Nietzsche Burst 4 - by Rev. Shakes


Rev. Shakes Spear

Joined September 2011

  • Product
  • Product
  • Available
  • Artist

Sizing Information

Extra Large
9.9" x 14.0"
6.0" x 8.5"
3.9" x 5.5"
2.8" x 4.0"


  • Removable, individually die-cut vinyl
  • Ideal for smooth flat surfaces like laptops, journals, windows, walls etc.
  • 1/8th of an inch white border around each design
  • 50% discount on 6+ Small stickers



Cases & Skins

Wall Art

Home Decor



Artist's Description

War on all presuppositions on the basis of which one has
invented a true world. Among these is the presupposition that
moral values are the supreme values.

One drives nature out of morality when one says “Love your
enemies”: for then the natural “Thou shalt love thy neighbor and
hate thy enemy” in the law (in instinct) has become meaningless;
then this love of one’s neighbor must also find a new basis (as a
kind of love of God). Everywhere, God is inserted and utility
withdrawn; everywhere the real origin of morality is denied: the
veneration of nature, which lies precisely in the recognition of a
natural morality, is destroyed at its roots-
Whence comes the seductive charm of such an emasculated
ideal of man? Why are we not disgusted by it as we are perhaps
disgusted by the idea of a castrato?- The answer lies precisely
here: the voice of a castrato does not disgust us, despite the cruel
mutilation that is its condition: it has grown sweeter- Just because
the “male organ” has been amputated from virtue, a feminine
note has been brought to the voice of virtue that it did not have

To get the whole of moralizing into focus as a phenomenon.
Also as a riddle. The phenomena of morality have occupied me
like riddles. Today I would know how to answer the question:
What does it mean that the welfare of my neighbor ought to
possess for me a higher value than my own? but that my neighbor
himself ought to assess the value of his welfare differently than I,
that is, that he should subordinate it to my welfare? What is the
meaning of that “Thou shalt,” which even philosophers regard as
The apparently crazy idea that a man should esteem the
actions he performs for another more highly than those he performs
for himself, and that this other should likewise, etc. (that
one should call good only those actions that a man performs with
an eye, not to himself, but to the welfare of another) has a meaning: namely, as the social instinct resting on the valuation that the
single individual is of little account, but all individuals together are
of very great account provided they constitute a community with
a common feeling and a common conscience. Therefore a kind of
training in looking in a certain definite direction, the will to a
perspective that seeks to make it impossible to see oneself.
My idea: goals are lacking and these must be individuals’!
We observe how things are everywhere: every individual is sacrificed
and serves as a tool. Go into the street and you encounter
lots of “’slaves.” Whither? For what?

The problem of “equality,” while we all thirst after distinction:
here, on the contrary, we are supposed to make exactly
the same demands on ourselves as we make on others. This is
so insipid, so obviously crazy: but-it is felt to be holy, of a
higher rank, the conflict with reason is hardly noticed.
Sacrifice and selflessness as distinguishing, unconditional obedience
to morality, and the faith that one is everyone’s equal before

The struggle against Socrates, Plato, all the Socratic schools,
proceeds from the profound instinct that one does not make men
better when one represents to them that virtue is demonstrable
and asks for reasons-
Ultimately, it is the measly fact that the agonal instinct in all
these born dialecticians compelled them to glorify their personal
ability as the highest quality and to represent all other good things
as conditioned by it. The anti-scientific spirit of this entire “philosophy”:
it is determined to be in the right.
442 (March-lune 1888)
This is extraordinary. We find from the beginning of Greek
philosophy onwards a struggle against science with the means of an
epistemology or skepticism: and with what object? Always for the
good of morality-
(Hatred for physicists and physicians.) Socrates, Aristippus,
the Megarian school, the Cynics, Epicurus, Pyrrho—a general
assault on knowledge for the good of morality-
(Hatred for dialectics also.) A problem remains: they approach
the Sophists in order to get rid of science. On the other
hand, the physicists are all so completely subjected as to take up
the schema of truth, "9 of real being, into the fundamentals of
their science; e.g., the atom, the four elements (juxtaposition of
beings to explain multiplicity and change-). Contempt for objective
interest is taught: return to the practical interest, the
personal utility of all knowledge—
The struggle against science is directed against (1) its pathos
(objectivity), (2) its means (i.e., against its utility), (3) its results
(as childish).
It is the same struggle that is later conducted by the church
in the name of piety: the church inherited the entire arsenal of
antiquity for its struggle. Epistemology played in this the same
role as it did in the case of Kant, in the case of the Indians- One
does not want to be troubled by it: one wants one’s hands free
for one’s “course.”

desktop tablet-landscape content-width tablet-portrait workstream-4-across phone-landscape phone-portrait
desktop tablet-landscape content-width tablet-portrait workstream-4-across phone-landscape phone-portrait

10% off

for joining the Redbubble mailing list

Receive exclusive deals and awesome artist news and content right to your inbox. Free for your convenience.