Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer 

Götzen-Dämmerung, oder, Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophirt. Written in 1888 and published in 1889.

  Friedrich Nietzsche Full Text EBook  
Previous Section   Morality as Anti-Nature   Next Section

1

All passions have a phase when they are merely disastrous, when they drag down their victim with the weight of stupidity — and a later, very much later phase when they wed the spirit, when they "spiritualize" themselves.     Formerly, in view of the element of stupidity in passion, war was declared on passion itself, its destruction was plotted; all the old moral monsters are agreed on this: il faut tuer les passions.  The most famous formula for this is to be found in the New Testament, in that Sermon on the Mount, where, incidentally, things are by no means looked at from a height.  There it is said, for example, with particular reference to sexuality: "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out."  Fortunately, no Christian acts in accordance with this precept.  Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity — today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity.  We no longer admire dentists who "pluck out" teeth so that they will not hurt any more.  To be fair, it should be admitted, however, that on the ground out of which Christianity grew, the concept of the "spiritualization of passion" could never have been formed.  After all, the first church, as is well known, fought against the "intelligent" in favor of the "poor in spirit."  How could one expect from it an intelligent war against passion?  The church fights passion with excision in every sense: its practice, its "cure," is castratism.  It never asks: "How can one spiritualize, beautify, deify a craving?"  It has at all times laid the stress of discipline on extirpation (of sensuality, of pride, of the lust to rule, of avarice, of vengefulness).  But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.  

2

The same means in the fight against a craving — castration, extirpation — is instinctively chosen by those who are too weak-willed, too degenerate, to be able to impose moderation on themselves; by those who are so constituted that they require La Trappe, to use a figure of speech, or (without any figure of speech) some kind of definitive declaration of hostility, a cleft between themselves and the passion.     Radical means are indispensable only for the degenerate; the weakness of the will — or, to speak more definitely, the inability not to respond to a stimulus — is itself merely another form of degeneration.  The radical hostility, the deadly hostility against sensuality, is always a symptom to reflect on: it entitles us to suppositions concerning the total state of one who is excessive in this manner.  This hostility, this hatred, by the way, reaches its climax only when such types lack even the firmness for this radical cure, for this renunciation of their "devil."  One should survey the whole history of the priests and philosophers, including the artists: the most poisonous things against the senses have been said not by the impotent, nor by ascetics, but by the impossible ascetics, by those who really were in dire need of being ascetics.  

3

The spiritualization of sensuality is called love: it represents a great triumph over Christianity.     Another triumph is our spiritualization of hostility.  It consists in a profound appreciation of the value of having enemies: in short, it means acting and thinking in the opposite way from that which has been the rule.  The church always wanted the destruction of its enemies; we, we immoralists and Antichristians, find our advantage in this, that the church exists.  In the political realm too, hostility has now become more spiritual — much more sensible, much more thoughtful, much more considerate.  Almost every party understands how it is in the interest of its own self-preservation that the opposition should not lose all strength; the same is true of power politics.  A new creation in particular — the new Reich, for example — needs enemies more than friends: in opposition alone does it feel itself necessary, in opposition alone does it become necessary.  Our attitude to the "internal enemy" is no different: here too we have spiritualized hostility; here too we have come to appreciate its value.  The price of fruitfulness is to be rich in internal opposition; one remains young only as long as the soul does not stretch itself and desire peace.  Nothing has become more alien to us than that desideratum of former times, "peace of soul," the Christian desideratum; there is nothing we envy less than the moralistic cow and the fat happiness of the good conscience.  One has renounced the great life when one renounces war.  In many cases, to be sure, "peace of soul" is merely a misunderstanding — something else, which lacks only a more honest name.  Without further ado or prejudice, a few examples.  "Peace of soul" can be, for one, the gentle radiation of a rich animality into the moral (or religious) sphere.  Or the beginning of weariness, the first shadow of evening, of any kind of evening.  Or a sign that the air is humid, that south winds are approaching.  Or unrecognized gratitude for a good digestion (sometimes called "love of man").  Or the attainment of calm by a convalescent who feels a new relish in all things and waits.  Or the state which follows a thorough satisfaction of our dominant passion, the well-being of a rare repletion.  Or the senile weakness of our will, our cravings, our vices.  Or laziness, persuaded by vanity to give itself moral airs.  Or the emergence of certainty, even a dreadful certainty, after long tension and torture by uncertainty.  Or the expression of maturity and mastery in the midst of doing, creating, working, and willing — calm breathing, attained "freedom of the will."  Twilight of the Idols — who knows?  perhaps also only a kind of "peace of soul."  I reduce a principle to a formula.  Every naturalism in morality — that is, every healthy morality — is dominated by an instinct of life, some commandment of life is fulfilled by a determinate canon of "shalt" and "shalt not"; some inhibition and hostile element on the path of life is thus removed.  Anti-natural morality — that is, almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached — turns, conversely, against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts, now secret, now outspoken and impudent.  When it says, "God looks at the heart," it says No to both the lowest and the highest desires of life, and posits God as the enemy of life.  The saint in whom God delights is the ideal eunuch.  Life has come to an end where the "kingdom of God" begins.  

5

Once one has comprehended the outrage of such a revolt against life as has become almost sacrosanct in Christian morality, one has, fortunately, also comprehended something else: the futility, apparentness, absurdity, and mendaciousness of such a revolt.     A condemnation of life by the living remains in the end a mere symptom of a certain kind of life: the question whether it is justified or unjustified is not even raised thereby.  One would require a position outside of life, and yet have to know it as well as one, as many, as all who have lived it, in order to be permitted even to touch the problem of the value of life: reasons enough to comprehend that this problem is for us an unapproachable problem.  When we speak of values, we speak with the inspiration, with the way of looking at things, which is part of life: life itself forces us to posit values; life itself values through us when we posit values.  From this it follows that even that anti-natural morality which conceives of God as the counter-concept and condemnation of life is only a value judgment of life — but of what life?  of what kind of life?  I have already given the answer: of declining, weakened, weary, condemned life.  Morality, as it has so far been understood — as it has in the end been formulated once more by Schopenhauer, as "negation of the will to life" — is the very instinct of decadence, which makes an imperative of itself.  It says: "Perish!"  It is a condemnation pronounced by the condemned.  

6

Let us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: "Man ought to be such and such!"     Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the abundance of a lavish play and change of forms — and some wretched loafer of a moralist comments: "No!  Man ought to be different."  He even knows what man should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints himself on the wall and comments, "Ecce homo!"  But even when the moralist addresses himself only to the single human being and says to him, "You ought to be such and such!"  he does not cease to make himself ridiculous.  The single human being is a piece of fatum from the front and from the rear, one law more, one necessity more for all that is yet to come and to be.  To say to him, "Change yourself!"  is to demand that everything be changed, even retroactively.  And indeed there have been consistent moralists who wanted man to be different, that is, virtuous — they wanted him remade in their own image, as a prig: to that end, they negated the world!  No small madness!  No modest kind of immodesty!  Morality, insofar as it condemns for its own sake, and not out of regard for the concerns, considerations, and contrivances of life, is a specific error with which one ought to have no pity — an idiosyncrasy of degenerates which has caused immeasurable harm.  We others, we immoralists, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving.  We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers.  More and more, our eyes have opened to that economy which needs and knows how to utilize everything that the holy witlessness of the priest, the diseased reason in the priest, rejects — that economy in the law of life which finds an advantage even in the disgusting species of the prigs, the priests, the virtuous.  What advantage?  But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the answer.  
 

Friedrich Nietzsche, "Ecce Homo" Ebook

Kindle Version : $1 from Amazon!

PDA, Mobile/Smart phone : $1 from MobiPocket.com!