Writings from the Late Notebooks Quotes
Writings from the Late Notebooks
by
Friedrich Nietzsche68 ratings, 4.25 average rating, 6 reviews
Writings from the Late Notebooks Quotes
Showing 1-6 of 6
“The obscurities in my soul terrify galaxies.”
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
“The craft, trade, agriculture, science, a large part of the art - all this can only stand on a broad base , on a consolidated, strong and healthy mediocrity. Served in their services and the science of their work - and even the arts. We cannot wish for better: it belongs to such an average sort of person - it is under displace exceptions - it has nothing aristocratic about something and still les in their anarchic instincts - The power of the center is then held upright by the trade, especially the money market: the instinct of great financiers goes against all extremes, - the Jews are the reason for the time being conserve power in our so insecure and threatened Europe.”
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
“cele 3 secole
diferitele lor tipuri de sensibilitate se exprima cel mai bine astfel:
aristocratismul: Descartes, domnia ratiunii, marturie despre suveranitatea vointei.
feminismul: Rousseau, domnia sentimentului, marturie despre suveranitatea simturilor, minciuna.
animalismul: Schopenhauer, domnia dorintei, marturie despre suveranitatea animalitatii. mai cinstit, dar sumbru.
secolul 17 e aristocratic, ordonator, trufas fata de animalic, sever fata de inima, "incomod", chiar lipsit de sentiment, negermanic, retinut fata de burlesc si naturalete, inclinat spre generalizare si cu aere de suveranitate fata de trecut, deoarece este increzator in sine. in mare masura si animal de prada, multa deprindere ascetica pt a putea ramane stapan. secolul tariei de vointa dar si al pasiunii puternice.
secolul 18 e dominat de femeie, visator, inteligent, cam plat, avand totusi un anumit spirit la dispozitia dorintelor sale, a inimii, libertin in delectarea cu cele spirituale, subminand orice gen de autoritate. ametit, voios, limpede, uman, fals fata de sine, o mare canalie au fond, sociabil.
secolul 19 e mai animalic, mai subteran, mai urat, mai realist, mai badaran si tocmai de aceea considerat "mai bun" "mai cinstit" mai smerit in fata "realitatii", mai autentic. dar slab in vointa, dar trist si sumbru, pofticios dar fatalist. nu se teme si nici nu stimeaza ratiunea sau inima. adanc convins de dominatia poftelor [Schopenhauer vorbea de "vointa" dar nimic nu e mai caracteristic pt filozofia sa, decat ca ii lipseste tocmai vointa per se]. pana si morala e redusa la un singur instinct ["mila"].
faptul ca stiinta devenit intr'un asemenea grad suverana arata ca secolul 19 s'a eliberat de dominatia idealurilor. abia o anumita lipsa de pretentii in felul nostru de a dori ne face posibila starea de curiozitate si rigoare stiintifica - aceasta stranie virtute care ne apartine. secolul 19 cauta instinctiv teorii cu ajutorul carora isi simte justificata subordonarea fatalista fata de real. suntem niste oameni care se autodesfiinteaza.”
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
diferitele lor tipuri de sensibilitate se exprima cel mai bine astfel:
aristocratismul: Descartes, domnia ratiunii, marturie despre suveranitatea vointei.
feminismul: Rousseau, domnia sentimentului, marturie despre suveranitatea simturilor, minciuna.
animalismul: Schopenhauer, domnia dorintei, marturie despre suveranitatea animalitatii. mai cinstit, dar sumbru.
secolul 17 e aristocratic, ordonator, trufas fata de animalic, sever fata de inima, "incomod", chiar lipsit de sentiment, negermanic, retinut fata de burlesc si naturalete, inclinat spre generalizare si cu aere de suveranitate fata de trecut, deoarece este increzator in sine. in mare masura si animal de prada, multa deprindere ascetica pt a putea ramane stapan. secolul tariei de vointa dar si al pasiunii puternice.
secolul 18 e dominat de femeie, visator, inteligent, cam plat, avand totusi un anumit spirit la dispozitia dorintelor sale, a inimii, libertin in delectarea cu cele spirituale, subminand orice gen de autoritate. ametit, voios, limpede, uman, fals fata de sine, o mare canalie au fond, sociabil.
secolul 19 e mai animalic, mai subteran, mai urat, mai realist, mai badaran si tocmai de aceea considerat "mai bun" "mai cinstit" mai smerit in fata "realitatii", mai autentic. dar slab in vointa, dar trist si sumbru, pofticios dar fatalist. nu se teme si nici nu stimeaza ratiunea sau inima. adanc convins de dominatia poftelor [Schopenhauer vorbea de "vointa" dar nimic nu e mai caracteristic pt filozofia sa, decat ca ii lipseste tocmai vointa per se]. pana si morala e redusa la un singur instinct ["mila"].
faptul ca stiinta devenit intr'un asemenea grad suverana arata ca secolul 19 s'a eliberat de dominatia idealurilor. abia o anumita lipsa de pretentii in felul nostru de a dori ne face posibila starea de curiozitate si rigoare stiintifica - aceasta stranie virtute care ne apartine. secolul 19 cauta instinctiv teorii cu ajutorul carora isi simte justificata subordonarea fatalista fata de real. suntem niste oameni care se autodesfiinteaza.”
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
“Love as passion, in the grand understanding of the word, was invented for the aristocratic world and within it―where coercion and privation were greatest.”
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
“Marriages in the bourgeois sense of the word, and I mean in the most respectable sense of the word 'marriage', haven't the least to do with love no kind of institution can be made from love - and just as little with money; but rather with the social permission given to two people to satisfy their sexual desires with each other, of course under certain conditions, but such conditions as have the interests of society in view. It's clear that the prerequisites for such a contract must include some degree of liking between the parties concerned and very much goodwill - the will to be patient, conciliatory, to care for one another - but the word love should not be misused to describe it! For two lovers in the whole and strong sense of the word, sexual satisfaction is not the essential thing and really just a symbol: for one party, as has been said, a symbol of unconditional submission, for the other a symbol of assent to this, a sign of taking possession.- Marriage in the aristocratic sense, the old nobility's sense of the word, is about breeding a race (is there still a nobility today?) Quaeritur, in other words about maintaining a fixed, particular type of ruling men: man and woman were sacrificed to this viewpoint. Obviously, the primary requirement here was not love, on the contrary! - and not even that measure of mutual goodwill on which the good bourgeois marriage is based. The decisive thing was first the interest of the dynasty, and above that the class. Faced with the coldness, severity and calculating clarity of this noble concept of marriage, which has ruled in every healthy aristocracy, in ancient Athens as in eighteenth-century Europe, we would shiver a little, we warm-blooded animals with our ticklish hearts, we 'moderns'! And this is precisely why love as passion, in the grand understanding of the word, was invented for the aristocratic world and within it―where coercion and privation were greatest...”
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
“Against the positivism which halts at phenomena — “There are only facts” — I would say: no, facts are just what there aren’t, there are only interpretations. We cannot determine any fact “in itself”: perhaps it’s nonsensical to want to do such a thing. “Everything is subjective,” you say: but that itself is an interpretation, for the “subject” is not something given but a fiction added on, tucked behind. — Is it even necessary to posit the interpreter behind the interpretation? Even that is fiction, hypothesis.
Inasmuch as the word “knowledge” has any meaning at all, the world is knowable: but it is variously interpretable; it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings. “Perspectivism”.
It is our needs which interpret the world: our drives and their for and against. Every drive is a kind of lust for domination, each has its perspective, which it would like to impose as a norm on all the other drives.”
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
Inasmuch as the word “knowledge” has any meaning at all, the world is knowable: but it is variously interpretable; it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings. “Perspectivism”.
It is our needs which interpret the world: our drives and their for and against. Every drive is a kind of lust for domination, each has its perspective, which it would like to impose as a norm on all the other drives.”
― Writings from the Late Notebooks
