"For the present, the comedy of existence has not yet 'become conscious' of itself."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science
The unabashed Socrates that he was, Nietzsche did not look upon the common rabble kindly. "I do not want to believe it, but it is palpable," he wrote, "[that] the great majority of people lacks an intellectual conscience. Indeed, it has often seemed to me as if anyone calling for an intellectual conscience were as lonely in the most densely populated cities as if he were in a desert" (76). That contradictory foreignness is a curse I have long been familiar with. Conversation is dominated by blindly aesthetic hobbies, while the fundamental questions, those of soul and will, are rendered taboo. I do not mean to condemn aesthetics. Certainly, they instill some joy into everyone's lives. I merely poke at the common aesthetic which is unaware of itself, superficial and unacknowledged as such. And these superficialities are what many live their lives by. How much pay does this job provide? What sort of clothes should I wear? Where should we go to dinner? What sort of gifts should I buy her? All of these matters are valid sources of preoccupation, to those without conscience, they are just that and nothing more.
They hate the sun, find steep the grade,
And love trees only for their shade.
(Rhyme 46)
(Rhyme 46)
Love for beauty, but not for what beauty is. Love of games, but not what makes them such. Love of theater, but not its meaning. Surface level joys lacking in appreciable depth. How, you ask, can I preach a doctrine of lucidity when I myself do not spend every waking moment reflecting, when I, like the rest, see a tree as a towering object and a scarf as a decorative piece? Dear friend, you assume I must be perfect to be sufficient. Is it possible to appreciate the depth of being at every moment, completely break the shackles of the subconscious, the determined? No. But from time to time, we may recognize the million vibrant cells of the blooming flower's bulb, or the swooning sadness of a gentle melody. This experience, not merely superficial but existential, is what distinguishes the intellectual conscience from the common one.
I am aware that this reasoning reeks of elitism. It would be fair to level such a criticism against Nietzsche, and much moreso on myself. Nietzsche writes that the common man "cannot comprehend how anyone could risk his health and honor for the sake of a passion for knowledge. That taste of the higher type is for exceptions, for things that leave most people cold" (78). His distinction between noble and common does not refer to rich and poor, but rather to those with lofty passions and those with baser practicality. The interests of the practical lies in food, shelter, health, status, money. They are perplexed and appalled by the interests of so-called noble spirits. The pursuit of knowledge, central to the passionate class Nietzsche envisions, leaves most people growling in their stubborness, uninterested and, to some, uninteresting. Intellectual masochism is not for everyone, just as beer might be shunned by those who like wine.
But Nietzsche's criticism is two-pronged. He continues, "rarely does a higher nature retain sufficient reason for understanding and treating everyday people... for the most part, this type assumes that its own passion is present by kept concealed in all men... Thus they, too, speak of folly, inexpediency, and fantasies of humanity, stunned that the course of the world should be so insane" (78). For all their knowledge, the higher spirits possesses relatively little comprehension when it comes to other men. Neither class of men, passionate or practical, understands each other. But that small little caveat Nietzsche provides, "for the most part," gives me some hope that, at the very least, we may try to understand each other. To me, knowledge and passion are the higher causes, and I am often unfairly critical of those who do not share this opinion.
But perhaps my extravagances shouldn't preclude my capacity for respect. The practically-minded, if we are to use such an ill-fitting dichotomy as the one I have interpreted in Nietzsche's work, partake in their aesthetic pleasures in a different way than we passionate minds do. And, because the intellectual conscience is not present in most people, it is my task to learn to live with this. But perhaps the knowledge of being exceptional is what fills us exceptional people with excitement. If I were equal in all regards, God forbid lesser, I could think of no way to be content. But it is doubtful that this observation is in line with Nietzsche's ideals. I am more intellectual than most, but simple compared to many.
References:
The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche, Translated by Walter Kaufmann
I am aware that this reasoning reeks of elitism. It would be fair to level such a criticism against Nietzsche, and much moreso on myself. Nietzsche writes that the common man "cannot comprehend how anyone could risk his health and honor for the sake of a passion for knowledge. That taste of the higher type is for exceptions, for things that leave most people cold" (78). His distinction between noble and common does not refer to rich and poor, but rather to those with lofty passions and those with baser practicality. The interests of the practical lies in food, shelter, health, status, money. They are perplexed and appalled by the interests of so-called noble spirits. The pursuit of knowledge, central to the passionate class Nietzsche envisions, leaves most people growling in their stubborness, uninterested and, to some, uninteresting. Intellectual masochism is not for everyone, just as beer might be shunned by those who like wine.
But Nietzsche's criticism is two-pronged. He continues, "rarely does a higher nature retain sufficient reason for understanding and treating everyday people... for the most part, this type assumes that its own passion is present by kept concealed in all men... Thus they, too, speak of folly, inexpediency, and fantasies of humanity, stunned that the course of the world should be so insane" (78). For all their knowledge, the higher spirits possesses relatively little comprehension when it comes to other men. Neither class of men, passionate or practical, understands each other. But that small little caveat Nietzsche provides, "for the most part," gives me some hope that, at the very least, we may try to understand each other. To me, knowledge and passion are the higher causes, and I am often unfairly critical of those who do not share this opinion.
But perhaps my extravagances shouldn't preclude my capacity for respect. The practically-minded, if we are to use such an ill-fitting dichotomy as the one I have interpreted in Nietzsche's work, partake in their aesthetic pleasures in a different way than we passionate minds do. And, because the intellectual conscience is not present in most people, it is my task to learn to live with this. But perhaps the knowledge of being exceptional is what fills us exceptional people with excitement. If I were equal in all regards, God forbid lesser, I could think of no way to be content. But it is doubtful that this observation is in line with Nietzsche's ideals. I am more intellectual than most, but simple compared to many.
References:
The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche, Translated by Walter Kaufmann
