What is Nietzsche doing wrong in Socrates?

Online library

Friedrich Nietzsche

Science and wisdom in battle

[332] Science (NB. before You Habit and instinct) arises

  • 1. when the gods are not well thought out. Great advantage of recognizing something as solid;

  • 2. Egoism drives the individual to do certain activities, e.g. B. Shipping, seeking its utility through science;

  • 3. something for noble people who have leisure - curiosity;

  • 4. In the wild back and forth of the opinions of the people, the individual wants a firmer foundation.

How does this drive to science differ from the drive to learn and accept anything at all? Only through the lesser degree of egoism or the further tension of it. once getting lost in things. Secondly a selfishness extended over the individual.

Wisdom shows

  • 1. in illogical generalization and fly to the final destination,

  • 2. in the relation of these results to life,

  • 3. in the unconditional importance which one attaches to one's soul. One thing is necessary.

Socratism is

once Wisdom in taking the soul seriously,

Secondly Science as fear and hatred of illogical generalization,

third something peculiar through the requirement of conscious and logically correct action. This creates harm to science, to ethical life.

Socrates, if only to admit it, is so close to me that I almost always fight a fight with him.

  • [333] 1. How is the world colored in these older Greeks?

  • 2. How do they relate to non-philosophers?

  • 3. Much depends on their persons: to guess them is the point of my contemplation of their teachings.

  • 4. Science and wisdom in battle with them.

  • 5. Ironic novella: everything is wrong. How man clings to a beam.

There's a way of telling this story too ironic and full of sadness. In any case, I want to avoid the serious, even tone.

Socrates throws the Whole around in a moment when the truth is still at most had approached; that is special ironic.

To paint everything on the background of the myth. Its boundless uncertainty and waves. One longs for certainty.

Only where the ray of myth falls does the life of the Greeks shine; otherwise it is gloomy. Now the philosophers deprive themselves of myth; but how do they stand it in this gloom? -

The individual which on yourself wants to stand - that's what it takes last findings, Philosophy. The other people need slowly growing science.

Independence is only apparent: in the end, everyone ties in with their predecessor. Phantasm to phantasm. It's weird to take everything so seriously. All of the older philosophy as more curious mazecourse of reason. It is a dream and fairytale key to be tuned.

The development of the Greek goes side by side music and Philosophy. Comparison of the two insofar as both statements make about the Hellenic being. Of course, the music is known to us only from its precipitate in the lyric.

Empedocles - Tragedy Sacred Monody

Heraclitus - Archilochus Xenophanes


Democritus - Anacreon

Pythagoras - Pindar (Compare all of

Anaxagoras - Simonides person is crooked and

stupid.) [334]

It depends so much on the development of Greek culture that our whole Western world received its impetus from this: fate wanted that the younger and degenerate Greek culture showed the greatest historical strength. Older Hellenism was always wrongly judged about this. One must know the younger exactly in order to distinguish it from the older. There are still many possibilities that have not yet been discovered: because the Greeks have not discovered them. Others have the Greeks discovered and again later covered.

These philosophers proved what dangers Greek culture entailed.

The myth as a lazy bed of thought

on the other hand cold abstraction and strict science. Democritus.

The soft comfort of life

on the other hand frugality, strict ascetic conception in Pythagoras, Empedocles, Anaximander.

Cruelty in battle and strife

on the other hand Empedocles with his reform of the sacrifice.

Lies and deceit

on the other hand, enthusiasm for the true with every consequence.

Suppleness, exaggerated sociability

on the other hand Heraclitus' pride and loneliness.

These philosophers show the vitality of that culture which produces its own correctives.

How does this time die? Unnatural. Where are the seeds of ruin?

The escape of the better from the world was a great misfortune. From Socrates on: the individual suddenly took himself too seriously.

The pest was added for Athens.

Then you went to the Persian Wars. The danger was too great and the victory too extraordinary. The death of great musical poetry and philosophy.

The older Greek philosophy is the philosophy of all statesmen. How miserable it is with our statesmen! Incidentally, this is what distinguishes the pre-Socratics and the post-Socratics the most.

With them one does not have "the nasty pretension of happiness" as from Socrates. It's not all about the state of your soul; because about the one does not think without danger. Later that became gnôthi sauton of Apollo misunderstood.

Also chatted and scolded they didn't like that, nor did they write. Weakened Greece, romanized, coarsened, become decorative, then accepted as a decorative culture by the weakened Christianity as an ally, spread with violence among uncivilized peoples - that is the history of Western culture. The trick has been achieved and the Greek and the Pfäffish have been brought together.

I want to add up Schopenhauer, Wagner and older Greek culture: there is a glimpse of a wonderful culture.

Comparison the older philosophy with the post-Socratic one.

  • 1. The older one is related to art, her world puzzle solution has repeatedly been inspired by art;

  • 2. It is not the negation of the other life, but has grown out of it as a rare blossom; she utters its secrets. (Theory - practice);

  • 3. It is not so individual-eudaemonological without the nasty pretension to happiness;

  • 4. These older philosophers themselves have higher wisdom in their lives and not cold-wise virtue. Their view of life is richer and more complicated, which the Socratics simplify and banalize.

The three-part history of the dithyramb:

  • 1. the Arionic - from this the older tragedy;

  • 2. the agonal state dithyramb - parallel to the tame tragedy;

  • 3. the mimetic, ingeniously desolate.

[336] With the Greeks, an older form is often the higher one, for example in the case of the dithyramb and the tragedy. The danger of the Greeks lay in virtuosity of all kinds; with Socrates the virtuosos of life begin, Socrates, the newer dithyramb, the newer tragedy, the invention of the rhetorician! The rhetorician is a Greek invention! the later time. You invented the "form in itself" (and the philosopher too).

How is Plato's struggle against rhetoric to be understood? He envies their influence.

Ancient Greece revealed its powers through the line of philosophers. With Socrates this revelation breaks off: he tries to generate himself and to reject all tradition.

My general task: to show how life, philosophy and art can have a deeper kinship without the philosophy being shallow and the life of the philosopher lying.

It is wonderful that the ancient philosophers so free could live without being fooled and To become a virtuoso. The freedom of the individual was immeasurable.

The false contrast between vita practica and contemplativa is Asian. The Greeks understood better.

These older philosophers can be represented as those who consider Greek lust and custom as spell and Cabinets feel: so self-liberator (Heraclitus fight against Homer and Hesiod, Pythagoras against secularization, all against myth, especially Democritus). They have a loophole in their nature, compared to the Greek artist and probably also a statesman.

I take them like that Forerunner of a Reformation of the Greeks: but not of Socrates. Rather, their Reformation did not come, with Pythagoras it remained sect-like. One group of apparitions all carry this spirit of Reformation - the development the Tragedy. The unsuccessful reformer is Empedocles; when he failed, there was only Socrates left. So the hostility of Aristotle to Empedocles is very understandable.

Empedocles - Free State - change of life - popular reform - attempt with the help of the great Hellenic festivals. [337]

Tragedy was also a means. Pindar?

They have not found their philosopher and reformer, compare Plato: he is distracted by Socrates. Attempt at a characteristic of Plato without Socrates. Tragedy - deep conception of love - pure nature - no fanatical turning away - obviously the Greeks were about to be of an even higher type to find man as the former were; then the scissors cut between them. It stays at the tragic age of the Greeks.

  • 1. Image of the Hellenes with regard to their dangers and corruptions.

  • 2. Opposite image of the tragic currents against it. New interpretation of the myth.

  • 3. The approaches to reformers. Try to win the worldview.

  • 4. The decision - Socrates. The distracted Plato.

The passion in Mimnermus, the hatred of that Age. The deep melancholy in Pindar: only when a ray comes from above does human life shine.

The world of Suffering from what is to be understood is the tragic in tragedy.

Thales - the unmythical.

Anaximander - perishing and arising in nature morally as guilt and punishment.

Heraclitus - lawfulness and justice in the world.

Parmenides - the other world behind this one; this as a problem.

Anaxagoras - world builder.

Empedocles - blind love and blind hate; the deeply unreasonable in the most rational of the world.

Democritus - the world is completely heaped up without reason and drive. All gods and myths useless.

Socrates - there is nothing left for me but myself; Fear for oneself becomes the soul of philosophy.

Plato's attempt to think everything through and to be the Savior.

The people are to be portrayed: just as I portrayed Heraclitus. To weave the historical into it.

All over the world the Graduality, with the Greeks, things go fast forward, so also terribly fast downward. When the Hellenic genius had exhausted his highest types, the Greek sank to the swiftest. An interruption only had to occur once and the great form of life no longer had to be filled: it was over immediately; just like the tragedy. A single, powerful crosshead like Socrates - the crack was incurable. In him the self-destruction of the Greeks takes place. I think it makes him the son of a sculptor. Once these fine arts were to speak, they would appear superficial to us; in Socrates, the sculptor's son, the superficiality emerged.

People are funnier became during the Middle Ages: calculating according to two measures, the subtlety of the conscience, the interpretation of the scriptures were the means. This kind Sharpening the mind due to the pressure of a hierarchy and theology, antiquity was absent. Rather, the Greeks, conversely, under the great freedom of thought, were multi-faithful and shallow, one began at will and stopped at will to believe something. But they lack the desire for twisted acumen and thus the most popular kind of joke from modern times. The Greeks were few funny; that is why there has been such a stir at the irony of Socrates. I often find Plato a bit awkward in this.

The Greeks were well on their way with Empedocles and Democritus, human existence, their irrationality, their suffering to assess correctly; they never got to that thanks to Socrates. All Socratics who have horrible abstractions, "the good, the just," in their heads, lack an unprejudiced view of people. Read Schopenhauer and ask yourself why the ancients lacked such a deep and open view - they did would have to? I don't see that. On the contrary. Through Socrates you lose your impartiality. Their myths and tragedies are much wiser than the ethics of Plato and Aristotle; and your stoic and epicurean people are poor against their older poets and statesmen.

Socrates' effect:

  • [339] 1. He destroyed the impartiality of ethical judgment;

  • 2. destroyed science;

  • 3. had no sense of art;

  • 4. Tore the individual out of the historical association;

  • 5. Promotes dialectical talk and loquacity.

I don't believe in them anymore »Natural development«Of the Greeks: they were far too gifted to be in that gradual manner gradually to be as stone and stupidity are. The Persian Wars are the national misfortune: the success was too great, all bad instincts broke out, the tyrannical desire to rule all of Hellas transformed individual men and individual cities. With the rule of Athens (in the spiritual realm) a multitude of forces have been crushed; just think how unproductive Athens was for philosophy for a long time. Pindar would not have been possible as an Athenian: Simonides shows it. And neither would Empedocles, nor Heraclitus. All great musicians almost come from outside. The Athenian tragedy is not the highest form one could think of. The heroes of them lack the Pindarsche too much. In general: how horrible it was that the fight was between Sparta and Athens had to break out - that cannot be considered deep enough.

The spiritual rule of Athens prevented that Reformation. One has to think about where this rule was not yet there: it was not necessary, it only became so as a result of the Persian Wars, that is, only after it showed physical political power. Miletus was z. B. much more talented, Agrigento too.

The tyrant who can do what he feels like, i. H. the Greek, who is not kept in check by any violence, is a completely immoderate being, "he overturns the customs of the fatherland, violates women and kills people at will." The tyrannical free spirit, of which the Greeks are also afraid, is just as rampant. Royal hatred - a sign of democratic sentiment. I believe: the Reformation would have been possible if a tyrant had been an Empedocles. With his demand of the [340] philosopher on the throne, Plato spoke of a former possible Thoughts out: he found the idea after the time to realize it was over. - Periander?

Without the tyrant Pisistratus, the Athenians would have had no tragedy: Solon was against it, but the desire for it was once awakened. What did Pisistratus want with these great emotions of sadness?

Solon's aversion to tragedy: think of the restrictions on funeral festivities in the event of death, the prohibition of Threnoi. In the Milesian women »manikon penthos" mentioned.

According to the anecdote, this is it Adjustment, which Solon displeases: the inartistic nature of the Athenian shows itself. Kleisthenes, Periander and Pisistratus are the carriers of tragedy as a popular pleasure, the pleasure in it manikon penthos. Solon wants moderation.

The centralizing tendencies brought about by the Persian Wars: Sparta and Athens seized them. On the other hand there was nothing of this in 776 to 560: the culture of the polis flourished; I mean, without the Persian Wars, one would have the idea of ​​centralization through one Reformation of the Spirit get - Pythagoras?

The unity of the festivals and the cult was what mattered at that time: this is where the reform would have started. The Thought of a Panhellenic tragedy - an infinitely richer force would have been developed. Why didn't it happen? After Corinth, Sicyon and Athens developed this art.

The greatest loss that can hit mankind is the failure of the highest types of life. Something like that is back then happen. A sharp parallel between this ideal and the Christian one.(To use Schopenhauer's remark: 'Excellent and noble people soon become aware of that education of fate and adapt themselves artistically and gratefully to it Petrarca: ›altro diletto, che 'mparar, non provo.‹ It can even come to the point that they only seem to pursue their desires and strivings as it were, but actually only expect instruction in earnestness; [341] which then gives them a contemplative, ingenious, sublime touch. '(Parerga, I 394) Compare them with that Socratics and their chase for happiness!)

It is a beautiful truth that one who has become goals of improvement or recognition has become all things for the best. But only true to a limited extent: a person who wants to know is forced to the most tiring work, a person who is getting better is unnerved and shattered by illnesses! On the whole it may be true: the apparent intentionality of fate is the act of the individual who arranges his life and learns from everything, sucking knowledge like the bee honey. The fate that meets a people, however, hits a whole that cannot rethink its existence and provide it with goals; And so the intentionality of peoples is a fraud of brooding heads, nothing is easier than to show the non-intentional speed z. B. in the fact that a time in full bloom is suddenly hit by a snowfall, that everything dies. It's as stupid in it as it is in nature. Even under the most unfavorable circumstances, every people really achieves something to a degree that reminds one of their talents. But so be it Best some accidents do not have to occur. The Greeks did not do their best. The Athenians would also have become something higher without the political furor since the Persian Wars: one thinks of Aeschylus, who comes from the pre-Persian period and who was dissatisfied with the Athenians of his time.

Due to the unfavorable situation of the Greek cities after the Persian Wars, many favorable conditions for the emergence and development of great individuals were eliminated: and so the creation of genius depends on the fate of the peoples. Because approaches to geniuses are very common, but very rarely the coincidence of all necessary privileges.

This Reformation of the Hellenes, as I dreamed it, would have become wonderful ground for the creation of geniuses like never before. That would have to be described. We lost something unspeakable. [342]

The higher one moral The nature of the Hellenes shows itself in its wholeness and simplicity; by being human simplified show they delight us as the sight of animals.

The aim of the philosophers is to understand, what their fellow men only live. While they interpret their existence for themselves and understand its dangers, at the same time they also interpret their existence for their people.

A new worldview instead of folk the philosopher wants to set.

Science fathoms out the course of nature, but can never affect humans command. Inclination, love, lust, displeasure, elevation, exhaustion - none of these are known to science. What man lives and experiences he has to find out from somewhere interpret; estimate thereby. Religions have their strength [in] that they Value meter are, standards. Seen in myth, an event looks different. The main thing about the interpretation of religions is that they measure human life according to human-like ideals.

Aeschylus lived and fought in vain: he came too late. That is the tragic thing in Greek history: the biggest, like Demosthenes, too late to single out the people.

Aeschylus guarantees a height of the Greek spirit which dies out with him.

One now admires the gospel of the turtle - oh, the Greeks ran too quickly. I am not looking for happy times in history, but for those with favorable ground for them generation of genius. There I find the times before the Persian Wars. You can't get to know them well enough.

Some people live dramatic lives, some epic, some inartistic and muddled. Greek history has one through the Persian Wars daemon ex machina.

Attempt at a folk culture.

Waste of the most precious Greekmind and Greeksblood! This is to show how people like a lot more level-headed have to learn to live. The tyrants of the spirit in Greece have almost always been murdered and have had few offspring. Other times have shown their power in thinking to the end and in pursuing all possibilities of a great idea: the Christian z. B. But with the Greeks this superiority was very difficult to achieve; everything was there in enmity with one another. City culture alone until now proven - now we still live from it.

City culture

World culture

Folk culture: how weak with the Greeks, actually only the Athenian urban culture, pale.

  • 1. These philosophers isolate themselves.

  • 2. Then as a witness for the Hellenic (their philosophies of the shadow of the Greek essence).

  • 3. Then as a fighter against the dangers of the Hellenic.

  • 4. Then in the course of Hellenic history as unsuccessful reformers.

  • 5. Then in contrast to Socrates and the sects and to the vita contemplativa as attempts to gain a form of life that has not yet been gained.

1. There is probably an hour for everyone when he asks himself in amazement: How do you live! And yet you live! - An hour when he begins to understand that he has an ingenuity of the same kind that he admires in the plant, which writhes and climbs and finally forces a little light and a little earth to it and so its part of joy in creates an inhospitable soil by itself. In the descriptions that someone makes of his life, there is always such a point where one is amazed at how the plant can still live here and how it still approaches it with unshakable courage. Now there are résumés in which the difficulties of the thinker have grown enormously; and here [344] one must listen attentively where something is told about it, because here one hears something of the possibilities of life, of which only to hear brings happiness and strength and pouring light down on the life of the later, here everything is so inventive , level-headed, daring, desperate and full of hope, like the voyages of the greatest circumnavigators and indeed something of the same kind, circumnavigating the most remote and dangerous areas of life. The astonishing thing about life like this is that two hostile instincts pushing in different directions are forced here, as it were, under one Yokes to go; he who wants to know has to leave the ground on which man lives again and again and dare to venture into the unknown, and the instinct that wants life has to feel its way back to an approximately safe place on which to stand leaves. We are reminded of James Cook, who had to feel his way through a chain of cliffs for three months, plumb line in hand: and the dangers of which often grew to such an extent that he was in what he had recently thought to be one of the most dangerous had, gladly sought protection again. (Lichtenberg IV, 152.) That struggle between life and knowledge becomes all the greater, that under oneGoing yoke the stranger, the more powerful both instincts are, the fuller and more blooming life and again the more insatiable the knowledge is and the more covetous it urges to all adventures.

2. I am therefore not tired of putting a number of thinkers in front of my soul, each of whom has that incomprehensibility about him and must arouse that astonishment as he just found his possibility of life: the thinkers, who are in the strongest and most fertile time of Greece, in the century before and during the Persian Wars: for these thinkers even have beautiful ways of life discovered; and it seems to me that the later Greeks forgot the best of it: and what people could say so far that they have rediscovered them? - Compare the thinkers of other times and other peoples with that series of figures that begins with Thales and ends with Democritus, yes, put Socrates and his students and all the sect leaders of later Greece next to those ancient Greeks - now we want it in [345 ] do this writing, and hopefully others will do it even better: after all, I believe that every contemplation will end with this exclamation: How beautiful they are! I do not see any distorted and desolate figures underneath, no priestly faces, no fleshed desert hermits, no fanatical whitewashers of current affairs, no theologizing counterfeiters, no depressed and pale scholars (although the germs of everything are there and only a nasty breath of air needs to come over them so all weeds are in bloom). I also do not see those among them who take the "salvation of their soul" or the question "What is happiness?" So seriously that they forget the world and people about it.

who »These possibilities in life«Could rediscover! Poets and historians should brood over this task: for such people are too rare to be let go. Rather, you shouldn't give yourself rest until you have recreated her pictures and painted them a hundred times on the wall - and if you are that far - then of course you will certainly not rest. For in our inventive age there is still precisely that invention that the ancient philosophers must have made: where else would its wonderful beauty come from, where would our ugliness come from! - For what is beauty if not the reflection we have seen of the extraordinary joy of nature at the discovery of a new, fruitful possibility of life? And what is ugliness, if not the discontent with herself, the doubt as to whether she really still understands the art of seducing one to life.

3. Greek philosophy seems to begin with an absurd idea, with the proposition that water is the origin and womb of all things; is it really necessary, may you ask yourself, to stop and reflect seriously? - Yes, and for three reasons: firstly because the sentence says something about the origin of things, secondly because it does this without an image or mythical fable, and thirdly, because it contains the thought, albeit only in the state of pupation: " Everything is one. "The first reason leaves Thales in community with the religious and superstitious, the second takes him out of this society and shows him as the first natural scientist, on the third reason [346] Thales is considered the first Greek philosopher. In Thales for the first time the scientific man triumphs over the mythical and again the wise man prevails over the scientific.

How was it possible that Thales broke away from myth! Thales as a statesman! Something must have happened here. If the polis was the focal point of the Hellenic will and was based on myth, then giving up myth means giving up the old concept of the polis. Now we know that Thales proposed the establishment of a confederation of cities, but did not implement it: he failed because of the old mythical concept of the polis. At the same time he sensed the immense danger of Greece if this isolating power of myth kept the cities separate. Indeed: if Thales had brought about his Confederation, Greece would have been spared from the Persian War and thus also from the Athenian victories and preponderance. All older philosophers endeavor to change the concept of the polis and create a panhellenic outlook. Heraclitus even seems to have torn down the barrier between barbaric and Hellenic in order to create greater freedom and to advance narrow views. - He thinks about a world order that is superhellenic.

Anaximander: Fight against myth insofar as it softens and flattens out and thus endangers the Greeks.

Parmenides: Theoretical disdain for the world as a delusion. Fight against the fantastic and undulating in the whole world view: he wants to give people peace of mind against political passion. Make laws.

Anaxagoras: The world is unreasonable, but measured and beautiful: this is how man should be and this is how he found him in the ancient Athenians: Aeschylus, etc. His philosophy mirror image of ancient Athens: legislation for people who do not need them.

Empedocles: Panhellenic reformer, Pythagorean life, scientifically founded. New mythology. Insight into the unreasonableness of the two instincts love and hate. Love, democracy, community of goods. Compare with tragedy.

[347] Democritus: The world is unreasonable, but not measured and beautiful, only necessary. Absolute elimination of everything mythical. The world is understandable. He wants the polis (instead of the Epicurean garden); that was a possibility of Hellenic life.

Socrates: The tragic speed of the Greeks. The older philosophers did not work. The virtuosos of life: the ancient philosophers always think icarian.

The Greeks certainly never are overrated been: for then one would have to have valued them as they deserve; but that is precisely what is impossible. How should we be able to be fair to them in our estimation! Just not correct we appreciated them.