Essay I, Section 13
ut
let us return: the problem of the other origin of the
"good," of the good conceived by the man of ressentiment,
demands its solution.
hat lambs dislike great
birds of prey does not seem strange: only it gives no ground for reproaching these birds
of prey for bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among
themselves: "these birds of prey are evil; and whoever is
least like a bird of prey, but rather its opposite, a lamb-would
he not be good?" there is no reason to find fault with this
institution of an ideal, except perhaps that the birds of prey
might view it a little ironically and say: "we don't dislike
them at all, these good little lambs; we even love them: nothing
is more tasty than a tender lamb."
o demand of strength that
it should not express itself as strength, that it should
not be a desire to overcome, a desire to throw down, a desire
to become master, a thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs,
is just as absurd as to demand of weakness that it should express
itself as strength.
A quantum of force is equivalent to a quantum of drive, will,
effect - more, it is nothing other than precisely this very driving,
willing, effecting, and only owing to the seduction of language
(and of the fundamental errors of reason that are petrified in
it) which conceives and misconceives all effects as conditioned
by something that causes effects, by a "subject," can
it appear otherwise. For just as the popular mind separates the
lightning from its flash and takes the latter for an action,
for the operation of a subject called lightning, so popular morality
also separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there
were a neutral substratum behind the strong man, which was free
to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum;
there is no "being" behind doing, effecting, becoming;
"the doer" is merely a fiction added to the deed: it
posits the same event first as cause and then a second time as
its effect. Scientists
do no better when they say "force moves," "force
causes," and the like-all its coolness, its freedom from
emotion notwithstanding, our entire science still lies under
the misleading influence of language and has not disposed of
that little changeling, the "subject" (the atom, for
example, is such a changeling, as is the Kantian "thing-in-itself");
no wonder if the submerged, darkly glowering emotions of vengefulness
and hatred exploit this belief for their own ends and
in fact maintain no belief more ardently than the belief that
the strong man is free to be a lamb - for thus
they gain the right to make the bird of prey accountable
for being a bird of prey.
hen the oppressed, downtrodden,
outraged exhort one another with the vengeful cunning of impotence:"let
us be different from the evil, namely good! And he is good who
does not outrage, who harms nobody, who does not attack, who
does not requite, who leaves revenge to God,who keeps
himself hidden as we do, who avoids evil and desires little from
life, like us, the patient, humble, and just" - this,
listened to calmly and without previous bias, really amounts
to no more than: "we weak ones are, after all, weak; it
would be good if we did nothing for which we are not strong
enough"; but this dry matter of fact, this prudence
of the lowest order which even insects possess (posing as dead,
when in great danger, so as not to do "too much"),
has, thanks to the counterfeit and self-deception of impotence,
clad itself in the ostentatious garb of the virtue of clam, quiet
resignation, just as if the weakness of the weak - that
is to say, their essence, their effects, their sole ineluctable,
irremovable reality - were a voluntary achievement, willed, chosen,
a deed, a meritorious act. This type of man needs to believe in a neutral
independent "subject," prompted by an instinct for
self-preservation and self-affirmation in which every lie is
sanctified. The
subject (or, to use a more popular expression, the soul)
has perhaps been believed in hitherto more firmly that anything
else on earth because it makes possible to the majority of mortals,
the weak and oppressed of every kind, the sublime self-deception
that interprets weakness as freedom, and their being thus-and-thus
as a merit. |