SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien—IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground—nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very restricted, very personal, very human—all-too-human facts. The philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrology in still earlier times, in the service of which probably more labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its "super-terrestrial" pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe themselves upon the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things have first to wander about the earth as enormous and awe-inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature of this kind—for instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome, and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error—namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a healthier—sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE—the fundamental condition—of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one might ask, as a physician: "How did such a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock?" But the struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the "people"—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE "PEOPLE"), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic enlightenment—which, with the aid of liberty of the press and newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit would not so easily find itself in "distress"! (The Germans invented gunpowder—all credit to them! but they again made things square—they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spirits—we have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT....
SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman, what then? Isn't there reason to suspect that all philosophers, insofar as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women? They have usually courted Truth with terrible seriousness and clumsy persistence. Weren't these awkward and inappropriate ways to win a woman? Certainly, she has never let herself be won. And now every kind of dogma stands looking sad and discouraged, IF it still stands at all! For some scoffers claim that dogma has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground. More than that, they say dogma is breathing its last. But seriously, there are good reasons for hope. All dogmatic philosophy may have been nothing more than a noble exercise in childishness and inexperience. This may be true however solemn, conclusive, and decisive its manner has been. And probably we will soon recognize, again and again, WHAT has actually supported the dogmatists' imposing, supposedly absolute philosophical structures. Perhaps the foundation was some popular superstition from time immemorial. Take the superstition of the soul. In the forms of superstition about the subject and the ego, it still causes harm. Perhaps the foundation was some wordplay, a trick of grammar, or a bold generalization from very limited, very personal facts. These facts were very human, all too human. Let us hope that dogmatic philosophy was only a promise of things to come thousands of years later. Astrology had served that role in still earlier times. Probably more labor, gold, intelligence, and patience have been spent on astrology than on any actual science so far. We owe the grand style of architecture to astrology and its "super-terrestrial" claims in Asia and Egypt. It seems that all great things must first roam the earth as enormous, awe-inspiring caricatures. Only then can they make their lasting claims on humanity's heart. Dogmatic philosophy has been such a caricature, for example, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia and Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to dogmatic philosophy. Yet we must certainly admit something. The worst, most tiresome, and most dangerous error so far has been a dogmatist's error. That error was Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now that this error has been overcome, Europe is free of the nightmare. Europe can breathe freely again and at least enjoy a healthier sleep. We, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, inherit all the strength developed through the struggle against this error. To speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato did was to turn truth upside down. It also denied PERSPECTIVE, the fundamental condition of life. Indeed, speaking as a physician, one might ask: "How did such an illness strike Plato, that finest product of antiquity? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates, after all, a corrupter of the young, and did he deserve his hemlock?" But the struggle against Plato produced a magnificent tension of soul in Europe, unlike anything that had existed anywhere before. To put it more plainly, and for the "people", this was the struggle against millennia of Christian church oppression. (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE "PEOPLE".) With a bow drawn so tight, we can now aim at the most distant goals. In fact, Europeans experience this tension as distress. Twice, grand attempts have been made to loosen the bow. The first used Jesuitism, and the second used democratic enlightenment. With press freedom and newspaper reading, democratic enlightenment might indeed keep the mind from falling into "distress" so easily! (The Germans invented gunpowder, all credit to them! But they then evened the score by inventing printing.) But we are neither Jesuits nor democrats, nor even German enough. We GOOD EUROPEANS, free, VERY free spirits, still have all the mind's distress and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT....
Sils Maria Upper Engadine, JUNE, 1885.
Sils Maria, Upper Engadine, June 1885.