All passions have a time when they are merely disastrous, when they pull down with the severity of the stupidity of their victims – and a later, much later, where they marry with the mind to “spiritualize”. Formerly it was because of the stupidity in the passion, the passion of the war itself: they conspired for their destruction – all the old moral monsters are unanimous about it, “il faut les tuer passions.” [one must kill the passions].
The most famous formula that is what the New Testament, in that Sermon on the Mount, where, incidentally, things are not quite seen from a height. It is there, for example with practical application to the said sex “if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out”: fortunately no Christian acts in accordance with this provision.
The passions and desires destroy, merely to prevent their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of their stupidity, now seems itself merely as an acute form of stupidity. We do not admire more, which tear the teeth so they do not hurt anymore… going with some equity on the other hand admitted that on the ground, has grown from Christianity, the term “spiritualization of passion” could not be conceives by the dentists.
The first church was fighting, as you know, against the “intelligent” in favor of the “poor in spirit” as one might expect from it an intelligent war against passion? – The church fights passion with excision in every sense: its practice, its “cure” is the castratism. It never asks: “how spiritualized, beautified, deify a craving you?” – It has laid the emphasis at all times of discipline on extirpation (of sensuality, of pride, lust,avarice, of vengefulness). – Means to attack, but the passions at the root of the attack at the root of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life…
The same agent, intersection, extermination, is instinctively chosen in the struggle with a desire by those who are too weak-willed, too degenerate, to replace the one measure in it can, from those natures, the La Trappe have need of, spoken in parable (and without a parable -), any hostility final statement, a gap between itself and a passion. Radical means are indispensable only the degenerates, and the weakness of will, some talk, the inability not to react to a stimulus, is itself merely another form of degeneration.
The radical hostility, the deadly hostility against sensuality is a thoughtful symptom: it is therefore entitled to make conjectures about produce the total state of such excessive. – Those hostility, this hatred is only incidentally to its tip, even when such natures for radical cure, the cancellation of their “devil” no longer have enough strength. One of watching the whole story of the priest and philosopher, the artist added taken: the poisonous against the senses is not said of the impotent, nor by ascetics, but by the impossible ascetics, by those who would have been necessary, ascetics to be…
The spiritualization of sensuality is called love (Die Vergeistigung der Sinnlichkeit heisst Liebe): it is a great triumph over Christianity. Another man triumph is our spiritualization of hostility (Feindschaft). It is that we deeply understand the value that it has to have enemies: in short, that one does, and vice versa as they formerly did, and closes shut. The church was at all times, the destruction of their enemies: we, and we immoralists and antichrist, see our advantage is that the church is… In politics, the hostility now become more spiritual – much wiser, more thoughtful, more gentle. Almost every party understands their self-interest of conservation is that the other party does not come by force, as does that of the great policy.
Especially as a new creation, as the new Reich [kingdom], needful enemies than friends: in opposition until it feels necessary, in contrast, it is only necessary… no different we act against the “enemy within”: even as we have spiritualized hostility, also because we have understood its value. It is only fruitful to be rich at the cost of opposites, it only remains young, under the condition that the soul can not be enforced, not desire for peace… There is nothing we become stranger than those desirability of yore, by the “peace of soul,” the Christian desirability, nothing makes us envy less than the moral and the joys of fat cow good conscience. One has to great life dispensed with if one renounces war… In many cases, of course, the “peace of mind” is merely a misunderstanding – about another that not only knows how to nominate honest. Without further ado or prejudice of a few cases.
“Peace of mind”, for example, the gentle radiance of a rich animality into the moral (or religious) being. Or the beginning of the fatigue, the first shadow cast by the evening, any evening. Or a sign that the air is humid, that south winds are approaching. Or contradict the gratitude for a happy digestive knowledge (“human love” is sometimes called). Or the silence of the genes are ends, the taste of all things new and waiting… Or the state, following a strong satisfaction of our ruling passion, the feeling of a rare good satiety. Or infirmity of our will, our cravings, our vices. Or laziness, persuaded by vanity to morally frills (aufzuputzen). Or the occurrence of a certainty, even dreadful certainty, after a long tension and torment by the uncertainty. Or the expression of maturity and mastery in the middle of doing (Thun), creativity, knitting, wool, calm breathing, attained the “freedom of the will”… Twilight of the Idols: who knows? perhaps even a kind of “peace of the soul”… ( Götzen-Dämmerung: wer weiss? vielleicht auch nur eine Art „Frieden der Seele“…)
– I bring a principle in the formula. Every naturalism in morality, that is all healthy morality, is dominated by an instinct of life, – any one commandment of life is “not set” with a particular canon of “shall” and met some resistance and hostility in the way of life is made so that one side. Their moral was unnatural, that is, almost every morality which previously taught, preached and venerated, is aimed precisely reversed against the instincts of life, – it is a secret soon, soon loud and bold this condemnation (Verurtheilungdieser) instincts. By saying, “God sees the heart,” God says No to the lowest and highest desires of life and God takes enemy (Feind) of life… He is Holy, in whom God is well pleased, the ideal castrato… Life is too late, where the “kingdom of God” begins…
Suppose that one has understood the wicked such a revolt against life as it is in Christian morality become almost sacrosanct, so you have it, fortunately, also somewhat Andres understood: the useless, apparent, absurd, mendacious such a rebellion. A condemnation of life on the part of the last survivors is only a symptom of a certain kind of life: the question of whether law, whether with injustice, is not even raised it. You’d have a position outside of life have, and know the other, it as good as one, as many as all who have lived to touch the problem of the value of life in at all: reasons enough to realize that the problem for us an unapproachable problem (unzugängliches Problem).
When we speak of values, we speak under the inspiration, under the perspective of life: life itself forces us to value to be set, life itself posit values by us, if we estimate values … It follows that even those contradictory nature of morality, which God counter-concept and condemnation of life holds only one value-judgment of life – what life? What kind of life? – But I gave the answer: of declining, the weak, the tired, the condemned life. Morality, as has been previously understood – even as it was last formulated by Schopenhauer as “negation of the will to live” – is the décadence instinct itself, which makes itself out of an imperative: “go to bottom” it says – it is the judgment convicts…( sie ist das Urtheil Verurtheilter…)
Let us finally consider what it is naivety at all to say “so and so should the man be!” Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the opulence of a lavish play and change of form: and any poor loafer of a moralist comments: “No! Man ought to be different”? He even knows how it should be, these eaters and hypocrites, he paints himself against the wall and says, “Ecce homo!”… [Translator. ‘Behold the man’. From John 19:5, New Testament, title from Nietzsche’s autobiography that he was soon to write in the next month, October 1888]. But even when the moralist addresses himself only to the individual and says to him: “so and so should you be!” He listens not to make fools of themselves.
The individual is a piece of fate – is from the front and rear, one law more, one necessity more for everything that is and will be. Say to him, “you change” means demand that everything changes, even backwards yet… And really, it was consistently moralists, they wanted people differently, namely, virtuous, they wanted him in their own image, namely as a bigot: this they denied the world! No small madness! No modest kind of immodesty!… The moral, insofar as it condemns, in itself, not of respects, considerations, plans of life, is a specific error, which you should have no sympathy, one degenerates, idiosyncrasy, which has caused untold amount of damage!… We others, we have immoralists, conversely made our hearts for all kind of understand, approve of understand. Not easily denied us, we seek our honor to be answered in the affirmative.
More and more we are risen, the eye for that economy (Ökonomie), which all need the still and take advantage of white, which rejects the sacred madness of the priest, the diseased reason in the priesthood for those economics in the law of life, even from the obnoxious species of the muckers, the priest, takes advantage of their virtuous,-what advantage? – But we ourselves, we are here immoralists the answer… (Aber wir selbst, wir Immoralisten sind hier die Antwort…)