Chapter 11 The Birth of Tragedy Vol 11 Part Seven

tragic birth vol. Part VII 343. The Meaning of Joy Of several recent events, the most important of these is that "God is dead"; the belief in a Christian God—no longer worthy of belief—has begun to cast its shadow over Europe for the first time.For a few, his skeptical eye toward the play was very strong and sensitive; it seemed as if a few rays of sunshine had been shot from the clouds, and some ancient and deep confidence began to turn into doubt—for them, Our old world seems increasingly bleak, suspicious, strange and "old".In general, we can also say that the event itself is too great, too remote, too beyond the reach of people's comprehension; People, in the hearts of those people, the belief in the past has been corroding unknowingly for a long time - just because so many things (such as the whole European morality) are deeply rooted in it.

This deep and uninterrupted process of collapse, destruction and overthrow is now all the more urgent when anyone realizes that someone must stand up as a teacher and herald of great change, or a prophet of dark and decaying times. (and this may not have been possible before)?And we, born riddle-guessers, look forward, as if today or tomorrow, the answer will be announced on the mountain—and are puzzled by the contradictions of the answers.In the eyes of us babes and precocious children of the century to come, the shadow that will soon shadow the whole of Europe must have arrived. Are we still (perhaps) affected by this event - not entirely sad or depressed, but more indescribably new joy, joy, comfort, liveliness, courage and dawn?In fact, we philosophers and "free men" feel deeply as if we are illuminated by a new rising sun (the good news that "the old God is dead"), with a mixture of gratitude, surprise, premonition and anticipation Feelings.Finally, our sight seems to be more open, even if it is not bright enough, but our ship can finally put the sea to face all kinds of dangers; the sea that belongs to us-perhaps the unprecedented "open sea"- — is once again unfolding before our eyes.

344. To what extent can we be devout? It is said that, for some reason, criminals have no citizenship in the sphere of science; only if they voluntarily submit to a hypothetical modesty, a position prepared for experience, or a limited fiction, which usually The access to the realm of knowledge and the certain values ​​in it are recognized—but with the added restriction that all this must be subject to police supervision, which, because of our distrust, must be police supervision. Rather, does it not imply that the criminal is admitted into the realm of science only when he ceases to be a criminal?Can one be trained in the scientific spirit only when one is no longer guilty of any crime?Probably so.We can see that science must also be based on a belief that "without premises" there is no science at all.The question "whether truth is necessary" cannot be pre-asserted, but must be decided in the circumstances in which an explanation can be found in principle, belief, or conviction, "Nothing is more necessary than truth, compared with any other All things are of secondary value." What is this absolute will to truth?Is it the will not to let us deceive ourselves?Or the will not to deceive?

If we are generalized under general laws, the will to truth can also be interpreted in this form: "I do not deceive—" and especially "I do not deceive myself." But why not?Why can't we be deceived?We must note that the causes of the two problems fall into very different categories: one does not want to be deceived, and on the premise that being deceived is harmful, dangerous or deadly, science is therefore An extended process of prudence, foreknowledge and practicality. Some people may object to this view.What, does unwillingness to be deceived really hurt less?How do you recognize the characteristics of each dimension of existence so that you can decide whether belief or unbelief prevails?If both are necessary, where should science lead to absolute faith?Is the conviction (truth) upon which it is based more important than all others (including convictions of all kinds)?This conviction would not exist if both true and untrue could continually prove their usefulness.

Undoubtedly, it is impossible to find the root of the beliefs that currently exist in science in this utilitarian calculation. Even if we have the "will to pursue the truth", the facts have proved that those actions are ultimately ineffective.After massacring one belief after another on the altar of science, we have come to understand the persistence of that pursuit very well. "The will to pursue the truth" does not mean "I will never allow myself to be deceived", but let us not No choice—"I will never deceive, not even to myself!"—then we have reached the realm of morality.

Therefore, the question of "why there is science" leads back to the question of morality. If life, nature and history are "amoral", then what is the essence of morality?Undoubtedly, a person with deep consciousness will conclude a world that is completely different from life, nature, history, etc. because of his belief in science; What about our world before our eyes? My opinion is that our belief in science has always been based on a metaphysical belief, and while some people today are atheistic and anti-metaphysical, we still rely on an ancient belief (i.e. a Christian belief or a Platonic belief) And hold high the torch after the catastrophe, and firmly believe that God is the truth, and the truth is sacred.The question is, what if it becomes always more unreliable in itself, if there is nothing to prove itself divine other than false, blind and false—what if God himself becomes our most obstinate lie? ...

345. Ethical Issues The after-effects of our shortcomings are everywhere: a feeble, cowardly, unworthy, self-deprecating, self-denying personality no longer fit for anything good—especially not for philosophy. "Selflessness" has no value in any place, and extraordinary problems require extraordinary care. Only those who are strong, mature, spiritually stable and have a deep foundation are capable of solving extraordinary problems.In this regard, there are two different interpretations, namely, does a thinker take a personal point of view concerning his problems, his destiny, his needs, or even his supreme pleasure?Or, just stand on the impersonal, that is, he can feel or grasp them with an indifferent, probing thought tentacle.As far as the latter is concerned, nothing will come of it, I dare say, because very problems must be beyond the reach of cowards or toads, which is not to their liking.Why have I never seen anyone (not even in books) behave morally in this situation—that is, see morality as a matter of personal needs, feelings, joys, emotions, etc.?It is evident that so far morality has not been seen as a problem at all, it has been seen as the point at which man, after suspicion, discord and conflict, reaches a point from which the thinker can even rest himself, to recover A peaceful and sacred place where it breathes and wakes.

I have never seen anyone dare to criticize this assessment of moral worth.At such joints I have not even seen the curious attempts of science, nor the fastidious, groping imaginations of psychologists and historians.Both of these can easily touch a problem and grasp its sides; With great difficulty, I have found the few remaining sources for the purpose of completing the whole history of the valuation of values ​​and of the origins and consequences of these sentiments (which is quite different from their criticism and the history of ethical systems).In one case I have tried in every way to encourage this historical inclination and faculty, but so far it seems all in vain.There is little to be learned at all from these historians of morality (especially the English), who almost certainly themselves were often influenced by a defined morality, and behaved like men in armor and squires. unconsciously—perhaps still sincerely—repeating the common superstition of European Christianity that moral behavior is characterized by self-denial, self-deprecation, self-sacrifice, or mutual understanding and fellowship.

The general error of this premise is that they insist that human beings, at least among civilized peoples, have a certain degree of uniformity in certain claims of morality, and therefore conclude that these claims are binding even for you and me. .Or, conversely, when they realize the fact that moral evaluation must be different among different peoples, they conclude that no morality is binding, and both conclusions are equally naive and foolish.Again, the still more inexplicable error they commit is that they discover and criticize the foolish notions a people may have about its own morality, or the notions of mankind about morality in general (they then argue about their sources, the binding force of religion, the superstition of free will, and all sorts of things); and they think that by virtue of these actions alone they criticize morality itself.

But the value of, and opinions about, the law of "you should..." are distinct and separate; It has long been ingrained in the error.It's as if the value of a prescription to a patient depends entirely on whether he has scientific knowledge of the drug, or just thinks that the drug is just as helpful as his old wife can give him.Morality may arise even in error; but in this respect the question of its value is never raised at all.Therefore, no one has yet examined the value of the most famous prescription (called morality), and in order to do this, it is of the utmost importance to question it, and this is our job.

346. Notes on questions Don't you understand?Seriously, it takes some effort to get to know us.We seek the proper vocabulary, or, alternatively, the attention and hearing of others.What kind of people are we?We may call ourselves atheists, godless, and even immoral, according to the more old-fashioned terms, but we do not think that these terms define us clearly, and the composite level of these three terms may be applicable. For us, but most people can't imagine.To your skeptical friends, you have no idea what the state of our minds is under such circumstances. No!We no longer have any feeling of passion or pain for the man who, freed from bondage, seeks for himself a belief and purpose, or who is martyred for his doubts!We have long been fully convinced (and made ruthless by this belief) that nothing in this world is in the hands of the gods; We know that the world in which we live is an evil, immoral, and inhuman world—a world we have deliberately distorted and hypocritically to explain this fact. Man is an animal of worship, but also a creature of doubt—and thus necessarily doubts that the world is not as valuable as we believe.So suspicious!So philosophical!We have been careful not to reveal the fact that the world has no value; it seems ridiculous to us that people nowadays believe in the value of fiction more than the value of the real world—and it is for this reason that we take our steps back. Stepping out is like turning back from human fantasy and irrational mistakes, which have not been recognized for a long time. This error still finds its final expression in modern pessimism: in the teaching of the Buddha there is an older and stronger expression; Christianity is also included, but it is less pronounced and more ambiguous, correctly speaking, However, it is still eye-catching.As far as "man's attitude towards the world" is concerned, man is the law that denies the world, and at the same time is the standard for evaluating the value of all things, the judge of the world.In the end, he weighs existence itself on the scales and finds it too light, so that we gradually understand the absurdity of this attitude and feel disgusted.And when we find that "man and the world" coexist as equals, but are separated by a great little character "Xing" (and), we can't help but smile! But what exactly is going on here?Have we further despised humanity by laughing at it?So, in pessimism also despised existence as we know it?Do we not thus suspect that there is an opposition between the world that has hitherto existed with our reverence—and for this reason we may be able to endure life—and our own world?A ruthless, radical and fundamental suspicion of self-concern, which often troubles us Europeans about its power, and which, by means of this alternative, makes it easier for us to face the next generation, no To kill your reverence is to kill yourself!The latter would be nihilism - but is the former non-nihilism?This is our interpretation of the question. 347. Believers and their need for faith In order to show how much confidence a man has to have, he must have a strong "determination," which he does not wish to be shaken, because it gives him mastery over himself—and over his power. A measure (or, to put it more plainly, a measure of its weakness). It seems to me that most people in the old continent of Europe still need Christianity at the moment because the faith is still there.That's how man is, he may refute a theological teaching a thousand times and yet accept it as "true" again and again whenever he needs to, according to the famous "evidence of power" in the bible . Some still need metaphysics, but also eagerly "crave certainty" which has now infused the forms of science and positivism among the majority, and so also yearn for something stable (however due to This desire is too urgent, so that the establishment of certainty is slower and more sloppy)-even this desires a mastery and support; in short, although it cannot be said that the instinctive creation of weakness Religion, metaphysics, and various beliefs were lost, but at least they were maintained.In fact, around these systems of positive philosophy hangs a gloomy atmosphere of pessimism, that is, a certain ennui, fatalism, disillusionment, and fear of new disillusionment—or explicit hatred, anger, and anarchism agitation, and any symptoms or pretexts of vulnerable feelings. Even the agility and sophistication of the brightest minds of our time can get lost in damned corners and alleys, such as Vaterlanderei (that's my name for the belligerents, the French call them "blind") patriotism", as the Germans call it (deutsch), or as the Parisian naturalists' petty aesthetic creed (which only makes the natural aspect revealed or made more salient, while at the same time disgusting and startling—now they like to call this level La verite vraie), or nihilism in the form of St. needs, support, ambition, and support. For those who lack will, there is nothing more desired and needed than faith.For emotional will as command is a distinguishing feature between sovereignty and power.That is to say, the less a person knows how to give orders, the more desperately he yearns for orders, and firm orders—from gods, princes, privileged classes, doctors, confessors, dogmas, party consciousness, etc.From this, perhaps we can infer that the two major religions in the world, Buddhism and Christianity, can rise and expand rapidly because of their own origins; that is, due to the specific "illness of the will".And indeed it is true that both religions thrive on the exaggerated longing of the malady of the will--by an inevitability, a "you should...", a hope tinged with disappointment.These two religions have served as teachers to fanatics in their weak will, and thus have offered countless people a new possibility of sustaining and exercising their will, and a kind of exhilaration. In fact, fanaticism is the only kind of hypnotizer that can excite the "willpower" of the weak and indecisive, as well as the whole intellectual system; for faith.When a person reaches the basic belief that he needs to be ordered, he naturally becomes a "believer".Conversely, one can also imagine the joy and power of self-determination, and the freedom of will, so that this spirit does not need any faith, or any desire for certainty, but is accustomed to be supported by the thinnest fetters and possibilities. Oneself, even on the edge of the abyss, can still shake his clothes and scream. This kind of spirit is the superior spirit of freedom. 348. The Origin of Scholars European scholars come from different classes and social environments, just like a plant does not need a specific soil, so in essence he naturally belongs to the same kind of democratic thought.Yet this origin betrays himself.If one trains one's eyes to recognize in intellectual books or scientific treatises the intellectual qualities of scholars--and they all have this--we are surprised to find that almost half of these scholars and their The backside of the family's history, especially the nature of its name and occupation. As for the expression of feeling, "at last it is proved that I have done it", the blood of the ancestors and the instinct of the scholar in general testify to the "work done" in the hiding place from which it can see - the belief of the confirmation is nothing more than It's the indicator of what working families admired for years as a "good job."For example: The main job of the son of household registration clerk and various office workers is to sort out all kinds of materials and arrange them neatly in drawers.Once they become scholars, they have a tendency to systematize the problem and think that the problem is almost solved.There are philosophers who have nothing but a mind capable of systematizing things, and that mind is an essence of their hereditary calling.The ability to classify or generalize category diagrams often betrays something, and a person is a child of his parents for no other reason than that. The son of an advocate, and by necessity an advocate as a researcher, he tries to bring this point of view into his case at first, and then seeks to be on the right side.One may recognize the sons of Protestant ministers and teachers by their innocent assurance--scholars whose cases, when brought forward with that obsessive zeal, they presuppose that these cases will be justified and sanctioned. - they are completely used to people's trust in them - thanks to the "trade" of their fathers and grandparents!Conversely, a Jew who is consistent with his business environment and his racial history will never get used to the confidence that is placed in him.Observe the Jewish scholars in this matter—they all put a great deal of emphasis on logic, that is to say, by various reasons to force consent—they know that even if racial and class prejudices are against them, even if people are reluctant to believe them, They must be conquered. In fact, there is nothing more democratic than logic, which has no respect for the individual and can even call a hooked nose a straight one. (As a side note to logical thought, the intellectual habits of "cleansers" in Europe were greatly helped by the Jews, especially the Germans - they have always been, sadly, an unreasonable people, even today It is also necessary to "wash your hair" frequently. Wherever Jewish thinking has influenced, people there will be taught to analyze more closely, argue more sharply, write more clearly and concisely - that is, make a people "reasonable" " has been their practice.) 349. Revisiting the Origin of Scholars The instinct to seek only self-defense is a sign of distress, or a limitation of what is real.The basic nature of life is aimed at the extension of power, and whenever we consider this, we often doubt and sacrifice our instincts of self-preservation.Some of the more idiosyncratic philosophers, such as Benoza, have been in a state of torment after having seen the quality of life called the instinct of self-preservation.Our modern natural sciences have much to do with Spinoza's theories (especially the incredibly one-sided dogma of a "struggle for survival" in the theory of evolution), probably because most of the inquirers were born deeply In this aspect, they are no different from ordinary people. Their ancestors were also poor and humble, and they have a deep understanding of the difficulties of life through direct experience. ①Spinozal (spinozal1632-1677), a Dutchman who was a Jewish businessman, a rationalist philosopher, because of his life background and religious background, he established a philosophy of "preserving himself". In the whole of the British theory of evolution, an atmosphere of suffocation hangs over overcrowded England at all times, and the smell of the poor and lowly because of poverty is everywhere, but as a natural student, he should learn from the humble Break free from the corners of human nature: Yet, even if we look at follies of all kinds, we will find that the state of distress in nature is not common, but superfluous.The struggle for existence is only an exception, a temporary restraint of the will to live; this struggle, however small, everywhere creates an advantage, increases expansion, forms a force that is in harmony with the will to power, and which It is the will to live. 350. Tribute to Human Faith Confronting the church is more esoteric and meditative than against the common and superficial rules of the engraver; that is, the more suspicious villain, who has never believed in the value of life, and doubts his own— The general instincts of human beings, therefore, make their sensual pleasures and "compassion" also opposed to them. The entire Roman Church is based on the skepticism (often misunderstood in northern Europe) of the southern European nature latent in human nature, and this skeptical attitude is inherited from the East by the southern Europeans, and at the same time it is also derived from that mysterious and mysterious attitude. Ancient Asia learned the spirit of contemplation.On the other hand, Protestantism is a generally slightly rebellious religion that advocates simplicity, elegance, and emphasis on appearance (in this respect, the performance of the Northern Europeans is shallower than that of the Southern Europeans). Nevertheless, it was the French Revolution that for the first time put the kingship completely and solemnly in the hands of the "good men" (sheep, mules, geese, and all kinds of superficial things). 351. A tribute to the nature of monks I think philosophers feel themselves to be very different from what the common man (at all levels of society today) thinks of wisdom: prudent discernment, austere serenity, piety, and the affability of a country clergyman, all seriously and thoughtfully skeptical about life —Perhaps it is because philosophers do not attempt the same intellectual pursuits as ordinary people or country priests.Philosophers are probably also the last to understand that one should know something that is remote from them and that is the passion of a thinker who must often live under a cloud of greatest difficulty and responsibility (so that they cannot see the whole of things. details, let alone any impartiality or objectivity). Ordinary people worship completely different types of people, and create an ideal of a "saint" based on their different images. They often give the highest worship and praise to this type of people-these people have gentleness, seriousness, simplicity, and humility. Who else is so universally venerated by such a monastic character—as much admiration and praise as ordinary wisdom can give?Men worthy of their class, high in station; chosen for their goodness, dedicated and sacrificed—they themselves believed themselves to be sacrificed to God—to whom one might pour out his heart without guilt, and Erase his secrets, concerns, and worse (the "communicator" gets rid of his mind, the "confessor" gets rid of it).What is indispensable here is that, for both dirty and clean water, spiritual dirt is needed, and prompt loving sympathy, and a strong, humble, and pure heart; they sacrifice themselves to make themselves It is suitable for this non-public health service, because to be a priest is a sacrifice, and always a human sacrifice. Ordinary people regard these people who sacrificed for their beliefs, silent, and solemn as "wise men", that is, people who have become sages, and those who were originally "distrustful" have also changed into "credible", who would want to deprive them of People's kind of performance and reverence?However, in order to be fair to the other side, in the eyes of philosophers, priests are still regarded as "people" rather than "sages", because the most important thing is that they do not believe in "sages" themselves, and they are already here. "Man" is found in a variety of beliefs and superstitions.The Greeks were very humble when they coined the word "philosopher," and let the most haughty actors wear the word "sage"—a very haughty, self-boasting humility that is not unlike that of Pythagoras and Plato is exactly the same. 352. Why is it difficult to get rid of morality A naked person is usually hard to see - I'm talking about our European men (certainly never referring to European women).If a table of people who were happily sharing a meal suddenly found that they had been stripped of their robes by some kind of monster, I believe that not only the original merry atmosphere would be wiped out immediately, but even the best appetite would be lost. It seems that we Europeans can always get rid of this "clothes" disguise. And yet, shouldn't the guise of the "moral man," on the surface of moral law and decency, and our behavior under the veil of duty, virtue, public sentiment, honor, and disinterestedness, have the best grounds for its support? ?I don't mean the weakness and cowardice of human nature, in short, that the evil and wild animal nature in us should be covered up; on the contrary, I mean that we, as tame animals, are very humiliated and need moral cover-up - the "inner personality" of Europeans has not been bad enough for a long time to "make itself openly seen" (thus being beautiful). The European disguises himself as a moral because he becomes a sick and lame animal, tamed for good reason: because he is almost a deformed, incomplete, weak and stupid thing... It is not the ferocity of the preyed animal, but the very mediocrity, worry and ennui of the herd animal that finds the pretense of morality indispensable.Morality whitewashes Europeans - let's see this - in a more salient and recognizable, more important, "sacred" guise - 353. The Origin of Religion On the one hand, the real invention of the founders of religions is to establish a certain mode of life and daily customs, and to make people accept it, to immerse themselves in it without getting tired: on the other hand, to give this mode of life An interpretation, and inspires people with its highest moral values; thus, it becomes the highest good that people struggle with, and in some cases even risk their lives. In fact, the latter invention is more important than the former: First, this mode of life has often coexisted with other modes of life, but the value of its specificity has not been understood.The creativity and input of the founder of a religion is usually revealed by the fact that he sees and chooses that life, and for the first time sanctifies the fact that it can be used, and how it can be interpreted to a full extent.For example, Jesus (or Paul) found the life of ordinary people under the Roman Empire to be a life of modesty, chastity and depression; he interpreted this life and gave it the highest meaning and value-thus having the courage to despise Various other modes of life, the quiet fanaticism of the Moravians, the mystical and hidden self-confidence growing, finally ready to "conquer the world" (meaning the upper classes of Rome and the whole empire). ① Members of one of the Moravian Protestant sects, scattered in the Moravia region of the Czech Republic. Buddha also found the same type of human beings, he found that those who are kind and kind are actually scattered in every class (referring to the classes under the Indian caste system-translation note) and all levels of society-- The important thing is that these people are harmless - because of sloth, and sloth people, they lead a temperate life, needing little and asking for nothing.He understands that people of this type, due to their inertia, will inevitably gradually accept a way that allows them to avoid re-entry into samsara and suffering in the world (that is, the ordinary life process of birth, old age, sickness, death, etc.) Faith—this "insight" is his gifted intelligence. The founders of religions can really grasp the psychology of the common people, and have a deep understanding of a certain and average type of soul, which has never been able to realize that they are the same kind of people. Together.Therefore, the founding of religion is always a ritual of long-term recognition. Three Five Four, "Human Gifts" The problem of consciousness—or, more correctly, awareness of ourselves—becomes when we begin to perceive how we can escape consciousness.At the beginning of this perception, we discuss it in terms of physiology and zoology (so it takes two centuries to catch up with Leibniz's prior hints).Because in fact, we can think, feel, wish and remember, and have the same "expression" in various similar perceptions, but none of these require "consciousness". The whole of life is like being in a mirror, unable to see itself; in fact, most of life can go on without looking in a mirror—even our thoughts, feelings, and free-will lives, Although this argument may sound painful to older philosophers.If consciousness is unnecessary, what is its purpose?If you listen to my answer, there may be no reason for this assumption; but it seems to me that the sharpness and power of consciousness has always been directly proportional to a person's (or animal's) ability to communicate, and the ability to communicate in real life is also very important. Directly proportional to the need for communication - the latter is less easily understood, as the individual himself masters the skill of communication and understands his needs while at the same time being dependent on the needs of others.But it seems to me that it has something to do with the whole race and the succession of generations, that the necessities and needs of the day have long driven man to communicate with his fellows, and to understand each other quickly and keenly, and at last to acquire at last a residual power and communication skills.As if fortunately he had already accumulated something, and was now waiting for an heir to squander it mercilessly (so-called artists are these heirs, and so are rhetoricians and preachers, writers, etc.; At the end of the long chain of succession, there are always "late-borns," who, literally, are by nature spanderers. If this observation is correct, I can further infer that consciousness is generally developed under the pressure of communication, and it has only existed between people (especially in the relationship between master and slave) from the beginning. space) are necessary and useful, and are developed only in proportion to their usefulness.Properly speaking, consciousness is nothing but a link between man and man, and only because of this has it developed so far, and hermits and brutes have no need of it.In fact, our actions, thoughts, feelings and emotions, etc., are all within the sphere of consciousness (at least in part), and the result is that a terrible and continuous "must" dominates the destiny of human beings - as the most powerful Dangerous animal, he needs help and protection, he needs companionship, he must be able to express his distress, he must know how to make his meaning understood by others - for all these, he first needs "consciousness", he must " Know "what you lack, what you feel, what you think. I repeat, because man, like all living things, is constantly thinking without knowing it; thought becoming consciousness itself is only the smallest part of it, the most superficial or worst part, so to speak. part of it—for the consciousness of this thought is expressed in language, the symbol of communication, through which the origin of consciousness is revealed.In short, the development of spoken language and the development of consciousness (not reason itself, but reason becoming self-conscious) go hand in hand.更进一步地说，人与人之间，不仅只有语言扮演桥梁的工作，而且还有容貌、压力和姿态等等，我们逐渐意识到自己的感觉，我们那足以稳定这些感觉并仿佛要将其置于我们自身之外的力量，凡此皆依象征之凭藉以及与他人沟通之需要的增加比例而增加。 发明象征这种工具的人通常也是自我意识较为敏锐的人；人因为是群居的动物，所以才会意识到自己——他仍然是在意识之中，而且愈来愈深刻，我的意思是说，意识并不适合属于一个单独生存的环境，而这毋宁是由于其社交与群居的天性。由此我们可以推论，因为关系着自治和群居的效用，它才得以巧妙地发展；结果，虽然其最佳之意愿乃在使每个人尽量了解自己，"知道自己"，而我们每个人却都总是会意识到自身的非个人性，亦就是它的"一般性"；我们一想到它，常认为它好象会被意识的特性所压抑——藉着其中专制自大的"人类的天赋"——并解释为对于群体的透视。 基本上说来，我们的行为乃是偏于个人、独特而且完全单一的态度（这是毫无疑问的）；然而，一旦我们将其转化为意识，它们就再也不是这副模样了，……就我所知，这是所谓的现象论和透视论：动物意识的天性，涉及我们所能意识到的世界，只是表面和象征性之世界的注解——我们所意识到的一切事物皆因此而变为肤浅、贫乏与相当的笨拙；一种普遍化、一种象征、一种群体的特质，随着意识的进化，总是连结着一种巨大而彻底的曲解、虚伪、肤浅和普遍。 Finally, growing consciousness is a danger, and anyone who has lived with the most conscious Europeans even knows it to be a disease.我所关心的是，我们可以测知它并非是主观和客观的对照——我将这差异留给仍然被文法（一般的形而上学）圈套所困扰的认识论学者。它亦不能称为是"事物本身"与现象的对照，因为我们还不够"明白"如何去判定这种区别。 事实上，我们并没有任何去感知的器官，或者"事实上"，我们所"知道"（或相信、或想象）的和对人类有用的益处一样多，即使我们所称之"有用"根本上只是一种信仰、一种想象、或者是一种最致命的愚行，终有一天我们会因而毁灭。 三五五、我们的"知识"概念 我在大街上得到这项解释。我听到有个人说"他认认我"，所以我自问："人类从知识当中真正了解了什么？当他们追求"知识"时，他们想要的究竟是什么？没有比追溯已知之事更奇怪的事了。而我们这些哲学家藉着知识是否真的能了解更多的东西？所谓已知，是指我们已经习惯一般的状况，不再对之感到惊异，任何我们所习惯的规则、所有我们置身其中时会感觉安适之事物——是什么呢？我们求知的需要不就是这已知的需要吗？去发觉任何奇怪、不寻常、或疑问之事物的意志，难道已经不再使我们感到焦虑不安了吗？难道不可能是恐惧的直觉责成我们去求知吗？难道那有所领悟的人只是因为他重获安全的感觉才使他愉快吗？ 有个哲学家在追溯世界之"理念"时，想象着"已知"的世界：啊，难道不是为他早已知道、熟悉这个概念吗？因为他对于"理念"的恐惧少得多——哦，这个领悟者的节制，让我们不妨来看看他们的原则，以及他们对这个谜或就此而论之世界的解答！当他们再度在事物之中或事物之间找到什么时，或者在很不幸地为我们所深知的事物之背面（例如乘法表、我们的逻辑、意志和欲望）有了任何新的发现时，就会立即感到十分地高兴！ 因为，"已知之事物乃是可明了的"，对于这点他们都一致同意。即使是那些领悟者之中最慎重的人，也认为已知之事物至少比未知之事物更易于了解，譬如说，从"内在世界"以及"已认知的事实"发展到外在是经过一种极有规律的次序的，因为那是我们比较清楚的世界！错误中的错误！已知之一切是我们所习惯的，而我们所习惯的又是所有事物之中最难了解的，亦即，领悟到它是一个问题，感知它是奇怪的，遥远的，且在"我们的外部"。 自然科学的十足确实性和心理学以及意识因素之批判（大致上，这一类的学问皆被称之为非自然科学）相比较之下所得到的结论，乃是根据他们以陌生之事物作为客体的事实而定的，而这几乎就象是希望将所有不陌生的事物当作客体一样的矛盾与荒谬。