Human, All-Too-Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Part 2 — Nietzsche — John Shaqi
Human, All-Too-Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Part 2
Nietzsche · en
THEATRICALITY AND HONESTY OF UNBELIEVERS.—There is no book that contains
in such abundance or expresses so faithfully all that man occasionally
finds salutary—ecstatic inward happiness, ready for sacrifice or death in
the belief in and contemplation of _his_ truth—as the book that tells of
Christ. From that book a clever man may learn all the means whereby a book
can be made into a world-book, a vade-mecum for all, and especially that
master-means of representing everything as discovered, nothing as future
and uncertain. All influential books try to leave the same impression, as
if the widest intellectual horizon were circumscribed here and as if about
the sun that shines here every constellation visible at present or in the
future must revolve.—Must not then all purely scientific books be poor in
influence on the same grounds as such books are rich in influence? Is not
the book fated to live humble and among humble folk, in order to be
crucified in the end and never resurrected? In relation to what the
religious inform us of their “knowledge” and their “holy spirit,” are not
all upright men of science “poor in spirit”? Can any religion demand more
self-denial and draw the selfish out of themselves more inexorably than
science?—This and similar things we may say, in any case with a certain
theatricality, when we have to defend ourselves against believers, for it
is impossible to conduct a defence without a certain amount of
theatricality. But between ourselves our language must be more honest, and
we employ a freedom that those believers are not even allowed, in their
own interests, to understand. Away, then, with the monastic cowl of
self-denial, with the appearance of humility! Much more and much better—so
rings our truth! If science were not linked with the pleasure of
knowledge, the utility of the thing known, what should we care for
science? If a little faith, love, and hope did not lead our souls to
knowledge, what would attract us to science? And if in science the ego
means nothing, still the inventive, happy ego, every upright and
industrious ego, means a great deal in the republic of the men of science.
The homage of those who pay homage, the joy of those whom we wish well or
honour, in some cases glory and a fair share of immortality, is the
personal reward for every suppression of personality: to say nothing here
of meaner views and rewards, although it is just on this account that the
majority have sworn and always continue to swear fidelity to the laws of
the republic and of science. If we had not remained in some degree
unscientific, what would science matter to us? Taking everything together
and speaking in plain language: “To a purely knowing being knowledge would
be indifferent.”—Not the quality but the quantity of faith and devoutness
distinguishes us from the pious, the believers. We are content with less.
But should one of them cry out to us: “Be content and show yourselves