Beyond Good and Evil Essay

UPPOSING that equity is a wo whilewhat then? Is in that respect non ground for suspecting that each last(predicate) philosophers, in so ut but about as they go been doctrinetists, call for failed to empathise womenthat the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usu both t gagay p caution their addresses to legality, have been unskilled and un grassvasmly regularitys for fetching a woman? Certainly she has never entirelyowed herself to be won and at present e precise merciful of dogma stands with sad and discouraged guardianshipIF, indeed, it stands at alto find matchlessselfher For at that place argon scoffers who maintain that it has f solely in allen, that all dogma lies on the groundnay more than, that it is at its last gasp. moreoer to lecture seriously, t here(predicate) ar good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in doctrine, most(prenominal)(prenominal) solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been all a noble puerilism and tyronism and in all standardizedlihood the time is at hand when it allot be in oneness type bent grassters case and again unders excessivelyd WHAT has un skepticism sufficiently sufficed for the basis of much(prenominal)(prenominal) imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto re atomic number 18d mayhap some popular superstition of immemorial time ( much(prenominal) as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of grammatical case- and ego-superstition, has non yet ceased doing mischief) mayhap some play upon forges, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very restricted, very personal, very humanall-too-human facts. Beyond wide and detestation S The doctrine of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was nevertheless a promise for thousands of years by and by fightds, as was astrology in settle down earlier time, in the service of which probably more labour, g oct ogenarian, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any actual science hitherto we owe to it, and to its super- terrestrial pre latent hostilitys in Asia and Egypt, the grand zeal of architecture.It memorisems that in determine to inscribe themselves upon the intent of humanity with everlasting cl stations, all great things have first to wander ab prohibited the earth as enormous and awe- inspiring caricatures dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature of this kindfor instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and Platonism in europium. Let us non be ungrateful to it, although it must sure enough be confessed that the worst, the c draw back to tiresome, and the close to dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist errornamely, Platos wile of Pure Spirit and the estimable in Itself.But presently when it has been surmounted, when Europe, disengage of this nightmargon, can again draw breath freely and at to the lowest degree enjoy a healthiersleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the heirs of all the capability which the scramble against this error has fostered.It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the survey the fundamental conditionof livelihood, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato stave of them indeed one might ask, as a physician How did such(prenominal) a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates rattling alter him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock? But the struggle against Plato, orto speak plainer, and for the potthe strug informal eBooks at orbiter eBook. comgle against the ecclesiastical burdensomeness of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISITIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE PEOPLE), produced in Europe a magnificent latent hostility of soul, such as had non dwelled 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 a s a state of distress, and twice try outs have been made in grand style to unb finale the bow once by way of life of Jesuitism, and the second time by nub of democratic enlightenmentwhich, with the aid of liberty of the press and naked as a jaybirdspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit would non so easily examine itself in distress (The Germans invented gunpowder-all credit to them precisely they again made things squarethey invented printing. )But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor however sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spiritswe have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow And perhaps similarly the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT. Sils Maria Upper Engadine, JUNE, 1885.Beyond Good and wretched CHAPTER I PREJUDICES OF PHILOSOPHERS 1.The bequeath to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a raving mad enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth non laid sooner us What strange, perplexing, questionable questions It is already a long story yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we at last grow dis swanful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it very that puts questions to us here? WHAT genuinely is this Will to Truth in us?In fact we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Willuntil at last we came to an absolute stalemate before a yet more fundamental question. We inquired about the jimmy of this Will. Granted that we want the truth WHY NOT RATHER lying? And uncertainty?Even ignorance? The bother of the value of truth presented itself before usor was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, supernumerary eBooks at planet eBook. com .and RISK RAISING it?For on that point is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no great risk. 2. HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the ordain to deception? or the unselfish deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool things of the superiorest value must have a several(predicate) origin, an origin of THEIR ownin this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of craft and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the Thing-in-itself THERE must be their source, and nowhere else This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure by this opinion of theirs, they exert themselves for their knowledge, for something that is in the end solemnly christened the Truth. The fundamental rule of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred change surface to the wariest of them to dubiety here on the very thresh senior (where doubt, however, was most necessary) though they had made a solemn vow, DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM. For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely trivial estimates, merely provi Beyond Good and Evil sional purviews, besides creation probably made from some corner, perhaps from belowfrog perspectives, as it were, to borrow an expression cu rrent among painters. In spitefulness of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life largely should be assigned to pretence, to the ordain to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity.It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their be insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed thingsperhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous Perhapses For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have separate tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalentphilosophers of the dangerous Perhaps in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear. 3.Having kept a sharp eye on philosophers, and h aving read between their lines long numerately, I now say to myself that the greater part of conscious design process must be counted among the instinctive functions, and it is so even in the case of philosophical thinking one has here to learn anew, as one sharp anew about genetic endowment and innateness. As little as the act of birth comes into consideration in the whole process and procedure of heredity, just as little is being-conscious strange to the instinctive in any decisive Free eBooks at Planet eBook. comsense the greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly influenced by his instincts, and forced into definite channels.And behind all logic and its seeming sovereignty of movement, there are valuations, or to speak more plainly, physiological demands, for the concern of a definite mode of life For example, that the certain is worth more than the uncertain, that illusion is less valuable than truth such valuations, in spite of their regulat ive importance for US, might stock-still be only superficial valuations, special kinds of maiserie, such as may be necessary for the maintenance of beings such as ourselves. Supposing, in effect, that man is not just the pulse of things. 4. The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely.The question is, how faraway an opinion is lifefurthering, life- preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the man-made judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of domain with the stringently IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not livethat the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life.TO RECOGNISE UNTRUT H AS A CONDITION OF LIFE that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a phi Beyond Good and Evil losophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil. 5.That which causes philosophers to be regarded halfdistrustfully and half-mockingly, is not the oft-repeated discovery how innocent they arehow often and easily they make mis concords and lose their way, in short, how childish and childlike they are, however that there is not enough honest dealing with them, whereas they all raise a loud and stainless outcry when the problem of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest manner.They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and foolisher, mouth of inspiration), whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or suggestion, which is generally their heart s desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event.They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub truths, and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule. The spectacle of the Tartuffery of old Kant, equally clay and decent, with which he entices us into the dialectic by-ways that lead (more correctly mislead) to his categorical commanding makes us esthetic ones smile, we who find no small amusement in spying out Free eBooks at Planet eBook. comthe subtle tricks of old moralists and ethical preachers.Or, still more so, the hocus-pocus in mathematical form, by means of which Spinoza has, as it were, clad his philosophy in stake and maskin fact, the lov e of HIS wisdom, to translate the term fairly and forthrightin order thereby to strike terror at once into the heart of the assailant who should dare to cast a glance on that invincible maiden, that Pallas Athenehow much of personal timidity and photograph does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray6. It has gradually force cleared to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted ofnamely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography and moreover that the moral (or immoral) mark in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself What morality do they (or does he) aim at? Accordingly, I do not believe that an urge to knowledge is the father of philosophy but that an another(prenominal) impulse, here as elsewhere , has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge ) as an instrument. But whoever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they may have here acted as INSPIRING GENII (or as demons and cobolds), will find that they have all practiced philosophy at one time or another, and that each one of them would have been only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of existence 10 Beyond Good and Evil and the legitimate LORD over all the other impulses. For every impulse is imperious, and as SUCH, attempts to philosophize.To be sure, in the case of scholars, in the case of really scientific men, it may be differentlybetter, if you will there there may really be such a thing as an impulse to knowledge, some kind of small, mugwump clock- counterfeit, which, when well wound up, works away industriously to that end, WITHOUT the rest of the scholarly impulses pickings any material part therein.The actual interests of the scholar, therefore, are ge nerally in quite another direction in the family, perhaps, or in money-making, or in politics it is, in fact, almost indifferent at what point of research his little machine is placed, and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good philologist, a mushroom specialist, or a pill roller he is not CHARACTERISED by becoming this or that.In the philosopher, on the contrary, there is absolutely vigour impersonal and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS,that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other. 7. How spiteful philosophers can be I know of nothing more stinging than the joke Epicurus took the liberty of making on Plato and the Platonists he called them Dionysiokolakes. In its original sense, and on the face of it, the word signifies Flatterers of Dionysiusconsequently, tyrants accessories and lick-spittles besides this, however, it is as much as to say, They are all ACTORS, there is nothing ge nuine about them (for Dionysiokolax was a popular Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 11 name for an actor).And the latter is really the malignant harm that Epicurus cast upon Plato he was annoyed by the grandiose manner, the mise en paroxysm style of which Plato and his scholars were mastersof which Epicurus was not a master He, the old school-teacher of Samos, who sit concealed in his little garden at Athens, and wrote three light speed books, perhaps out of rage and ambitious envy of Plato, who knows Greece took a speed of light years to find out who the garden-god Epicurus really was.Did she ever find out? 8. There is a point in every philosophy at which the conviction of the philosopher appears on the scene or, to put it in the quarrel of an antediluvian mystery Adventavit asinus, Pulcher et fortissimus. 9. You desire to LIVE according to record? Oh, you noble Stoics, what imposture of wordsImagine to yourselves a being like personality, boundlessly extravagant, boundles sly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once reproductive and barren and uncertain imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a magnatehow COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To liveis not that just endeavouring to be differently than this Nature?Is not sustenance valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, living according to Nature, means actu1 Beyond Good and Evil ally the same as living according to lifehow could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite other with you while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deludersIn your pride you wish to ordinate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein you insist that it shall be Nature according to the Stoa, and would like everything to be made after your own realise, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselvesStoicism is self-tyrannyNature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? But this is an old and everlasting story what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image it cannot do otherwise philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most sacred Will to Power, the will to creation of the world, the will to the causa prima. 10. The eagerness and subtlety, I should even say craftiness, with which the problem of the real and the apparent world Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 is dealt with at present throughout Europe, furnishes intellectual nourishment for thought and attention and he who hears only a Will to Truth in the background, and nothing else, cannot certainly boast of the sharpest ears.In rare and insulate cases, it may really have happened that such a Will to Trutha certain extravagant and adventurous pluck, a metaphysicians dreaming of the forlorn hopehas participated therein that which in the end always prefers a handful of certainty to a whole cartload of beautiful possibilities there may even be puritanical fanatics of conscience, who prefer to put their last trust in a sure nothing, rather than in an uncertain something. But that is Nihilism, and the sign of a despairing, mortally wearied soul, notwithstanding the courageous bearing such a virtue may exhibit. It seems, however, to be other wise with stronger and livelier thinkers who are still eager for life.In that they side AGAINST appearance, and speak superciliously of perspective, in that they rank the credibility of their own bodies about as low as the credibility of the optical evidence that the earth stands still, and thus, apparently, allowing with complacency their securest possession to trip out (for what does one at present believe in more heavily than in ones body? ),who knows if they are not really trying to win back something which was formerly an even securer possession, something of the old domain of the faith of former times, perhaps the immortal soul, perhaps the old God, in short, ideas by which they could live better, that is to say, more vigorously and more joyously, than by modern ideas? There is DISTRUST of these modern ideas in this mode of flavour at things, a 1 Beyond Good and Evildisbelief in all that has been constructed yesterday and today there is perhaps some slight admixture of sat iety and scorn, which can no longer fag the BRIC-A-BRAC of ideas of the most varied origin, such as so-called profitableness at present throws on the market a disgust of the more refined taste at the village-fair commixtureness and patchiness of all these reality-philosophasters, in whom there is nothing either new or true, except this motleyness. Therein it seems to me that we should agree with those speculative anti-realists and knowledge-microscopists of the present day their instinct, which repels them from MODERN reality, is unrefuted what do their retrograde by-paths concern usThe main thing about them is NOT that they wish to go back, but that they wish to get AWAY therefrom. A little MORE strength, swing, courage, and delicious power, and they would be OFFand not back 11. It seems to me that there is everywhere an attempt at present to divert attention from the actual influence which Kant exercised on German philosophy, and especially to ignore prudently the value whic h he set upon himself. Kant was first and foremost royal of his Table of Categories with it in his hand he said This is the most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics. Let us only understand this could be He was proud of having DISCOVERED a new faculty in man, the faculty of synthetic judgment a priori.Granting that he deceived himself in this matter the development and fast flourishing of German philosophy depended nevertheless on his pride, and on the Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 eager rivalry of the younger extension to discover if possible somethingat all events new facultiesof which to be still prouder But let us reflect for a momentit is high time to do so. How are synthetic judgments a priori POSSIBLE? Kant asks himselfand what is really his answer? BY MEANS OF A MEANS (faculty)but alas not in five words, but so circumstantially, imposingly, and with such display of German profundity and verbal flourishes, that one altogether loses sight of the whimsical niaiserie allemande subscribe tod in such an answer.People were beside themselves with delight over this new faculty, and the jubilation reached its climax when Kant further discovered a moral faculty in manfor at that time Germans were still moral, not yet dabbling in the Politics of hard fact. Then came the honeymoon of German philosophy. All the young theologians of the Tubingen institution went immediately into the grovesall seeking for faculties. And what did they not findin that innocent, rich, and still youthful period of the German spirit, to which Romanticism, the malicious fairy, piped and sang, when one could not yet distinguish between finding and inventing supra all a faculty for the transcendentalSchelling christened it, intellectual intuition, and thereby gratify the most earnest longings of the naturally pious-inclined Germans. One can do no greater wrong to the whole of this exuberant and eccentric movement (which was really youthfulness , notwithstanding that it disguised itself so boldly, in hoary and senile creations), than to take it seriously, or even treat it with moral indignation. Enough, howeverthe world 1 Beyond Good and Evil grew older, and the dream vanished.A time came when people rubbed their foreheads, and they still rub them today. People had been dreaming, and first and foremostold Kant. By means of a means (faculty)he had said, or at least meant to say. But, is thatan answer? An explanation? Or is it not rather merely a repetition of the question? How does opium induce sleep? By means of a means (faculty), namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor in Moliere, Quia est in eo virtus dormitiva, Cujus est natura sensus assoupire.But such replies belong to the realm of comedy, and it is high time to replace the Kantian question, How are synthetic judgments a PRIORI possible? by another question, Why is belief in such judgments necessary? in effect, it is high time that we should understand that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves though they still might naturally be false judgmentsOr, more plainly spoken, and roughly and readilysynthetic judgments a priori should not be possible at all we have no right to them in our mouths they are nothing but false judgments. Only, of course, the belief in their truth is necessary, as plausible belief and ocular evidence belonging to the perspective view of life.And finally, to call to mind the enormous influence which German philosophyI hope you understand its right to inverted commas (goosefeet)? has Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 exercised throughout the whole of Europe, there is no doubt that a certain VIRTUS DORMITIVA had a share in it give thanks to German philosophy, it was a delight to the noble idlers, the virtuous, the mystics, the artiste, the three-fourths Christians, and the political obscurantists of all nations, to find an antidote to the still overw helming sensualism which overflowed from the last century into this, in shortsensus assoupire. 12.As regards materialistic atomism, it is one of the best- refuted theories that have been advanced, and in Europe there is now perhaps no one in the learned world so unscholarly as to attach serious importation to it, except for convenient everyday use (as an abbreviation of the means of expression) thanks chiefly to the Pole Boscovich he and the Pole Copernicus have hitherto been the superlative and most successful opponents of ocular evidence.For while Copernicus has persuaded us to believe, contrary to all the senses, that the earth does NOT stand fast, Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the last thing that stood fast of the earththe belief in substance, in matter, in the earth-residuum, and particle- atom it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has hitherto been gained on earth.One must, however, go still further, and also declare war, relentless war to the k nife, against the atomistic requirements which still lead a dangerous after-life in places where no one suspects them, like the more celebrated metaphysical requirements one must also above all give the finishing stroke to that other and more portentous atomism which Christianity has 1 Beyond Good and Evil taught best and longest, the SOUL- ATOMISM.Let it be permitted to designate by this expression the belief which regards the soul as something indestructible, eternal, indivisible, as a monad, as an atomon this belief ought to be expelled from science Between ourselves, it is not at all necessary to get rid of the soul thereby, and thus renounce one of the oldest and most venerated hypothesesas happens frequently to the clumsiness of naturalists, who can hardly touch on the soul without immediately losing it.But the way is open for new acceptations and refinements of the soul-hypothesis and such conceptions as mortal soul, and soul of subjective multiplicity, and soul as social so cial organization of the instincts and passions, want henceforth to have legitimate rights in science.In that the immature psychologist is about to put an end to the superstitions which have hitherto flourished with almost tropical luxuriance around the idea of the soul, he is really, as it were, thrusting himself into a new desert and a new distrustit is possible that the older psychologists had a merrier and more comfortable time of it eventually, however, he finds that precisely thereby he is also condemned to INVENTand, who knows?perhaps to DISCOVER the new. 13. Psychologists should bethink themselves before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an constituent(a) being. A living thing seeks above all to DISCHARGE its strengthlife itself is WILL TO POWER self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent RESULTS thereof. In short, here, as everywhere else, Free eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 let us beware of SUPERFLUOUS teleologi cal principles one of which is the instinct of self- preservation (we owe it to Spinozas inconsistency). It is thus, in effect, that method ordains, which must be essentially economy of principles. 14.It is perhaps just penetrate on five or six minds that natural philosophy is only a world-exposition and worldarrangement (according to us, if I may say so ) and NOT a world-explanation but in so far as it is based on belief in the senses, it is regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as morenamely, as an explanation. It has eyes and fingers of its own, it has ocular evidence and palpableness of its own this operates fascinatingly, persuasively, and CONVINCINGLY upon an age with fundamentally plebeian tastesin fact, it follows instinctively the canon of truth of eternal popular sensualism. What is clear, what is explained? Only that which can be seen and feltone must pursue every problem thus far.Obversely, however, the charm of the Platonic mode of thought, wh ich was an ARISTOCRATIC mode, consisted precisely in RESISTANCE to obvious sense-evidenceperhaps among men who enjoyed even stronger and more fastidious senses than our contemporaries, but who knew how to find a higher triumph in be masters of them and this by means of pale, cold, grey conceptional networks which they threw over the motley whirl of the sensesthe mob of the senses, as Plato said. In this overcoming of the world, and interpreting of the world in the manner of Plato, there was an ENJOYMENT different from that which the physicists 0 Beyond Good and Evil of today offer usand likewise the Darwinists and antiteleologists among the physiological workers, with their principle of the smallest possible effort, and the greatest possible blunder.Where there is nothing more to see or to grasp, there is also nothing more for men to dothat is certainly an imperative different from the Platonic one, but it may notwithstanding be the right imperative for a hardy, laborious race of m achinists and bridge- builders of the future, who have nothing but ROUGH work to perform. 15. To study physiology with a clear conscience, one must insist on the fact that the sense-organs are not phenomena in the sense of the idealistic philosophy as such they certainly could not be causesSensualism, therefore, at least as regulative hypothesis, if not as heuristic principle. What? And others say even that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs But then our organs themselves would be the work of our organs It seems to me that this is a complete REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, if the conception CAUSA SUI is something fundamentally absurd.Consequently, the external world is NOT the work of our organs? 16. There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are immediate certainties for instance, I think, or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, I will as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as the thing in itself, without any falsification taking place eiFree eBooks at Planet eBook. com 1 ther on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that immediate certainty, as well as absolute knowledge and the thing in itself, involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of wordsThe people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself When I take the process that is expressed in the sentence, I think, I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an ego, and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinkingthat I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps willing or feeling?