Beyond Good And Evil

Listening to Wagner’s Mastersinger engendered a wonder for German music that has not been surpassed in centuries; in the music, it is “the joy of the artist in himself, which he refuses to conceal” (155) that overflows to the listener. The various nations of Europe and their citizens all have unique qualities and of course their own proper vices. On the other hand is the reality that there is simultaneously the emergence of a supra-nationalism, in which the European citizen (regardless of their nationality) is developing similar qualities everywhere; they are “very handy workmen who require a master, a commander” (159). In this situation, the free-spirited strongman will be able to see their power grow even greater than ever before. This situation in which the few who are strong will be able to grow and develop at the expense of the weak and listless masses is one that will eventually breed tyrants.

Uniquely, the German soul possesses hidden depths that nevertheless hold a mysterious chaos; one of the unique German qualities is the quality of “becoming” and it is a “development” that can be considered unique to Germany in itself (160). Nevertheless, the good old days—especially in regard to German musical talent and genius—are at an end, and in fact German music is now an isolated and purely national affair, unable to inspire the greater parts of Europe as a whole. It is not, and has not been for some time, the German word—spoken, preached, and read—that has taken its place at the top of the hierarchy. In fact, the greatest preacher Germany has ever seen, Martin Luther, is also the author of the greatest literary work of German as well, as “the Bible has hitherto been the best German book” (166).

It is in fact the Jews who are the strongest and toughest people, having within themselves the strength to persevere in a slowly declining Europe. It is the Jews and the Russians who will have the greatest part to play over the next century in regard to international politics since Europe is “really rather a res facta than nata” (169), having to be refashioned and molded rather than brought about naturally. The English, on the other hand, are certainly not philosophical but rather attack philosophy generally while France represents what is most refined and intellectual among the European sister states.

That being said, France is on the decline and has yet only three things to which she lays claim: the capacity for emotion proper to the artist; a superior moralistic culture characterized by plurality; and the ability to synthesize southern and northern sensibilities, especially when it comes to religion and temperament.

In every society that has elevated some over others there has been an instinctual knowledge of hierarchy, in which some are slaves, and some are masters. At first those societies were dominated by “barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power” (182), who would prey upon the weak and the listless and those with a proclivity for subservience. Those societies that came to be dominated by the strong were flickering lights and dimming fires, whose life-force had already been close to being extinguished.

Society deems it good conduct when violence is restrained and when injury is avoided; this occurs only in certain conditions, of course, when all persons are generally counted equal and of similar rank, strength, and honor. But this is not reality, for “life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak” (182), and life is purely about the will to power. Life is exploitation defined: There is no pure morality, and life is not beholden to it. Life is simply this will, this domination. Many struggle against this truth but it cannot be any different than it is; though most hope for a day in which exploitation is an act and concept of the past, this will never be.

The distinctions of various moral systems and values originates in the class of those in power, and the systems differ according to the nature of these rulers. When those in power are the noble and the high-born, this morality is nothing like what is commonly referred to as a morality of good and bad. Additionally, it was never at first particular deeds or words that could be good or moral or noble, but the persons in themselves who were noble and “meritorious. The persons themselves were the creators and judges of morality. This morality was truly beyond good and evil in that it was a morality whose origin lay in the person as subjective, and thus beyond reproach by any extrinsic force or personage.

The second type of morality, however, is the “slave-morality” where “sympathy, the kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence, humility, and friendliness” are considered virtues in the antithesis to the morality of the noble (185). It is essentially a morality obsessed with and defined by its usefulness. Here is found a desire for freedom and equality based in fear and the desire to be happy, whatever that may mean. The morality of the noble, by contrast, “counts intolerance itself among the virtues, under the name of ‘justice’” (191), which is in stark difference to the weak and plastic morality of the commonfolk. It is this second morality that breeds mediocrity and will conquer in the days ahead due to its widespread acceptance and appeal.

The noble know better, however, and understand the desire for hierarchy and instinct toward ranking and governance could never be snuffed from the human heart and habits. These habits and deep-seated desires and customs “cannot be effaced from a man’s soul” (194), and it is impossible that one should entirely escape from their past and their lineage. Even education to this end is nothing but a lie and a deceit that aims to disguise the true nature of an individual; education cannot change the nature or the lineage of a person. The noble person sees their own nobility and accepts it without question, seeking only to find themselves in the company of others who are equally noble and privileged as themselves.

Sympathy is the trait of the weak and the ignoble and love the greatest downfall of this conceit. This sympathy is a deceitful power, even to the point of proposing love as the solution to every problem. This is likely the tragedy of the man Jesus Christ, whose sympathy was profound and who went to his death under the hypnosis of love and who had even invented hell as the everlasting abode of torment for those who refused to love and love him. It is the tragedy of the saint to have pity for the filth of humanity.