there where it is least aware of its logic, its reasons, its means, its intentions, and its utility). The return to the facts of common sense, the facts of the common man and of "paltry people. " Honesty and intelli
gence stored up for generations by people who are
quite unconscious of their principles, and who even have some fear of principles. It is not reasonable to desire a reasoning virtue. . . . A philosopher is compromised by such a desire.
? 44O.
~.
When morality--that is to say, refinement,
prudence, bravery, and equity--have been stored
up in the same way, thanks to the moral efforts
of a whole succession of generations, the collec
tive power of this hoard of virtue projects
rays even into that sphere where honesty most
seldom present--the sphere intellect. When thing becomes conscious, the sign
state ill-ease the organism; something new has got be found, the organism not satisfied
adapted, subject distress, suspense, and
hypersensitive--precisely sciousness.
all this con
Genius lies the instincts; goodness does too. One only acts perfectly when one acts in stinctively. Even from the moral point view
all thinking which conscious groping, and the majority
morality. Scientific honesty
merely process cases an attack always sacrificed
? ? on of
it or is
a
in in. isin is
is is of
it of is
a
of
is
is
.
it
to
of to
is
of a
its
? THE WILL TO POWER.
when a thinker begins to reason: let any one try the experiment: put the wisest man in the
364
balance, and morality. . . .
then let him discourse upon
It could also be proved that the whole of a
man's conscious thinking shows a much lower
standard of morality than the thoughts of the
same man would show if they were led by his instincts.
44 I.
The struggle against Socrates, Plato, and all the Socratic schools, proceeds from the profound instinct that man is not made better when he is
shown that virtue may be demonstrated or based
upon reason. . . . This in the end is the nig gardly fact, it was the agonal instinct in all these born dialecticians, which drove them to glorify
their personal abilities as the highest of all qualities, and to represent every other form of goodness as conditioned by them. The anti-scientific spirit of all this "philosophy": it will never admit that it is not right.
442.
This is extraordinary. From its very earliest beginnings, Greek philosophy carries on a struggle
against science with the weapons of a theory of
knowledge, especially of scepticism: and why is
this? . It is always in favour of morality. . . .
(Physicists and medical men are hated. ) Socrates, Aristippus, the Megarian school, the Cynics,
Epicurus, and Pyrrho--a general onslaught upon
? ? ? ? which
name
arsenal
The theory
in the affair as case. There
CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
365
knowledge in favour of morality. . . . (Hatred of
dialectics also. ) There is still a problem to be solved: they approach sophistry in order to be
rid of science. On the other hand, the physicists are subjected to such an extent that, among
their first principles, they include the theory of
truth and of real being: for instance, the atom,
the four elements (juxtaposition of being, in order
to explain Contempt
multiformity and transformations).
return utility
objectivity interests practical interest, and
taught: the personal
all knowledge.
The struggle against science
directed at: means (that
? (1) pathos (objectivity); (2)
say, its utility); (3) its results (which are
considered childish). the same
struggle
taken up later on by the Church the piety: the Church inherited the whole
antiquity for her war with science. knowledge played the same part did Kant's or the Indians'
no desire whatever to be troubled with free hand wanted for the "purpose. "
envisaged.
-
Against what powers are they actually defend
that
ing themselves? Against dutifulness, obedience law, against the compulsion hand in hand--I believe this what
against going called
Freedom. This
instinct itself gets
how decadence manifests itself: the solidarity degenerate that solidarity regarded tyranny: authority
solidarity brooked, nobody any longer
? ? or
to at
to is be
is
of
of its
of is . a . to
of to
is so
is
in
It
is it,
of of
is
its
it
.
as isin
no
is of
to
is
is
its its is
in
is
? THE WILL TO POWER.
366
desires to fall in with the rank and file, and to adopt its ignobly slow pace.
THE WILL TO POWER.
the decadence of every kind of Greek ability, but
also made it contagious. . . . This "virtue" made wholly abstract was the highest form of seduction; to make oneself abstract means to turn one's back on the world.
The moment is a very remarkable one: the
Sophists are within sight of the first criticism of morality, the first knowledge of morality:--they
classify the majority of moral valuations (in view
of their dependence upon local conditions) together;
--they lead one to understand that every form of morality is capable of being upheld dialectically:
that is to say, they guessed that all the funda mental principles of a morality must be sophistical
--a proposition which was afterwards proved in the grandest possible style by the ancient philoso
phers from Plato onwards (up to Kant);--they
postulate the primary truth that there is no such thing as a "moral per se," a "good per se," and that it is madness to talk of "truth" in this respect.
Wherever was intellectual uprightness to be found in those days?
The Greek culture of the Sophists had grown
out of all the Greek instincts; it belongs to the
culture of the age of Pericles as necessarily as Plato does not: it has its predecessors in Hera clitus, Democritus, and in the scientific types of the old philosophy; it finds expression in the
elevated culture of Thucydides, for instance, And
--it has ultimately shown itself to be right: every step in the science of epistemology and morality
has confirmed the attitude of the Sophists. . . . Our
? ? ? - CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY,
349
? great extent, Heraclitean, Democritean, and Protagorean
modern attitude of mind
say that Protagorean even sufficient: because Protagoras was himself synthesis
the two men Heraclitus and Democritus.
(Plato: great Cagliostro-let think how Epicurus judged him; how Timon, Pyrrho's friend, judged him Plato's integrity by any chance
beyond question?
But we
least know absolute truth him not even
what he wished have taught --namely, things which were
relative truths: the separate and immortal life "souls. ")
429.
The Sophists are nothing more nor less than realists: they elevate all the values and practices which are common property the rank values --they have the courage, peculiar all strong
intellects, which consists knowing their im morality.
be supposed that these small Greek independent republics, filled with rage and envy
that they would fain have devoured each other, were led by principles humanity and honesty
Thucydides by any chance reproached with the words he puts into the mouths the Athenian ambassadors when they were treating with the Melii anent the question destruction sub mission? Only the most perfect Tartuffes could have been able speak virtue the midst
that dreadful strain--or not Tartuffes, least detached philosophers, anchorites, exiles, and fleers
? ? ? if of
in
at
or of
of
? ofof.
to
to
.
is Is
Is
to
of so
. .
Is it
to . . .
a
it
in to
inof to atusaa
of
is, is to
to as
of
.
.
? 350
* THE WILL TO POWER.
from reality. . . . All of them, people who denied things in order to be able to exist.
The Sophists were Greeks: when Socrates and
Plato adopted the cause of virtue and justice, they
were Jews or I know not what. Grote's tactics
in the defence of the Sophists are false: he would like to raise them to the rank of men of honour
and moralisers--but it was their honour not to indulge in any humbug with grand words and virtues.
43O.
The great reasonableness underlying all moral education lay in the fact that it always attempted to attain to the certainty of an instinct: so that neither good intentions nor good means, as such, first required to enter consciousness. Just as the soldier learns his exercises, so should man learn how to act in life. In truth this unconsciousness belongs to every kind of perfection: even the
mathematician carries out his calculations un
? consciously.
What, then, does Socrates' reaction mean, which
recommended dialectics as the way to virtue, and which was amused when morality was unable to justify itself logically? But this is precisely what proves its superiority--without unconsciousness it is worth nothing!
In reality it means the dissolution of Greek instincts, when demonstrability is posited as the
first condition of personal excellence in virtue. All these great "men of virtue" and of words are themselves types of dissolution.
. . .
? ? ? -
CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
351
In practice, it means that moral judgments have been torn from the conditions among which they grew and in which alone they had some sense, from their Greek and Graeco-political soil, in order to be denaturalised under the cover of being sub limated. The great concepts "good" and "just"
are divorced from the first principles of which they form a part, and, as "ideas" become free, degenerate
into subjects for discussion. A certain truth is sought behind them; they are regarded as entities
or as symbols of entities: a world is invented where
they are "at home," and from which they are supposed to hail.
In short: the scandal reaches its apotheosis in
Plato. . . . And then it was necessary to invent the abstract perfect man also:--good, just, wise,
and a dialectician to boot--in short, the scarecrow ofthe ancient philosopher: a plant without any
soil whatsoever; a human race devoid of all definite ruling instincts; a virtue which "justifies"
itself with reasons. The perfectly absurd "in
dividual" per se! the highest form of Artifici ality. . . . .
Briefly, the denaturalisation of moral values resulted in the creation of a degenerate type of man--"the good man," "the happy man," "the
wise man. "--Socrates represents a moment of the most profound perversity in the history of values.
43 I.
Socrates. --This veering round of Greek taste in favour of dialectics is a great question. What
? ? ? ? 352
THE WILL TO POWER.
really happened then? Socrates, the roturier
who was responsible for was thus able
triumph over more noble taste, the taste the
noble --the mob gets the upper hand along with dialectics. Previous to Socrates dialectic manners
were repudiated good society; they were re garded indecent; the youths were warned
against them. What was the purpose this display reasons? Why demonstrate Against others one could use authority. One commanded, and that sufficed. Among friends, inter pares,
authority: and last but not least, one understood each other.
there was tradition--also form
? There was no room found for dialectics.
Besides,
all such modes presenting reasons were dis
trusted. All honest things do not carry their
reasons their hands such fashion.
indecent show all the five fingers the same time. That which can be "demonstrated
every party-speaker tells him that dialectics excites mistrust and
little worth. The instinct
carries little conviction. Nothing more easily wiped away than the effect dialectician. can
only
extremity; necessary
means self-defence. One must an have extort one's
rights; otherwise one makes no use dialectics. That why the Jews were dialecticians, Reynard the Fox was dialectician, and so was Socrates.
As dialectician
person has merciless instru
can play the tyrant with when conquers. The
his opponent demon strate that he not an idiot; he made furious
ment his hand: it; compromises
dialectician leaves
? ? is
a it is
a
it to
a of
of
in
he is
a
he in
is be a
toin
of as
he
a
of to to
is
at ofP
to of of a
in
a
it,
be It
in "It
of
of
is is
to
? CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY,
353
and helpless, while the dialectician himself remains calm and still possessed of his triumphant reason ing powers--he paralyses his opponent's intellect.
--The dialectician's irony is a form of mob revenge: the ferocity of the oppressed lies in the
cold knife-cuts of the syllogism. . . .
In Plato, as in all men of excessive sensuality
and wild fancies, the charm of concepts was so
great, that he involuntarily honoured and deified
the concept as a form of ideal. Dialectical intoxi
cation: as the consciousness of being able to
exercise control over one's self by means of it-- as an instrument of the Will to Power.
432.
The problem of Socrates. --The two antitheses: the tragic and the Socratic spirits -- measured according to the law of Life.
To what extent is the Socratic spirit a
decadent phenomenon ? to what extent are
robust health and power still revealed by the
whole attitude of the scientific man, his dialectics,
his ability, and his severity? (the health of the Plebeian; whose malice, esprit frondeur, whose
astuteness, whose rascally depths, are held in check by his cleverness; the whole type is "ugly"). Uglification : self-derision, dialectical dryness,
intelligence in the form of a tyrant against the "tyrant" (instinct). Everything in Socrates is
? exaggeration, eccentricity, caricature;
he is a buffoon with the blood of Voltaire in his veins,
VOL. I. Z
? ? ? THE WILL TO POWER.
354
He discovers a new form of agon; he is the first fencing-master in the superior classes of Athens;
he stands for nothing else than the highest form of cleverness: he calls it "virtue" (he regarded it as a means of salvation; he did not choose to be clever, cleverness was de rigueur); the proper
thing is to control one's self in suchwise that one
enters into a struggle not with passions but with reasons as one's weapons (Spinoza's stratagem
--the unravelment of the errors of passion);--it is desirable to discover how every one may be caught
once he is goaded into a passion, and to know how illogically passion proceeds; self-mockery is
practised in order to injure the very roots of the feelings of resentment.
It is my wish to understand which idiosyncratic
states form a part of the Socratic problem: its association of reason, virtue, and happiness. With
this absurd doctrine of the identity of these things it succeeded in charming the world: ancient philo sophy could not rid itself of this doctrine. . . .
Absolute lack of objective interest: hatred of science: the idiosyncrasy of considering one's self
a problem. Acoustic hallucinations in Socrates: morbid element. When the intellect is rich and
independent, it most strongly resists preoccupying
itself with morality. How is it that Socrates is a moral-maniac P--Every "practical" philosophy immediately steps into the foreground in times of
distress. When morality and religion become the
chief interests of a community, they are signs of a state of distress,
? ? ? ? CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY
433.
Intelligence, clearness, hardness, and logic as
weapons against
the wildness of the instincts.
The latter must be dangerous and must threaten
ruin, otherwise no purpose can be served by
developing intelligence to this degree of tyranny. In order to make a tyrant of intelligence the
instincts must first have proved themselves tyrants.
problem. very timely This is the Itwas a -one
in those days. Reason became virtue equalled happiness.
Solution ; Greek philosophers stand upon the same fundamental fact of their inner experiences as Socrates does; five feet from excess, from anarchy
They
regard him as a doctor: Logic as will to power, as
will to control self, as will to "happiness. " The
wildness and anarchy of Socrates' instincts is a
sign of decadence, as is also the superfoetation
of logic and clear reasoning in him. Both are abnormities, each belongs to the other.
Criticism. Decadence reveals itself in this con
cern about "happiness" (i. e. about the "salvation
of the soul"; i. e. to feel that one's condition is a
danger). Its fanatical interest in "happiness"
shows the pathological condition of the subcon scious self: it was a vital interest. The alternative
which faced them all was: to be reasonable or to perish. The morality of Greek philosophers shows that they felt they were in danger.
and from dissolution--all decadent men.
virtue
? ? ? ? 356
THE WILL TO POWER.
434.
Why everything resolved itself into mummery. -- Rudimentary psychology, which only considered
the conscious lapses of men (as causes), which re
garded "consciousness" as an attribute of the soul,
and which sought a will behind every action (i. e. an intention), could only answer "Happiness" to
the question: "What does man desire? " (it was
impossible to answer "Power," because that would have been immoral);--consequently behind all
men's actions there is the intention of attaining to happiness by means of them. Secondly: if
man as a matter of fact does not attain to happi ness, why is it? Because he mistakes the means
thereto. -- What is the unfailing means of acquiring happiness Answer: virtue. --Why virtue? Be
cause virtue is supreme rationalness, and rational ness makes mistakes in the choice of means
? impossible:
virtue in the form of reason is the
way to happiness. Dialectics is the constant occupation of virtue, because it does away with
passion and intellectual cloudiness.
As a matter of fact, man does not desire
"happiness. " Pleasure is a sensation of power:
if the passions are excluded, those states of the
mind are also excluded which afford the greatest
sensation of power and therefore of pleasure. The
highest rationalism is a state of cool clearness,
which is very far from being able to bring about
that feeling of power which every kind of exalta tion involves. . . .
The ancient philosophers combat everything
? ? ~ CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
-- >
-
that intoxicates and exalts--everything that im pairs the perfect coolness and impartiality of the
mind. . . . They were consistent with their first
false principle: that consciousness was the highest, the supreme state of mind, the prerequisite of
perfection--whereas the reverse is true. . .
Any kind of action is imperfect in proportion as
it has been willed or conscious. The philosophers of antiquity were the greatest duffers in practice,
because they condemned themselves theoretically to dufferdom. . . .
In practice everything resolved itself into theatricalness: and he who saw through
Pyrrho did, for instance, thought every body did--that say, that goodness and uprightness "paltry people" were far superior philosophers.
All the deeper natures antiquity were dis gusted the philosophers virtue; all people
saw them was brawlers and actors. (This was the judgment passed on Plato by Epicurus and
Pyrrho)
* --- -~
- |
- --
? 357
? practical life, patience, goodness, and mutual assistance, paltry people were above
them:--this something like the judgment
Dostoiewsky Tolstoy claims for his muzhiks: they are more philosophical practice, they are
more courageous their way dealing with the
exigencies
criticism the philosopher. --Philosophers and moralists merely deceive themselves when they
Result:
life.
435.
? ? A
of
in
at
it, as
of
. in
or is
In
.
is to
of in
in
of of
in
as to
*
? 358
THE WILL TO POWER.
imagine that they escape from decadence by
opposing That lies beyond their wills: and however little they may be aware the fact,
generally discovered subsequently that they were among the most *powerful promoters of decadence.
Let examine the philosophers Greece--
Plato, for instance. He was who separated the
instincts from the polis, from the love contest, from military efficiency, from art, beauty, the
mysteries,
ancestors. He was the seducer of the nobles:
and the belief tradition and
? he himself seduces through the roturier Socrates.
He denied all the first principles the
"noble Greek" sterling worth; he made dialectics an everyday practice, conspired with
the tyrants, dabbled politics for the future, and
was the example man whose instincts were
most perfectly separated from tradition. He profound and passionate everything that anti-Hellenic.
One after the other, these great philosophers
represent the typical forms decadence: the moral and religious idiosyncrasy, anarchy, nihilism,
(a? 8wdhopa), cynicism, hardening principles, hedon ism, and reaction.
The question "happiness,"
the "salvation the soul,"
"virtue," and the expression
physiological contradictoriness ? urpose.
these declining natures: their instincts lack all balance and
? ? in is
of
of . .
ofof . of
a in
of
is is
in
it
of
. .
of in
it in
.
is us
. . .
it.
of of
of
of
? >~ 436.
To what extent do dialectics and the faith in
reason rest upon moral prejudices? With Plato we are as the temporary inhabitants of an in telligible world of goodness, still in possession of
a bequest from former times: divine dialectics taking its root in goodness leads to everything
--- CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
good follows, therefore,
that must lead
"backwards"). Even the fact that, according
Descartes had notion thoroughly Christian
mind, which includes the Creator all things,
and moral attitude
belief good God
the truthfulness God guarantees the judgments
~~~
? our senses for us. But for this religious sanction and warrant of our senses and our reason, whence should we obtain our right trust existence?
That thinking must be measure
what cannot be the subject
exist--is coarse non plus ultra
confidence (in the essential principle
the root all things); this itself mad assumption which our experience contradicts every
minute. We cannot think as is.
437.
The real philosophers of Greece are those which
came before Socrates (with Socrates
usage; they have travelled; they are earnest
changes). They are all distinguished men, they
take their stand away from the people and from
reality,-that thought, cannot moral blind
truth anything precisely
something
? ? to
at
a of
it
of
in (it . ofa a
.
of
in
of a
is of a
a
as of
to
to of
a
of
in
of
it a
of
? 36o
THE WILL TO POWEEL
the point of sombreness, their eyes are calm, and
they are not unacquainted with the business of state and diplomacy. They anticipated all the
great concepts which coming sages were to have
concerning things in general: they themselves re
presented these concepts, they made systems out
of themselves. Nothing can give a higher idea of Greek intellect than this sudden fruitfulness in
types, than this involuntary completeness in the drawing up of all the great possibilities of the philosophical ideal. I can see only one original figure
in those that came afterwards: a late arrival, but necessarily the last--Pyrrho the
nihilist. His instincts were opposed to the in fluences which had become ascendant in the mean
time: the Socratic school, Plato, and the artistic optimism of Heraclitus. (Pyrrho goes back to Democritus via Protagoras. . . . )
2k
Wise weariness: Pyrrho. To live humbly
among the humble. Devoid of pride. To live
in the vulgar way; to honour and believe what
every one believes. To be on one's guard against science and intellect, and against everything that
puffs one out. . . . To be simply patient in the extreme, careless and mild;--a? ta? 6eta, or, better
still, Tpairns. A Buddhist for Greece, bred amid the tumult of the Schools; born after his time; weary; an example of the protest of weariness against the eagerness of dialecticians; the in
credulity of the tired man in regard to the im
? ? ? ? CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
361
portance of everything. He had seen Alexander; he had seen the Indian penitents. To such late
arrivals and creatures of great subtlety, every thing lowly, poor, and idiotic, is seductive. It
narcoticises: it gives them relaxation (Pascal). On the other hand, by mixing with the crowd,
and getting confounded with the rest, they get
a little warmth. These weary creatures need
warmth. . . . To overcome contradiction; to do
away with contests; to have no will to excel in
any way: to deny the Greek instincts. (Pyrrho
lived with his sister, who was a midwife. ) To rig
out wisdom in such a way that it no longer dis tinguishes; to give it the ragged mantle of poverty;
to perform the lowest offices, and to go to market and sell sucking-pigs. . . . Sweetness, clearness,
indifference; no need of virtues that require atti
tudes; to be equal to all even in virtue: final conquest of one's self, final indifference,
Pyrrho and Epicurus:--two forms of Greek
decadence: they are related in their hatred of dialectics and all theatrical virtues. These two
things together were then called philosophy; Pyrrho and Epicurus intentionally held that which
they loved in low esteem; they chose common and even contemptible names for and they re presented state which one neither ill, healthy, lively, nor dead. Epicurus was more naif, more idyllic, more grateful; Pyrrho had more experience the world, had travelled more, and
? was more nihilistic. His life was
the great doctrine Knowledge).
promoted by
science: wisdom does not make
protest against Identity (Happiness Virtue The proper way living not
? ? =
of
a
it, is
= is
of
in
of
a
. . .
? 362
THE WILL TO POWER.
"wise. " . . . The proper way of living does not desire happiness, it turns away from happiness. . . .
438.
The war against the "old faith," as Epicurus waged was, strictly speaking, struggle against
Pre-existing Christianity--the struggle against world then already gloomy, moralised, acidified throughout with feelings guilt, and grown old and sick.
Not the "moral corruption antiquity, but
precisely moral infectedness was the prerequisite which enabled Christianity become its master.
? destroyed paganism by transvaluing its values and poisoning
Moral fanaticism (in short: Plato)
its innocence. We ought last understand that what was then destroyed was higher than what
prevailed Christianity grew
psychological corruption, and could only take
root rotten ground.
439.
Science disciplinary measure
instinct. --I see decline of the instincts Greek
philosophers: otherwise they could not have been guilty the profound error regarding the conscious state as the more valuable state. The intensity
ratio sion. which
the ease and speed cerebral transmis Greek philosophy upheld the opposite view,
always the sign weakened instincts.
consciousness stands the inverse
on the soil
? ? is
to
in of; !
it,
of
of
of at to "
a
of
as
its
in
to
of
of
aa
in or as
an
of
a
? CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
363
We must, in sooth, seek perfect life there where it is least conscious (that is to say, there where it is least aware of its logic, its reasons, its means, its intentions, and its utility). The return to the facts of common sense, the facts of the common man and of "paltry people. " Honesty and intelli
gence stored up for generations by people who are
quite unconscious of their principles, and who even have some fear of principles. It is not reasonable to desire a reasoning virtue. . . . A philosopher is compromised by such a desire.
? 44O.
~.
When morality--that is to say, refinement,
prudence, bravery, and equity--have been stored
up in the same way, thanks to the moral efforts
of a whole succession of generations, the collec
tive power of this hoard of virtue projects
rays even into that sphere where honesty most
seldom present--the sphere intellect. When thing becomes conscious, the sign
state ill-ease the organism; something new has got be found, the organism not satisfied
adapted, subject distress, suspense, and
hypersensitive--precisely sciousness.
all this con
Genius lies the instincts; goodness does too. One only acts perfectly when one acts in stinctively. Even from the moral point view
all thinking which conscious groping, and the majority
morality. Scientific honesty
merely process cases an attack always sacrificed
? ? on of
it or is
a
in in. isin is
is is of
it of is
a
of
is
is
.
it
to
of to
is
of a
its
? THE WILL TO POWER.
when a thinker begins to reason: let any one try the experiment: put the wisest man in the
364
balance, and morality. . . .
then let him discourse upon
It could also be proved that the whole of a
man's conscious thinking shows a much lower
standard of morality than the thoughts of the
same man would show if they were led by his instincts.
44 I.
The struggle against Socrates, Plato, and all the Socratic schools, proceeds from the profound instinct that man is not made better when he is
shown that virtue may be demonstrated or based
upon reason. . . . This in the end is the nig gardly fact, it was the agonal instinct in all these born dialecticians, which drove them to glorify
their personal abilities as the highest of all qualities, and to represent every other form of goodness as conditioned by them. The anti-scientific spirit of all this "philosophy": it will never admit that it is not right.
442.
This is extraordinary. From its very earliest beginnings, Greek philosophy carries on a struggle
against science with the weapons of a theory of
knowledge, especially of scepticism: and why is
this? . It is always in favour of morality. . . .
(Physicists and medical men are hated. ) Socrates, Aristippus, the Megarian school, the Cynics,
Epicurus, and Pyrrho--a general onslaught upon
? ? ? ? which
name
arsenal
The theory
in the affair as case. There
CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
365
knowledge in favour of morality. . . . (Hatred of
dialectics also. ) There is still a problem to be solved: they approach sophistry in order to be
rid of science. On the other hand, the physicists are subjected to such an extent that, among
their first principles, they include the theory of
truth and of real being: for instance, the atom,
the four elements (juxtaposition of being, in order
to explain Contempt
multiformity and transformations).
return utility
objectivity interests practical interest, and
taught: the personal
all knowledge.
The struggle against science
directed at: means (that
? (1) pathos (objectivity); (2)
say, its utility); (3) its results (which are
considered childish). the same
struggle
taken up later on by the Church the piety: the Church inherited the whole
antiquity for her war with science. knowledge played the same part did Kant's or the Indians'
no desire whatever to be troubled with free hand wanted for the "purpose. "
envisaged.
-
Against what powers are they actually defend
that
ing themselves? Against dutifulness, obedience law, against the compulsion hand in hand--I believe this what
against going called
Freedom. This
instinct itself gets
how decadence manifests itself: the solidarity degenerate that solidarity regarded tyranny: authority
solidarity brooked, nobody any longer
? ? or
to at
to is be
is
of
of its
of is . a . to
of to
is so
is
in
It
is it,
of of
is
its
it
.
as isin
no
is of
to
is
is
its its is
in
is
? THE WILL TO POWER.
366
desires to fall in with the rank and file, and to adopt its ignobly slow pace.
