The strength of a character is shown by the ability to delay and postpone reaction: a certain ἀδιαφορία is just as proper to it, as involuntariness in recoiling, suddenness and lack of restraint in "action," are proper to weakness. The will is weak: and the recipe for preventing foolish acts would be: to have a strong will and to do nothing--contradiction. A sort of self-destruction, the instinct of self-preservation is compromised.... _The weak man injures himself_.... That is the decadent _type_. As a matter of fact, we meet with a vast amount of thought concerning the means wherewith _impassibility_ may be induced. To this extent, the instincts are on the right scent; for to do nothing is more useful than to do something.... All the practices of private orders, of solitary philosophers, and of fakirs, are suggested by a correct consideration of the fact, that a certain kind of man is most _useful to himself_ when he hinders his own action as much as possible. _Relieving measures_: absolute obedience, mechanical activity, total isolation from men and things that might exact immediate decisions and actions. 46. _Weakness of Will_: this is a fable that can lead astray. For there is no will, consequently neither a strong nor a weak one. The multiplicity and disintegration of the instincts, the want of system in their relationship, constitute what is known as a "weak will"; their co-ordination, under the government of one individual among them, results in a "strong will"--in the first case vacillation and a lack of equilibrium is noticeable: in the second, precision and definite direction. 47. That which is inherited is not illness, but a _predisposition to illness_: a lack of the powers of resistance against injurious external influences, etc. etc, broken powers of resistance; expressed morally: resignation and humility in the presence of the enemy. I have often wondered whether it would not be possible to class all the highest values of the philosophies, moralities, and religions which have been devised hitherto, with the values of the feeble, the _insane_ and the _neurasthenic_ in a milder form, they present the same evils. The value of all morbid conditions consists in the fact that they magnify certain normal phenomena which are difficult to discern in normal conditions.... _Health_ and _illness_ are not essentially different, as the ancient doctors believed and as a few practitioners still believe to-day. They cannot be imagined as two distinct principles or entities which fight for the living organism and make it their battlefield. That is nonsense and mere idle gossip, which no longer holds water. As a matter of fact, there is only a difference of degree between these two living conditions: exaggeration, want of proportion, want of harmony among the normal phenomena, constitute the morbid state (Claude Bernard).