Beyond Good And Evil

Contrary to popular belief, the various systems of morality have not in fact been concerned with morality as such. Morality as it is all too often construed is much more about the preservation of the current trends in ethics rather than the science of attempting what is truly good and moral in the first place. It is a kind of faith or belief in the morality to which the majority of contemporary society adheres. The assertions of various moral philosophers who attempt to lay down various rules or systems seem to be attempts to impose whatever morality fits that particular individual; no matter the system, regardless of the ultimate goal, the moral system is “a sign-language of the emotions” (86).

For centuries past, the thinkers on the European continent went about their philosophy with the result already in mind, the end goal already set, and the system arranged to arrive at that result. On top of this general direction in which the outcomes are set and molded, the European mindset is arranged such that they are addicted to work, so the religious instinct to establish sabbath days—where work is stopped—is an ingenious plan to force them into desiring the work of the week.

This instinct is then set against what we call reason, pitting the emotions against the intellect, which is the true foundation of the “old theological problem” of faith and knowledge. The one who acts according to their inner feelings is following instinct, which is what religion calls faith; this one is set against the one who attempts to act according to pure reason, or according to the knowledge of which they are sure. Ever since the time of Plato’s impact the theologians and philosophers have followed their instincts, which they term faith, which is in fact “the herd” (91). This instinct, unfortunately, has forced the religious into turning their charitable works into manipulation, “they take control of the needy as a property” (94) and bring those to whom they bring relief into their debt. The whole Judeo-Christian system has performed a “miracle of the inversion of valuations” (94) in this transformation of human relations, turning the world into something wicked and violent.

The free spirits, however, will be able to stand against this herd mentality and will have the strength of will to stand on their own, even when they are deemed to be dangerous to themselves and to society. “Morality in Europe at present is herding-animal morality” (103), and this is what the free spirit and the strong-willed must work against, imposing new moralities and new systems that will fit to the truth of reality. This is what is necessary, but “a new type of philosopher and commander will some time or other be needed” (105) to complete this project.

Philosophers and their philosophy are in desperate need of asserting their own significance and their own autonomy. Science and theology have had their day, and it is frustrating that even science has put itself in the place of philosophy after finally conquering theology, but this cannot be allowed to continue; it cannot continue to “play the ‘master’” (108) if society is to continue in its march toward progress. However, it is also the case that a mere catalog of knowledge and thought systems cannot be allowed to masquerade as true philosophy, for too often this philosophy is no more than the collection and regurgitation of knowledge and facts, and this is the very thing that cannot take charge. In this light, philosophy and the real philosophers could never rule, and “one might doubt whether this fruit could still come to maturity” (108) but rather languish in immaturity and in a state or perpetual waiting.

The worst philosopher and scholar is the one who is simply content with their own mediocrity, though this is what is so common in the world of today. Far too many hold to a worldview of skepticism, but even this is not enough and too often simply digresses into a nervous debility that disallows any progress or real action to take place. Throughout modern Europe this is precisely what has occurred; it is skeptical of all things through and through. The only path through this wilderness is to acquire a singular and iron will that will break the mold that has been set, and the “time for petty politics is past; the next century will bring the struggle for the dominion of the world” (116). This will require the greatest of wills.

The general public is too often fooled into collapsing the distinctions between the various kinds of public intellectuals, for the scientists are not the philosophers, who in turn are not the philosophical workers. It is the job of the philosophical workers to “fix and formalize some great existing body of valuations” (123), which is a noble task indeed; however, it is the task of the true philosophers to be “commanders and law-givers” (123), and it is they who will put the force to the wheel that will turn history. It is the knowledge and activity of the philosophers alone who will create the world, their will to power, but it will come at a steep cost. The philosopher will be a martyr, for it is he who “has ever found himself, and has been obliged to find himself, in contradiction to the day in which he lives; his enemy has always been the ideal of his day” (123-24). This also cannot be given, and it cannot be taught; it simply must be learned and known by experience. It is a singular gift and calling and the vocation of the artist is the only thing that comes close to the same ideals and mission.