Nietzsche Contra Wagner Quotes

ridendo dicere severum. (tr. Through what is laughable say what is somber.)

Amor fati: this is the very core of my being—And as to my prolonged illness, do I not owe much more to it than I owe to my health? To it I owe a higher kind of health, a sort of health which grows stronger under everything that does not actually kill it!—To it, I owe even my philosophy.… Only great suffering is the ultimate emancipator of spirit, for it teaches one that vast suspiciousness which makes an X out of every U, a genuine and proper X, i.e., the antepenultimate letter. Only great suffering; that great suffering, under which we seem to be over a fire of greenwood, the suffering that takes its time—forces us philosophers to descend into our nethermost depths, and to let go of all trustfulness, all good-nature, all whittling-down, all mildness, all mediocrity,—on which things we had formerly staked our humanity.

A incomparável arte de ler bem, essa condição necessária para a tradição da cultura

Fazem todos como as mulheres, esses grandes entusiastas, essas bestas curiosas, tomam os «bons sentimentos» por argumentos, o «peito inchado» pelo fole da forja da divindade, a convicção pelo critério da verdade

Again I say, the Christians of to-day are too modest for me .… If Wagner were a Christian, then Liszt was perhaps a Father of the Church! — The need of salvation, the quintessence of all Christian needs, has nothing in common with such clowns; it is the most straightforward expression of decadence, it is the most convincing and most painful affirmation of decadence, in sublime symbols and practices. The Christian wishes to be rid of himself. Le moi est toujours haissable (The Self is always hateful). Noble morality, master-morality, on the other hand, is rooted in a triumphant saying of yea to one's self, — it is the self-affirmation and self-glorification of life; it also requires sublime symbols and practices; but only “because its heart is too full.” The whole of beautiful art and of great art belongs here; their common essence is gratitude. But we must allow it a certain instinctive repugnance to décadents, and a scorn and horror of the latter's symbolism: such things almost prove it. The noble Romans considered Christianity as a foeda superstitio: let me call to your minds the feelings which the last German of noble taste — Goethe — had in regard to the cross.

I shall now give my notion of what is modern. According to the measure of energy of every age, there is also a standard that determines which virtues shall be allowed and which forbidden. The age either has the virtues of ascending life, in which case it resists the virtues of degeneration with all its deepest instincts. Or it is in itself an age of degeneration, in which case it requires the virtues of declining life, — in which case it hates everything that justifies itself, solely as being the outcome of a plenitude, or a superabundance of strength. Aesthetic is inextricably bound up with these biological principles: there is decadent aesthetic, and classical aesthetic, — “beauty in itself” is just as much a chimera as any other kind of idealism. — Within the narrow sphere of the so-called moral values, no greater antithesis could be found than that of master-morality and the morality of Christian valuations: the latter having grown out of a thoroughly morbid soil. (—The gospels present us with the same physiological types, as do the novels of Dostoiewsky), the master-morality (“Roman,” “pagan,” “classical,” “Renaissance”), on the other hand, being the symbolic speech of well-constitutedness, of ascending life, and of the Will to Power as a vital principle. Master-morality affirms just as instinctively as Christian morality denies (“God,” “Beyond,” “self-denial,” — all of them negations). The first reflects its plenitude upon things, — it transfigures, it embellishes, it rationalises the world, — the latter impoverishes, bleaches, mars the value of things; it suppresses the world. “World” is a Christian term of abuse.

Ich stelle, um nicht aus meiner Art zu fallen, die jasagend ist und mit Widerspruch und Kritik nur mittelbar, nur unfreiwillig zu thun hat, sofort die drei Aufgaben hin, derentwegen man Erzieher braucht. Man hat sehen zu lernen, man hat denken zu lernen, man hat sprechen und schreiben zu lernen: das Ziel in allen Dreien ist eine vornehme Cultur. – Sehen lernen – dem Auge die Ruhe, die Geduld, das An-sich-herankommen-lassen angewöhnen; das Urtheil hinausschieben, den Einzelfall von allen Seiten umgehn und umfassen lernen. Das ist die erste Vorschulung zur Geistigkeit: auf einen Reiz nicht sofort reagiren, sondern die hemmenden, die abschließenden Instinkte in die Hand bekommen. Sehen lernen, so wie ich es verstehe, ist beinahe Das, was die unphilosophische Sprechweise den starken Willen nennt: das Wesentliche daran ist gerade, nicht »wollen«, die Entscheidung aussetzen können. Alle Ungeistigkeit, alle Gemeinheit beruht auf dem Unvermögen, einem Reize Widerstand zu leisten: – man muß reagiren, man folgt jedem Impulse. In vielen Fällen ist ein solches Müssen bereits Krankhaftigkeit, Niedergang, Symptom der Erschöpfung, – fast Alles, was die unphilosophische Roheit mit dem Namen »Laster« bezeichnet, ist bloß jenes physiologische Unvermögen, nicht zu reagiren. – Eine Nutzanwendung vom Sehen-gelernt-haben: man wird als Lernender überhaupt langsam, mißtrauisch, widerstrebend geworden sein. Man wird Fremdes, Neues jeder Art zunächst mit feindseliger Ruhe herankommen lassen, – man wird seine Hand davor zurückziehn. Das Offenstehn mit allen Thüren, das unterthänige Auf-dem-Bauch-Liegen vor jeder kleinen Thatsache, das allzeit sprungbereite Sich-Hinein-Setzen, Sich-Hinein- Stürzen in Andere und Anderes, kurz die berühmte moderne »Objektivität« ist schlechter Geschmack, ist unvornehm par excellence. –