Chapter 10 Chapter 10

<295> We are the legacy of two centuries of vivisection of conscience and self-crucifixion.For, this is our longest exercise, and perhaps our masterpiece, and at any rate our artifice; we have made a perfect union of natural inclination and evil conscience. The opposite is also possible; by unnatural taste, I mean the taste for the other side, the absurd, the unnatural: in short, the brotherhood of the hitherto ideal, the ideal of the complete denigration of the world, with a bad heart. . <360b> Populist thoughts: good people, selfless people, saints, wise men, and justice. what!Marc Aurel!

① Marc Aurel (121-180) has been Roman emperor since 169 AD and a believer in Stoicism. - translator Yes, since I'm looking for... <606> In the end, man will never rediscover anything in things but his own collections. — This rediscovery calls itself science.Items included in the collection include - Art, Religion, Love, Pride.There are two groups of people--even if it's child's play, one should move on--and one should have the courage to be both. ——One kind of person is responsible for rediscovery, and another kind of person—our kind—is responsible for entering Tibet!

<345> Moral trends. —No one wants theories and valuations of other people to be current except those from which he himself benefits.The basic tendency of the weak and the mediocre of all ages, therefore, is to weaken and bring down the strong, and moral judgments are the chief means.Condemned for bullying the weak, the status of the strong is notorious. The struggle of the many against the few, the struggle of the common man against the rare, the struggle of the weak against the strong—.There are subtle lulls in this struggle—so long as the superior, the noble, the thirsty appear in the world as the weaker, and refuse the more reckless means of power—

<587> As if I were avoiding the search for "certainty".The opposite is real.but As a criterion of certainty, I shall examine the so far measured What are the criteria for measuring gravity—and the search for certainty itself is already a subordinate, secondary problem. <265> There is a lack of knowledge and awareness of what turns moral judgments have taken and how "evil" in the most fundamental sense has been vindicated and renamed "good" many times.For one of these modifications I have already described it by the term "worldly convention."Even conscience changes its quadrant.Because, herd guilt has happened in the past.

<582> Existence - We have no idea of ​​existence other than "life". That is, how can something dead "exist"? <991> On the misunderstanding of "cheerful".Temporary release from long-term tension, unrestrained, spiritual Saturnalia, mental devotion to long, terrible decisions, and preparations for them. A "fool" in "scientific" form. <253> Try to study morality, don't be fooled by moral magic, don't trust the gentle manners and eyes.A world that we can worship, a world that conforms to our desire for admiration—proving itself all the time—through the guidance of individuals and people in general.This is the Christian point of view, and we all come from this.

More and more, for reasons of responsiveness, doubt, scientificity (and also by an instinct of truth towards a higher goal, again under the influence of Christianity), we are less and less allowed to make such an explanation. The best way out: Kant's critical philosophy.Reason neither denies a right of interpretation in that sense nor a right of veto in that sense.Man is content with a surplus of trust and belief, with abandoning all provability of his belief, with an "ideal" (God) that fills the void, puzzling and extraordinary. Hegel's way out, after Plato, is part of romantic and reactionary tendencies, and at the same time historical significance, the symbol of a new force.For the spirit itself is "the ideal of self-disclosure and self-realization."In the "process", in the "becoming", it shows that the ideals we believe in are constantly filling——.That is to say, for ideal self-realization, faith must adapt to the needs of the future. At that time, faith has the ability to provide what it needs. In short:

1.For us, God is unknowable and unprovable (implicit in the epistemological movement); 2.God is demonstrable, but it is something that becomes, and we are of this kind of thing, and we have precisely the desire for ideal things (historicization's implicit meaning). One sees that Criticism never touches on the ideal itself, but only on the question of how the contradiction against the ideal arises; why the ideal has not yet become a reality; . The most fundamental difference lies in: whether people deeply feel that this extraordinary state is really an extraordinary state out of passion and out of some kind of demand;

Examining religion and philosophy apart, we find the same phenomenon: utilitarianism (socialism, democracy) attacks the origin of moral valuation.But it believes in this origin, as is the case with Christians. (Childhood! As if morality could really be handed down apart from a God who exercises sanction! If there is a duty to maintain faith in morality, the "beyond" is absolutely necessary.) Fundamental question: Where does this unlimited power of faith come from?Where does the unlimited power of moral belief come from? (—Here, faith also tells people that even the basic conditions of life are misunderstood in order to protect morality. Because knowledge about the animal and vegetable kingdoms is ignored at all. "Self-preservation" shows that Darwinism ① The principles of altruism and egoism are compromised.

① Charles Darwin (1809-1882) - British naturalist, founder of the theory of evolution. - translator <258> I try to understand moral arguments as pictographic language.It is through this language that the physiological processes of rise and fall, and awareness of the conditions of preservation and growth, are expressed. —This is an astrological way of interpreting values, an instinctive prejudice (about races, parishes, about stages from youth to decay, etc.). This is the morality of Europe dedicated to Christianity.Because our moral judgments are a sign of decline, a sign of disbelief in life, and a precursor to pessimism.

My gist: Moral phenomena do not exist, only moral explanations of such phenomena exist.And the explanation itself becomes the origin of the amoral. What does it mean to say that we force contradiction into life?This is very important.Because behind all valuations there is a moral valuation commanding.If this valuation dies, by what yardstick shall we measure it?Then what is the value of knowing, etc.? ? ? <547> A psychological history of the concept of the "subject."The body, the "whole" thing fabricated by the eyes, awakens the world to distinguish the cause from the actor; the person who does something, or more precisely, the cause of the cause leaves behind the "subject".

<564> Is not all quantity a harbinger of quality?There is another consciousness and longing, another perspective applied to this greater power; growth itself is a demand for the more the better; out of pain there arises the demand for the more the better; in purely quantitative The world, everything is inanimate, dead, motionless. ——The reduction of all qualitative vectors is nonsense: because it will produce the consequences of intermingling each other, analogy——. <620> Is force always certain?No, as a result, it was translated into a completely foreign language.But we have been so spoiled by step-by-step conventions that we are no strangers to it. <410> I am deeply skeptical of the dogma of epistemology, and I used to like to peek into this window or that from time to time, lest I fall into a trap.I think these dogmas are pernicious—is it possible to ultimately think that a tool can be critical of its own applicability?On the contrary, I know that epistemological skepticism without background thought, or dogmatics, has never existed. —knowing that such skepticism, or dogmatics, is of secondary value.People do have to think hard about why this is the case. Basic insight: Whether Kant, Hegel, or Schopenhauer—whether the skeptical reservationist attitude, the historicizing attitude, or the pessimistic attitude—they all have their origins in morality.I have never met anyone who dared to relentlessly criticize the sense of moral worth.For there are very few people (such as the English and German Darwinists) who have attempted to study the history of the formation of this emotion.As soon as I saw them, I immediately turned my back on them. How to explain Spinoza's position (that is, his denial and rejection of moral value assertions)? (This is a consequence of his atheism!) <470> I hate being stuck in any kind of overview of the world all the time.The opposite way of thinking is attractive because it does not lose its mysterious charm. <555> The empty talk of knowing is the greatest empty talk.People want to find out the origin of things in themselves.But look!Nothing in itself!But if there is such an in-itself, an absolute, it is therefore also unknowable!The absolute cannot be known, otherwise it cannot be called absolute!But knowledge is always "purposive and conditioned"—a knower who wishes that something he wants to know is irrelevant to him, and wishes it not to be irrelevant to anyone else.For two things are worth mentioning: first, it is said that wishing to know and demand something has nothing to do with oneself; It exists, so it cannot be recognized at all. —Knowledge is purposefully "conditioned."It is what feels conditioned and even determined to relate to us—it is, after all, an assertion, a description, an awareness of conditions (rather than a study of people, things, "in-itself"). <556> The movement of the "thing in itself" is the same as that of "meaning in itself" and "meaning in itself". There are no "facts in themselves," but a meaning must always be implanted before a fact can be made. The question "What is this?" is the meaning set from the perspective of others. "Essence" and "essence" are both visionary things, and they presuppose more.The basic question has always been "What is this to me?" (that is, to us, to everything that lives, etc.) Things are not clear until everyone has asked their "what is this" about it and got the answer.If there is only one person who lacks his own connection and perspective to everything, then the thing remains "undefined". In short, the essence of a thing is nothing but an opinion about "the thing".Or it can even be said: this so-called "it is related to" is originally "it is", this unique "is". One must not ask, "Who is going to explain?" but the explanation itself.It is a form of will to power, it has life (but not so-called "existence", but a process, a kind of becoming), and life is impulse. The production of "things" is entirely the business of the imaginer, the thinker, the wisher, the feeler. The concept of "thing" itself is like all properties. —Even the "subject" is such a created thing, a "thing" like everything else.Because it is a simplification, because the description of this force itself that posits, conceives, and thinks is different from all other individual posits, conceives, and thinks themselves.That is to say, what (the subject) describes is a capacity that is different from all individual ones.For, fundamentally, (the subject) synthesizes actions (actions and the possibility of similar actions) in relation to all actions that are still to be expected. <1036> It is impossible to prove a benevolent God from the world as we know it.Because, today you have developed to this level is the result of being coerced and driven by others.But what conclusions do you draw from this?For me, God is unprovable - epistemic skepticism.You all are afraid to "infer from the world as we know it an entirely different and verifiable God, one that is at least unkind"—and, to put it simply, you cling to your God, and for his And imagine a world that we are not familiar with. <240> If one thinks that one cannot come up with proofs against the Christian faith, Pascal thinks it is wisest to be a Christian, because it is terrible to believe in faith.Today, as a symbol of Christianity's lost fear, another attempt to justify the faith is found.Even if the belief is a falsehood, the great benefits and blessings of this falsehood are used throughout one's life.It would seem, then, that faith should be maintained precisely for its pacifying effect—that is, not out of fear of a possible threat, but rather out of fear of a life that casts a stimulus.The shift in hedonism, the evidence from pleasure, is a sign of decay.For belief in the place of power is proof of the fear that has shaken the Christian conception.In fact, due to this transformation, Christianity has tended to fail.Because, people are satisfied with narcotic Christianity, because man is powerful, but not for the longing to explore, to fight, to be fearless, to go alone, not for Pascalism, but for this brooding self-mockery, for faith Playing tricks on people, for fear of becoming "unnecessarily condemned".But Christianity, which has a duty to appease its sick nerves, has no need for such a dire solution as a "crucifixion."This is why Buddhism in Europe is progressing everywhere. <546> To interpret a phenomenon either as an action or as a passivity (—that is, any action is a passivity).This explanation says: Any change, any other change, is premised on having an advocate, a person on whom the "change" can be carried out. <589> "Ends and Means" "Cause and Effect" "Subject and Object" "Action and Passion" "Things and phenomena in themselves" (It's all) an exposition (not a fact), and perhaps a necessary exposition to a certain extent? (as "preservative")—all in the sense of the will to power. <643> The will to power explains (if it is to be taught to an organ, which involves interpretation): it draws boundaries, establishes laws, and makes clear the distinctions of power.I am afraid that the pure power difference itself cannot have such a sense of self.For there must be a thing that wishes to increase, which explains every something that wishes to increase in terms of its own value.This is consistent—in fact, interpretation is a means used to dominate something. (Organic processes always presuppose interpretation). <632> Continuous, this "regularity" is just a way of expressing images, as if there are really rules to follow.Because there are neither facts nor "regularities".In order to express the repeated sequence, we found the formula to represent this sequence.Thus we find no "laws", let alone the forces that are responsible for the repetition of the sequence.As for things always happening so and so, the explanation here is this: A man always acts so and so as if by some law, or legislator.At the same time, he seems to be free to engage in other activities than "law".But perhaps it is the so-and-so (and nothing else) that originates in the man himself, the man of the so-and-so nature who behaves so-and-so without first considering the law.This simply means that something cannot be something else at the same time;The error is hidden in the painstaking fabrication of the subject. <638> If the world possesses a definite number of forces, it is evident that any transition of power in a certain position determines the whole system—that is to say, besides the succession of causality, there would originally be a Connection dependencies. <554> Obviously, as far as causation is concerned, there can be no connection between things in themselves, and there is no connection between phenomena.As a result, within the philosophy of belief in things-in-itself and phenomena, the concept of "cause and effect" becomes useless.Kant was wrong—in fact, after psychological verification, the concept of "cause and effect" only comes from the way of thinking that the will affects the will anytime and anywhere. ——This method only believes in living things, and in the final analysis only believes in "soul" (not in things).In the mechanistic view of the world (which is logic and its application to space and time), that concept would be reduced to a mathematical fraction—with which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, one would never understand What, but what may be prescribed, what is distorted. <631> The unchanging sequence of certain phenomena does not prove "laws" but a ratio of power between two or more forces.To say "But it is this proportion that must be kept equal!" is nothing more than to say: "One and the same force cannot be another force at the same time". — This does not mean successive, — but dependent succession.Refers to a process in which individual successive moments do not condition each other as a causal relationship. … "Action" is separated from "actor", event is separated from its perpetrator, process is to be separated from something which is not a process, but always a substance, thing, body, soul, etc. - the attempt to understand the phenomenon It is the transition and positional alternation of "existence" and "stagnation".For this ancient myth affirms the belief in "cause and effect," which has found its exact form in the function of language, of grammar. <391> Standards used to determine ethical valuation. Neglected basic fact: there is a tension between being more moral and enhancing and strengthening the human kind. man of nature. "The will to power". <856> will to power. —presumably like the characteristic of those who make it their business to revalue.Hierarchy is power because the danger of war is still a precondition for a hierarchy to uphold its terms.Brilliant example: Man of Nature—the weakest and wisest make themselves masters, and the stupider powers their own slaves. <1054> The Greatest Struggle: New weapons are needed for this. Hammer: Conjures the dire decision that confronts Europe with the outcome of whether it "hopes" for a will to fall in Europe. Prevent mediocrity; (or) rather sink! <471> This premise says that the moralization of the depths of things has gone to such an extent that human reason is always justified—it is the premise of the faithful and orderly man, the result of belief in the reality of the divine—that God is the Creator. ——The concept is the pre-existence from the other side—— <575> "Knowing" is a reflexive act: a feedback phenomenon by its very nature; what comes to a standstill (at the so-called first cause, at the absolute, etc.) Turned into slack, fatigue—— <601> Against the desire for reconciliation, against the rapprochement.So does any attempt at monism. <69> Characteristics of Nihilism: a) In the natural sciences ("absurdity"—); causality, mechanism. "Law" is the cutscene, the leftover. b) It is the same in politics: people lack faith in their own rights, lack faith in innocence; c) The same goes for the national economy; the abolition of slavery.Because, there is a lack of a savior rank, a defender. — Anarchism on the rise.Is this the responsibility of "education"? d) So is history: fatalism, Darwinism.Attempts to delve into reason and divinity have failed.The past is hurtful; any biographical form is unbearable! — (There is also phenomenalism here: the character of the mask; the fact is none.) e) The same in art: Romanticism and its reaction (dislike of Romantic ideals and lies).The latter has a larger real meaning from a moral point of view, but is pessimistic.Pure "acrobat" (indifferent to content). (The psychology of the confessor and the psychology of the Puritans, these are two forms of psychological romanticism. But also, with its counterproductive, attempt at a purely acrobatic attitude to "man."—even so, No one dares to make an estimate to reverse the case!) <797> The "artist" phenomenon is still the easiest to see through. —From there, look towards the basic instinct of power, towards the basic instinct of nature, and so on!That is, toward the instinct of religion and morality! "Playing, doing nothing"—is the ideal of full force, it is "innocent".God's "innocent" and acted like a child. <846> Romanticism and its antithesis. —For all aesthetic value, I now use this basic test.On every individual occasion I ask: "Does starvation or excess become creative here?" It seems more appropriate to introduce another distinction from the outset—and, besides, this one is more obvious. Understand--.In other words, is it the cause of creation to be stagnant, eternal, and "existent", or is it the cause of creation to be destroyed, to be flexible, and to be developed.But, looking a little further, both types of claims still suggest a double meaning, and are articulate in that preferred, and I think justifiably preferred, mode. The demand for destruction, transfiguration, development can be an expression of a full, future-bearing force (the term I use for this expression is, as it is known, "Dionysian"); but it can also be It is the hatred of the scum, of the needy, of the misguided, and hatred is about to destroy, it should destroy, because what exists, yes, everything that exists, all existence itself provokes hatred, provokes hatred . On the other hand, "eternalization" may one day also spring from gratitude and love-this art of origin must always be a divine art, perhaps with Rubens' praise of Dionysus, with Hafe The faint drunkenness of Goethe, with the radiance and good-nature of Goethe, and spreading Homer's aura over everything;--but it can also be the brutal will of the suffering man, which wants to give the most individual man, the solitary, the narrow-minded man, imprints binding law and coercion on his true sensitivity to suffering, and to a certain extent this will avenges all things by , to engrave, impose, and sear his own image, that is, the image of suffering, in the hearts of all things.This image is romantic pessimism at its most expressive, whether it is Schopenhauer's philosophy of the will or Wagner's music. ①Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) - representative painter of Belgian Baroque style. - translator ② Homer - the famous ancient Greek poet, according to legend, is the author of "Homer's Epic", born in the 9th century BC. - translator <1> Nihilism is the result of the interpretation of the value of life so far. <134> Now is the great noon, the most terrible broad daylight.It is a great starting point for pessimism of my kind. Ⅰ. There is a fundamental contradiction between civilization and human improvement. II. Moral valuation is the history of lies and slander at the service of the will to power (the history of the will of the herd, which rebels against the strong). Ⅲ. All conditions for the improvement of civilization (in order to make a certain choice possible, it must be at the expense of the masses) are all conditions for growth. Ⅳ. The ambiguity of the world is caused by the problem of force, and force believes that the prospect of force growth is everything.The moral and Christian value proposition is slave rebellion and the deceitfulness of slavery (compared to the aristocratic values ​​of the ancient Greek world). <537> What is truth? - inertia.Hypothesis: Formed under comfortable conditions, i.e. with the least expenditure of mental energy, etc. <78> Pretentious The eccentricity and allure of modern people.In essence, dodge and boredom. writer. Politicians (in the midst of "state intrigues"). Artistic affectation; Lack of examination of rehearsal and training (Fromentin); Romantics (lack of philosophy and science, excess of literature); ① Eugene Fromentin (1820-1876) - French painter and writer. - translator The novelists (Walter Scott, but also Nibelungen monsters with the most neurotic music); ①Walter Scott (1771-1838) - British Scottish poet, founder and master of European romantic historical novels. - translator Lyric poets. "scientific". Big writers (Jews). It is a populist ideal that has been overcome, but it has not yet been put in front of the people: Saints, philosophers, prophets. <59> On the history of modern gloom. A nomadic country (officials, etc.) living by water and grass: because there is no "homeland"—— The decline of the family. A "good man" is a sign of decline. The will to power is righteous (domesticated). Sensuality and mental disturbance. Black music: - where does the refreshing music go? anarchist. contempt and hatred of man. The Deepest Discrimination: Can Hunger or Glut Be Become Creative?The former produced romantic ideals. —— The unnaturalness of the Northland. The demand for schnapps: the "poverty" of workers. Philosophical nihilism. <600> The interpretation of the world is infinite.Because, any elaboration is a symbol of growth and decline. Unity (monism) is a need for inertia; polysemy is a signal of force.Do not deny the disturbing and mysterious qualities of the world! <796> Works of art, works that appear without an artist, such as flesh, organization (Prussian officer corps, Jesuit order), etc.An artist is just a first step. The world is a self-reproducing work of art— <845> Is art the result of dissatisfaction with reality?Or, is it an expression of gratitude for the happiness already enjoyed?The former refers to Romanticism, the latter to Emmanuel and Dithyramb (in short, the art of worship): Raphael also belongs to this category, but he sinned against the Christianity of the world. Errors explaining the sanctification of appearance.He once had gratitude for life, but life was not exclusively expressed in Christianity for him. The world becomes intolerable with moral explanations.Christianity tries to "overcome" the world with this, that is, to deny the world.In fact, the end of this crazy murder—that is, the crazy suicide of man in front of the world—is the gloomy, small, and impoverished man.For the most banal and harmless species of man, the herd-like species of man, alone finds its premises and is promoted in this process, if one wills it. Homer was the godlike artist, and so was Rubens.There haven't been any god-like artists in the music industry yet. It is Greek to idealize the great blasphemer (in the sense of greatness of the word blasphemer); it is Judeo-Christian to insult, slander, and despise sinners. <1029b> Even resignation to fate is not a theory of tragedy, but a misunderstanding of tragedy!Desiring nothingness is the negation of tragic wisdom, the antithesis of this wisdom! <844> It is by never being complacent that the Romantic becomes the creative artist -- he looks away from himself and the world around him, and looks back again. <416> The meaning of German philosophy (Hegel); it has conceived pantheism, which does not consider evil, error, and suffering to be arguments against the divine.This great initiative has been abused by existing powers (states, etc.), as if in so doing it was tantamount to acknowledging the legitimacy of the rulers who are in power. On the contrary, Schopenhauer appears as a stubborn moralist. In order to insist on his own moral valuation, he ends up becoming a denier of the world.Eventually became a "mystic". I tried to defend aesthetics: can the world be ugly?I believe that the will to beauty, the will to uniform form, is a temporary means of preservation and panacea.For, it seems to me, the fundamental problem is the eternal creation, inseparable from pain, as the necessity of eternal destruction. Ugliness is the form of observation of things governed by the will which renders a meaning, a newness meaningless: for the accumulated force compels the creator to regard the past as unreliable, failed, negable, and ugly. of! —— <431b> In Plato, in a man of senses and fanatics who can be overstimulated, concepts possess such magical powers that he adores them as ideal forms at will.Dialectical intoxication: the consciousness used to exercise dominion over itself—the instrument of the will to power. <622> Extrusion and collision are recent things, derivative things, and non-primitive things.It presupposes something kneaded and something that can be pressed and bumped!But what is it made of? <151> Religion will perish through belief in morality.Christian morality, God is unreliable.Hence "atheism" as if other kinds of gods were impossible. In the same way, culture will perish through belief in morality.Because, if the necessary conditions for the production of culture are once discovered, then people will no longer want any culture (Buddhism). <599> "Phenomena are absurd"; this belief is the result of hitherto erroneous interpretations, a generalization of courage and cowardice. — This belief is unnecessary. Man's immodestness -: (Occurs when) he does not see the meaning of denying himself! <616> I think that the value of the world lies in our interpretations (--where perhaps there may be interpretations other than mere human--); , that is, to preserve itself by the will to power, that is, the will to increase in power; I think that any ascension of man leads to the overcoming of narrower interpretations, and I think that any elevation achieved and expansion of power opens up new vistas and is called Believe in new horizons—my book is all about that.The world we relate to is unreal, i.e. not a fact, but an expansion and contraction based on a few observations; the world is "fluid", generated, constantly deduced, and never reaches the truth False, because - there is no such thing as "truth". <1049> Apollo deceived: Eternal good form; aristocratic legislation— "That's how it should always be!". Dionysus: Sensuality and cruelty, perishability can be interpreted as the enjoyment of the power of life and death, and as the eternal creation. <491> Belief in the body is more fundamental than belief in the spirit, since the latter is the result of unscientific observations of the dying state of the body (something that leaves the body. It is the same as believing that dreams are real—). <905> hammer.What qualities must a person who makes a reverse valuation have? —Man, who has all the qualities of the modern spirit, but does he have the power to make the modern spirit fully robust? ——This is the means by which he wants to accomplish his mission. <223> Poverty, humiliation, and chastity—these are dangerous and detractor ideals.But poison was also good medicine for some ailments, for example, in the time of the Roman emperors. All ideals are dangerous: because they demean and oppose the real; all (ideals) are drugs, but as a first aid they are indispensable. <691> What is the attitude of the whole organic process towards the rest of nature? —there the fundamental will of the organic process takes its true form. <436> Dialectics and rational beliefs are still based on moral prejudices.In Plato we appropriate the vestiges of that age as former inhabitants of the world of the intelligible good.The dialectic of divinity is the dialectic from the good, which leads to all good (—and thus a kind of “regression”—).Even Descartes came up with the concept that only when people use the basic way of thinking that they believe that a good God is the creator of Christian morality, the authenticity of God can provide guarantees for our sensory judgments.However, apart from the recognition and guarantee provided by religion for our sensibility and rationality, where can we get the right to believe in life?To think that thinking is the criterion of actual things—to think that what cannot be thought of does not exist—is a real folly of moral indiscretion (credulity in a principle of truth which is substantive and deep in things).All in all, it's a rant that's so utterly alien to our experience that we can't even imagine why it exists... <500> Projecting sensory perception outwards: "inside" and "outside"—is the body calling the shots there—? The force that plays a leading role in the adjustment of balance in the protoplasm of the cell also governs the assimilation of the external world.Because our sensory perception is the result of assimilating everything in our brain.Perceptions don't immediately follow "impressions"— <219> Those who believed in Christianity, which was surpassed by modern natural science, were ridiculed because (modern natural science) did not completely triumph over Christian value judgments. "The Crucified Christ" remains a majestic symbol—always. —— <505> The awareness of our own perceptions: the sum total of all perceptions, the consciousization of this sum is beneficial and fundamental to us and to the whole organic process that is presented to us.That is, not all perceptions (e.g., not electrical); That is to say: me. <111> 19th century problem.Are the strong and weak sides of this century connected to each other?Is it carved from a single piece of wood?Are its ideals and contradictions conditioned by a higher purpose?Is it something higher? —for it may be the great Providence that grows violently by this standard.Dissatisfaction, nihilism, which may also be a good sign. <123> I resume this unfinished question: the question of civilization, that is, around 1760, the dispute between Rousseau and Voltaire.People will become deeper, more suspicious, more immoral, stronger, more confident - and in this sense, become "more natural".Because, this is "progress". —At the same time, due to the division of labour, the class that has become vicious and the class that has become docile will be differentiated, so that the whole truth does not immediately come to the eye... The art of powerful class-possession ennobling people with their transgressions.The intensified factor has been transformed into "goodness", as is the case with any "progress". <100> Rousseau: The basis of norms is emotion; the source of justice is nature; man perfects himself while approaching nature (—in the words of Voltaire, while distanced from nature).The same age, for the former, is the age of humanity and progress, and for the latter, the age of injustice and inequality. Voltaire's views on human beings were still in the Renaissance period, and so was his understanding of virtue (considered "high culture"). He fought for the cause of "high nobles" and "high civil society". the cause of science, the cause of art, the cause of progress itself and the cause of civilization. Around 1760 a struggle broke out: between the citizen of Geneva and Voltaire.It was only then that Voltaire became the great man of his century, the philosopher, the representative of tolerance and unbelief (which had previously been nothing more than a beautiful soul).Jealousy of Rousseau's achievements drove him to move forward and "climb" upwards. For "the mediocrity," a god of bounty and vengeance①—Voltaire. ①The original text is French. - translator Criticize two views related to the value of civilization.The idea of ​​society was, for Voltaire, the most beautiful idea.For there is no higher end than to preserve it, to perfect it; and this is the servant of respect for social conventions; virtue bows to the need to preserve 'society', the missionaries of culture, the aristocracy, the meritorious ruling classes, and their valuations to imposed prejudices.But Rousseau was always an uneducated man and a man of letters, which is unheard of; Rousseau's morbidity fascinated most people and tried to emulate him. (Byron was of his blood; also painstakingly pursued extraordinary speech and manners, vengeance and rancor; the marks of "vile deeds"; later, it was Venice that restored his balance, and he knew the more lighthearted what it is... that is carefree). Rousseau, regardless of his origin, was proud of his own way of doing things. However, if someone pointed this out to his face, he would be very excited... There is no doubt that Rousseau was insane, but Voltaire was remarkably healthy and light.It was the patient's rage; the age of Rousseau's insanity, that is, the age of his contempt, was the age of his suspicions. Rousseau justifies prudence (against Voltaire's pessimism).For, to be able to curse society and civilization, he needs God; everything must be in its place, because God made it; only man corrupts man.The "good man" as a natural man turns out to be purely hypocritical; but such a man is possible and justified by the dogma of God, the author. Rousseau's Romanticism: passions ("sovereignty of suffering"); "naturalness"; the fascination of madness (the delusion of hope for success); the absurd vanity of the weak; People have always thought of the sick as the head of the political arena"). <83> "If there is no Christian faith," Pascal said, "you will develop on your own, just like nature and history, one is a behemoth and the other is a chaotic world."We fulfill this prophecy: after the beautification and rationalization of man by the sickly optimism of the eighteenth century. Schopenhauer and Pascal. ——In a certain sense, Schopenhauer is the first person to reproduce the Pascal movement, one is a behemoth, and the other is a chaotic world. Therefore, what should be denied is... history, nature and man himself! "Our incapacity to know the truth is the result of our fall, the result of our moral decay," Pascal said.In this way, Schopenhauer has a foothold. "The more corrupt the reason is, the more necessary is the remedy"—or, in Schopenhauer's words, negation. <884> Handel, Leibniz, Goethe, Bismarck—they were typical of the mighty German species.They were born of confrontation without hesitation, full of strength against belief and doctrine, using one against the other, but leaving room for themselves. <97> The seventeenth century afflicts man, as it afflicts a mass of contradictions (we are "a mass of contradictions"); To know in order to adapt man to his fantasies. "Superficial, soft, human touch" - keen on such "people" - The 17th century tried to erase the traces of the individual in order to make the work express life as much as possible. The eighteenth century tried to take an interest in the author through his work. The search for art in art in the seventeenth century was a sign of culture; the eighteenth century used art to clamor for reforms of social and political nature. "Utopia," the "ideal man," the deification of nature, the vanity of putting itself on the scene, the propaganda of the subordination of social ends, bullshit—such is our impression of the eighteenth century. The style of the 17th century: unique, precise, free. The strong man, the self-sufficient; or the man who zealously appeals to God,--the object of those modern writers--is the opposite. "Producing itself"—try to compare with the scholars of Porter-Ruja. ①The name of Versailles Temple, built in 1204, belongs to the Catholic Samson sect. There is also a church of the same name in Paris, which was destroyed after the sect lost power. - translator Alfred contributed to great style. ② Bernardetto Isnocente Alfred (1700-1767) - Italian Baroque architect, whose masterpiece is the Royal Theater in Turin. ——Translator coc2 hates farce (people without dignity), lack of natural meaning, which is one of the characteristics of the 17th century. <95> three centuries Their differing sensitivities are amply demonstrated in the following ways: Aristocracy: Descartes, The Universe of Reason, Proof of the Sovereignty of the Will.Feminism: Rousseau, The Universe of the Feelings, Proof of the Sovereignty of the Senses, Untrue; Bestialism: Schopenhauer, World of Desire, Proof of Bestial Sovereignty, more honest, but also more gloomy. The seventeenth century was aristocratic, orderly, animalistic, stern, "cold," iron-faced, "un-German, hating farce and natural objects, universal, independent of the past. Because it believed in itself, after all, to be master forever More brutality, more ascetic customs. It is a century of strength of mind, and a century of passion. The eighteenth century was the century of women, dreamy, witty, prosaic, but with a spirit of service to the agreeable and the soul, free from the most spiritual things, undermining all authority; drunken, happy , clear, humane, self-deceiving, in a word, social... The 19th century was a more animal century, more treacherous, uglier, more realistic, commonplace, and therefore "gooder", "more upright", succumbed to any "reality", and therefore more real; A century of sorrow and longing for darkness, however fatalistic.Neither fears "reason" nor admires the heart; stubbornly believes in the dominion of desire (Schopenhauer speaks of "will"; however, the absence of will is the most characteristic feature of his philosophy).Even morality has been reduced to an instinct (that is, "sympathy"). Auguste Comte is the continuation of the eighteenth century (mind ruled mind, epistemology sensualism, philanthropy).Science at this time was already independent, which showed the way out of the dominance of ideals in the nineteenth century.Curiosity and rigor in our science—virtues of our kind—can only be realized without wishing.   Romanticism is the embellishment note of the eighteenth century, the century's pretension to great style (--actually, posturing and self-deception, for one would have liked to describe powerful natures, great passions). The nineteenth century instinctively sought a theory in which it could be justified in its fatalistic subordination to practical things.Hegel succeeded in refuting the "sentimental" romantic idealism, the fatalistic view of his mode of thinking in his belief in a greater reason on the victor's side, in his "state" for reality (replacing " human beings, etc.) defense. ——Schopenhauer: We are stupid, at best, we deny ourselves.The achievement of determinism is manifested in the theory of consanguinity, which gave birth to what was previously considered to be the absolute binding force, that is, the theory of environment and the theory of adaptation, devaluing the will as a reflexive movement, denying that the will is the "cause of the effect"; Renaming: For, one sees so little will that the word becomes non-binding in order to describe something else.Other theories: the doctrine of objectivity, the conception of "willlessness", which became the only doctrine that leads to truth; also to beauty (--and also belief in "genius", for the right to subjection); mechanism , rigid calculation of mechanical process; the so-called "naturalism" drives away the optional, adjudicable, explainable, and principle-based subject-Kant throughout the 18th century with his "practical reason" and moral fanaticism ; he is completely outside the historicity; dismissive of the realities of his previous age, such as revolutions; untouched by Greek philosophy; he is a visionary of the concept of duty; a sensationalist, with a penchant for the mystical with dogmatic vices ——. Our century has seen a reversion to Kant, that is, a reversion to the eighteenth century.For men want to reclaim for themselves the right to believe in old ideals and old passions. ——That is to say, the epistemology of "setting boundaries" allows arbitrary setting of the other side of reason... Hegel's way of thinking is similar to Goethe's.Because, one heard Goethe talk about Spinoza.He advocated the will to deify the universe and life in order to find peace and happiness through his own observation and demonstration; Hegel sought reason everywhere. ——People should not yield to reason, nor should they be satisfied with reason.In Goethe there is an almost joyful and convincing fatalism, it does not rebel, it does not dry up, it tries to form a totality by itself, it believes that only the totality can save everything, and it will appear as good and reasonable. <323> Defender of Virtue. —Love of money, desire for power, laziness, simple-mindedness, timidity: all these are interested in virtue: therefore, virtue rests firmly on the platform.