Part 13

Christianity should never be forgiven for having ruined such men as Pascal. This is precisely what should be combated in Christianity, namely, that it has the will to break the spirit of the strongest and noblest natures. One should take no rest until this thing is utterly destroyed:--the ideal of mankind which Christianity advances, the demands it makes upon men, and its "Nay" and "Yea" relative to humanity. The whole of the remaining absurdities, that is to say, Christian fable, Christian cobweb-spinning in ideas and principles, and Christian theology, do not concern us; they might be a thousand times more absurd and we should not raise a finger to destroy them. But what we do stand up against, is that ideal which, thanks to its morbid beauty and feminine seductiveness, thanks to its insidious and slanderous eloquence, appeals to all the cowardices and vanities of wearied souls,--and the strongest have their moments of fatigue,--as though all that which seems most useful and desirable at such moments--that is to say, confidence, artlessness, modesty, patience, love of one's like, resignation, submission to God, and a sort of self-surrender--were useful and desirable _per se_; as though the puny, modest abortion which in these creatures takes the place of a soul, this virtuous, mediocre animal and sheep of the flock--which deigns to call itself man, were not only to take precedence of the stronger, more evil, more passionate, more defiant, and more prodigal type of man, who by virtue of these very qualities is exposed to a hundred times more dangers than the former, but were actually to stand as an ideal for man in general, as a goal, a measure--the highest desideratum. The creation of _this_ ideal was the most appalling temptation that had ever been put in the way of mankind; for, with it, the stronger and more successful exceptions, the lucky cases among men, in which the will to power and to growth leads the whole species "man" one step farther forward, this type was threatened with disaster. By means of the values of this ideal, the growth of such higher men would be checked at the root. For these men, owing to their superior demands and duties, readily accept a more dangerous life (speaking economically, it is a case of an increase in the costs of the undertaking coinciding with a greater chance of failure). What is it we combat in Christianity? That it aims at destroying the strong, at breaking their spirit, at exploiting their moments of weariness and debility, at converting their proud assurance into anxiety and conscience-trouble; that it knows how to poison the noblest instincts and to infect them with disease, until their strength, their will to power, turns inwards, against themselves--until the strong perish through their excessive self-contempt and self-immolation: that gruesome way of perishing, of which _Pascal_ is the most famous example.

II.

A CRITICISM OF MORALITY.

1. THE ORIGIN OF MORAL VALUATIONS.

253.

This is an attempt at investigating morality without being affected by its charm, and not without some mistrust in regard to the beguiling beauty of its attitudes and looks. A world which we can admire, which is in keeping with our capacity for worship--which is continually _demonstrating_ itself--in small things or in large: this is the Christian standpoint which is common to us all.

But owing to an increase in our astuteness, in our mistrust, and in our scientific spirit (also through a more developed instinct for truth, which again is due to Christian influence), this interpretation has grown ever less and less tenable for us.

The craftiest of subterfuges: Kantian criticism. The intellect not only denies itself every right to interpret things in that way, but also to reject the interpretation once it has been made. People are satisfied with a _greater_ demand upon their credulity and faith, with a renunciation of all right to reason concerning the proof of their creed, with an intangible and superior "Ideal" (God) as a stop-gap.

The Hegelian subterfuge, a continuation of the Platonic, a piece of romanticism and reaction, and at the same time a symptom of the historical sense of a new _power_: "Spirit" itself is the "self-revealing and self-realising ideal": we believe that in the "process of, development" an ever greater proportion of this ideal is being manifested--thus the ideal is being realised, faith is vested in the _future_ into which all its noble needs are projected and in which they are being worshipped.

In short:--

(1) God is unknowable to us and not to be demonstrated by us (the concealed meaning behind the whole of the epistemological movement);

(2) God may be demonstrated, but as something evolving, and we are part of it, as our pressing desire for an ideal proves (the concealed meaning behind the historical movement).

It should be observed that criticism is _never_ levelled at the ideal itself, but only at the problem which gives rise to a controversy concerning the ideal--that is to say, why it has not yet been realised, or why it is not demonstrable in small things as in great.

***

It makes all the difference: whether a man recognises this state of distress as such owing to a passion or to a yearning in himself, or whether it comes home to him as a problem which he arrives at only by straining his thinking powers and his historical imagination to the utmost.

Away from the religious and philosophical points of view we find the same phenomena. Utilitarianism (socialism and democracy) criticises the origin of moral valuations, though it believes in them just as much as the Christian does. (What guilelessness! As if morality could remain when the sanctioning _deity_ is no longer present! The belief in a "Beyond" is absolutely necessary, if the faith in morality is to be maintained.)

_Fundamental problem_: whence comes this almighty power of _Faith? Whence this faith in morality?_ (It is betrayed by the fact that even the fundamental conditions of life are falsely interpreted in favour of it: despite our knowledge of plants and animals. "Self-preservation": the Darwinian prospect of a reconciliation of the altruistic and egotistic principles.)

254.

An inquiry into the _origin of our moral valuations_ and tables of law has absolutely nothing to do with the _criticism_ of them, though people persist in believing it has; the two matters lie quite apart, notwithstanding the fact that the knowledge of the _pudenda origo_ of a valuation does diminish its prestige, and prepares the way to a critical attitude and spirit towards it.

What is the actual worth of our valuations and tables of moral laws? _What is the outcome of their dominion?_ For whom? In relation to what?--answer: for Life. But _what is Life?_ A new and more definite concept of what "Life" is, becomes necessary here. My formula of this concept is: Life is Will to Power.

_What is the meaning of the very act of valuing?_ Does it point back to another, metaphysical world, or does it point down? (As Kant believed, who lived in a period which _preceded_ the great historical movement.) In short: _what is its origin?_ Or had it no human "origin"?--Answer: moral valuations are a sort of explanation, they constitute a method of interpreting. Interpretation in itself is a symptom of definite physiological conditions, as also of a definite spiritual level of ruling judgments. _What is it that interprets?_--Our passions.

255

All virtues should be looked upon as physiological _conditions_: the principal organic functions, more particularly, should be considered necessary and good. All virtues are really refined _passions_ and elevated physiological conditions.

Pity and philanthropy may be regarded as the developments of sexual relations,--justice as the development of the passion for revenge,--virtue as the love of resistance, the will to power,--honour as an acknowledgment of an equal, or of an equally powerful, force.

256.

Under "Morality" I understand a system of valuations which is in relation with the conditions of a creature's life.

257.

Formerly it was said of every form of morality, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." I say of every form of morality: "It is a fruit, and from it I learn the _Soil_ out of which it grew."

258.

I have tried to understand all moral judgments as symptoms and a language of signs in which the processes of physiological prosperity or the reverse, as also the consciousness of the conditions of preservation and growth, are betrayed--a mode of interpretation equal in worth to astrology, prejudices, created by instincts (peculiar to races, communities, and different stages of existence, as, for instance, youth or decay, etc.).

Applying this principle to the morality of Christian Europe more particularly, we find that our moral values are signs of decline, of a disbelief in _Life,_ and of a preparation for pessimism.

My leading doctrine is this: _there are no moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena. The origin of this interpretation itself lies beyond the pale of morality._

What is the meaning of the fact that we have imagined a _contradiction_ in existence? This is of paramount importance: behind all other valuations those moral valuations stand commandingly. Supposing they disappear, according to what standard shall we then measure? And then of what value would knowledge be, etc. etc.???

259.

A point of view: in all valuations there is a definite purpose: the _preservation_ of an individual, a community, a race, a state, a church, a belief, or a culture.--Thanks to the fact that people _forget_ that all valuing has a purpose, one and the same man may swarm with a host of contradictory valuations, and _therefore with a host of contradictory impulses._ This is the _expression of disease in man_ as opposed to the health of animals, in which all the instincts answer certain definite purposes.

This creature full of contradictions, however, has in his being a grand method of acquiring knowledge: he feels the pros and cons, he elevates himself _to Justice_--that is to say, to the ascertaining of principles _beyond the valuations good and evil._

The wisest man would thus be the _richest in contradictions,_ he would also be gifted with mental antennæ wherewith he could understand all kinds of men; and with it all he would have his great moments, when all the chords in his being would ring in _splendid unison_--the rarest of _accidents_ even in us! A sort of planetary movement.

260.

"To will" is to will an object. But "object," as an idea, involves a valuation. Whence do valuations originate? Is a permanent norm, "pleasant or painful," their basis?

But in an incalculable number of cases we first of all _make_ a thing painful, by investing it with a valuation.

The compass of moral valuations: they play a part in almost every mental impression. To us the world is _coloured_ by them.

We have imagined the purpose and value of all things: owing to this we possess an enormous fund of _latent power,_ but the study of _comparative_ values teaches us that values which were actually opposed to each other have been held in high esteem, and that there have been _many_ tables of laws (they could not, therefore, have been worth anything _per se_).

The analysis of individual tables of laws revealed the fact that they were framed (often very badly) as the _conditions of existence_ for limited groups of people, to ensure their maintenance.

Upon examining modern men, we found that there are a large number of _very different_ values to hand, and that they no longer contain any creative power--the fundamental principle: "the condition of existence" is now quite divorced from the moral values. It is much more superfluous and not nearly so painful. It becomes an _arbitrary_ matter. Chaos.

Who creates _the goal_ which stands above mankind kind and above the individual? Formerly morality was a _preservative_ measure: but nobody wants to _preserve_ any longer, there is nothing to preserve. Thus we are reduced to an _experimental morality,_ each must _postulate_ a goal for himself.

261.

What is the _criterion_ of a moral action? (1) Its disinterestedness, (2) its universal acceptation, etc. But this is parlour-morality. Races must be studied and observed, and, in each case, the criterion must be discovered, as also the thing it expresses: a belief such as: "This particular attitude or behaviour belongs to the principal condition of our existence." Immoral means "that which brings about ruin." Now all societies in which these principles were discovered have met with their ruin: a few of these principles have been used and used again, because every newly established community required them; this was the case, for instance, with "Thou shalt not steal." In ages when people could not be expected to show any marked social instinct (as, for instance, in the age of the Roman Empire) the latter was, religiously speaking, directed towards the idea of "spiritual salvation," or, in philosophical parlance, towards "the greatest happiness." For even the philosophers of Greece did not feel any more for their πολις.

262.

_The necessity of false values._--A judgment may be refuted when it is shown that it was conditioned: but the necessity of retaining it is not thereby cancelled. Reasons can no more eradicate false values than they can alter astigmatism in a man's eyes.

The need of their _existence_ must be understood: they are the _result_ of causes which have nothing to do with reasoning.

263.

To _see_ and _reveal_ the problem of morality seems to me to be the new task and the principal thing of all. I deny that this has been done by moral philosophies heretofore.

264.

How false and deceptive men have always been concerning the fundamental facts of their inner world! Here to have no eye; here to hold one's tongue, and here to open one's mouth.

265.

There seems to be no knowledge or consciousness of the many _revolutions_ that have taken place in moral judgments, and of the number of times that "evil" has really and seriously been christened "good" and _vice versa._ I myself pointed to one of these transformations with the words "Sittlichkeit der Sitte."[3] Even conscience has changed its sphere: formerly there was such a thing as a gregarious pang of conscience.

[Footnote 3: The morality of custom.]

266.

A. _Morality_ as the work of _Immorality._

1. In order that moral values may attain to _supremacy,_ a host of immoral forces and passions must assist them.

2. The establishment of moral values is the work of immoral passions and considerations.

B. _Morality as the work of error._

C. _'Morality gradually contradicts itself._ Requital--Truthfulness, Doubt, έποχή, Judging. The "Immorality" of _belief_ in morality.

The steps:--

1. Absolute dominion of morality: all biological phenomena measured and _judged_ according to its values.

2. The attempt to identify Life with morality (symptom of awakened scepticism: morality must no longer be regarded as the opposite of Life); many means are sought--even a transcendental one.

3. The _opposition of Life_ and _Morality._ Morality condemned and sentenced by Life.

D. To what extent was morality _dangerous_ to Life?

_(a)_ It depreciated the joy of living and the gratitude felt towards Life, etc.

_(b)_ It checked the tendency to beautify and to ennoble Life.

_(c)_ It checked the knowledge of Life.

_(d)_ It checked the unfolding of Life, because it tried to set the highest phenomena thereof at variance with itself.

E. Contra-account: the _usefulness_ of morality to Life.

(1) Morality may be a preservative measure for the general whole, it may be a process of uniting dispersed members: it is useful as an agent in the production of the man who is a "_tool_."

(2) Morality may be a preservative measure mitigating the inner danger threatening man from the direction of his passions: it is useful to "_mediocre people_."

(3) Morality may be a preservative measure resisting the life-poisoning influences of profound sorrow and bitterness: it is useful to the "_sufferers_."

(4) Morality may be a preservative measure opposed to the terrible outbursts of the mighty: it is useful to the "_lowly_."

267.

It is an excellent thing when one can use the expressions "right" and "wrong" in a definite, narrow, and "bourgeois" sense, as for instance in the sentence: "Do right and fear no one";[4]--that is to say, to do one's duty, according to the rough scheme of life within the limit of which a community exists.--Let us not think meanly of what a few thousand years of morality have inculcated upon our minds.

[Footnote 4: "Thue Recht und scheue Niemand."]

268.

Two types of morality must not be confounded: the morality with which the instinct that has remained healthy defends itself from incipient decadence, and the other morality by means of which this decadence asserts itself, justifies itself, and leads downwards.

The first-named is usually stoical, hard, tyrannical _(Stoicism_ itself was an example of the sort of "drag-chain" morality we speak of); the other is gushing, sentimental, full of secrets, it has the women and "beautiful feelings" on its side (Primitive Christianity was an example of this morality).

269.

I shall try to regard all moralising, with one glance, as a phenomenon--also as a _riddle._ Moral phenomena have preoccupied me like riddles. To-day I should be able to give a reply to the question: why _should_ my neighbour's welfare be of greater value to me than my own? and why is it that my neighbour himself _should_ value his welfare differently from the way in which I value it--that is to say, why should precisely _my_ welfare be paramount in his mind? What is the meaning of this "Thou shalt," which is regarded as "given" even by philosophers themselves?

The seemingly insane idea that a man should esteem the act he performs for a fellow-creature, higher than the one he performs for himself, and that the same fellow-creature should do so too (that only those acts should be held to be good which are performed with an eye to the neighbour and for his welfare) has its reasons--namely, as the result of the social instinct which rests upon the valuation, that single individuals are of little importance although collectively their importance is very great. This, of course, presupposes that they constitute a _community_ with one feeling and one conscience pervading the whole. It is therefore a sort of exercise for keeping one's eyes in a certain direction; it is the will to a kind of optics which renders a view of one's self impossible.

My idea: goals are wanting, and _these must be individuals._ We see the general drift: every individual gets sacrificed and serves as a tool. Let any one keep his eyes open in the streets--is not every one he sees a slave? Whither? What is the purpose of it all?

270.

How is it possible that a man can respect himself _only_ in regard to moral values, that he subordinates and despises everything in favour of good, evil, improvement, spiritual salvation, etc.? as, for instance, Henri Fréd. Amiel. What is the meaning of the _moral idiosyncrasy_?--I mean this both in the psychological and physiological sense, as it was, for instance, in Pascal. In cases, then, in which _other_ great qualities are not wanting; and even in the case of Schopenhauer, who obviously valued what he did not and _could_ not have ...--is it not the result of a merely mechanical _moral interpretation_ of real states of pain and displeasure? is it not a particular form of _sensibility_ which does _not_ happen to _understand_ the cause of its many unpleasurable feelings, but _thinks to explain them with moral hypotheses?_ In this way an occasional feeling of well-being and _strength_ always appears under the optics of a "clean conscience," flooded with light through the proximity of God and the consciousness of salvation.... Thus the _moral idiosyncratist_ has (1) _either_ acquired his real worth in approximating to the virtuous type of society: "the good fellow," "_the upright man_"--a sort of medium state of high respectability: _mediocre_ in all his abilities, but honest, conscientious, firm, respected, and tried, in all his aspirations; (2) _or,_ he imagines he has acquired that worth, simply because he cannot otherwise understand all his states--he is unknown to himself; he therefore interprets himself in this fashion.--Morality is the only _scheme of interpretation_ by means of which this type of man can tolerate himself:--is it a form of vanity?

271.

_The predominance of moral values._--The consequence of this predominance: the corruption of psychology, etc.; the fatality which is associated with it everywhere. What is the _meaning_ of this predominance? What does it point to?

To a certain _greater urgency_ of saying nay or yea definitely in this domain. All sorts of _imperatives_ have been used in order to make moral values appear as if they were for ever fixed:--they have been enjoined for the longest period of time: they almost appear to be instinctive, like inner commands. They are the expression of _society's preservative measures,_ for they are felt to be almost _beyond question._ The practice--that is to say, the _utility_ of being agreed concerning superior values, has attained in this respect to a sort of sanction. We observe that every care is taken to paralyse reflection and criticism in this department--look at Kant's attitude! not to speak of those who believe that it is immoral even to prosecute "research" in these matters.

272.

_My desire_ is to show the absolute homogeneity of all phenomena, and to ascribe to moral differentiations but the value of _perspective_; to show that all that which is praised as moral is essentially the same as that which is immoral, and was only made possible, according to the law of all moral development--that is to say, by means of immoral artifices and with a view to immoral ends--just as all that which has been decried as immoral is, from the standpoint of economics, both superior and essential; and how development leading to a greater abundance of life necessarily Involves _progress_ in the realm _of immorality_. "Truth," that is the extent to which we _allow_ ourselves to comprehend _this_ fact.

273.

But do not let us fear: as a matter of fact, we require a great deal of morality, in order to be immoral in this subtle way; let me speak in a parable:--

A physiologist interested in a certain illness, and an invalid who wishes to be cured of that same illness, have not the same interests. Let us suppose that the illness happens to be morality,--for morality is an illness,--and that we Europeans are the invalid: what an amount of subtle torment and difficulty would arise supposing we Europeans were, at once, our own inquisitive spectators and the physiologist above-mentioned! Should we under these circumstances earnestly desire to rid ourselves of morality? Should we want to? This is of course irrespective of the question whether we should be _able_ to do so--whether we can be _cured_ at all?

2. THE HERD.

274.

_Whose will to power is morality?_--The _common factor_ of all European history since the time of _Socrates_ is the attempt to make the _moral values_ dominate all other values, in order that they should not be only the leader and judge of life, but also: (1) knowledge, (2) Art, (3) political and social aspirations. "Amelioration" regarded as the only duty, everything else used as a _means_ thereto (or as a force distributing, hindering, and endangering its realisation, and therefore to be opposed and annihilated ...).--A similar movement to be observed _in China_ and _India._

What is the meaning of this _will to power on the part of moral values,_ which has played such a part in the world's prodigious evolutions?