Taken from
Why Am I So Wise, in
Ecce Homo:
QuoteWar is another matter. I am warlike by nature. Attacking is one of my instincts. Being able to be an enemy, being an enemy—perhaps that presupposes a strong nature; in any case, it belongs to every strong nature. It needs objects of resistance; hence it looks for what resists: the aggressive pathos belongs just as necessarily to strength as vengefulness and rancor belong to weakness. Woman, for example, is vengeful: that is due to her weakness, as much as is her susceptibility to the distress of others.
The strength of those who attack can be measured in a way by the opposition they require: every growth is indicated by the search for a mighty opponent—or problem; for a warlike philosopher challenges problems, too, to single combat. The task is not simply to master what happens to resist, but what requires us to stake all our strength, suppleness, and fighting skill—opponents that are our equals.
Equality before the enemy: the first presupposition of an honest duel. Where one feels contempt, one cannot wage war; where one commands, where one sees something beneath oneself, one has no business waging war.
My practice of war can be summed up in four propositions.
First: I only attack causes that are victorious; I may even wait until they become victorious.
Second: I only attack causes against which I would not find allies, so that I stand alone—so that I compromise myself alone.—I have never taken a step publicly that did not compromise me: that is my criterion of doing right.
Third: I never attack persons; I merely avail myself of the person as of a strong magnifying glass that allows one to make visible a general but creeping and elusive calamity. Thus I attacked David Strauss—more precisely, the success of a senile book with the "cultured" people in Germany: I caught this culture in the act. Thus I attacked Wagner—more precisely, the falseness, the half-couth instincts of our "culture" which mistakes the subtle for the rich, the late for the great.
Fourth: I only attack things when every personal quarrel is excluded, when any background of bad experiences is lacking. On the contrary, attack is in my case a proof of good will, sometimes even of gratitude. I honor, I distinguish by associating my name with that of a cause or a person: pro or con—that makes no difference to me at this point. When I wage war against Christianity I am entitled to this because I have never experienced misfortunes and frustrations from that quarter—the most serious Christians have always been well disposed toward me. I myself, and opponent of Christianity, in accordance with good manners, am far from blaming individuals for the calamity of millennia.
I'm gonna have to read this over a few times. I found myself knee-jerking from the get go.
Interesting. I'll need to reread this a few times as well.
Quote from: LMNO on October 20, 2008, 03:48:12 PM
I'm gonna have to read this over a few times. I found myself knee-jerking from the get go.
:lmnuendo: ?
No.
I started disagreeing automatically, without considering the main thesis.
I need to break down my defenses, and read a few more times.
From my first few passes through, I like the acknowledgement of the innate human desire for conflict, as well as tempering that with principles to make the impact on individual people minimal unless needed. For the intent of taking independent, premeditated offensive actions, these aren't bad ideas to work with.
The usual arrogance and sexism of Nietzsche is still there, and still annoying.
I'll try this again later and see what else I can get out of it.
I don't suppose I am warlike by nature. I
do find having 'objects of resistance' to be useful tho & perhaps I sometimes look for them because they provide friction for the 'clash of ideas' & more. I like that part sometimes. Physical aggression tho? I find it comes in handy to take the stance of remaining calm (don't panic!) looking directly at & stepping aside or away from (flight too). When a person is living thru their violence, they appear to be out of control & usually are. & being out of control makes it easier for one to step away from them. The person quite often ends up hurting themselves, which is still not a good thing but better than it would be if you hurt them or if they hurt you. & of course this does not work as well (understating here) where weapons are involved or when there are other persons to protect.
It's the same idea with words but more like 'push hands.' Like the answer to quid est? is, of course, quiddity.
& this I like:
Quote
The task is not simply to master what happens to resist, but what requires us to stake all our strength, suppleness, and fighting skill—opponents that are our equals.
Equality before the enemy: the first presupposition of an honest duel. Where one feels contempt, one cannot wage war; where one commands, where one sees something beneath oneself, one has no business waging war.
& this too:
QuoteI never attack persons; I merely avail myself of the person as of a strong magnifying glass that allows one to make visible a general but creeping and elusive calamity.
The other 3 propositions don't really hit me where it hurts or feels particularly good either, sorta lukewarm to 'em.
I just realized (even after reading the original post more than once) that I read the above quote
QuoteI never attack persons; I merely avail myself of the person as of a strong magnifying glass that allows one to make visible a general but creeping and elusive calamity.
as
QuoteI never attack persons; I merely avail myself of the person as of a strong reflecting glass that allows one to make visible a general but creeping and elusive calamity.
I read it as reflecting glass as in a mirror & that's why I liked it.
amazing how intoxicating his language is, even when translated. however:
QuoteFourth: I only attack things when every personal quarrel is excluded, when any background of bad experiences is lacking.
of course. the sexism had nothing to do with his mother and sister and nothing at all with lou salome not fucking him.
QuoteOn the contrary, attack is in my case a proof of good will, sometimes even of gratitude.
calling the effect of wagner's work a spiritual plague was a very ...esoteric form of gratitude. and i hate to be siding with wagner because he was a spiritual plague.
QuoteI myself, and opponent of Christianity, in accordance with good manners, am far from blaming individuals for the calamity of millennia.
yes fritz. how true. things just happen, somehow. they manifest spontaneously, due to astronomical constellations or whatever. but they are not, i repeat, they are neither perpetrated by individuals nor supported by them after the fact.
but i have to admit that i would not bother attacking him if i hadn't enjoyed his work as much as i did.