Chapter 12 The Birth of Tragedy Vol 12 Part VIII

tragic birth vol. part eight 356. How should Europe become "more elegant" Even today (in many transitional periods of stagnation and stagnation to be persisted), life still insists on almost every European male a certain role - what they call use; some have the right to choose the role they want to play freedom (a superficial freedom), yet the vast majority of people are still selected by the role. This result is strange enough.Almost all Europeans become confused about their role as they grow older; they themselves are: victims of "a good war", forgetting that once their "mission" has been decided, they can always be capricious and arbitrariness—perhaps many other roles could have been played, but it was too late!If we look more closely, we can see that their character is in fact the result of the role they play, an artificial nature.There are periods in life when people tend to believe, with unshakable confidence, with certainty and devotion that their pattern of life has destined them for this profession, and they simply do not realize that they have opportunities to play other roles. Don't know the bossiness in it (fate decides everything).

Classes, guilds, and inherited commercial authority, etc., helped to cultivate those unusual social towers that made the Middle Ages so special; What I firmly believe in is endurance (endurance is the highest level in the world).But there is also an epoch quite opposite to this, the epoch of a proper democracy, in which this belief is gradually forgotten by mankind and replaced by another mode of presumptuous conviction and rather contradictory views .The conviction of the Athenians was the most striking feature of the age of Pericles, and today the conviction of the Americans has increasingly become that of the Europeans: everyone thinks he can do almost anything and play almost any role , and at the same time everyone is experimenting with himself, trying everything new—trying with joy, in which all nature disappears and becomes artificial...  

①Pericles (Pericles, 495?-429 B.C.) Greek philosopher, Athens during its ruling period, had created a very brilliant civilization, is the golden age of Athens. The Greeks adopted the creed of this character--the artist's creed, if you like to call it that--tested step by step, a very strange turn, as is well known, and in no way worthy of imitation; They became real stage actors, and were ecstatic about it; they conquered the whole world, and at last even became rulers of it (for Greek history conquered Rome, not Greek history, as the ignorant say. Culture conquered Rome...).What concerns me, however, and which is now evident (if we aspire to know it), is that we moderns are already on the same path; , and to what extent he must play the role of a stage actor, then he has truly become a stage actor.

There arose new flora and fauna of man, which could not have grown in more stable, more limited times; The various "stage actors" are the real masters.It is precisely because this type of man is wounded more and more seriously that he becomes impotent: in all the great "architects" the strength of construction has gradually been disintegrated, and the courage to plan for the distant future has gradually disappeared. Frustrated, and thus creative genius begins to be lacking.Who would dare to take the risk of completing the work set out in the golden age?The basic beliefs are gradually disappearing, based on the future that individuals can draw up, promise and participate in their own plans, and give everything to make a kind of dedication and sacrifice. As a result, the value and importance of human beings are like a large building. Like a pebble in a thing, in order to achieve its purpose or effect, he must first be hard, he must be a "rock", not a stage actor!

In short - alas!This fact will after some time become anecdote—a society, in the old sense of the term, which is no longer built and cannot be built again; for, to build such a structure, everything lacks , especially materials.It is a current fact that each of us is no longer material for society!In my opinion, there is one more unimportant thing, which is at the same time the most short-sighted, and perhaps the most truthful, and in every way the most noisy of human beings today, namely our society of friends. Christians, beliefs, hopes, dreams, especially hysterical screams and some bullshit articles, etc., almost form a kind of opposition; in fact, we can already see the slogan they use in the future: "free society", in every It can be seen on the table, on every wall.free society?ridiculous!Gentlemen, do you know what they built (this free society) on?With wooden iron!With the famous wooden iron!Not even made of wood...

357. The old question "What kind of nation are the Germans?" Let us not care about the true philosophical thought that we must thank the German intellectuals for bringing us - can they also care about the credit of the entire nation?Can we say that they are at the same time works of the "German mind"?Or, in the sense we are accustomed to think, at least a symbol, as in, say, Plato's idealism, his almost religious mania for form, evidence of the "Greek mind"?Or maybe the other way around is true?Are they individually quite anomalous to the nation as a whole; like Goethe's unashamed idolatry?Or like Bismarck's Machiavellianism, what Bismarck called "practical politics"?Maybe our philosophers even run counter to the needs of the "German mind"?In short, are German philosophers really philosophizing Germans?

Here, I present three examples.The first is the unique insight of Leibniz (which puts him in an advantage not only over Descartes but also over his philosophic contemporaries)—a consciousness that is only an accident of mental imagery. , rather than its essential or essential quality; thus we say that consciousness is nothing more than a state (perhaps a pathology) of our mental and spiritual world, not the world itself.Are there any depths in this thought which the Germans have not exhausted themselves?Is there any reason why a Latin man should not err on the side of this outward appearance?

①Leibnitz (Leibnitz, 1646-1716), a German philosopher and mathematician, is the champion of rationalism. Next, let us recall that after Kant had interpreted the law of causality, he wrote a note on doubts. He did not, like Hume, doubt its validity; Its boundaries are clearly defined (our attention has not even escaped from these boundaries).Then, as a third example, the astonishing blow of Hegel, who was not very good at using logic when he ventured to teach that various concepts reinforce each other; The last great movement of Darwinism can be foreseen—without Hegel, Darwin would be just an unknown ordinary man.Is there anything in it that originally belonged to the Germans when Hegel first brought the decisive concept of evolution into the innovation of science?

Yes, there is no doubt that in all three cases we feel that something of our own has been "discovered" or predicted, and we are grateful and surprised at the same time; One is the most careful part of German self-confession, self-forgiveness, and self-knowledge.We agree with Leibniz's statement that "our inner world is very rich, wide and secret"; but, as Germans, we are like Kant, as far as the fundamental validity of natural scientific knowledge and what can generally be called Everything that is causal is doubted, and everything that is knowable seems to us at present to be of less value.

① Hume (Hume, 1711-1776), a British philosopher and politician, was an empiricist who opposed the law of causality. ②Hegel (Hegel, 1770-1831), a German philosopher, was an absolute idealist. He tried to use dialectics to answer all questions, and he thought that he had "answered" all questions. We Germans must have all been like Hegel—even if there had never been a Hegel before, so we (in contrast to all Latin peoples) do not attribute everything to those "is—" but We have little faith in the validity of the concept of "Being" due to its deeper meaning and higher value of transformation and evolution.This is a rather special case, because we have no intention of making any concessions to the logic of human nature, which is logic itself, which is the only logic; stupid one.

The fourth question is whether Schopenhauer's pessimism, that is to say, the question of the value of existence, also belongs to the Germans. I don't think so.What will happen after this question is certainly predictable; therefore, an astronomer of the mind can calculate the moment when it will happen—that is, the decline of the Christian God, the triumph of scientific atheism. , is a global European event in which every nation takes part in the ceremony and shares in the glory.On the contrary, it was the Germans (those of Schopenhauer's contemporaries) who long delayed the victory of atheism, and who put it in the most perilous position.Hegel, in particular, delayed this victory even more, trying to convince us of the ultimate divinity of being by means of our sixth sense, the "historical sense." As a philosopher, Schopenhauer is the first atheist in Germany who considers himself unchanged, and his hostility to Hegel can be seen from this.He considered the undivine nature of existence to be an intelligible, detectable, and indisputable fact; and he often lost his philosophical composure and became agitated when he saw anyone hesitate or insinuate about it.From this can be seen the utter integrity of his character, and his formulation of the question of "absolute and honest atheism" is the last and hard victory of the European consciousness, and it is also a training for the truth for two thousand years. Acceptance action.In the end, the lie about the belief in God could no longer be tolerated. We can see what the Christian God has achieved—Christian morality itself, and the idea of ​​honesty, have even become more prudent; whatever the cost, the secrets of the confession of Christian consciousness explain and elevate the science of science. Consciousness and intellectual purity.To regard nature as evidence of divine goodness and providence is to contempt nature; to explain history in terms of divine reasons is tantamount to a testimony to the moral order and ultimate purpose of the world.Interpreting personal experience with the attitude of a devout believer for a long time, it seems that everything is providence, or a hint of divine providence, something planned for the salvation of souls; Becoming the past, which it has realized against, which all keener senses regard as disreputable and shameful, as well as weak, degenerate and cowardly, so we might as well say: We are good Europeans, A descendant of Europe's bravest self-conqueror. When we so object to the Christian interpretation, and despise its "meaning" as hypocrisy, we immediately face the question raised by Schopenhauer: Is there any meaning to life?Schopenhauer's answer to this question, which requires centuries to be fully understood, is - if I may be forgiven for saying so - a precocious and naive answer, a mere compromise.Yet the question he raises—as we said earlier, whether, as a good European, rather than a German—or whether the Germans, in their knowledge of Schopenhauer's problem, prove that they are His inner connections and relationships, their preparation for this issue, their need for it? Since Schopenhauer asked this question—it was too late! ——Many ideas and even publications have sprung up in Germany, but not enough to make us decide to support this closer relationship; on the contrary, one may focus on this more specific difficulty belonging to the second Schopenhauer's pessimism — In this respect, the Germans evidently did not regard this question as a factor.I do not intend here to allude to the man Eduard von Hartmann; on the contrary, even if he seems to us at the moment to be very prescient, it does not dispel my previous doubts; I mean He was, say, a notorious villain from the beginning, and perhaps not only mocked German pessimism, but in the end even "bequeathed" to them the fact that, in this age of fraud, how much more one can deceive the Germans themselves Long! Furthermore, have we also assessed the glory of the Germans?Does the old rhetoric of Bahnsen, who spent his life studying the misfortunes and "personal doom" of his practical dialectics, also belong to Germany? (Concerning Benson, whose writings I have recommended in the past as a reference against pessimism, I find especially his elegant psychology lightening and soothing to even the dullest of bodies and minds ).Among these honest Germans, is it proper to call such artisans or spinsters disgusting advocates of chastity?He might just be a Jew after all (Jews get disgusting when they start preaching).Neither Benson nor Edvard van Hartmann can provide us with a reliable answer to Schopenhauer's pessimistic problem. When Schopenhauer cast a terrified glance at this confusing world, the world has become ignorant, blind, crazy, and full of problems and troubles in his eyes.And is the inability to explain this pessimistic view of the above-mentioned people just an exception among the Germans, or is it a common phenomenon?Under these circumstances, the rest of the most prominent positions, such as our heroic policy and cheerful war faction (that is, decisively judge everything by an unphilosophical principle-Annotation) have proposed exactly Argument to the contrary.No!Germans today are by no means pessimists!As for Schopenhauer, he became a pessimist, let me repeat: it was because he was a good European, not a German. 358. The resistance of the lower classes to the spirit It is a beautiful sight for Europeans to find themselves in a vast ruin, some still standing, some decaying and dark, and most of it crumbling - where are we going Looking for a more beautiful scenery than these ruins? ——weeds of varying heights are growing everywhere.Here is the ruins of a church in a deserted city. We have witnessed the collapse and damage of this majestic religious building, and it has been razed to the ground. People's belief in God has been overthrown, and the ideal of Christian asceticism is also struggling and fighting for the last time.This is a historic and strong religious building - the last remaining Roman building! ——Of course it was not destroyed once, but after a long period of earthquake shaking, various spiritual forces penetrated, dug, gnawed and corroded, thus causing the destruction of the whole. However, the most surprising and incomprehensible thing is that the people who contributed the most to preserve and maintain this church turned out to be the ones who spared no effort to destroy it—the Germans.It seems that the Germans really do not understand the essence and essence of a church.Could it be that their spiritual strength is not enough?Or is it because of weak beliefs that lead to this result?In any case, the structure of the church is based on the unique spirit of freedom and generosity in southern Europe, but also on the suspicion of nature, human beings and souls in southern Europe - and on the recognition of human experience, which One point is quite different from the Nordic view. Martin Luther's Reformation movement, no matter in terms of its length or scope, was born out of righteous indignation against "complexity" with "simplicity".It is a gross but honest misconception, to say the least, and it is quite forgivable—people do not understand the modes of expression of a victorious Church, but see only its corruption; they misunderstand the nobility of skepticism. Essentially, it’s a mistake to have the luxury of skepticism and tolerance that every successful and self-confident church allows under its purview.Too often people ignore the present and all fundamental facts of the fact that Martin Luther was empowered with disproportionate powers; Though he rose among men, he lacked the traits inherited from leadership, and had no gift for the exercise of power; so that all his efforts and attempts to reorganize the Church of Rome ended in an unintentional but The mistake of unknowingly launching an operation of destruction. It was Martin Luther who, with sincere indignation, tore in two the solid web which the old spider had woven so carefully through the years; , that is, the role of the abolitionist of every faith is played by books.It was he who restored the power of priestly sex—but three-quarters still believed that a man who was sexually different could still excel in other ways.It is unmistakable to point out that the prevailing belief in the existence of a Superman—that miracles will happen—that there must be a savior among the multitude is not without care. Deliberately advocating.After Martin Luther allowed the priests to marry wives, the priests lost the right to listen to the confessions of the priests. In this way, the priests obliterated their own value, and the most profound value of the priests is that they have a pair of sacred ears and Tight-mouthed—Strictly keep the secrets of the believers. "Every man is his own priest." Behind this proverb lies Martin Luther's hatred of "higher men".Martin Luther did not admit that the ideal he didn't even know how to pursue had anything to do with him; and he hated corruption even more—he was determined to fight to the end.In fact, this unreasonable priest abolished the rules of homines religiosi; therefore, the ecclesiastical norms he advocated and the social norms he strongly opposed were two sides of the same coin—this is the so-called "lower class rebellion". As for Ma's reform movement, in the end, whether it is good or bad can be regarded as a final conclusion-but who would be so naive as to decide whether to criticize him or not based on this conclusion?Martin Luther had no idea what he was doing, he was completely "ignorant".If people are willing to listen to a prescribed moral rhetoric, then steps must surely be taken before Marxism's Reformation if the spirituality of Europe (especially Northern Europe) is to be superficial.On the other hand, one has to abandon stability at the same time, which destabilizes the spiritual life, the desire for independence, and the belief in the right to freedom and "nature".If people wish to attribute the Reformation to the benefits of what is now lauded as "modern science," they have to add that modern science has also corrupted modern scholars, because they lack reverence, shame a heart and a depth; modern science is also responsible for all the innocence and intellectual frankness, in short, of which two centuries ago were considered monstrous, and which pessimism has not hitherto infected us" common people spirit". "Modern ideas" also belonged to the lower class reactionaries of northern Europe, against the colder, confused and skeptical spirit of southern Europe - whose greatest monuments were built in churches.We must never forget what a church is, especially in relation to various "regimes".The Church is a supreme authority which guarantees the safety of the highest and most spiritual beings.The church has strong spiritual power and can prevent the abuse of all crude authority. From this point alone, the church is a more noble organization than the "regime of government". 359. Retaliation Knowledge and Other Moral Backgrounds Morality—where are its most dangerous and malicious advocates? Let's say there's a poor quality person, someone who doesn't have enough knowledge (and therefore can't have fun with it), but has enough cultural background to see certain facts, he's annoying, he's disappointed in himself, and besides Unhappily fooled and deceived by some inherited endowments, such a man is ashamed of his own existence--perhaps he has done many bad things--on the other hand (borrowed by books that he could not digest), he could not refrain himself from further pollution and injury, and thus became a vain and frivolous man—a thoroughly poisoned man, for for him knowledge became poison, and culture It has become a poison, and talent and loneliness have also become poison.For people with such poor qualities, they will eventually fall into habitual revenge psychology and tendency. What one hundred percent desperate necessity do you think he'll find?In order to make him surpass his more learned people in his own eyes, and at the same time get the complete pleasure of revenge, even if it is imagined.In fact, what he needs is usually "morality", I'll bet you on that.He will definitely rack his brains to find out those great moral terms, and shout high-sounding slogans, such as justice, wisdom, holiness, virtue, etc., after all, they are not out of the rut of Stoic asceticism (How Stoicism can hide qualities that people don't have!); anyway, it's all superficial, such ideal titles as silent wisdom, kindness, and gentleness. Don't get me wrong, for there were indeed a few ancient sages who adhered to the qualities of what I have called "spiritual enemies"; Constitute history, St. Augustine ① is an example.However, the fear of knowledge is quite different from the revenge of knowledge.God!These originally evil powerful forces have been transformed into the roots of morality again and again!It even directly became morality itself!Let me ask you, do not all philosophers wear the pretense of wisdom--the craziest and presumptuous pretense of all.But isn't this one of the ways of concealment in India or Greece?Perhaps sometimes from an educational point of view, in order for disciples to be enlightened and grow, they have to honor certain lies and bind themselves by a (probably false) belief in someone.For the most part, however, these practices are the philosopher's mode of concealment; behind which they hide for refuge, and from weariness, age, indifference, and relentless oppression, it feels a little like death.Don't animals also have this instinct?Before they die, they will live alone, go to the cave alone, and then they will become like a wise man. ... ① St. Augustine (St. Augustine, 354-430) was a famous theological philosopher in the Middle Ages. He was not only a thinker who communicated Greek philosophy and Hebrew beliefs, but also a religious man who created the depth of Christian belief. What?Could wisdom be a hidden way for philosophers to escape from knowledge? 360. Two motives for confusion I think my greatest progress has been in learning how to tell the difference between a motive for an ordinary action and one with a particular direction and purpose.The first kind of motivation is to store up a huge amount of power, waiting for someday to use it properly; the second kind is just the opposite. Compared with the former, it seems to be of no importance at all, and it is mostly a random thought of little importance.The relationship between the two is like a match and a barrel of gunpowder.Insignificant whims and matches are like "goals", which is what people often call "work"; and it seems somewhat indifferent to the enormous pressure placed on them. The average person's view of things is usually different from person to person, and people are used to looking for this kind of pressure in the goal (or work, calling), which is the most primitive wrong idea-but it is only the power to guide the direction; here, The relationship between the helmsman and the ship is confused.However, the problem does not necessarily lie with the helmsman, or the power to guide the direction... "ideal", "goal" and so on are not only an excuse, but also a way of concealment; it does not want others to say that the boat is just following the current , I just came to a certain place by accident?Does it want to go a certain route because it "has to"?Of course, this is due to a guiding force, but isn't it equivalent to a helmsman?Here, we still need to have a clearer concept of the word "target". 361. Actors' troubles The actor's troubles are the ones that bother me most for a long time, and I'm not sure people understand the meaning of the dangerous term "artist"--a term that is generally taken too leniently. (Actors) unapologetic hypocrisy, complacently using hypocrisy as an expression of power, suppressing or obliterating the so-called "personality", what kind of role they want to play in their hearts, what kind of mask they want to wear, have many adaptability to various roles All of these abilities are no longer enough for a narrow career in acting, and maybe all these qualities are not only applicable to actors? ... This instinct will affect the lower family and lower class people, they must live under the pressure and constraints of change, they must constantly adapt to new circumstances, so they have to play various roles again and again, over time , but to cultivate a strong ability to disguise, and it can even be called the disguise itself, as if playing a hide-and-seek ghost.As a result of its accumulation from generation to generation, this ability has become a kind of arbitrariness, irrationality and stubbornness, and finally turned into an instinct, and began to dominate other instincts, and became an actor or "entertainer" (such as a clown, an old man, etc.) Ugly, fool, servant, etc., because these characters can be said to be the precursors of entertainers, and even "talented actors") In the same way, in the higher social classes, similar pressures have produced another kind of man not far from the above, who only needs to direct other instincts by the gift of acting, such as "diplomatic". Expert" is a typical representative.I thought that if an excellent diplomat could lower his "dignity", he would definitely become an excellent actor on the stage.As for the Jews, they have always been an excellent people, and we should therefore expect them to be active in the earliest history of the world, for that is the best place for the training of theatrical talents. In fact, the real question right now: Are none of today's great actors Jewish?The Jews are also a nation born with literary cells, just like the leaders of the European press, they are also able to exert their power by virtue of their acting skills.This shows that a man of literature must also be an actor—he always plays the role of "expert"—and finally plays the role of "woman".Looking at the history of women, haven't they been good at acting from beginning to end?If we listen to doctors who hypnotize women, or once we fall in love with them (allowing women to hypnotize us), what do they usually reveal?That is, they "love to put on airs" even when they "sacrifice themselves". Women are really full of artistic temperament! ... 362. My belief in a masculine Europe We should thank Napoleon (not at all thanks to the French Revolution, but it is always regarded as a symbol of fraternity and equality) and those years of war, but in the past period of history, human beings did not I like war, but the war has continued uninterrupted until now—in short, if we go back to the ancient beacon era, but still maintain today's scientific, and expand the scale of war (such as combat methods, military personnel , and discipline, training, etc.), future generations must look back with admiration and admiration as a perfect achievement—for this military glory is a national sport for the purpose of Resist Napoleon; if it were not for him we would not be so accomplished. In Napoleon's view, one day, someone must overcome the merchants and the philistine in Europe, and even women (because women have been influenced by Christianity and the spirit of intemperance of the eighteenth century, and become have to indulge).More influential, however, is the so-called "modern concept".Napoleon, on the other hand, regarded modern ideas and culture as his personal enemy, and at the same time, through this hostility, he made himself one of the greatest inheritors since the Renaissance.He unearthed a decidedly ancient character, which no one would have guessed would at last dominate the movement of nations and provide Napoleon, who wanted to create a united Europe, mistress of the world, His successors affirmatively accepted. 363. Prejudice towards love between men and women Although I have made many concessions to monogamous prejudice, I will never admit that men and women should be equal in love.Because there is no such thing as equality, and the reason is this: Both men and women know that each interprets the word love differently—neither man nor woman should arbitrarily assume that the other feels and sees love the same way they do. The love that women understand is obviously the complete dedication of body and soul (not just giving). This kind of dedication does not ask about motives and has no reservations. fear.This kind of unconditional love is the out-and-out "loyalty"-a man is everything to a woman. He thinks that once a man falls in love with a woman, he only wants to get the love of this specific woman, and he thinks that standing on the man's standpoint, It's no surprise that total devotion is demanded—it's really not a concept that a real man should hold.If a man loves like a woman, he will eventually become a slave; but if a woman loves her own way, she will become a more perfect woman. A woman gave up her rights unconditionally. In fact, she also expected that the other party would not necessarily return the same enthusiasm, and they would not have the idea of ​​giving up everything for love.If both men and women sacrifice themselves for love, what will happen in the end?I'm not sure, probably creating a terrible void, right?A woman hopes to be received by a man as a possession, and wholeheartedly wants to be a part of his property; therefore, she hopes that someone will "ask" from her, but the other party will not pay, and will only become richer because of continuous acquisition— - Through the devotion of a woman who loves him, his strength, happiness and confidence are all relatively increased.Women give themselves, men receive. I do not believe that anyone can break the natural distinction between men and women by any social convention, nor do I think that anyone will come out to do justice; The phenomenon is very much hoped to be avoided, but still no one will come forward.For it is perfectly natural for love to be regarded as complete, great, and complete, and nature is somewhat "immoral" to the eternal. Chastity is also included in a woman's love, which is one of the definitions of love; for a man, although he may abide by the loyalty of love, it may be due to his different temperament, so the feeling is different. It is not the integrity that he must possess—and it occupies so little weight in his mind that most people always think that the relationship between a man's love and loyalty is opposite.Their love is nothing more than a pure desire to possess, not to give or sacrifice; strangely, whenever he gains something, his possessiveness disappears without a trace. In fact, if you want to make a man's love last, you need to arouse his jealousy and possessive thoughts (although he may not really want to "possess"). When he is frustrated, the love in his heart It will grow—he doesn't like women who are easily conquered by him. Three six four, so say the recluse 与人交往的艺术端视个人的技巧（这需要长期的训练），就好比参加一项宴席，如果有个饿得如狼似虎的人坐在席上，则任何食物对他来说，都是可口极了（正如魔鬼靡非斯特所说的："给人经验的社会最差劲"），但是，毕竟很少人会饿成那种样子罢！唉，瞧我们的伙伴消化的多么艰苦啊！ 第一个原则是：我们要象遭遇不幸时那般地拿出勇气来，大胆地去把握一切，同时还要能欣赏自己，而将所厌恶的东西统统塞在口中，然后硬吞下去。 第二项原则："改善"对方。譬如说，可利用对对方的赞美而使他自我陶醉；或者是抓住他某些优点或"有趣的"特质，逐步将他所有的美德挖掘出来。 第三项原则：是自我催眠术。与人交往时，两眼紧盯着对方，就象盯着门把一样，一直到你的快乐或威胁感消失为止，然后便不知不觉地睡着了，对一切置若罔闻，动也不动。这是个家庭处方，最适用于夫妻或亲人之间；经人多方试验的结果，认为是不可或缺的至理名言，但是尚未受到科学化的方法整理并列出公式。它最适当的名称是——忍耐。 三六五、遁世者又说 我们也需要和人交往，而且还得穿戴得整整齐齐，好赢得别人的青睐与尊敬，如此才能在社会立足；也就是说，我们混入一群伪装自己的人丛中，和那些小心翼翼的化妆舞会宾客一样，祛除了一切不光是由于我们的"衣着"所引起的好奇。当然，还可以运用其他的手段或方法与人接近。好比一个鬼，如果想把别人都吓跑，实在是易如反掌。It's like a person who catches that ghost but can't hold it tight, it will definitely scare him.鬼可以从锁紧的门穿过，或在灯光熄灭后出现，或在人死之后显灵，而后者是极优秀之人死后所玩弄的技巧。 （于是，有个人不耐烦地问道："你想我们活着忍受这些怪异、冷漠和死寂，那有何乐趣可言？包围在四周的是一片幽隐而晦暗不明的孤独，如果我们无法感觉自己会有何种改变，岂不虽生犹死——唯有在死后，我们才能够因获得生命而复活，这才是真正的活着，我们只不过是已死的活人罢了！"） 三六六、对一本渊博之书的一瞥 我们不属于那种单靠从书本中获取的知识来建立思想的人，相反的，我们比较喜欢在户外思考，一面散步、跳跃、爬上无人的山上手舞足蹈；要不然就在海边沉思，那时刻，便连野外的小径也显得若有所思的样子。 我们所提出的关于书籍、人、或是音乐之价值的第一个问题为：它会走路吗？甚者，会跳舞吗？ ... 我们很少看书，那是由于我们能迅速地看穿一个人是藉着何种方式获得思想——若有人是弯腰驼背地面对墨水瓶，终日埋头伏案的，必定一眼使可瞧出来，又快又准！这种人甚至会坐出便秘的毛病；我敢打赌，连他那斗室里的气氛，以及低矮的天花板皆已泄漏了他的秘密。 每当我阖上一本很有深度的书籍之后，心中都会感激不尽，如释重负，……这种书通常会予人一种压迫感，然而"专家"们却满怀热忱，一本正经地驼着背（每个专家都会有驼背的现象）在研究不辍，同时对所阅读的书籍给与很高的评价。因此，每一本深奥的书都反映出一个被折磨得变了形的心灵。其实，任何一种职业多少都会扭曲人的心灵。 我们再回过头来看看曾一起共度青春时光的挚友，他们选择了科学，也拥有了科学，然而，可叹啊！世事的变幻往往出人意料之外。天哪，如今他们却反过来，为科学所役使与占有。他们经年累月地置身隐蔽的一隅，而被挤入无知无感的境地，身受约束，同时被剥夺了平衡的心态，整个人憔悴衰弱得可怕——目睹此一情景，不禁令我们深为感动，无言以对。 任何技巧都会有良莠不齐的情形。有黄金铺成的地板，在其上方也许就有铅制的天花板，它不断地压迫着心灵，直到后者被压挤成奇怪而扭曲的形状才罢手。这一点是无法改变的，我们无需白费心思地去考虑是否可藉着教育或其他方式来避免遭受扭曲的命运。世上任何种类的完美都得花高价才能购得，而它们的价格也许太昂贵了；其中一种情形是：某一行的专家非得同时付出以身为那一行的受害者为代价不为功。而你却想得到一个"比较合理"的解释，总之是想简单方便些，不是吗，我的朋友？ great!不过接着你们会立刻找到另一些不同类型的人，除了工匠或专家，还有文学家，他们是多才多艺而善变的人，却并不驼背——因为这些人不象贩卖知识或文化的售货员。他们实在不算什么，然而却几乎"代表"了一切。他们扮演并"代表"专家，也表现出自己受人注目与尊重的一面。wrong!亲爱的朋友！我宁可因你的驼背而祝福你！而你也和我的看法相同，鄙视那些文学家和文化寄生虫！你呢，却不知道该如何推销自己的学识！而且还提出了许多无法以金钱衡量其价值的意见！这全因为你不想代表你所不具备的能力和身份！同时你只想成为自己才艺的主人，这都是你尊敬每一种专长的能力所致，还有，以无情的斥责来拒绝所有虚伪不实、具煽动性和表演性的文学艺术作品——只要不是绝对真实、有节制或训练、以及经不起考验的事物都无法使你信服。 （即使天才也不能帮助人克服这种缺陷，只要曾留心注意最有天分的画家和音乐家便可明了其中的道理——毫无例外的，他们都曾技巧地藉着模仿别人的艺术创作风格，代替品，甚至原则的采纳等种种方式以达到剽窍的目的；说的更肯切些，他们并没有因此欺骗自己，也没有因良心不安而保持沉默。大家应该都知道，所有现代的伟大艺术家都会因良心的不安而感到十分的痛苦罢？）