| >> |
05/22/09(Fri)12:45 No.31482952
File :1243010749.jpg-(106 KB, 980x1436, Kreia_art.jpg)
 Let
us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: "Man ought to be
such and such!" Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the
abundance of a lavish play and change of forms—and some wretched loafer
of a moralist comments: "No! Man ought to be different" ... He even
knows what man should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints
himself on the wall and comments, "Ecce homo!" ... But even when the
moralist addresses himself only to the single human being and says to
him, "You ought to be such and such!" he does not cease to make himself
ridiculous. The single human being is a piece of fatum from the front
and from the rear, one law more, one necessity more for all that is yet
to come and to be. To say to him, "Change yourself!" is to demand that
everything be changed, even retroactively ... And indeed there have
been consistent moralists who wanted man to be different, that is,
virtuous—they wanted him remade in their own image, as a prig: to that
end, they negated the world! No small madness! No modest kind of
immodesty! ... Morality, insofar as it condemns for its own sake, and
not out of regard for the concerns, considerations, and contrivances of
life, is a specific error with which one ought to have no pity—an
idiosyncrasy of degenerates which has caused immeasurable harm!— We
others, we immoralists, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for
every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving. We do not
easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers. More and
more, our eyes have opened to that economy which needs and knows how to
utilize everything that the holy witlessness of the priest, the
diseased reason in the priest, rejects—that economy in the law of life
which finds an advantage even in the disgusting species of the prigs,
the priests, the virtuous. What advantage?— But we ourselves, we
immoralists, are the answer |
