Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Beyond Good and Evil
    Beyond Good and Evil
    Beyond Good and Evil
    Ebook233 pages

    Beyond Good and Evil

    By Friedrich Nietzsche

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Friedrich Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil' is a philosophical tour de force challenging traditional morality. With aphoristic brilliance, Nietzsche dismantles moral dichotomies, advocating for a reevaluation of values. This profound work explores the complexities of human nature, power, and individuality, inviting readers to question and transcend conventional notions of good and evil, offering a provocative journey into the realms of philosophy and existential inquiry.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherInteractive Media
    Release dateAug 15, 2013
    ISBN9781909676084
    Author

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Friedrich Nietzsche wird 1844 in Röcken in Sachsen geboren. Nach dem Studium der Philologie und Theologie in Bonn und Leipzig wird er mit 24 Jahren Professor für Klassische Philologie in Basel. Dort lernt er Richard Wagner kennen, der sein Denken zusammen mit den Schriften Schopenhauers am stärksten beeinflußt. Im Krieg 1870/71 wird Nietzsche freiwillig Krankenpfleger, kehrt aber selbst erkrankt zurück und muß sich 1879 von seinem Lehramt dispensieren lassen.Als Außenseiter unter den deutschen Philosophen des späten 19. Jahrhunderts bleibt der Philologe Nietzsche in der Philosophie Autodidakt. In seinem ersten philosophischen Werk Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik (1872) entwickelt Nietzsche die These, daß in den Wagnerschen Dramen die Tragödie aus der Musik wiedergeboren wird und formuliert den Antagonismus zwischen Apollinischem und Dionysischem.Schon die Unzeitgemäßen Betrachtungen von 1876 zeigen die Entfremdung von Wagner, die Distanz zur Philosophie Schopenhauers wird mit Menschliches, Allzumenschliches offenbar. Nietzsche wählt die Unabgeschlossenheit der aphoristischen Form, die für ihn zu einem neuen „Denkstil für freie Geister“ paßt. Während des immer stärkeren Rückzugs in die Einsamkeit bereitet Nietzsche die Neuausgaben seiner Werke vor, für die er neue Vorreden schreibt, die als Selbstinterpretationen gelesen werden können. In den Jahren ab 1883 erscheinen die zentralen philosophischen Dichtungen des Spätwerks Also sprach Zarathustra, Jenseits von Gut und Böse oder Ecce homo. 1889 erleidet Nietzsche in Turin den endgültigen geistigen Zusammenbruch und wird in eine Nervenheilanstalt eingeliefert. In zunehmender geistiger Umnachtung verbringt er seine letzten Lebensjahre in der Pflege seiner Mutter und seiner Schwester. Nietzsche stirbt 1900 in Weimar.

    Read more from Friedrich Nietzsche

    Related to Beyond Good and Evil

    Titles in the series (55)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      Lessons To Live By

      Sep 18, 2020

      Lessons To Live By
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Disorderly Days

      Mar 7, 2022

      Disorderly Days
      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Colors We Eat

      Nov 15, 2018

      When it comes to food, color is money. Food companies scan their products on the line with custom colorimeters to ensure mathematically consistent hues. Fruits and vegetables are shipped in chemically “modified” atmospheres, because “better stem and

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Brain’s ‘Gatekeeper’ Decides Which Details Need Attention

      Oct 28, 2018

      Neuroscientists know a lot about how our brains learn new things, but not much about how they choose what to focus on while they learn. Now, researchers have traced that ability to an unexpected place in the brain. In order to learn about the world,

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Metamorphosis

      Jul 11, 2019

      The Metamorphosis
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      No, You Can’t Feel Sorry for Everyone

      Aug 10, 2017

      The world seems to be getting more empathetic. Americans donate to charity at record rates. People feel the pain of suffering in geographically distant countries brought to our attention by advances in communications and transportation. Violence, see

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Self-actualisation

      Aug 10, 2020

      Self-actualisation
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Search For Answers

      Apr 30, 2020

      The Search For Answers
      12 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      For The Thinkers

      Oct 16, 2020

      For several years now, Ian Olasov has set up ‘Ask-a-Philosopher’ booths around New York City, answering questions from passersby. This book reflects those conversations. From philosophical to frivolous, questions include: Are people innately good or

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Why We Lie

      Apr 15, 2021

      Why We Lie
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      How To Get What You Want

      May 19, 2019

      Jacinta di Mase is a literary agent who set up her eponymous management company in 2004. She spends most of her days negotiating publishing offers and contracts on behalf of her authors, and after 20 years’ experience, knows negotiating is all about

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      What Makes Something Funny?

      Feb 12, 2018

      What Makes Something Funny?
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Traits Talking

      Mar 14, 2021

      Traits Talking
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Personality Over Time

      Mar 7, 2022

      Personality Over Time
      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Team Building

      Aug 10, 2022

      Team Building
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Exes And Nostalgia

      Jun 18, 2019

      Exes And Nostalgia
      2 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Beyond Good and Evil

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Beyond Good and Evil - Friedrich Nietzsche

      cover.jpg

      Friedrich Nietzsche

      Beyond Good and Evil

      top10-world.jpgThe%20Big%20Nest.jpg

      Published by The Big Nest

      First published in 2013

      Author: Friedrich Nietzsche

      Editor: Max Bollinger

      Copyright © 2013 The Big Nest

      Contents

      PREFACE

      CHAPTER I. PREJUDICES OF PHILOSOPHERS

      CHAPTER II. THE FREE SPIRIT

      CHAPTER III. THE RELIGIOUS MOOD

      CHAPTER IV. APOPHTHEGMS AND INTERLUDES

      CHAPTER V. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF MORALS

      CHAPTER VI. WE SCHOLARS

      CHAPTER VII. OUR VIRTUES

      CHAPTER VIII. PEOPLES AND COUNTRIES

      CHAPTER IX. WHAT IS NOBLE?

      FROM THE HEIGHTS

      PREFACE

      SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien—IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground—nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very restricted, very personal, very human—all-too-human facts. The philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrology in still earlier times, in the service of which probably more labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its super-terrestrial pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe themselves upon the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things have first to wander about the earth as enormous and awe-inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature of this kind—for instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome, and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error—namely, Plato’s invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a healthier—sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE—the fundamental condition—of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one might ask, as a physician: How did such a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock? But the struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the people—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE PEOPLE), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic enlightenment—which, with the aid of liberty of the press and newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit would not so easily find itself in distress! (The Germans invented gunpowder—all credit to them! but they again made things square—they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spirits—we have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT....

      Sils Maria Upper Engadine, JUNE, 1885.

      CHAPTER I. PREJUDICES OF PHILOSOPHERS

      1. The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing, questionable questions! It is already a long story; yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we at last grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this Will to Truth in us? In fact we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Will—until at last we came to an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.

      2. HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the ‘Thing-in-itself—THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this belief of theirs, they exert themselves for their knowledge, for something that is in the end solemnly christened the Truth. The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM. For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below—frog perspectives, as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous Perhapses! For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the dangerous Perhaps in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.

      3. Having kept a sharp eye on philosophers, and having read between their lines long enough, I now say to myself that the greater part of conscious thinking must be counted among the instinctive functions, and it is so even in the case of philosophical thinking; one has here to learn anew, as one learned anew about heredity and innateness. As little as the act of birth comes into consideration in the whole process and procedure of heredity, just as little is being-conscious OPPOSED to the instinctive in any decisive sense; the greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly influenced by his instincts, and forced into definite channels. And behind all logic and its seeming sovereignty of movement, there are valuations, or to speak more plainly, physiological demands, for the maintenance of a definite mode of life For example, that the certain is worth more than the uncertain, that illusion is less valuable than truth such valuations, in spite of their regulative importance for US, might notwithstanding be only superficial valuations, special kinds of niaiserie, such as may be necessary for the maintenance of beings such as ourselves. Supposing, in effect, that man is not just the measure of things.

      4. The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live—that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life. TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil.

      5. That which causes philosophers to be regarded half-distrustfully and half-mockingly, is not the oft-repeated discovery how innocent they are—how often and easily they make mistakes and lose their way, in short, how childish and childlike they are,—but that there is not enough honest dealing with them, whereas they all raise a loud and virtuous outcry when the problem of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest manner. They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and foolisher, talk of inspiration), whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or suggestion, which is generally their heart’s desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub truths,—and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule. The spectacle of the Tartuffery of old Kant, equally stiff and decent, with which he entices us into the dialectic by-ways that lead (more correctly mislead) to his categorical imperative—makes us fastidious ones smile, we who find no small amusement in spying out the subtle tricks of old moralists and ethical preachers. Or, still more so, the hocus-pocus in mathematical form, by means of which Spinoza has, as it were, clad his philosophy in mail and mask—in fact, the love of HIS wisdom, to translate the term fairly and squarely—in order thereby to strike terror at once into the heart of the assailant who should dare to cast a glance on that invincible maiden, that Pallas Athene:—how much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!

      6. It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: What morality do they (or does he) aim at? Accordingly, I do not believe that an impulse to knowledge is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument. But whoever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they may have here acted as INSPIRING GENII (or as demons and cobolds), will find that they have all practiced philosophy at one time or another, and that each one of them would have been only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of existence and the legitimate LORD over all the other impulses. For every impulse is imperious, and as SUCH, attempts to philosophize. To be sure, in the case of scholars, in the case of really scientific men, it may be otherwise—better, if you will; there there may really be such a thing as an impulse to knowledge, some kind of small, independent clock-work, which, when well wound up, works away industriously to that end, WITHOUT the rest of the scholarly impulses taking any material part therein. The actual interests of the scholar, therefore, are generally in quite another direction—in the family, perhaps, or in money-making, or in politics; it is, in fact, almost indifferent at what point of research his little machine is placed, and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good philologist, a mushroom specialist, or a chemist; he is not CHARACTERISED by becoming this or that. In the philosopher, on the contrary, there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS,—that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other.

      7. How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nothing more stinging than the joke Epicurus took the liberty of making on Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes. In its original sense, and on the face of it, the word signifies Flatterers of Dionysius—consequently, tyrants’ accessories and lick-spittles; besides this, however, it is as much as to say, They are all ACTORS, there is nothing genuine about them (for Dionysiokolax was a popular name for an actor). And the latter is really the malignant reproach that Epicurus cast upon Plato: he was annoyed by the grandiose manner, the mise en scene style of which Plato and his scholars were masters—of which Epicurus was not a master! He, the old school-teacher of Samos, who sat concealed in his little garden at Athens, and wrote three hundred books, perhaps out of rage and ambitious envy of Plato, who knows! Greece took a hundred years to find out who the garden-god Epicurus really was. Did she ever find out?

      8. There is a point in every philosophy at which the conviction of the philosopher appears on the scene; or, to put it in the words of an ancient mystery:

      Adventavit asinus, Pulcher et fortissimus.

      9. You desire to LIVE according to Nature? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, living according to Nature, means actually the same as living according to life—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature according to the Stoa, and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to creation of the world, the will to the causa prima.

      10. The eagerness and subtlety, I should even say craftiness, with which the problem of the real and the apparent world is dealt with at present throughout Europe, furnishes food for

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1