Reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s Human all too human

Read the introduction here

You can read the aphorism I discuss here in English an German below the main article.

Synopsis, quote from the translation by Helen Zimmern and my take on it.

The young person appreciates answers coming from the unseen world because they show him something highly significant in things that are unpleasant to him, and if he is dissatisfied with himself it will be easier when he finds likeness between his misery and that of the unseen world. This makes him feel less responsible and in makes it more interesting. Later he will get distrustful of the whole metaphysical method of explanation; then perhaps it grows clear to him that those results can be obtained equally well and more scientifically in another way: that physical and historical explanations produce the feeling of personal relief to at least the same extent as the metaphysical, and that the interest in life and its problems is perhaps still more aroused thereby.

In one sentence:

Answers from the unseen world are less fulfilling than answers from the seen world

---

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

17.METAPHYSICAL EXPLANATIONS.—The young man values metaphysical explanations, because they show him something highly significant in things which he found unpleasant or despicable, and if he is dissatisfied with himself, the feeling becomes lighter when he recognises the innermost world-puzzle or world-misery in that which he so strongly disapproves of in himself. To feel himself less responsible and at the same time to find things more interesting—that seems to him a double benefit for which he has to thank metaphysics. Later on, certainly, he gets distrustful of the whole metaphysical method of explanation ; then perhaps it grows clear to him that those results can be obtained equally well and more scientifically in another way : that physical and historical explanations produce the feeling of personal relief to at least the same extent, and that the interest in life and its problems is perhaps still more aroused thereby.

Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80

17. Metaphysische Erklärungen. – Der junge Mensch schätzt metaphysische Erklärungen, weil sie ihm in Dingen, welche er unangenehm oder verächtlich fand, etwas höchst Bedeutungsvolles aufweisen: und ist er mit sich unzufrieden, so erleichtert sich diess Gefühl, wenn er das innerste Welträthsel oder Weltelend in dem wiedererkennt, was er so sehr an sich missbilligt. Sich unverantwortlicher fühlen und die Dinge zugleich interessanter finden – das gilt ihm als die doppelte Wohlthat, welche er der Metaphysik verdankt. Später freilich bekommt er Misstrauen gegen die ganze metaphysische Erklärungsart, dann sieht er vielleicht ein, dass jene Wirkungen auf einem anderen Wege eben so gut und wissenschaftlicher zu erreichen sind: dass physische und historische Erklärungen mindestens ebenso sehr jenes Gefühl der Unverantwortlichkeit herbeiführen, und dass jenes Interesse am Leben und seinen Problemen vielleicht noch mehr dabei entflammt wird.

---

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

 

Reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s Human all too human

Read the introduction here

You can read the aphorism I discuss here in English an German below the main article.

Synopsis, quote from the translation by Helen Zimmern and my take on it

Philosophers see life and experiences as a picture that never changes. This picture must be correctly interpreted in order to come to a conclusion about the being that produced the picture or about the thing-in-itself¹ what is regarded as sufficient ground for the world that appears to us. Philosophers see life as not changing Opposite to this, more logical minded people, after they described the metaphysical or unseen world as without a cause, have concluded that there was no connection between unseen world and the world which is known to us. Scientist see no connection between unseen and seen world So that the thing-in-itself should most certainly not appear in the phenomenon, (existing thing) and every conclusion from the former as regards the latter is to be rejected. Both sides forget that this painting of our life and experiences is still growing and cannot be used to look for a conclusion for the cause of it or deny one. (the sufficing cause)² Our life and experiences are growing and cannot be used to predicts its cause. For ages we looked into the worlds pretentions, with blind inclination, passion, or fear, and illogical thoughts that this world has gradually become so terrible, full of meaning and of soul, it has acquired color—but we were the colorists. Our subjective eyes colored the world It is the intellect that has made this picture of life and experiences appear and put its mistaken fundamental conceptions into things. Later the philosophers started to see that the world we experience and the thing-in-itself are completely different and stopped drawing conclusions from our experiences out of the thing-in-itself, the philosophers will finely see that you cannot draw experience out of the thing-in-itself And in the worst case they will demand that we reject our personal will, so we can reach that what is real, that one may become real. Don’t know what F.N. meant with this Others have collected all the characteristic features of our world of appearance that is, the idea of the world spun out of intellectual errors and inherited by us, instead of blaming the intellect, they blamed the world-in-itself as the cause of the fact of this very sinister character of the world. Others blamed the world-in-itself and not the interpreter.  With all these opinions, the thorough process of science, that one day will celebrate its place in a history of thought, will deal with maybe as follows: That which we now call the world is the result of a mass of errors and fantasies which arose gradually in the general development of organic being, which are inter-grown with each other, and are now inherited by us as the accumulated treasure of all the past and it is a treasure, for the value of our humanity depends upon it. From this world of representation strict science is really only able to liberate us to a very slight extent—as it is also not at all desirable—inasmuch as it cannot essentially break the power of primitive habits of feeling; but it can gradually clarify the history of the rise of that world as representation,—and lift us, at least for moments, above and beyond the whole process. Perhaps we shall then recognize that the thing in itself is worth a Homeric laugh; that it seemed so much, indeed everything, and is really empty, namely, empty of meaning.”

Maybe it was not my day but I had a hard time with this aphorism, as if the different parts not really fitted with each other.

In one sentence:

Science will overcome the mistakes made by interpreting  life and experiences.

¹ Objects as they are independent of observation (Read more)

²The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground. (Read more)

---

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

16. PHENOMENON AND THING-IN-ITSELF.—Philosophers are in the habit of setting themselves before life and experience—before that which they call the world of appearance—as before a picture that is once for all unrolled and exhibits unchangeably fixed the same process,—this process, they think, must be rightly interpreted in order to come to a conclusion about the being that produced the picture : about the thing-in-itself, therefore, which is always accustomed to be regarded as sufficient ground for the world of phenomenon. On the other hand, since one always makes the idea of the metaphysical stand definitely as that of the unconditioned, consequently also unconditioning, one must directly disown all connection between the unconditioned (the metaphysical world) and the world which is known to us ; so that the thing-in-itself should most certainly not appear in the phenomenon, and every conclusion from the former as regards the latter is to be rejected. Both sides overlook the fact that that picture—that which we now call human life and experience—has gradually evolved,—nay, is still in the full process of evolving,—and therefore should not be regarded as a fixed magnitude from which a conclusion about its originator might be deduced (the sufficing cause) or even merely neglected. It is because for thousands of years we have looked into the world with moral, æsthetic, and religious pretensions, with blind inclination, passion, or fear, and have surfeited ourselves in the vices of illogical thought, that this world has gradually become so marvellously motley, terrible, full of meaning and of soul, it has acquired colour—but we were the colourists; the human intellect, on the basis of human needs, of human emotions, has caused this ” phenomenon ” to appear and has carried its erroneous fundamental conceptions into things. Late, very late, it takes to thinking, and now the world of experience and the thing-in-itself seem to it so extraordinarily different and separated, that it gives up drawing conclusions from the former to the latter—or in a terribly mysterious manner demands the renunciation of our intellect, of our personal will, in order thereby to reach the essential, that one may become essential. Again, others have collected all the characteristic features of our world of phenomenon,—that is, the idea of the world spun out of intellectual errors and inherited by us,—and instead of accusing the intellect as the offenders, they have laid the blame on the nature of things as being the cause of the hard fact of this very sinister character of the world, and have preached the deliverance from Being. With all these conceptions the constant and laborious process of science (which at last celebrates its greatest triumph in a history of the origin of thought) becomes completed in various ways, the result of which might perhaps run as follows :—”That which we now call the world is the result of a mass of errors and fantasies which arose gradually in the general development of organic being, which are inter-grown with each other, and are now inherited by us as the accumulated treasure of all the past —as a treasure, for the value of our humanity depends upon it. From this world of representation strict science is really only able to liberate us to a very slight extent—as it is also not at all desirable—inasmuch as it cannot essentially break the power of primitive habits of feeling ; but it can gradually elucidate the history of the rise of that world as representation,—and lift us, at least for moments, above and beyond the whole process. Perhaps we shall then recognise that the thing in itself is worth a Homeric laugh ; that it seemed so much, indeed everything, and is really empty, namely, empty of meaning.”

---

Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80

16. Erscheinung und Ding an sich. – Die Philosophen pflegen sich vor das Leben und die Erfahrung – vor Das, was sie die Welt der Erscheinung nennen – wie vor ein Gemälde hinzustellen, das ein für alle Mal entrollt ist und unveränderlich fest den selben Vorgang zeigt: diesen Vorgang, meinen sie, müsse man richtig ausdeuten, um damit einen Schluss auf das Wesen zu machen, welches das Gemälde hervorgebracht habe: also auf das Ding an sich, das immer als der zureichende Grund der Welt der Erscheinung angesehen zu werden pflegt. Dagegen haben strengere Logiker, nachdem sie den Begriff des Metaphysischen scharf als den des Unbedingten, folglich auch Unbedingenden festgestellt hatten, jeden Zusammenhang zwischen dem Unbedingten (der metaphysischen Welt) und der uns bekannten Welt in Abrede gestellt: so dass in der Erscheinung eben durchaus nicht das Ding an sich erscheine, und von jener auf dieses jeder Schluss abzulehnen sei. Von beiden Seiten ist aber die Möglichkeit übersehen, dass jenes Gemälde – Das, was jetzt uns Menschen Leben und Erfahrung heisst – allmählich geworden ist, ja noch völlig im Werden ist und desshalb nicht als feste Grösse betrachtet werden soll, von welcher aus man einen Schluss über den Urheber (den zureichenden Grund) machen oder auch nur ablehnen dürfte. Dadurch, dass wir seit Jahrtausenden mit moralischen, ästhetischen, religiösen Ansprüchen, mit blinder Neigung, Leidenschaft oder Furcht in die Welt geblickt und uns in den Unarten des unlogischen Denkens recht ausgeschwelgt haben, ist diese Welt allmählich so wundersam bunt, schrecklich, bedeutungstief, seelenvoll geworden, sie hat Farbe bekommen, – aber wir sind die Coloristen gewesen: der menschliche Intellect hat die Erscheinung erscheinen lassen und seine irrthümlichen Grundauffassungen in die Dinge hineingetragen. Spät, sehr spät – besinnt er sich: und jetzt scheinen ihm die Welt der Erfahrung und das Ding an sich so ausserordentlich verschieden und getrennt, dass er den Schluss von jener auf dieses ablehnt – oder auf eine schauerlich geheimnissvolle Weise zum Aufgeben unsers Intellectes, unsers persönlichen Willens auffordert: um dadurch zum Wesenhaften zu kommen, dass man wesenhaft werde. Wiederum haben Andere alle charakteristischen Züge unserer Welt der Erscheinung – das heisst der aus intellectuellen Irrthümern herausgesponnenen und uns angeerbten Vorstellung von der Welt – zusammengelesen und anstatt den Intellect als Schuldigen anzuklagen, das Wesen der Dinge als Ursache dieses thatsächlichen, sehr unheimlichen Weltcharakters angeschuldigt und die Erlösung vom Sein gepredigt. – Mit all diesen Auffassungen wird der stetige und mühsame Process der Wissenschaft, welcher zuletzt einmal in einer Entstehungsgeschichte des Denkens seinen höchsten Triumph feiert, in entscheidender Weise fertig werden, dessen Resultat vielleicht auf diesen Satz hinauslaufen dürfte: Das, was wir jetzt die Welt nennen, ist das Resultat einer Menge von Irrthümern und Phantasien, welche in der gesammten Entwickelung der organischen Wesen allmählich entstanden, in einander verwachsen [sind] und uns jetzt als aufgesammelter Schatz der ganzen Vergangenheit vererbt werden, – als Schatz: denn der Werth unseres Menschenthums ruht darauf. Von dieser Welt der Vorstellung vermag uns die strenge Wissenschaft thatsächlich nur in geringem Maasse zu lösen – wie es auch gar nicht zu wünschen ist -, insofern sie die Gewalt uralter Gewohnheiten der Empfindung nicht wesentlich zu brechen vermag: aber sie kann die Geschichte der Entstehung jener Welt als Vorstellung ganz allmählich und schrittweise aufhellen – und uns wenigstens für Augenblicke über den ganzen Vorgang hinausheben. Vielleicht erkennen wir dann, dass das Ding an sich eines homerischen Gelächters werth ist: dass es so viel, ja Alles schien und eigentlich leer, nämlich bedeutungsleer ist.

---

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

 

Reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s Human all too human

Read the introduction here

You can read the aphorism I discuss here in English an German below the main article.

Synopsis, quote from the translation by Helen Zimmern (1909) and my take on it

As Democritus¹ transferred applied² the concepts ” above ” and ” below ” to endless space where they have no sense, so philosophers in general have transferred Applied the concepts ” Internal ” and ” External ” to the essence and appearance of the world; Philosophers think that with deep internal feelings you can reach the “essence” of our nature. But these deep feelings are only deep if they are accompanied by hardly noticeable thoughts that we call “deep thoughts”, a feeling is deep because we think that the accompanying thought is deep. But these deep thoughts can be far from the truth for instance, every metaphysical one. If we take away the thoughts or words from the deep feeling we had, we are left with this deep feeling without any insight.  as strong faith proves only its strength and not the truth of what is believed in.

In one sentence:

Deep feelings are empty without words that are often empty to.

¹Democritus was born in Abdera, Thrace, around 460 BC, although some thought it was 490 BC. His exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from those of his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts. Their speculation on atoms, taken from Leucippus, bears a passing and partial resemblance to the 19th-century understanding of atomic structure that has led some to regard Democritus as more of a scientist than other Greek philosophers; however, their ideas rested on very different bases. Largely ignored in ancient Athens, Democritus is said to have been disliked so much by Plato that the latter wished all of his books burned. He was nevertheless well known to his fellow northern-born philosopher Aristotle. Many consider Democritus to be the “father of modern science”. None of his writings have survived; only fragments are known from his vast body of work. (Wikipedia)

²The German word “übertrug“ is in most translations translated as transferred but Handwerk translated it as extended and the Dutch version as “toepaste” that you translate in English as applied. It’s just a small difference between transferring, extending and applying and it has little influence on the whole aphorism. English is not my first languish, so I don’t know the full extent of the word transferred but it sounds like moved. In the second part of this first sentence: “transferred the concepts ” Internal ” and ” External ” to the essence and appearance of the world” I much rather use the word applied or extend.

---

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

15. NO INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL IN THE WORLD.—As Democritus transferred the concepts ” above ” and ” below ” to endless space where they have no sense, so philosophers in general have transferred the concepts ” Internal ” and ” External ” to the essence and appearance of the world ; they think that with deep feelings one can penetrate deeply into the internal and approach the heart of Nature. But these feelings are only deep in so far as along with them, barely noticeable, certain complicated groups of thoughts, which we call deep, are regularly excited ; a feeling is deep because we think that the accompanying thought is deep. But the ” deep ” thought can nevertheless be very far from the truth, as, for instance, every metaphysical one ; if one take away from the deep feeling the commingled elements of thought, then the strong feeling remains, and this guarantees nothing for knowledge but itself, just as strong faith proves only its strength and not the truth of what is believed in.

Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80

15. Kein Innen und Aussen in der Welt. – Wie Demokrit die Begriffe Oben und Unten auf den unendlichen Raum übertrug, wo sie keinen Sinn haben, so die Philosophen überhaupt den Begriff “Innen und Aussen” auf Wesen und Erscheinung der Welt; sie meinen, mit tiefen Gefühlen komme man tief in’s Innere, nahe man sich dem Herzen der Natur. Aber diese Gefühle sind nur insofern tief, als mit ihnen, kaum bemerkbar, gewisse complicirte Gedankengruppen regelmässig erregt werden, welche wir tief nennen; ein Gefühl ist tief, weil wir den begleitenden Gedanken für tief halten. Aber der tiefe Gedanke kann dennoch der Wahrheit sehr fern sein, wie zum Beispiel jeder metaphysische; rechnet man vom tiefen Gefühle die beigemischten Gedankenelemente ab, so bleibt das starke Gefühl übrig, und dieses verbürgt Nichts für die Erkenntniss, als sich selbst, ebenso wie der starke Glaube nur seine Stärke, nicht die Wahrheit des Geglaubten beweist.

---

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

 

Reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s Human all too human

Read the introduction here

You can read the aphorism I discuss here below the main article.

Note:

The German word Miterklingen, the title of this aphorism, is not a real German word as far as I can find out. In the English translation by Alexander Harvey he had a note:  “Miterklingen: to sound simultaneously with”  I agree with that, in one word it would be something like: withsounds. I don’t know why the translators didn’t took the freedom to invent a word like Nietzsche did.

For this aphorism I also included the other 3 translation that I use from Harvey (1909), Hollingdale (1986) and Handwerk (1997). For convenience, and the interested, I put every sentence side by side, so you can compare the different translations easier. There are no big surprises that influences the message  of this aphorism, besides the last word “thing” but it is interesting to see the differences and the freedom the translators took.

Synopsis and my take on it:

Al strong moods bring ripples of similar moods with them, they mix up your memory. In the mix you recognize “similar conditions and their origin”, there are quick connections made of “feelings and thoughts” and are felt as one and not separate. “In this sense one speaks of the moral feeling, of the religious feeling, as if they were absolute unities: in reality they are streams with a hundred sources and tributaries.”. “Here also, as so often happens, the unity of the word is no security for the unity of the thing¹.”  With this last sentence Nietzsche puts the aphorism a little bit on its head but I think he meant: The “word” is like the mood, also accompanied by other similar words and meanings, when describing an “thing” with words that also are blurred by their meaning the “thing”  itself gets blurred.

In one sentence:

Complex moods feel like one, but are not, like words.

¹The German word “sache” is translated by all four as “thing” but I think it’s more a word between a “thing” and a “case”, maybe entity.  In the Dutch translation it is translated as “zaak” and that can mean  a thing, but also a case but also a cross between the two.

---

Download the word document here: CO-ECHOING

---

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

14. CO-ECHOING.—All stronger moods bring with them a co-echoing of kindred sensations and moods, they grub up the memory, so to speak. Along with them something within us remembers and becomes conscious of similar conditions and their origin. Thus there are formed quick habitual connections of feelings and thoughts, which eventually, when they follow each other with lightning speed, are no longer felt as complexes but as unities. In this sense one speaks of the moral feeling, of the religious feeling, as if they were absolute unities : in reality they are streams with a hundred sources and tributaries. Here also, as so often happens, the unity of the word is no security for the unity of the thing.

Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908

Association.—All strong feelings are associated with a variety of allied sentiments and emotions. They stir up the memory at the same time. When we are under their influence we are reminded of similar states and we feel a renewal of them within us. Thus are formed habitual successions of feelings and notions, which, at last, when they follow one another with lightning rapidity are no longer felt as complexities but as unities. In this sense we hear of moral feelings, of religious feelings, as if they were absolute unities. In reality they are streams with a hundred sources and tributaries. Here again, the unity of the word speaks nothing for the unity of the thing.

Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986

14 Sympathetic resonance. – All stronger moods bring with them a sympathetic resonance on the part of related sensations and moods: they as it were root up the memory. Something in us is provoked to recollection and becomes aware of similar states and their origins. Thus there come to be constructed habitual rapid connections between feelings and thoughts which, if they succeed one another with lightning speed, are in the end no longer experienced as complexes but as unities. It is in this sense that one speaks of the moral feelings, of the religious feelings, as though these were simple unities: in truth, however, they are rivers with a hundred tributaries and sources. Here too, as so often, the unity of the word is no guarantee of the unity of the thing.

Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary Handwerk 1997

Resonances, – All stronger moods bring along with them a resonance of related sensations and moods; they churn up our memory, as it were. They bring something to mind, making us conscious of similar states and their origins. In this way habitual, rapid associations of feelings and thoughts are formed, which finally, when they follow after one another with lightning speed, are no longer even sensed as complex, but rather as unities. In this sense, we speak of moral feelings, of religious feelings, as if these were nothing but unities: in truth, they are streams with a hundred sources and tributaries. Here, too, as so often, the unity of the word guarantees nothing about the unity of the thing.

 

Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80

14. Miterklingen. – Alle stärkeren Stimmungen bringen ein Miterklingen verwandter Empfindungen und Stimmungen mit sich; sie wühlen gleichsam das Gedächtniss auf. Es erinnert sich bei ihnen Etwas in uns und wird sich ähnlicher Zustände und deren Herkunft bewusst. So bilden sich angewöhnte rasche Verbindungen von Gefühlen und Gedanken, welche zuletzt, wenn sie blitzschnell hinter einander erfolgen, nicht einmal mehr als Complexe, sondern als Einheiten empfunden werden. In diesem Sinne redet man vom moralischen Gefühle, vom religiösen Gefühle, wie als ob diess lauter Einheiten seien: in Wahrheit sind sie Ströme mit hundert Quellen und Zuflüssen. Auch hier, wie so oft, verbürgt die Einheit des Wortes Nichts für die Einheit der Sache.

---

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

 

Synopsis and my take on it:

“It is true that there might be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly (kaum or barely) to be disputed “I think that Nietzsche means the link between the outside world and the thing that perceives it in our “head”. The link is the “metaphysical world”, “we look at everything through the human head and cannot cut this head off” Would there be a world without our head. Is N. referring to the famous tree allegory?¹ There is not a world as we perceive it outside our human perception, think about colors we see vs the “real” colors².  But everything that makes metaphysical assumptions “valuable, terrible, delightful for man” is caused by “passion, error, and self-deception;” If people try to explain this link human failure causes the outcome. the worst method of getting knowledge, “not the best” If you find this at the basis of religion and metaphysics than “they (the metaphysical world) have been refuted. Then there still always remains that possibility N refers here to the possibility of a metaphysical world; but there is nothing to be done with it”.  But is “it possible to let happiness, salvation, and life depend on the spider-thread of such a possibility.” This metaphysical world is “incomprehensible to us” It is impossible to envision the link between the real world and what we perceive, it’s like directly seeing gravity.  If it would be proved it would be irrelevant knowledge. “more irrelevant than the knowledge of the chemical analysis of water to the sailor in danger in a storm.” 

In one sentence:

The road to the real world can’t be explained

¹ Philosopher George Berkeley, in his work, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), proposes, “But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park […] and nobody by to perceive them […] The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden […] no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them^. (Wikipedia)

² As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. (Read more)

---

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

9. THE METAPHYSICAL WORLD.—It is true that there might be a metaphysical world ; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We look at everything through the human head and cannot cut this head off; while the question remains, What would be left of the world if it had been cut off ? This is a purely scientific problem, and one not very likely to trouble mankind ; but everything which has hitherto made metaphysical suppositions valuable, terrible, delightful for man, what has produced them, is passion, error, and self-deception ; the very worst methods of knowledge, not the best, have taught belief therein. When these methods have been discovered as the foundation of all existing religions and metaphysics, they have been refuted. Then there still always remains that possibility ; but there is nothing to be done with it, much less is it possible to let happiness, salvation, and life depend on the spider-thread of such a possibility. For nothing could be said of the metaphysical world but that it would be a different condition, a condition inaccessible and incomprehensible to us; it would be a thing of negative qualities. Were the existence of such a world ever so well proved, the fact would nevertheless remain that it would be precisely the most irrelevant of all forms of knowledge: more irrelevant than the knowledge of the chemical analysis of water to the sailor in danger in a storm.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

9. Metaphysische Welt. – Es ist wahr, es könnte eine metaphysische Welt geben; die absolute Möglichkeit davon ist kaum zu bekämpfen. Wir sehen alle Dinge durch den Menschenkopf an und können diesen Kopf nicht abschneiden; während doch die Frage übrig bleibt, was von der Welt noch da wäre, wenn man ihn doch abgeschnitten hätte. Diess ist ein rein wissenschaftliches Problem und nicht sehr geeignet, den Menschen Sorgen zu machen; aber Alles, was ihnen bisher metaphysische Annahmen werthvoll, schreckenvoll, lustvoll gemacht, was sie erzeugt hat, ist Leidenschaft, Irrthum und Selbstbetrug; die allerschlechtesten Methoden der Erkenntniss, nicht die allerbesten, haben daran glauben lehren. Wenn man diese Methoden, als das Fundament aller vorhandenen Religionen und Metaphysiken, aufgedeckt hat, hat man sie widerlegt. Dann bleibt immer noch jene Möglichkeit übrig; aber mit ihr kann man gar Nichts anfangen, geschweige denn, dass man Glück, Heil und Leben von den Spinnenfäden einer solchen Möglichkeit abhängen lassen dürfte. – Denn man könnte von der metaphysischen Welt gar Nichts aussagen, als ein Anderssein, ein uns unzugängliches, unbegreifliches Anderssein; es wäre ein Ding mit negativen Eigenschaften. – Wäre die Existenz einer solchen Welt noch so gut bewiesen, so stünde doch fest, dass die gleichgültigste aller Erkenntnisse eben ihre Erkenntniss wäre: noch gleichgültiger als dem Schiffer in Sturmesgefahr die Erkenntniss von der chemischen Analysis des Wassers sein muss.

---

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

 

 

In one sentence:

Socratic search for happiness binds science

---

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1914

7. THE KILL-JOY IN SCIENCE.—Philosophy separated from science when it asked the question, “Which is the knowledge of the world and of life which enables man to live most happily?” This happened in the Socratic schools ; the veins of scientific investigation were bound up by the point of view of happiness,—and are so still.

---

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

7. Der Störenfried in der Wissenschaft. Die Philosophie schied sich von der Wissenschaft, als sie die Frage stellte: welches ist diejenige Erkenntnis der Welt und des Lebens, bei welcher der Mensch am glücklichsten lebt? Dies geschah in den sokratischen Schulen: durch den Gesichtspunkt des Glücks unterband man die Blutadern der wissenschaftlichen Forschung – und tut es heute noch.

---

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale that is more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1996
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

You can read the aphorism  I discuss here below the main article.

---

Synopsis and my take on it:

“The smallest subdivisions of science” are treated objectively but science “as a whole” is not.¹  Science as an entity is treated more personally, People take questions about science more personal than question about specific aspects of science like the functioning of a telescope, we can find use in that, compared to the conclusion taken from its observations, what can we do with that kind of knowledge?   In philosophy, “as the apex of the entire pyramid of science” there is the involuntarily questioning of the usefulness of knowledge and as an unconscious intention of the philosophy they give it (knowledge) the highest usefulness. Knowledge is questioned because that’s what philosophers do, but to do this they need knowledge. Nietzsche sees this unconscious reaction to give knowledge the highest usefulness as a reason for the dominance of metaphysics (thoughts²) over physics in philosophy. Because the questioning of knowledge is a thought process, philosophers see little value in solving real world problems.   Philosophy “desires, what art does, to give the greatest possible depth and meaning to life” and science seeks knowledge. “So far there has been no philosopher in whose hands philosophy has not grown into an” defense for knowledge. Both science and philosophy value knowledge because logic dictates it. “They are all tyrannized over by logic, and this is optimism—in its essence.” And Nietzsche throws in at the end the concept of logic and optimism that are both hard to place in the rest of this aphorism “and logic is by its nature optimism” (Hollingdale) Maybe it’s logical to search for knowledge and by doing so you assume you find an answer, hence the optimism.

In one sentence:

Philosophers think knowledge, scientist see knowledge.

¹The translation by Zimmern translate “…werden rein sachlich behandelt” with “…are dealt with purely in relation to themselves” while the Dutch translation, Hollingdale and I translate it more like “are treated purely objectively”. It might not be of much significance, but it got my attention.

² …The modern view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist inside the mind of an observer, so the subject becomes a form of introspection and conceptual analysis^. … (Wikipedia)

---

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

6. THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT PARTIALLY BUT NOT WHOLLY POWERFUL.—The smallest subdivisions of science taken separately are dealt with purely in relation to themselves,—the general, great sciences, on the contrary, regarded as a whole, call up the question—certainly a very non-objective one—”Wherefore? To what end?” It is this utilitarian consideration which causes them to be dealt with less impersonally when taken as a whole than when considered in their various parts. In philosophy, above all, as the apex of the entire pyramid of science, the question as to the utility of knowledge is involuntarily brought forward, and every philosophy has the unconscious intention of ascribing to it the greatest usefulness. For this reason there is so much high-flying metaphysics in all philosophies and such a shyness of the apparently unimportant solutions of physics ; for the importance of knowledge for life must appear as great as possible. Here is the antagonism between the separate provinces of science and philosophy. The latter desires, what art does, to give the greatest possible depth and meaning to life and actions ; in the former one seeks knowledge and nothing further, whatever may emerge thereby. So far there has been no philosopher in whose hands philosophy has not grown into an apology for knowledge ; on this point, at least, every one is an optimist, that the greatest usefulness must be ascribed to knowledge. They are all tyrannised over by logic, and this is optimism—in its essence.

---

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

6. Der Geist der Wissenschaft im Theil, nicht im Ganzen mächtig. – Die abgetrennten kleinsten Gebiete der Wissenschaft werden rein sachlich behandelt: die allgemeinen grossen Wissenschaften dagegen legen, als Ganzes betrachtet, die Frage – eine recht unsachliche Frage freilich – auf die Lippen: wozu? zu welchem Nutzen? Wegen dieser Rücksicht auf den Nutzen werden sie, als Ganzes, weniger unpersönlich, als in ihren Theilen behandelt. Bei der Philosophie nun gar, als bei der Spitze der gesammten Wissenspyramide, wird unwillkürlich die Frage nach dem Nutzen der Erkenntniss überhaupt aufgeworfen, und jede Philosophie hat unbewusst die Absicht, ihr den höchsten Nutzen zuzuschreiben. Desshalb giebt es in allen Philosophien so viel hochfliegende Metaphysik und eine solche Scheu vor den unbedeutend erscheinenden Lösungen der Physik; denn die Bedeutsamkeit der Erkenntniss für das Leben soll so gross als möglich erscheinen. Hier ist der Antagonismus zwischen den wissenschaftlichen Einzelgebieten und der Philosophie. Letztere will, was die Kunst will, dem Leben und Handeln möglichste Tiefe und Bedeutung geben; in ersteren sucht man Erkenntniss und Nichts weiter, – was dabei auch herauskomme. Es hat bis jetzt noch keinen Philosophen gegeben, unter dessen Händen die Philosophie nicht zu einer Apologie der Erkenntniss geworden wäre; in diesem Puncte wenigstens ist ein jeder Optimist, dass dieser die höchste Nützlichkeit zugesprochen werden müsse. Sie alle werden von der Logik tyrannisirt: und diese ist ihrem Wesen nach Optimismus.

---

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

 

In one sentence:

Our dreams divided the one inside.

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

5. MISUNDERSTANDING OF DREAMS. —In the ages of a rude and primitive civilization man believed that in dreams he became acquainted with a second actual world; herein lies the origin of all metaphysics. Without dreams there could have been found no reason for a division of the world. The distinction, too, between soul and body is connected with the most ancient comprehension of dreams, also the supposition of an imaginary soul-body, therefore the origin of all belief in spirits, and probably also the belief in gods. ” The dead continues to live, for he appears to the living in a dream ” : thus men reasoned of old for thousands and thousands of years.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

5. Missverständniss des Traumes. – Im Traume glaubte der Mensch in den Zeitaltern roher uranfänglicher Cultur eine zweite reale Welt kennen zu lernen; hier ist der Ursprung aller Metaphysik. Ohne den Traum hätte man keinen Anlass zu einer Scheidung der Welt gefunden. Auch die Zerlegung in Seele und Leib hängt mit der ältesten Auffassung des Traumes zusammen, ebenso die Annahme eines Seelenscheinleibes, also die Herkunft alles Geisterglaubens, und wahrscheinlich auch des Götterglaubens. “Der Todte lebt fort; denn er erscheint dem Lebenden im Traume”: so schloss man ehedem, durch viele Jahrtausende hindurch.

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

 

You can read the aphorism  I discuss here below the main article.

Synopsis and my take on it:

An advanced civilization appreciates small scientific truth more than the blinding shine coming from metaphysical and artistic forms. The admirers of forms mock the admirers of “unpretentious truths” because the forms are so “beautiful, splendid, enchanting”. But the scientific truth is “hard won” and “manly”. Not only the individual but the whole of mankind “will be elevated to this manliness”. “The admirers of forms” will cling to the old truth after the scientific spirit succeeds, because they can’t or won’t appreciate the simple scientific truths. At the and of this aphorism Nietzsche writes that those worlds views have changed places and “the kingdom of the inward, spiritual beauty constantly grows deeper and wider”

This last quote was from the Helen Zimmern, 1914 translation. Below are the same passages but from different translators.

“because it cannot see that the richness of inner, rational beauty always spreads and deepens” Alexander Harvey, 1908

“spiritual beauty is continually growing deeper and wider” R. J. Hollingdale, 1986

“the realm of inner, spiritual beauty is continually deepening and expanding” Google translator 2017

“das Reich der inneren, geistigen Schönheit sich fortwährend vertieft und erweitert” F.Nietzsche 1878

In one sentence:

The appreciation of scientific beauty is slowly replacing the appreciation for external beauty.

---

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1914

3. ESTIMATION OF UNPRETENTIOUS TRUTHS.— It is the mark of a higher culture to value the little unpretentious truths which have been discovered by means of rigorous method more highly than the errors handed down by metaphysical ages and men, which blind us and make us happy. At first, one has scorn on his lips for unpretentious truths, as if they could offer no match for the others: they stand so modest, simple, sober, even apparently discouraging, while the other truths are so beautiful, splendid, enchanting, or even enrapturing. But truths that are hard won, certain, enduring, and therefore still of consequence for all further knowledge are the higher; to keep to them is manly, and shows bravery, simplicity, restraint. Eventually, not only the individual, but all mankind will be elevated to this manliness, when men finally grow accustomed to the greater esteem for durable, lasting knowledge and have lost all belief in inspiration and a seemingly miraculous communication of truths.

The admirers of forms, with their standard of beauty and sublimity, will, to be sure, have good reason to mock at first, when esteem for unpretentious truths and the scientific spirit first comes to rule, but only because either their eye has not yet been opened to the charm of the simplest form, or because men raised in that spirit have not yet been fully and inwardly permeated by it, so that they continue thoughtlessly to imitate old forms (and poorly, too, like someone who no longer really cares about the matter). Previously, the mind was not obliged to think rigorously; its importance lay in spinning out symbols and forms. That has changed ; that earnestness in the symbolical has become the mark of a lower culture. As our arts themselves grow evermore intellectual, our senses more spiritual, and as, for instance, people now judge concerning what sounds well to the senses quite differently from how they did a hundred years ago, so the forms of our life grow ever more spiritual, to the eye of older ages perhaps uglier, but only because it is incapable of perceiving how the kingdom of the inward, spiritual beauty constantly grows deeper and wider, and to what extent the inner intellectual look may be of more importance to us all than the most beautiful bodily frame and the noblest architectural structure

---

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

3. Schätzung der unscheinbaren Wahrheiten. – Es ist das Merkmal einer höhern Cultur, die kleinen unscheinbaren Wahrheiten, welche mit strenger Methode gefunden wurden, höher zu schätzen, als die beglückenden und blendenden Irrthümer, welche metaphysischen und künstlerischen Zeitaltern und Menschen entstammen. Zunächst hat man gegen erstere den Hohn auf den Lippen, als könne hier gar nichts Gleichberechtigtes gegen einander stehen: so bescheiden, schlicht, nüchtern, ja scheinbar entmuthigend stehen diese, so schön, prunkend, berauschend, ja vielleicht beseligend stehen jene da. Aber das mühsam Errungene, Gewisse, Dauernde und desshalb für jede weitere Erkenntniss noch Folgenreiche ist doch das Höhere, zu ihm sich zu halten ist männlich und zeigt Tapferkeit, Schlichtheit, Enthaltsamkeit an. Allmählich wird nicht nur der Einzelne, sondern die gesammte Menschheit zu dieser Männlichkeit emporgehoben werden, wenn sie sich endlich an die höhere Schätzung der haltbaren, dauerhaften Erkenntnisse gewöhnt und allen Glauben an Inspiration und wundergleiche Mittheilung von Wahrheiten verloren hat. – Die Verehrer der Formen freilich, mit ihrem Maassstabe des Schönen und Erhabenen, werden zunächst gute Gründe zu spotten haben, sobald die Schätzung der unscheinbaren Wahrheiten und der wissenschaftliche Geist anfängt zur Herrschaft zu kommen: aber nur weil entweder ihr Auge sich noch nicht dem Reiz der schlichtesten Form erschlossen hat oder weil die in jenem Geiste erzogenen Menschen noch lange nicht völlig und innerlich von ihm durchdrungen sind, so dass sie immer noch gedankenlos alte Formen nachmachen (und diess schlecht genug, wie es jemand thut, dem nicht mehr viel an einer Sache liegt). Ehemals war der Geist nicht durch strenges Denken in Anspruch genommen, da lag sein Ernst im Ausspinnen von Symbolen und Formen. Das hat sich verändert; jener Ernst des Symbolischen ist zum Kennzeichen der niederen Cultur geworden; wie unsere Künste selber immer intellectualer, unsere Sinne geistiger werden, und wie man zum Beispiel jetzt ganz anders darüber urtheilt, was sinnlich wohltönend ist, als vor hundert Jahren: so werden auch die Formen unseres Lebens immer geistiger, für das Auge älterer Zeiten vielleicht hässlicher, aber nur weil es nicht zu sehen vermag, wie das Reich der inneren, geistigen Schönheit sich fortwährend vertieft und erweitert und in wie fern uns Allen der geistreiche Blick jetzt mehr gelten darf, als der schönste Gliederbau und das erhabenste Bauwerk.

I use a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also read a copyrighted translation by R.J.HolllingdaleI that is much better than the one I can show you here and that is a copyright free. It is a translation from 1914 that you can also read here and here. If you want to read it in German you can do that here, my German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use it as a referee. I did not find a copyright free Dutch edition but you can buy and then download it here if you like it, I will make some pictures of the first aphorism so you can see if you like it.

---

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale that is more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1996
3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here