Part 22

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 collective power of this hoard of virtue projects its rays even into that sphere where honesty is most seldom present--the sphere of _intellect._ When a thing becomes conscious, it is the sign of a state of ill-ease in the organism; something new has got to be found, the organism is not satisfied or adapted, it is subject to distress, suspense, and it is hypersensitive--precisely all this is consciousness....

Gennius lies in the instincts; goodness does too. One only acts perfectly when one acts instinctively. Even from the moral point of view all thinking which is conscious is merely a process of groping, and in the majority of cases an attack on morality. Scientific honesty is always sacrificed when a thinker begins to reason: let any one try the experiment: put the wisest man in the balance, and then let him discourse upon morality....

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._

441.

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 niggardly 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 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 its multiformity and its transformations). Contempt of _objectivity_ in interests is taught: return to practical interest, and to the personal utility of all knowledge....

The struggle against science is directed at: (1) its pathos (objectivity); (2) its means (that is to say, at its utility); (3) its results (which are considered childish). It is the same struggle which is taken up later on by the _Church_ in the name of piety: the Church inherited the whole arsenal of antiquity for her war with science. The theory of knowledge played the same part in the affair as it did in Kant's or the Indians' case. There is no desire whatever to be troubled with it, a free hand is wanted for the "purpose" that is envisaged.

Against what powers are they actually defending themselves? Against dutifulness, against obedience to law, against the compulsion of going hand in hand--I believe this is what is called _Freedom...._

This is how decadence manifests itself: the instinct of solidarity is so degenerate that solidarity itself gets to be regarded as _tyranny_: no authority or solidarity is brooked, nobody any longer desires to fall in with the rank and file, and to adopt its ignobly slow pace. The slow movement which is the tempo of science is generally hated, as are also the scientific man's indifference in regard to getting on, his long breath, and his impersonal attitude.

443.

At bottom, morality is _hostile_ to science: Socrates was so already too--and the reason is, that science considers certain things important which have no relation whatsoever to "good" and "evil," and which therefore reduce the gravity of our feelings concerning "good" and "evil." What morality requires is that the whole of a man should serve it with all his power: it considers it waste on the part of a creature that _can ill afford waste,_ when a man earnestly troubles his head about stars or plants. That is why science very quickly declined in Greece, once Socrates had inoculated scientific work with the disease of morality. The mental attitudes reached by a Democritus, a Hippocrates, and a Thucydides, have not been reached a second time.--

444.

The problem of the _philosopher_ and of the _scientific_ man.--The influence of age; depressing habits (sedentary study _à la_ Kant; over-work; inadequate nourishment of the brain; reading). A more essential question still: is it not already perhaps a _symptom_ of decadence when thinking tends to establish _generalities_?

_Objectivity regarded as the disintegration of the will_ (to be able to remain as detached as possible ...). This presupposes a tremendous adiaphora in regard to the strong passions: a kind of isolation, an exceptional position, opposition to the normal passions.

Type: desertion of _home-country_ emigrants go ever greater distances afield; growing exoticism; the voice of the old imperative dies away;--and the continual question "whither?" ("happiness") is a sign of _emancipation_ from forms of organisation, a sign of breaking loose from everything.

Problem: is the man of _science_ more of a decadent symptom than the philosopher?--as a _whole_ scientific man is not, cut loose from everything, only a part of his being is consecrated exclusively to the service of knowledge and disciplined to maintain a special attitude and point of view; in his department he is in need of _all_ the virtues of a strong race, of robust health, of great severity, manliness and intelligence. He is rather a symptom of the great multiformity of culture than of the effeteness of the latter. The decadent scholar is a _bad_ scholar. Whereas the decadent philosopher has always been reckoned hitherto as the typical philosopher.

445.

Among philosophers, nothing is more rare than _intellectual uprightness_: they perhaps say the very reverse, and even believe it. But the prerequisite of all their work is, that they can only admit of certain truths; they know what they _have_ to prove; and the fact that they must be agreed as to these "truths" is almost what makes them recognise one another as philosophers. There are, for instance, the truths of morality. But belief in morality is not a proof of morality: there are cases--and the philosopher's case is one in point--when a belief of this sort is simply a piece of _immorality_.

446.

_What is the retrograde factor in a philosopher?_--He teaches that the qualities which he happens to possess are the only qualities that exist, that they are indispensable to those who wish to attain to the "highest good" (for instance, dialectics with Plato). He would have all men raise themselves, _gradatim,_ to _his_ type as the highest. He despises what is generally esteemed--by him a gulf is cleft between the highest _priestly_ values and the values of the _world._ He knows what is true, who God is, what every one's goal should be, and the way thereto.... The typical philosopher is thus an absolute dogmatist;--if he _requires_ scepticism at all it is only in order to be able to speak dogmatically of his _principal purpose_.

447.

When the philosopher is confronted with his rival--science, for instance, he becomes a sceptic; then he appropriates a _form of knowledge_ which he denies to the man of science; he goes hand in hand with the priest so that he may not be suspected of atheism or materialism; he considers an attack made upon himself as an attack upon morals, religion, virtue, and order--he knows how to bring his opponents into ill repute by calling them "seducers" and "underminers": then he marches shoulder to shoulder with power.

The philosopher at war with other philosophers:--he does his best to compel them to appear like anarchists, disbelievers, opponents of authority. In short, when he fights, he fights exactly like a priest and like the priesthood.

3. THE TRUTHS AND ERRORS OF PHILOSOPHERS.

448.

Philosophy defined by Kant: "_The science of the limitations of reason_"!!

449.

According to Aristotle, Philosophy is the art of discovering truth. On the other hand, the Epicurians, who availed themselves of Aristotle's _sensual_ theory of knowledge, retorted in ironical opposition to the search for truth: "Philosophy is the art of _Life._"

450.

_The three great naïvetés:--_

Knowledge as a means of happiness (as if ...);

Knowledge as a means to virtue (as if ...);

Knowledge as a means to the "denial of Life"--inasmuch as it leads to disappointment--(as if ...).

451.

As if there were a "truth" which one could by some means approach!

452.

Error and ignorance are fatal.--The assumption that _truth has been found_ and that ignorance and error are at an end, constitutes one of the most seductive thoughts in the world. Granted that it be generally accepted, it paralyses the will to test, to investigate, to be cautious, and to gather experience: it may even be regarded as criminal--that is to say, as a _doubt_ concerning truth....

"Truth" is therefore more fatal than error and ignorance, because it paralyses the forces which lead to enlightenment and knowledge. The passion for _idleness_ now stands up for "truth" ("Thought is pain and misery!"), as also do order, rule, the joy of possession, the pride of wisdom--in fact, _vanity._--it is easier to _obey_ than to _examine_; it is more gratifying to think "I possess the truth," than to see only darkness in all directions; ... but, above all, it is reassuring, it lends confidence, and alleviates life--it "improves" the character inasmuch as it _reduces mistrust._" Spiritual peace," "a quiet conscience"--these things are inventions which are only possible provided "_Truth be found._"--"By their fruits ye shall know them." ... "Truth" is the truth because it makes men _better...._ The process goes on: all goodness and all success is placed to the credit of "truth."

This is the _proof by success_: the happiness, contentment, and the welfare of a community or of an individual, are now understood to be the _result of the belief in morality_.... Conversely: _failure_ is ascribed to a _lack_ of faith.

453.

The causes of error lie just as much in the _good_ as in the _bad will_ of man:--in an incalculable number of cases he conceals reality from himself, he falsifies it, so that he may not suffer from his good or bad will. God, for instance, is considered the shaper of man's destiny; he interprets his little lot as though everything were intentionally sent to him for the salvation of his soul,--this act of ignorance in "philology," which to a more subtle intellect would seem unclean and false, is done, in the majority of cases, with perfect _good faith._ Goodwill, "noble feelings," and "lofty states of the soul" are just as underhand and deceptive in the means they use as are the passions love, hatred, and revenge, which morality has repudiated and declared to be egotistic.

Errors are what mankind has had to pay for most dearly: and taking them all in all, the errors which have resulted from goodwill are those which have wrought the most harm. The illusion which makes people happy is more harmful than the illusion which is immediately followed by evil results: the latter increases keenness and mistrust, and purifies, the understanding; the former merely narcoticises....

Fine feelings and noble impulses ought, speaking physiologically, to be classified with the narcotics: their abuse is followed by precisely the same results as the abuse of any other opiate--_weak nerves_.

454.

Error is the most expensive luxury that man can indulge in: and if the error happen to be a physiological one, it is fatal to life. What has mankind paid for most dearly hitherto? For its "truths ": for every one of these were errors _in physiologicis>_....

455.

Psychological _confusions_: the _desire for belief_ is confounded with the "will to truth" (for instance, in Carlyle). But the _desire for disbelief_ has also been confounded with the "will to truth" (a need of ridding one's self of a belief for a hundred reasons: in order to carry one's point against certain "believers"). _What is it that inspires Sceptics?_ The hatred of dogmatists--or a need of repose, weariness as in Pyrrho's case.

The _advantages_ which were expected to come from truth, were the advantages resulting from a belief in _it_: for, in itself, truth could have been thoroughly painful, harmful, and even fatal. Likewise truth was combated only on account of the advantages which a victory over it would provide--for instance, emancipation from the yoke of the ruling powers.

The method of truth was _not_ based upon motives of truthfulness, but upon _motives of power, upon the desire to be superior._

_How is_ truth _proved_? By means of the feeling of increased power,--by means of utility,--by means of indispensability,--_in short, by means of its advantages_ (that is to say, hypotheses concerning what truth should be like in order that it may be embraced by us). But this involves _prejudice_: it is a sign that _truth_ does not enter the question at all....

What is the meaning of the "will to truth," for instance in the Goncourts? and in the _naturalists_?--A criticism of "objectivity."

Why should we know: why should we not prefer to be deceived?... But what was needed was always belief--and _not_ truth.... Belief is created by means which are quite _opposed_ to the method of investigation: _it even depends upon the exclusion of the latter._

456.

A certain degree of faith suffices to-day to give us an _objection_ to what is believed--it does more, it makes us question the spiritual healthiness of the believer.

457.

_Martyrs._--To combat anything that is based upon reverence, opponents must be possessed of both daring and recklessness, and be hindered by no scruples.... Now, if one considers that for thousands of years man has sanctified as truths only those things which were in reality errors, and that he has branded any criticism of them with the hall-mark of badness, one will have to acknowledge, however reluctantly, that a goodly amount of _immoral deeds_ were necessary in order to give the initiative to an attack--I mean to _reason...._ That these immoralists have always posed as the "martyrs of truth" should be forgiven them: the truth of the matter is that they did not stand up and deny owing to an instinct for truth; but because of a love of dissolution, criminal scepticism, and the love of adventure. In other cases it is personal rancour which drives them into the province of problems--they only combat certain points of view in order to be able to carry their point against certain people. But, above all, it is revenge which has become scientifically useful--the revenge of the oppressed, those who, thanks to the truth that happens to be ruling, have been pressed aside and even smothered....

Truth, that is to say the scientific method, was grasped and favoured by such as recognised that it was a useful weapon of war--an instrument of _destruction_....

In order to be honoured as opponents, they were moreover obliged to use an apparatus similar to that used by those whom they were attacking: they therefore brandished the concept "truth" as absolutely as their adversaries did--they became fanatics at least in their poses, because no other pose could be expected to be taken seriously. What still remained to be done was left to persecution, to passion, and the uncertainty of the persecuted--hatred waxed great, and the first impulse began to die away and to leave the field entirely to science. Ultimately all of them wanted to be right in the same absurd way as their opponents.... The word "conviction," "faith," the pride of martyrdom--these things are most unfavourable to knowledge. The adversaries of truth finally adopt the whole subjective manner of deciding about truth,--that is to say, by means of poses, sacrifices, and heroic resolutions,--and thus _prolong_ the _dominion_ of the anti-scientific method. As martyrs they compromise their very own deed.

458.

_The dangerous distinction between "theoretical" and "practical"_ in Kant for instance, but also in the ancient philosophers:--they behave as if pure intellectuality presented them with the problems of science and metaphysics;--they behave as if practice should be judged by a measure of its own, whatever the judgment of theory may be.

Against the first tendency I set up my _psychology of philosophers_: their strangest calculations and "intellectuality" are still but the last pallid impress of a physiological fact; spontaneity is absolutely lacking in them, everything is instinct, everything is intended to follow a certain direction from the first....

Against the second tendency I put my question: whether we know another method of acting correctly, besides that of thinking correctly; the last case _is_ action, the first presupposes thought Are we possessed of a means whereby we can judge of the value of a method of life differently from the value of a theory: through induction or comparison?... Guileless people imagine that in this respect we are better equipped, we know what is "good"--and the philosophers are content to repeat this view. We conclude that some sort of _faith_ is at work in this matter, and nothing more....

"Men must act; _consequently_ rules of conduct are necessary"--this is what even the ancient Sceptics thought. The _urgent need_ of a definite decision in this department of knowledge is used as an argument in favour of regarding something as _true_!...

"Men must not act"--said their more consistent brothers, the Buddhists, and then thought out a mode of conduct which would deliver man from the yoke of action....

To adapt one's self, to live as the "_common man_" lives, and to regard as right and proper what _he_ regards as right: this is _submission_ to the _gregarious instinct._ One must carry one's courage and severity so far as to learn to consider such submission a _disgrace._ One should not live according to two standards!... One should not separate theory and practice!...

459.

Of all that which was formerly held to be true, not one word is to be credited. Everything which was formerly disdained as unholy, forbidden, contemptible, and fatal--all these flowers now bloom on the most charming paths of truth.

The whole of this old morality concerns us no longer: it contains not one idea which is still worthy of respect. We have outlived it--we are no longer sufficiently coarse and guileless to be forced to allow ourselves to be lied to in this way.... In more polite language: we are too virtuous for it.... And if truth in the old sense were "true" only because the old morality said "yea" to it, and _had a right_ to say "yea" to it: it follows that no truth of the past can any longer be of use to us.... Our _criterion_ of truth is /certainly not morality: we _refute_ an assertion when we show that it is dependent upon morality and is inspired by noble feelings.

460.

All these values are empirical and conditioned. But he who believes in them and who honours them, _refuses_ to acknowledge this aspect of them. All philosophers believe in these values, and one form their reverence takes is the endeavour to make _a priori truths_ out of them. The falsifying nature of _reverence_....

Reverence is the supreme test of intellectual _honesty,_ but in the whole history of philosophy there is no such thing as intellectual honesty,--but the "love of goodness ..."

On the one hand, there is an absolute _lack of method_ in testing the value of these values; _secondly,_ there is a general disinclination either to test them or to regard them as conditioned at all.--All _anti-scientific_ instincts assembled round moral values in order to _keep science out_ of this department....

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS IN THE CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY.

461.

_Why philosophers are slanderers._--The artful and blind hostility of philosophers towards the _senses_--what an amount of _mob_ and _middle-class_ qualities lie in all this hatred!

The crowd always believes that an abuse of which it feels the harmful results, constitutes an _objection_ to the thing which happens to be abused: all insurrectionary movements against principles, whether in politics or agriculture, always follow a line of argument suggested by this ulterior motive: the abuse must be shown to be necessary to, and, inherent in, the principle.

It is a _woeful_ history: mankind looks for a principle, from the standpoint of which he will be able to contemn man--he invents a world in order to be able to slander and throw mud at this world: as a matter of fact, he snatches every time at nothing, and construes this nothing as "God," as "Truth," and, in any case, as judge and detractor of _this_ existence....

If one should require a proof of how deeply and thoroughly the actually _barbarous_ needs of man, even in his present state of tameness and "civilisation," still seek gratification, one should contemplate the "leitmotifs" of the whole of the evolution of philosophy:--a sort of revenge upon reality, a surreptitious process of destroying the values by means of which men live, a _dissatisfied_ soul to which the conditions of discipline is one of torture, and which takes a particular pleasure in morbidly severing all the bonds that bind it to such a condition.

The history of philosophy is the story of a _secret and mad hatred_ of the prerequisities of Life, of the feelings which make for the real values of Life, and of all partisanship in favour of Life. Philosophers have never hesitated to affirm a fanciful world, provided it contradicted this world, and furnished them with a weapon wherewith they could calumniate this world. Up to the present, philosophy has been the _grand school of slander_: and its power has been so great, that even to-day our science, which pretends to be the advocate of Life, has _accepted_ the fundamental position of slander, and treats this world as "appearance," and this chain of causes as though it were only phenomenal. What is the hatred which is active here?

I fear that it is still the _Circe of philosophers--_Morality, which plays them the trick of compelling them to be ever slanderers.... They believed in moral "truths," in these they thought they had found the highest values; what alternative had they left, save that of denying existence ever more emphatically the more they got to know about it?... For this life is _immoral...._ And it is based upon immoral first principles: and morality says _nay_ to Life.

Let us suppress the real world: and in order to do this, we must first suppress the highest values current hitherto--morals.... It is enough to show that morality itself _is immoral,_ in the same sense as that in which immorality has been condemned heretofore. If an end be thus made to the tyranny of the former values, if we have suppressed the "real world," a _new order of values_ must follow of its own accord.

The world of appearance and the world _of lies_: this constitutes the contradiction. The latter hitherto has been the "real world," "truth," "God." This is the one which we still have to suppress.

The _logic of my conception_:

(1) _Morality as the highest value_ (it is master of _all_ the phases of philosophy, even of the Sceptics). _Result_: this world is no good, it is not the "real world."