You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea [ fixe Idee ]! Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the Higher, and because the vast majority belongs under this head almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum.
Is not all the stupid chatter of most of our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed idea of morality, legality, Christianity, and so forth, and only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space? For these great lunatics are like the little so-called lunatics in this point too — that they assail by stealth him who touches their fixed idea.
They first steal his weapon, steal free speech from him, and then they fall upon him with their nails. Every day now lays bare the cowardice and vindictiveness of these maniacs, and the stupid populace hurrahs for their crazy measures. One must read the journals of this period, and must hear the philistines talk, to get the horrible conviction that one is shut up in a house with fools.
Just as the schoolmen philosophized only inside the belief of the church; as Pope Benedict XIV wrote fat books inside the papist superstition, without ever throwing a doubt upon this belief; as authors fill whole folios on the state without calling in question the fixed idea of the state itself; as our newspapers are crammed with politics because they are conjured into the fancy that man was created to be a zoon politicon — so also subjects vegetate in subjection, virtuous people in virtue, liberals in humanity, without ever putting to these fixed ideas of theirs the searching knife of criticism.
Possessions of the devil are not the only ones. I add that complete enthusiasm — for we cannot stop with the sluggish, half-way kind — is called fanaticism. It is precisely among cultured people that fanaticism is at home; for man is cultured so far as he takes an interest in spiritual things, and interest in spiritual things, when it is alive, is and must be fanaticism; it is a fanatical interest in the sacred fanum. And whence this shudder?
Because he believes in those moral commandments. This moral faith is deeply rooted in his breast.
Much as he rages against the pious Christians, he himself has nevertheless as thoroughly remained a Christian — namely, a moral Christian. In the form of morality Christianity holds him a prisoner, and a prisoner under faith. Monogamy is to be something sacred, and he who may live in bigamy is punished as a criminal; he who commits incest suffers as a criminal. Those who are always crying that religion is not to be regarded in the state, and the Jew is to be a citizen equally with the Christian, show themselves in accord with this.
Is not this of incest and monogamy a dogma of faith? Touch it, and you will learn by experience how this moral man is a hero of faith too, not less than Krummacher, not less than Philip II. These fight for the faith of the Church, he for the faith of the state, or the moral laws of the state; for articles of faith, both condemn him who acts otherwise than their faith will allow.
Moral faith is as fanatical as religious faith! Those who are zealous for something sacred often look very little like each other. And yet, how utterly unessential is this difference! If one buffets single traditional truths miracles, unlimited power of princes , then the Rationalists buffet them too, and only the old-style believers wail. But, if one buffets truth itself, he immediately has both, as believers, for opponents.
So with moralities; the strict believers are relentless, the clearer heads are more tolerant.
But he who attacks morality itself gets both to deal with. And yet it has almost always been only moral opponents that have appeared in the arena, to assail the supreme essence in favour of — another supreme essence. Who would dare today to attack morality? It is a question of a supreme essence with both, and whether this is a superhuman or a human one can make since it is in any case an essence over me, a super-mine one, so to speak but little difference to me. So then it would be more accurately worded thus: Love is what is human in man, and what is inhuman is the loveless egoist.
But precisely all that which Christianity and with it speculative philosophy i. Consequently, by the transformation of the predicate into the subject, the Christian essence and it is the predicate that contains the essence, you know would only be fixed yet more oppressively. God and the divine would entwine themselves all the more inextricably with me. What does that mean but that the reason laid claim to be the same visionary [ Phantastin ] as the imagination?
Hegel has shown that even philosophy is religious. And what is not called religion today? So it is, too, in fact. To be sure, we remain bound, so far as religion takes possession of our inward parts; but is the mind also bound? On the contrary, that is free, is sole lord, is not our mind, but absolute.
In whomsoever the mind is free, he is religious in just the same way as he in whom the senses have free course is called a sensual man.https://europeschool.com.ua/profiles/xaxukav/como-conocer-a-los-chicos.php
Nine Reasons People Aren’t Singing in Worship
The mind binds the former, the desires the latter. Religion, therefore, is boundness or religio with reference to me — I am bound; it is freedom with reference to the mind — the mind is free, or has freedom of mind.
- The Reunion: Emmas Vacation (The Starting Over Series Book 1).
- Zeichenpapier falten nach DIN (Unterweisung Werkzeugmechaniker / -in) (German Edition);
- Les conditions géographiques des faits sociaux (French Edition).
- Nine Reasons People Aren’t Singing in Worship | Renewing Worship.
Many know from experience how hard it is on us when the desires run away with us, free and unbridled; but that the free mind, splendid intellectuality, enthusiasm for intellectual interests, or however this jewel may in the most various phrase be named, brings us into yet more grievous straits than even the wildest impropriety, people will not perceive; nor can they perceive it without being consciously egoists.
Reimarus, and all who have shown that our reason, our heart, etc. To be sure, they vexed the theologians, from whom they took away the prerogative of religious exaltation; but for religion, for freedom of mind, they thereby conquered yet more ground. For, when the mind is no longer limited to feeling or faith, but also, as understanding, reason, and thought in general, belongs to itself the mind — when therefore, it may take part in the spiritual and heavenly truths in the form of understanding, as well as in its other forms — then the whole mind is occupied only with spiritual things, that is, with itself, and is therefore free.
For, when morality not merely goes alongside of piety, but stands on feet of its own, then its principle lies no longer in the divine commandments, but in the law of reason, from which the commandments, so far as they are still to remain valid, must first await justification for their validity. Piety and morality part company in this — that the former makes God the lawgiver, the latter Man. From a certain stand-point of morality [ Sittlichkeit ] people reason about as follows: Either man is led by his sensuality [ Sinnlichkeit ], and is, following it, immoral, or he is led by the good, which, taken up into the will, is called moral sentiment sentiment and prepossession in favour of the good ; then he shows himself moral.
What is commonly understood by unselfish it certainly was, in the same measure as among other things St. According to the principle of morality, which commands us to serve the good, you could really ask only whether murder could never in any case be a realization of the good, and would have to endorse that murder which realized the good.
What else had his scheme been, after all, but that he wanted to suppress writings by brute force? And what can be objected against it from your principle of morality? Then you admit that the good is nothing else than — law, morality nothing else than loyalty. For in the latter only the act is needed, but you require the disposition too; one must carry in himself the law, the statute; and he who is most legally disposed is the most moral.
Even the last vestige of cheerfulness in Catholic life must perish in this Protestant legality.
Cortés & Montezuma: The Conquering of Tenochtitlan - History Extra
Here at last the domination of the law is for the first time complete. Why do certain opposition parties fail to flourish? Solely for the reason that they refuse to forsake the path of morality or legality. Hence the measureless hypocrisy of devotion, love, etc. But now, according to the practice hitherto and the old prejudice of the opposition, the moral relation is to be preserved above all.
What is then left to the opposition? Perhaps the will to have a liberty, if the beloved one sees fit to deny it? Not a bit! No, it must renounce will in order to live to love , renounce liberty — for love of morality.
Cortés and Montezuma: the conquering of Tenochtitlan
Whether this will is regarded as reasonable or as unreasonable, in both cases one acts morally when one follows it, and immorally when one breaks away from it. The will that commands the censorship seems to many unreasonable; but he who in a land of censorship evades the censoring of his book acts immorally, and he who submits it to the censorship acts morally. The web of the hypocrisy of today hangs on the frontiers of two domains, between which our time swings back and forth, attaching its fine threads of deception and self-deception.
No longer vigorous enough to serve morality without doubt or weakening, not yet reckless enough to live wholly to egoism, it trembles now toward the one and now toward the other in the spider-web of hypocrisy, and, crippled by the curse of halfness, catches only miserable, stupid flies. In short, people would like to have the one, but not go without the other; they would like to have a free will, but not for their lives lack the moral will. Just come in contact with a servile loyalist, you Liberals. You will sweeten every word of freedom with a look of the most loyal confidence, and he will clothe his servilism in the most flattering phrases of freedom.
The good see in him an arch-villain, and relegate him to hell. Why did nothing hinder him in his arbitrary course? Why did people put up with so much? Do you suppose the tame Romans, who let all their will be bound by such a tyrant, were a hair the better? In old Rome they would have put him to death instantly, would never have been his slaves.
Nero was no viler than his time, in which one could only be one of the two, good or bad.
Related Ancient Civilization: The Journey of Surrender (Adaption of The Camp Of Gods Tears)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved