No More Learning

The ideal of Pessimism.
423
Theory and practice. This is a pernicious dis-
tinction, as if there were an instinct of knowledge,
1
!


## p. 339 (#363) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
339
which, without inquiring into the utility or harm-
fulness of a thing, blindly charged at the truth;
and then that, apart from this instinct, there were
the whole world of practical interests.
In contradiction of this, I try to show what
instincts are active behind all these pure theorists,
—and how the latter, as a whole, under the
dominion of their instincts, fatally make for some-
thing which to their minds is "truth," to their
minds and only to their minds. The struggle
between systems, together with the struggle
between epistemological scruples, is one which
involves very special instincts (forms of vitality, of
decline, of classes, of races, etc. ).
The so-called thirst for knowledge may be traced
to the lust of appropriation and of conquest: in
obedience to this lust the senses, memory, and
the instincts, etc. , were developed. The quickest
possible reduction of the phenomena, economy,
the accumulation of spoil from the world of know-
ledge (i. e. that portion of the world which has
been appropriated and made manageable). .
Morality is therefore such a curious science,
because it is in the highest degree practical : the
purely scientific position, scientific uprightness, is
thus immediately abandoned, as soon as morality
calls for replies to its questions. Morality says:
I require certain answers—reasons, arguments;
scruples may come afterwards, or they may not
come at all.
“ How must one act ? " If one considers that
one is dealing with a supremely evolved type-a
type which has been “dealt with" for countless.


## p. 340 (#364) ############################################

340
THE WILL TO POWER.
thousands of years, and in which everything has
become instinct, expediency, automatism, fatality,
the urgency of this moral question seems rather
funny.
“How must one act? " Morality has always
been a subject of misunderstanding: as a matter
of fact, a certain species, which was constituted to
act in a certain way, wished to justify itself by
making its norm paramount.
“How must one act ? ” this is not a cause, but
an effect. Morality follows, the ideal comes
at the end.
On the other hand, the appearance of moral
scruples (or in other words, the coming to conscious-
ness of the values which guide action) betray a
certain morbidness; strong ages and people do
not ponder over their rights, nor over the principles
of action, over instinct or over reason. Conscious-
ness is a sign that the real morality—that is to say,
the certainty of instinct which leads to a definite
course of action-is going to the dogs. . . . Every
time a new world of consciousness is created, the
moralists are signs of a lesion, of impoverishment
and of disorganisation. Those who are deeply
instinctive fear bandying words over duties : among
them are found pyrrhonic opponents of dialectics
and of knowableness in general. . . . A virtue is
refuted with a “for. " . . .
Thesis : The appearance of moralists belongs
to periods when morality is declining.
Thesis : The moralist is a dissipator of moral
instincts, however much he may appear to be their
restorer.


## p. 341 (#365) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
341
Thesis : That which really prompts the action
of a moralist is not a moral instinct, but the
instincts of decadence, translated into the forms of
morality (he regards the growing uncertainty of
the instincts as corruption).
Thesis : The instincts of decadence which, thanks
to moralists, wish to become master of the in-
stinctive morality of stronger races and ages,
are :
(1) The instincts of the weak and of the botched;
(2) The instincts of the exceptions, of the
anchorites, of the unhinged, of the abortions of
quality or of the reverse;
(3) The instincts of the habitually suffering, who
require a noble interpretation of their condition,
and who therefore require to be as poor physi-
ologists as possible.
424.
The humbug of the scientific spirit. -One should
not affect the spirit of science, when the time to
be scientific is not yet at hand; but even the
genuine investigator has to abandon vanity, and
has to affect a certain kind of method which is
not yet seasonable. Neither should we falsify
things and thoughts, which we have arrived at
differently, by means of a false arrangement of
deduction and dialectics. It is thus that Kant in
his "morality” falsifies his inner tendency to
"
psychology; a more modern example of the same
thing is Herbert Spencer's Ethics. A man should
neither conceal nor misrepresent the facts con-
cerning the way in which he conceived his


## p. 342 (#366) ############################################

342
THE WILL TO POWER.
thoughts. The deepest and most inexhaustible
books will certainly always have something of the
aphoristic and impetuous character of Pascal's
Pensées. The motive forces and valuations have
lain long below the surface; that which comes
uppermost is their effect.
I guard against all the humbug of a false
scientific spirit :
(1) In respect of the manner of demonstration,
if it does not correspond to the genesis of the
thoughts;
(2) In respect of the demands for methods which,
at a given period in science, may be quite
impossible;
(3) In respect of the demand for objectivity, for
cold impersonal treatment, where, as in the case
of all valuations, we describe ourselves and our
intimate experiences in a couple of words. There
are ludicrous forms of vanity, as, for instance,
Sainte-Beuve's. He actually worried himself all
his life because he had shown some warmth or
passion either “pro” or “con," and he would fain
have lied that fact out of his life.
425.
" Objectivity” in the philosopher : moral in-
difference in regard to one's self, blindness in regard
to either favourable or fatal circumstances. Un-
scrupulousness in the use of dangerous means;
perversity and complexity of character considered
as an advantage and exploited.
My profound indifference to myself: I refuse


## p. 343 (#367) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
343
to derive any advantage from my knowledge, nor
do I wish to escape any disadvantages which it
may entail. — I include among these disadvantages
that which is called the perversion of character;
this prospect is beside the point: I use my char-
acter, but I try neither to understand it nor to
change it—the personal calculation of virtue has
not entered my head once. It strikes me that one
closes the doors of knowledge as soon as one
becomes interested in one's own personal case- -or
even in the “ Salvation of one's soul”! . . . One
should not take one's morality too seriously, nor
should one forfeit a modest right to the opposite
of morality. .
A sort of heritage of morality is perhaps pre-
supposed here: one feels that one can be lavish
with it and fing a great deal of it out of the
window without materially reducing one's means.
One is never tempted to admire “ beautiful souls,”
one always knows one's self to be their superior.
The monsters of virtue should be met with inner
scorn ; déniaiser la vertu-Oh, the joy of it!
One should revolve round one's self, have no
desire to be" better” or “anything else" at all than
one is.
One should be too interested to omit
throwing the tentacles or meshes of every mor-
ality out to things.
>
426.
Concerning the psychology of philosophers.
They should be psychologists—this was possible
only from the nineteenth century onwards—and
no longer little Jack Horners, who see three or


## p. 344 (#368) ############################################

344
THE WILL TO POWER.
four feet in front of them, and are almost satisfied
to burrow inside themselves. We psychologists of
the future are not very intent on self-contempla-
tion: we regard it almost as a sign of degeneration
when an instrument endeavours" to know itself” : *
we are instruments of knowledge and we would
fain possess all the precision and ingenuousness of
an instrument-consequently we may not analyse
or “ know” ourselves. The first sign of a great
psychologist's self-preservative instinct: he never
goes in search of himself, he has no eye, no interest,
no inquisitiveness where he himself is concerned.
. . The great egoism of our dominating will
insists on our completely shutting our eyes to
ourselves, and on our appearing “impersonal,
“disinterested”! -Oh to what a ridiculous degree
we are the reverse of this !
We are no Pascals, we are not particularly in-
terested in the “ Salvation of the soul,” in our own
happiness, and in our own virtue. —We have neither
enough time nor enough curiosity to be so con-
cerned with ourselves. Regarded more deeply, the
case is again different, we thoroughly mistrust all
men who thus contemplate their own navels : be-
cause introspection seems to us a degenerate form
of the psychologist's genius, as a note of interroga-
tion affixed to the psychologist's instinct : just as
a painter's eye is degenerate which is actuated by
the will to see for the sake of seeing.
>
* TRANSLATOR'S NOTE. —Goethe invariably inveighed
against the “yvôOl geautóv” of the Socratic school ; he was
of the opinion that an animal which tries to see its inner self
must be sick.


## p. 345 (#369) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
345
2. A CRITICISM OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY.
427.
.
.
»
.
The apparition of Greek philosophers since the
time of Socrates is a symptom of decadence; the
anti-Hellenic instincts become paramount.
The “Sophist” is still quite Hellenic—as are
also Anaxagoras, Democritus, and the great
Ionians; but only as transitional forms. The
polis loses its faith in the unity of its culture, in
its rights of dominion over every other polis.
Cultures, that is to say,“ the gods," are exchanged,
and thus the belief in the exclusive prerogative
of the deus autochthonus is lost. Good and Evil of
whatever origin get mixed: the boundaries separ-
ating good from evil gradually vanish. This
is the “ Sophist. ”
On the other hand, the "philosopher" is the
reactionary: he insists upon the old virtues. He
sees the reason of decay in the decay of institu-
tions: he therefore wishes to revive old institutions ;
-he sees decay in the decline of authority: he
therefore endeavours to find new authorities (he
travels abroad, explores foreign literature and
exotic religions. . . . );—he will reinstate the ideal
polis, after the concept "polis" has become super-
annuated (just as the Jews kept themselves to-
gether as a "people" after they had fallen into
slavery). They become interested in all tyrants :
their desire is to re-establish virtue with force
majeure.


## p. 346 (#370) ############################################

346
THE WILL TO POWER.
Gradually everything genuinely Hellenic is held
responsible for the state of decay (and Plato is just
as ungrateful to Pericles, Homer, tragedy, and
rhetoric as the prophets are to David and Saul).
The downfall of Greece is conceived as an objection
to the fundamental principles of Hellenic culture :
the profound error of philosophers. —Conclusion : the
Greek world perishes. The cause thereof: Homer,
mythology, ancient morality, etc.
The anti-Hellenic development of philosophers'
valuations :-the Egyptian influence (“Life after
death" made into law. . . . );the Semitic influence
(the “ dignity of the sage,” the “Sheik');—the
Pythagorean influence, the subterranean cults,
Silence, means of terrorisation consisting of appeals
to a “ Beyond,” mathematics : the religious valua-
tion consisting of a sort of intimacy with a cosmic
entity ;-the sacerdotal, ascetic, and transcendental
influences ;-the dialectical influence, I am of
“
opinion that even Plato already betrays revolting
and pedantic meticulousness in his concepts !
Decline of good intellectual taste: the hateful
noisiness of every kind of direct dialectics seems
no longer to be felt.
The two decadent tendencies and extremes run
side by side: (a) the luxuriant and more charming
kind of decadence which shows a love of pomp and
art, and (6) the gloomy kind, with its religious and
moral pathos, its stoical self-hardening tendency,
its Platonic denial of the senses, and its preparation
of the soil for the coming of Christianity.


## p. 347 (#371) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY,
347
428.
To what extent psychologists have been cor-
rupted by the moral idiosyncrasy ! -Not one of
the ancient philosophers had the courage to
advance the theory of the non-free will (that is
to say, the theory that denies morality);-not
one had the courage to identify the typical
feature of happiness, of every kind of happiness
("pleasure"), with the will to power : for the
pleasure of power was considered immoral;—not
one had the courage to regard virtue as a result
of immorality (as a result of a will to power) in
the service of a species (or of a race, or of a polis);
for the will to power was considered immoral.
In the whole of moral evolution, there is no
sign of truth: all the conceptual elements which
come into play are fictions; all the psychological
tenets are false ; all the forms of logic employed
in this department of prevarication are sophisms.
The chief feature of all moral philosophers is their
total lack of intellectual cleanliness and self-control :
they regard “fine feelings” as arguments: their
heaving breasts seem to them the bellows of
godliness. . . . Moral philosophy is the most
suspicious period in the history of the human
intellect.
The first great example: in the name of
morality and under its patronage, a great wrong
was committed, which as a matter of fact was
in every respect an act of decadence. Sufficient
stress cannot be laid upon this fact, that the
great Greek philosophers not only represented
.


## p. 348 (#372) ############################################

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


## p. 349 (#373) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
349
.
modern attitude of mind is, to a great extent,
Heraclitean, Democritean, and Protagorean .
to say that it is Protagorean is even sufficient :
because Protagoras was in himself a synthesis of
the two men Heraclitus and Democritus.
(Plato : a great Cagliostro, let us think of how
Epicurus judged him; how Timon, Pyrrho's friend,
judged him Is Plato's integrity by any chance
beyond question ? . . . But we at least know
what he wished to have taught as absolute truth
-namely, things which were to him not even
relative truths: the separate and immortal life of
souls. ")
429.
.
The Sophists are nothing more nor less than
realists: they elevate all the values and practices
which are common property to the rank of values
—they have the courage, peculiar to all strong
intellects, which consists in knowing their im-
morality.
Is it to be supposed that these small Greek
independent republics, so filled with rage and envy
that they would fain have devoured each other,
were led by principles of humanity and honesty?
Is Thucydides by any chance reproached with
the words he puts into the mouths of the Athenian
ambassadors when they were treating with the
Melii anent the question of destruction or sub-
mission ? Only the most perfect Tartuffes could
have been able to speak of virtue in the midst of
that dreadful strain—or if not Tartuffes, at least
detached philosophers, anchorites, exiles, and fleers


## p. 350 (#374) ############################################

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,
430.
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.


## p. 351 (#375) ############################################

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 Græco-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
of the 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.
.
"
431.
Socrates. This veering round of Greek taste
in favour of dialectics is a great question. What


## p. 352 (#376) ############################################

352
THE WILL TO POWER,
1
1
3
really happened then ? Socrates, the roturier
who was responsible for it, was thus able to
triumph over a more noble taste, the taste of the
noble :—the mob gets the upper hand along with
dialectics. Previous to Socrates dialectic manners
were repudiated in good society; they were re-
garded as indecent; the youths were warned
against them. What was the purpose of this
display of reasons? Why demonstrate? Against
others one could use authority. One commanded,
and that sufficed. Among friends, inter pares,
there was tradition—also a form of authority:
and last but not least, one understood each other,
There was no room found for dialectics. Besides,
all such modes of presenting reasons were dis-
trusted. All honest things do not carry their
reasons in their hands in such fashion. It is
indecent to show all the five fingers at the same
time. That which can be “demonstrated” is
little worth. The instinct of every party-speaker
tells him that dialectics excites mistrust and
carries little conviction. Nothing is more easily
wiped away than the effect of a dialectician. It can
a
only be a means of self-defence. One must be in an
extremity ; it is necessary to have to extort one's
rights; otherwise one makes no use of dialectics.
That is why the Jews were dialecticians, Reynard
the Fox was a dialectician, and so was Socrates,
As a dialectician a person has a merciless instru-
ment in his hand: he can play the tyrant with
it; he compromises when he conquers. The
dialectician leaves it to his opponent to demon-
strate that he is not an idiot; he is made furious
1


## p. 353 (#377) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
353
O
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 intori-
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.
a
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
buffoon with the blood of Voltaire in his veins,
z
a
VOL. I.


## p. 354 (#378) ############################################

354
THE WILL TO POWER.
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? —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
»
1


## p. 355 (#379) ############################################

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.
This is the problem. It was a very timely one
in those days. Reason became virtue - 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
and from dissolution-all decadent men.
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 superfotation
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,
2)
3)


## p. 356 (#380) ############################################

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
.


## p. 357 (#381) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
357
220":
ix:
ind
LOK
odby:
hann
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
it, as Pyrrho did, for instance, thought as every-
body did—that is to say, that in goodness and
uprightness “paltry people” were far superior to
philosophers.
All the deeper natures of antiquity were dis-
gusted at the philosophers of virtue; all people
saw in them was brawlers and actors. (This was
the judgment passed on Plato by Epicurus and
Pyrrho. )
Result : In practical life, in patience, goodness,
and mutual assistance, paltry people were above
them :—this is something like the judgment
Dostoiewsky or Tolstoy claims for his muzhiks:
they are more philosophical in practice, they are
more courageous in their way of dealing with the
exigencies of life. . . .
- messi
Tquiries
7 Bio
ationa?
meas,
Osta
with
desire
Ower
of the
eatest
The
.
mness
about
ulti-
435.
A criticism of the philosopher. -Philosophers and
moralists merely deceive themselves when they
Ching


## p. 358 (#382) ############################################

358
THE WILL TO POWER.
imagine that they escape from decadence by
opposing it. That lies beyond their wills: and
however little they may be aware of the fact, it
is generally discovered subsequently that they
were among the most powerful promoters of
decadence.
Let us examine the philosophers of Greece-
Plato, for instance, He it was who separated the
instincts from the polis, from the love of contest,
from military efficiency, from art, beauty, the
mysteries, and the belief in tradition and in
ancestors. . . . He was the seducer of the nobles :
he himself seduces through the roturier Socrates.
. . . He denied all the first principles of the
“noble Greek” of sterling worth; he made
dialectics an everyday practice, conspired with
the tyrants, dabbled in politics for the future, and
was the example of a man whose instincts were
most perfectly separated from tradition. He is
profound and passionate in everything that is
anti-Hellenic. .
One after the other, these great philosophers
represent the typical forms of decadence: the
moral and religious idiosyncrasy, anarchy, nihilism,
(ådıápopa), cynicism, hardening principles, hedon-
ism, and reaction.
The question of "happiness," of "virtue," and
“
of the “salvation of the soul,” is the expression of
physiological contradictoriness in these declining
natures: their instincts lack all balance and
purpose.
1


## p. 359 (#383) ############################################

CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.
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
good (it follows, therefore, that it must lead
" backwards "). Even Descartes had a notion of
the fact that, according to a thoroughly Christian
and moral attitude of mind, which includes a
belief in a good God as the Creator of all things,
the truthfulness of God guarantees the judgments
of our senses for us. But for this religious sanction
and warrant of our senses and our reason, whence
should we obtain our right to trust in existence ?
That thinking must be a measure of reality,—that
what cannot be the subject of thought, cannot
exist is a coarse non plus ultra of a moral blind
confidence (in the essential principle of truth at
the root of all things); this in itself is a mad
assumption which our experience contradicts every
minute. We cannot think of anything precisely
as it is. .
437.
The real philosophers of Greece are those which
came before Socrates (with Socrates something
changes). They are all distinguished men, they
take their stand away from the people and from
usage; they have travelled; they are earnest to


## p. 360 (#384) ############################################

360
THE WILL TO POWER
tie pint of ssbreness, their eyes are calm, and
they are not usacquaisted 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 thar this sudden fruitfulness in
types, than this invo'untary completeness in the
drawing up of all the great possibilities of the
philsophical 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. . . . )
.
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
puff's one out. . . . To be simply patient in the
extreme, careless and mild ;-årádela, or, better
still, mpactns. A Buddhist for Greece, bred amid
πραύτης.
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-


## p. 361 (#385) ############################################

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 it, and they re-
presented a state in which one is neither ill,
healthy, lively, nor dead. . . . Epicurus was more
naif, more idyllic, more grateful; Pyrrho had more
experience of the world, had travelled more, and
was more nihilistic.
His life was a protest against
the great doctrine of Identity (Happiness = Virtue
·
= Knowledge). The proper way of living is not
promoted by science: wisdom does not make


## p. 362 (#386) ############################################

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 it, was, strictly speaking, a struggle against
pre-existing Christianity—the struggle against a
world then already gloomy, moralised, acidified
throughout with feelings of guilt, and grown old
and sick.
Not the "moral corruption" of antiquity, but
precisely its moral infectedness was the prerequisite
which enabled Christianity to become its master.
Moral fanaticism (in short: Plato) destroyed
paganism by transvaluing its values and poisoning
its innocence. We ought at last to understand
that what was then destroyed was higher than what
prevailed! Christianity grew on the soil of
psychological corruption, and could only take
root in rotten ground.
439.