- First off, there should not be a round bracket in section 800 of The Will to Power. Secondly, I forgot to say that I associate the barbarian that comes fromMessage 1 of 6 , Aug 15, 2008View SourceFirst off, there should not be a round bracket in section 800 of The
Will to Power.
Secondly, I forgot to say that I associate the barbarian that comes
from the *heights* (section 900) with the second caste (the positively
ugly), whereas I associate the one that comes from the *depths* with
the out-caste (the negatively ugly). Both appear as a danger to the
third caste (the negatively beautiful): the first overwhelms, the
second drags down (in the latter case, the danger is that one "drops
out" of one's caste).
Now I just want to say what direction our inquiry should now take.
This I shall do by means of another quote.
"The further development of art is as necessarily tied to the
antagonism between these two natural artistic powers [the Dionysian
and the Apollinian] as the further development of man is to that
between the sexes. Plenitude of power and moderation, the highest form
of self-affirmation in a cool, noble, severe [spröde, "unwieldy"]
beauty: the Apollinianism of the Hellenic will.
This antithesis of the Dionysian and the Apollinian within the Greek
soul is one of the great riddles to which I felt myself drawn when
considering the nature of the Greeks. Fundamentally I was concerned
with nothing except to guess why precisely Greek Apollinianism had to
grow out of a Dionysian subsoil; why the Dionysian Greek needed to
become Apollinian; that is, to break his will to the terrible
[Ungeheuren, "the monstrous"], multifarious, uncertain, frightful,
upon a will to measure, to simplicity, to submission to [Einordnung
in, "ordering into"] rule and concept."
[The Will to Power, section 1050.]
It is precisely this that we will now have to seek to understand. To
this end I think we ought to consult The Birth of Tragedy.
--- In email@example.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
> Though the work is by no means done, when I'd written the last real
> post (message 251) in my thread on "The Masculine and the Feminine"
> (message # 241-52), I felt as if I had accomplished something. Because
> those posts were written in quick succession, and it has been a couple
> of days since the last post, -- in combination with the fact that too
> long a monologuous thread would be completely unreadable --, I will
> make a new thread for further considerations, qualifications, and
> relativations on the matter.
> The most obvious contradiction to the ideas put forth in that thread
> may be The Will to Power 800:
> "The feeling of intoxication, in fact corresponding to an increase in
> strength; strongest in the mating season: new organs[!], new
> accomplishments, colors, forms; "becoming more beautiful" is a
> necessary consequence of *enhanced* strength [Kraft]. (Becoming more
> beautiful as the expression of a *victorious* will, of increased
> co-ordination, of a harmonizing of all the strong desires, of an
> infallibly perpendicular stress. Logical and geometrical
> simplification is a consequence of enhancement of strength: conversely
> the apprehension of such a simplification again enhances the feeling
> of strength-- High point of the development: the grand style.
> Ugliness signifies the decadence of a type, contradiction and lack of
> co-ordination among the inner desires--signifies a decline in
> organizing strength, in "will," to speak psychologically."
> This may seem to contradict section 852 (see message # 243), where it
> "It is a question of *strength* [*Kraft*] (of an individual or of a
> people), *whether* and *where* the judgment "beautiful" is applied.
> The feeling of plenitude, of *dammed-up strength* (which permits one
> to meet with courage and good-humor much that makes the weakling
> *shudder*)--the feeling of *power* applies the judgment "beautiful"
> even to things and conditions that the instinct of impotence could
> only find *hateful* and "ugly" [*hassenswert*, "hässlich"]. The nose
> for what we could still barely deal with if it confronted us in the
> flesh--as danger, problem, temptation--this determines even our
> aesthetic Yes. ("That is beautiful" is an *affirmation*.)"
> [The Will to Power, section 852.]
> The "instinct of impotence" does *itself* belong to the decadence of a
> type. What I think is that Nietzsche in the latter passage does not so
> much, or at least not *just*, mean the ugliness mentioned in the
> former passage. As there are two kinds of beauty, there are also two
> kinds of ugliness. Compare the following:
> "I point to something new: certainly for such a democratic type there
> exists the danger of the barbarian, but one has looked for it only in
> the depths. There exists also another type of barbarian, who comes
> from the heights: a species of conquering and ruling natures in search
> of material to mold. Prometheus was this kind of barbarian."
> [WTP section 900, entire.]
> Formerly, I had ordered beauty and ugliness into the following
> Positive beauty (the grand style -- the Greek gods, the "child")
> Positive ugliness (the Titans, the heroes, the "lion")
> Negative beauty (women, the "camel")
> Now it seems I need to extend this hierarchy.
> Positive beauty
> Positive ugliness
> Negative beauty
> Negative ugliness
> In the hierarchy found in section 57 of The Antichrist, these would
> correspond to:
> The first caste (the predominantly spiritual)
> The second caste (the predominantly muscular and temperamental)
> The third caste (the mediocre)
> The out-caste (the chandala)
> Although the "beauty" of the mediocre is only negative, being due to
> the fact that neither their spirituality nor their muscles and
> temperament are very pronounced, they are no genetic hodgepodge like
> the chandala. If the spiritual as well as the corporeal organs of
> attack and defense would atrophy in the chandala, as they tend to do
> in the mediocre, he would still not be beautiful. "Negative beauty" is
> therefore in some way still positive: for though the tendency not to
> exercise one's organs of attack and defense, nor the corresponding
> attitude, is also to a certain extent genetic, the mediocre still
> constitute a *type*; whereas the chandala are the drop-outs from *all*
> castes -- signify the decadence of *all* types that are promoted by
> the caste system (in the system envisaged in AC 57, three main types).
- In chapter 3 of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche raises the question: what was the radical need out of which that illustrious society of Olympian beingsMessage 2 of 6 , Aug 15, 2008View SourceIn chapter 3 of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche raises the question:
"what was the radical need out of which that illustrious society of
Olympian beings sprang?" And in answer to this, he rhetorically asks:
"How else could life have been borne by a race [Volk] so excitably
susceptive, so impetuously desirous, so uniquely capable of
*suffering* (ibid.). And in chapter 9, Nietzsche uses the phrases
"thoughtful primitive man" and "the thoughtful Aryan", which we are
fully justified to associate with said "race". The word here
translated as "thoughtful" is *beschaulich*, "contemplative,
introspective". The word "thoughtful" tends to obscure the notion of
"seeing" intrinsic to *beschaulich*. Having emphasised this notion,
let us now consider the following:
"as deeply as man looketh into life, so deeply also doth he look into
Courage, however, is the best slayer, courage which attacketh".
[Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of the Vision and the Enigma.]
Nietzsche concludes section 1050 (see the preceding message) of The
Will to Power as follows:
"... submission to rule and concept. The immoderate, disorderly,
Asiatic lies at his [the Greek's] roots [note that Kaufmann has
overseen the last comma! "Asiatic" is a neuter noun (actually an
adjective used as a noun) here, as are "immoderate" and "disorderly";
and the word translated as "disorderly", *wüst*, actually means
"waste" (adj.), "desert" (adj.), "desolate", "wild", "savage",
"fierce", "furious", "reckless"]: the bravery of the Greek consists in
his struggle with his Asiaticism; beauty is not given to him, as
little as is logic or the naturalness of customs -- it is conquered,
willed, won by struggle -- it is his *victory*."
If we translate *beschaulich* as "introspective", we can understand
that the Greek saw that *he himself* was something titanic...
"To smell out "beautiful souls," "golden means," and other perfections
in the Greeks, or to admire their calm in greatness, their ideal
disposition, their noble simplicity -- the psychologist in me
protected me against such "noble simplicity," a niaiserie allemande
[German folly] anyway. I saw their strongest instinct, the will to
power: I saw them tremble before the indomitable force of this drive
-- I saw how all their institutions grew out of preventive measures
taken to protect each other against their inner *explosives*. This
tremendous inward tension then discharged itself in terrible and
ruthless hostility to the outside world: the city-states tore each
other to pieces so that the citizens of each might find peace from
themselves. One needed to be strong: danger was nearit lurked
everywhere. The magnificent physical suppleness, the audacious realism
and immoralism which distinguished the Hellene constituted a need, not
a "nature." It only resulted, it was not there from the start."
[Twilight of the Idols, 'Ancients', 3.]
And with this we arrive again at The Greek State (discussed at length
from message # 44 onward). I have summarised paragraphs 10 and 11 of
that essay as follows.
>>The gist here is that, where there are multiple states (or cities:Greek *poleis*), states tend to wage war among one another from time
to time, but when they are not at war, they tend to turn their
energies inward, to conflicts between factions, for instance, or - and
this is what Nietzsche alludes to here - to contests between
individuals, like those competitions in which both Aeschylus and
Sophocles took part. It was their mutual jealousy, their urge to
excell, which forced Aeschylus and Sophocles to surpass themselves and
write those plays with which their names will forever be associated.<<
But what concerns us here is not the contests between individuals, but
the contests within the individual itself. As I wrote in yet another
>>In the case of the aristocratic State, it is the warrior class, theState's will to power incarnate, which turns against itself when it
cannot discharge itself outward. Likewise, in the vanquished, the
*enslaved* man, it is his will to power which turns against itself.<<
And likewise, in the individual nobleman, it is his will to power
which turns against itself when it cannot discharge itself outward.
His will to power then seeks power over his will to power! This is the
origin of *askesis*; but the free nobleman does not turn against
himself in the same way as the vanquished, the enslaved nobleman (the
enslaved man who still has *chaos* in him, to speak with Zarathustra),
who can never unleash his will to power and therefore never experience
it as good. The latter practices asceticism with the aim of denial;
the former with the aim of strengthening.
"I also want to make asceticism natural again: in place of the aim of
denial, the aim of strengthening; a gymnastics of the will".
[The Will to Power, section 915.]
It is this natural asceticism that constitutes the grand style,
methinks. It consists in a will to beauty/order. Beauty or order is
pleasing, but the *will* is terrible.
"We modern men are the heirs of the conscience-vivisection and
self-torture [Selbsttierqualerei: Tierqualerel really means cruelty to
animals or, literally, animal torture; hence Nietzsche's coinage
suggests that this kind of self-torture involves mortification of the
animal nature of man.] of millennia: this is what we have practiced
longest, it is our distinctive art perhaps, and in any case our
subtlety in which we have acquired a refined taste. Man has all too
long had an "evil eye" for his natural inclinations, so that they have
finally become inseparable from his "bad conscience." An attempt at
the reverse would *in itself* be possible -- but who is strong enough
for it? -- that is, to wed the bad conscience to all the *unnatural*
inclinations, all those aspirations to the beyond, to that which runs
counter to sense, instinct, nature, animal, in short all ideals
hitherto, which are one and all hostile to life and ideals that
slander the world. To whom should one turn today with *such* hopes and
demands? One would have precisely the *good* men against one; and, of
course, the comfortable, the reconciled, the vain, the sentimental,
the weary. What gives greater offense, what separates one more
fundamentally, than to reveal something of the severity and respect
with which one treats oneself?"
[Towards the Genealogy of Morals, 2, 24.]
- ... wrote: (snipped} ... This is not exactly right. It s not a will to beauty or order, but a will to strengthening. According to section 868 of The Will toMessage 3 of 6 , Aug 16, 2008View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...>
>This is not exactly right. It's not a will to beauty or order, but a
> It is this natural asceticism that constitutes the grand style,
> methinks. It consists in a will to beauty/order. Beauty or order is
> pleasing, but the *will* is terrible.
will to strengthening. According to section 868 of The Will to Power,
the will to simplification is a consequence of the will to
strengthening, and according to section 800, such simplification
*amounts* to becoming more beautiful:
"Becoming more beautiful is a necessary consequence of the enhancement
of strength. Becoming more beautiful as the expression of a
*victorious* will, of increased co-ordination, of a harmonizing of all
the strong desires, of an infallibly perpendicular stress. Logical and
geometrical simplification is a consequence of enhancement of strength".
So: the will to strengthening is an indirect will to beauty or order
(simplification); the aim is the former (strengthening), and not the
The above-quoted passage applies to both forms of beauty: negative as
well as positive beauty. Negative (feminine) beauty is the expression
of an increased co-ordination and harmony compared to the lack of
co-ordination and harmony found in the negatively ugly. If from that
attained (negative) beauty one seeks to become even stronger, the
result paradoxically is ugliness again: positive (masculine) ugliness,
due to the exercise of one's spiritual as well as physical organs of
attack and defense, and of the attitude that corresponds to them. And
if from this ugliness one aspires to even *greater* strength, the
successful result is the highest form of order and beauty: the grand
But what about the feminine "will to please"? If the will is terrible
in itself, is not a woman who wants to please, herself terrible?
The difference between man and woman is essentially, as we have seen,
a difference in passion. Man has great passion, woman has small
passion. And the will to power is a *pathos*. Passion is in itself
terrible, but small passion is only a little bit terrible. The
terrible must of course go beyond a certain threshold in order to have
the effect of terror. That threshold is different for everyone, but
among human beings, woman's small passion will rarely get beyond that
threshold. So woman can exercise her will to please -- which is itself
pleasingly small -- without arousing outrage.
> "We modern men are the heirs of the conscience-vivisection andThe last remark should not fail to remind us of WTP 842:
> self-torture [Selbsttierqualerei: Tierqualerel really means cruelty to
> animals or, literally, animal torture; hence Nietzsche's coinage
> suggests that this kind of self-torture involves mortification of the
> animal nature of man.] of millennia: this is what we have practiced
> longest, it is our distinctive art perhaps, and in any case our
> subtlety in which we have acquired a refined taste. Man has all too
> long had an "evil eye" for his natural inclinations, so that they have
> finally become inseparable from his "bad conscience." An attempt at
> the reverse would *in itself* be possible -- but who is strong enough
> for it? -- that is, to wed the bad conscience to all the *unnatural*
> inclinations, all those aspirations to the beyond, to that which runs
> counter to sense, instinct, nature, animal, in short all ideals
> hitherto, which are one and all hostile to life and ideals that
> slander the world. To whom should one turn today with *such* hopes and
> demands? One would have precisely the *good* men against one; and, of
> course, the comfortable, the reconciled, the vain, the sentimental,
> the weary. What gives greater offense, what separates one more
> fundamentally, than to reveal something of the severity and respect
> with which one treats oneself?"
> [Towards the Genealogy of Morals, 2, 24.]
"The greatness of an artist cannot be measured by the "beautiful
feelings he arouses: leave that idea to females. But according to the
degree to which he approaches the grand style, to which he is capable
of the grand style. This style has this in common with great passion,
that it disdains to please; that it forgets to persuade; that it
commands; that it *wills*... To become master of the chaos one is; to
compel one's chaos to become form: to become logical, simple,
unambiguous, mathematics, *law* --: that is the grand ambition here.
It repels; such men of force are no longer loved -- a desert spreads
around them, a silence, a fear as in the presence of some great
So: the great style makes things more beautiful and orderly (that is,
more *pleasing*); but this *forcing* things (in some cases oneself) to
become more beautiful and orderly, the *passion* with which one forces
them, arouses fear -- is terrible.
- The German verb translated hitherto as to please is *gefallen*, literally to fall into favour . Now we all know the expression to fall out of favour ; butMessage 4 of 6 , Aug 16, 2008View SourceThe German verb translated hitherto as "to please" is *gefallen*,
literally "to fall into favour". Now we all know the expression "to
fall out of favour"; but to fall *into* favour? I'm not quite sure if
that's a standing expression, even though Google gives me several
thousands of hits for it. Should it not rather be "to rise into
favour"? To rise into, and to fall out of -- these seem to complement
But in the light of earlier posts, it is evident why one should
*fall*, not rise, into favour. One then moves from positive ugliness
to negative beauty -- which is a downward movement. The notion of
"falling out of favour" betrays a twisted perspective: Lucifer, for
instance, did not fall, but *rise* out of God's favour... It betrays
one does not distinguish (or *pretends* not to distinguish) between
positive and negative ugliness -- as if positive ugliness arouses
*contempt* in one. This (that positive ugliness arouses contempt)
happens only to those who are themselves on the level of *positive*
beauty, like Zarathustra:
"A sublime one saw I today, a solemn one, a penitent of the spirit:
Oh, how my soul laughed at his ugliness!"
[TSZ, Of the Sublime Ones.]
It's a sign of Zarathustra's positive beauty that he does not scorn,
but *laughs* at positive ugliness. To move from negative beauty to
positive ugliness would bring one closer to Zarathustra and his favour:
"And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful
one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves
good because they have crippled paws!"
Such weaklings are even more laughable to Zarathustra than the
relatively strong: the positively ugly.
- *Pleasing by displeasing.* -- People who prefer to be noticed [be noticed = auffallen], and thereby displease [missfallen], desire the same thing as those whoMessage 5 of 6 , Aug 17, 2008View Source"*Pleasing by displeasing.* -- People who prefer to be noticed [be
noticed = auffallen], and thereby displease [missfallen], desire the
same thing as those who do not want to be noticed, and want to please
[gefallen], only to a much greater degree and indirectly, by means of
a step that seems to be distancing them from their goal. They want to
have influence and power, and to that end they display their
superiority, even if it is felt as disagreeable: for they know that
the man who has finally gained power pleases in almost everything he
does and says, that even when he displeases, he seems nevertheless to
be pleasing. -- Both the free spirit and the true believer want power,
too, in order to use it to please; if they are threatened because of
their doctrines with a dire fate, persecution, prison, or execution,
they rejoice at the thought that this will enable their doctrines to
be engraved and branded upon mankind; although it is delayed acting,
they accept it as a painful but potent means to attain power after all."
[Human, All Too Human, section 595, entire.]
Compare this to:
"It seems that all great things first have to bestride the earth in
monstrous and frightening caricatures [Fratzen, "antics, grimaces"] in
order to inscribe themselves in the hearts of humanity with eternal
I think Nietzsche is very ironic in the first quote, when he asserts
"that the man who has finally gained power pleases in almost
everything he does and says, that even when he displeases, he seems
nevertheless to be pleasing." Why does he *seem* to be pleasing?
Because those whom he displeases still act as if they were pleased:
they *pretend* to be pleased -- out of *fright*. The free spirit and
the true believer do not want power in *order* to use it to please;
rather, they want *power* -- so that people are *forced* to accept
them, in the good and in the bad (where they are pleasing and where
they are displeasing). -- Their rejoicing is in willing power, in
*enforcing* their power. They *inform* future generations: they press
their own form into them.