Beyond Good and Evil Friedrich Nietzsche (the little red hen read aloud .txt) 📖

are so extremely antipodal to my ears and habits of thought, that in my first impulse of rage on finding them, I wrote on the margin, “La niaiserie religieuse par excellence!”⁠—until in my later rage I even took a fancy to them, these sentences with their truth absolutely inverted! It is so nice and such a distinction to have one’s own antipodes! 49

That which is so astonishing in the religious life of the ancient Greeks is the irrestrainable stream of gratitude which it pours forth⁠—it is a very superior kind of man who takes such an attitude towards nature and life.⁠—Later on, when the populace got the upper hand in Greece, fear became rampant also in religion; and Christianity was preparing itself.

50

The passion for God: there are churlish, honest-hearted, and importunate kinds of it, like that of Luther⁠—the whole of Protestantism lacks the southern delicatezza. There is an Oriental exaltation of the mind in it, like that of an undeservedly favoured or elevated slave, as in the case of St. Augustine, for instance, who lacks in an offensive manner, all nobility in bearing and desires. There is a feminine tenderness and sensuality in it, which modestly and unconsciously longs for a unio mystica et physica, as in the case of Madame de Guyon. In many cases it appears, curiously enough, as the disguise of a girl’s or youth’s puberty; here and there even as the hysteria of an old maid, also as her last ambition. The Church has frequently canonized the woman in such a case.

51

The mightiest men have hitherto always bowed reverently before the saint, as the enigma of self-subjugation and utter voluntary privation⁠—why did they thus bow? They divined in him⁠—and as it were behind the questionableness of his frail and wretched appearance⁠—the superior force which wished to test itself by such a subjugation; the strength of will, in which they recognized their own strength and love of power, and knew how to honour it: they honoured something in themselves when they honoured the saint. In addition to this, the contemplation of the saint suggested to them a suspicion: such an enormity of self-negation and anti-naturalness will not have been coveted for nothing⁠—they have said, inquiringly. There is perhaps a reason for it, some very great danger, about which the ascetic might wish to be more accurately informed through his secret interlocutors and visitors? In a word, the mighty ones of the world learned to have a new fear before him, they divined a new power, a strange, still unconquered enemy:⁠—it was the “Will to Power” which obliged them to halt before the saint. They had to question him.

52

In the Jewish Old Testament, the book of divine justice, there are men, things, and sayings on such an immense scale, that Greek and Indian literature has nothing to compare with it. One stands with fear and reverence before those stupendous remains of what man was formerly, and one has sad thoughts about old Asia and its little out-pushed peninsula Europe, which would like, by all means, to figure before Asia as the “Progress of Mankind.” To be sure, he who is himself only a slender, tame house-animal, and knows only the wants of a house-animal (like our cultured people of today, including the Christians of “cultured” Christianity), need neither be amazed nor even sad amid those ruins⁠—the taste for the Old Testament is a touchstone with respect to “great” and “small”: perhaps he will find that the New Testament, the book of grace, still appeals more to his heart (there is much of the odour of the genuine, tender, stupid beadsman and petty soul in it). To have bound up this New Testament (a kind of rococo of taste in every respect) along with the Old Testament into one book, as the Bible, as “The Book in Itself,” is perhaps the greatest audacity and “sin against the Spirit” which literary Europe has upon its conscience.

53

Why Atheism nowadays? “The father” in God is thoroughly refuted; equally so “the judge,” “the rewarder.” Also his “free will”: he does not hear⁠—and even if he did, he would not know how to help. The worst is that he seems incapable of communicating himself clearly; is he uncertain?⁠—This is what I have made out (by questioning and listening at a variety of conversations) to be the cause of the decline of European theism; it appears to me that though the religious instinct is in vigorous growth⁠—it rejects the theistic satisfaction with profound distrust.

54

What does all modern philosophy mainly do? Since Descartes⁠—and indeed more in defiance of him than on the basis of his procedure⁠—an attentat has been made on the part of all philosophers on the old conception of the soul, under the guise of a criticism of the subject and predicate conception⁠—that is to say, an attentat on the fundamental presupposition of Christian doctrine. Modern philosophy, as epistemological skepticism, is secretly or openly anti-christian, although (for keener ears, be it said) by no means anti-religious. Formerly, in effect, one believed in “the soul” as one believed in grammar and the grammatical subject: one said, “I” is the condition, “think” is the predicate and is conditioned⁠—to think is an activity for which one must suppose a subject as cause. The attempt was then made, with marvelous tenacity and subtlety, to see if one could not get out of this net⁠—to see if the opposite was not perhaps true: “think” the condition, and “I” the conditioned; “I,” therefore, only a synthesis which has been made by thinking itself. Kant really wished to prove that, starting from the subject, the subject could not be proved⁠—nor the object either: the possibility of an apparent existence of the subject, and therefore of “the soul,” may not always have been strange to him⁠—the thought which once had an immense power on earth as