BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL
[This document, which has been prepared by Ian Johnston of Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, BC, has certain copyright restrictions. For information, please consult Copyright. Editorial comments and translations in square brackets and italics are by Ian Johnston; comments in normal brackets are from Nietzsche's text. Last revised in December 2013]
Suppose truth is a woman, what then? Would we not have good reason to suspect that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have had a poor understanding of women, that the dreadful seriousness and the awkward pushiness with which they have so far habitually approached truth were clumsy and inappropriate ways to win over a woman? It’s clear that she did not allow herself to be won over. And every form of dogmatism nowadays is standing there looking dismayed and disheartened—if it’s still standing at all! For there are mockers who assert that they’ve collapsed, that all dogmatisms are lying on the floor—even worse, that all dogmatisms are at death’s door. Speaking seriously, there are good reasons to hope that every dogmatism in philosophy—no matter how solemnly, conclusively, and decisively it has conducted itself—may have been merely a noble and rudimentary childish game, and the time is perhaps very close at hand when people will understand over and over again just what has sufficed to provide the foundation stones for such lofty and unconditional philosophical constructions of the sort dogmatists have erected up to now—any popular superstition from unimaginably long ago (like the superstition of the soul, which even today, in the form of the superstition about the subject and the ego, has still not stopped stirring up mischief), perhaps some game with words, a seduction by some grammatical construction, or a daring generalization from very narrow, very personal, very human, all-too-human facts. The philosophies of the dogmatists were, one hopes, only a promise lasting for thousands of years, as astrology was in even earlier times. In its service, people perhaps expended more work, money, astute thinking, and patience than for any genuine scientific knowledge up to that point. To it and to its “super-terrestrial” claims in Asia and Egypt we owe the grand style of architecture. It seems that in order for all great things to register their eternal demands on the human heart, they first have to wander over the earth as monstrous and frighteningly distorted faces. Dogmatic philosophy has been such a grimace—for example, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia and Platonism in Europe. We should not be ungrateful to them, even though we must also certainly concede that the worst, most protracted, and most dangerous of all errors up to now has been the error of a dogmatist, namely, Plato’s invention of the purely spiritual and of the good as such. But that now has been overcome, and, as Europe breathes a sigh of relief after this nightmare and at least can enjoy a more healthy sleep, those of us whose very task it is to stay awake are the inheritors of all the forces which the struggle against this error has fostered. To speak of the spirit and the good in this way, as Plato did, was, of course, a matter of standing truth on its head and even of denying the fundamental condition of all life, perspective. Indeed, one could, as a doctor, ask, “How did such a disease get to Plato, the most beautiful plant of antiquity? Did the wicked Socrates really corrupt him? Could Socrates have been a corruptor of youth, after all? Did he deserve his hemlock?” But the struggle against Plato, or, to put the matter in a more intelligible way and for “the people,” the fight against the thousands of years of pressure from the Christian church—since Christianity is Platonism for “the people”—created in Europe a splendid tension in the spirit, unlike anything existing on earth before. With such a tensely arched bow, we can from now on shoot for the most distant targets. Naturally, European man experiences this tension as a state of emergency. Already there have been two attempts in the grand style to ease the tension in the bow—the first time with Jesuitism, the second time with the democratic Enlightenment, through which, with the help of freedom of the press and reading newspapers, a state might, in fact, be attained in which the spirit itself is not so easily experienced as “in need”! (Germans invented gunpowder—all honour to them!—but they made up for that when they invented the printing press). But those of us who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even German enough, we good Europeans and free, very free spirits—we still have the need, the entire spiritual need, and the total tension of its bow! And perhaps we also have the arrow, the work to do, and—who knows?—the target . . .
Oberengadin, June 1885.