Nietzsche's Nachlass

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Since I'm reading fragments of Nietzsche's notebooks I thought to post some of the ones I consider interesting. Since I don't own and couldn't find English translations online at the moment, I attempted my own translation and I'll welcome any corrections.


Beyond the stench and the dirt of the human lows there exists a higher, clearer humanity, which would be very low in number because everything that excels is naturally rare -: you are not one of them because you would be more gifted or more virtuous or more heroic or more loving than the people there below, but because you are more sober, clear, farsighted and solitary, because you bare the solitude, prefers, demands as happiness, privilege, yes as condition to live, because you live as equals with clouds and lightning, but as well with sunbeams, dewdrops, snowflakes and all that needs to come from up high and if it moves it only eternally moves downward. Aspirations toward the higher are not ours.- The heroes, martyrs, geniuses and enthusiasts are not still, patient, subtle, sober, slow enough for us.

From Nachlass, autumn 1885 - autumn 1887, 7[70]

(edited to enhance the translation further)

[avidaloca]

Can you post the original German text with your translation?

[sevens]

More! I'm hungry!

[sevens]

...And, drip water drops...

[sevens]

...from the sky, into my eye!

[Matt Gregory]

Here's Kaufmann's version:

It is a comfort to me to know that above the steam and filth of human lowlands there is a higher, brighter humanity, very small in number (for everything outstanding is by its nature rare): one belongs to it, not because one is more talented or more virtuous or more heroic or more loving than the men below, but--because one is colder, brighter, more far-seeing, more solitary; because one endures, prefers, demands solitude as happiness, as privilege, indeed as a condition of existence; because one lives among clouds and lightning as among one's own kind, but equally among rays of sunlight, drops of dew, flakes of snow, and everything that necessarily comes from the heights and, when it moves, moves eternally only in the direction from above to below. Aspirations toward the heights are not ours.-- Heroes, martyrs, geniuses and enthusiasts are not still, patient, subtle, cold, slow enough for us.

From "The Will To Power", 993 (1885)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thanks Matt, didn't think of searching that one.

The German version from the fragments goes like this:
Es giebt über dem Dampf und Schmutz der menschlichen Niederungen eine höhere hellere Menschheit, die der Zahl nach eine sehr kleine sein wird—denn alles, was hervorragt, ist seinem Wesen nach, selten—: man gehört zu ihr, nicht weil man begabter oder tugendhafter oder heroischer oder liebevoller wäre, als die Menschen da unten, sondern weil man kälter, heller, weitsichtiger, einsamer ist, weil man die Einsamkeit erträgt, vorzieht, fordert als Glück, Vorrecht, ja als Bedingung des Daseins, weil man unter Wolken und Blitzen wie unter seines Gleichen lebt, aber ebenso unter Sonnenstrahlen, Thautropfen, Schneeflocken und allem, was nothwendig aus der Höhe kommt und, wenn es sich bewegt, sich ewig nur in der Richtung von Oben nach Unten bewegt. Die Aspirationen nach der Höhe sind nicht die unsrigen.— Die Helden, Märtyrer, Genies und Begeisterten sind uns nicht still, geduldig, fein, kalt, langsam genug.

Interesting difference I have with Kauffman is my translation of "hellere Menschheit" with "clearer" (more transparant, clarity) seeing the context was the Damf and Schmutz (dirt) of humanity. The English "brighter" only vaguely implies some cleaner surface that's more transparant or refelctive for light. It's a tough choice though.

I also preferred "sober" over "cold". Hard one though, I think the literal translation should be "cool" in the context.

[Matt Gregory]

I like your translation better. You can tell that you spent more time refining it than Kaufmann. Can't really fault Kaufmann for not perfecting every little nuance, though, since he did translate quite a bit of material.

[sevens]

Beware of patting backs, and huddling! What did Sir Nietzsche speak of that?

[sevens]

Please refer to a snippet, over in my corner - under 'Behavior.'

Thanks.

[Matt Gregory]

Beware of patting backs, and huddling! What did Sir Nietzsche speak of that?

Please refer to a snippet, over in my corner - under 'Behavior.'

Thanks.

Now what did I do?

Man, I've been getting so ganked lately.

I don't understand what you're trying to say -- it's a meaningless opinion. It took me two seconds to write it. What is the big deal?

(the strategy here is to take everything that life throws at me to its utmost extreme level, or until I get sick of it, whichever comes first)

[sevens]

Matt,

That comment wasn't in response to anything you said - even though it utilized something you said. I was referring to a chewing post that Diebert so gracefully plopped on a thread of mine. Either way, still isn't cool to be spat at, or pawned with.

Imagine your 'self' as an electrical conduit. It takes negative and positive energy to maintain a potent equilibrium. Learn to balance - and, fire lightning at will. It'll build your confidence - and jesters, clowns, maidens, and kings will respect you.

[Matt Gregory]

Actually, it wasn't totally meaningless. I do think that the desire/ability to refine something towards perfection is a good thinking trait. Although it's best to refine one's understanding of Truth, if you can't manage to do that, refining the refining skill itself is the next best thing, I would think.

[sevens]

Hey Matt,

What do you visualize as the Truth? Once you refine your thinking, keep refining - retrace your steps, even. Gather a stew. Taste it daily. Add spice, and sugar. Keep on cooking!

[Matt Gregory]

What do you visualize as the Truth?

I don't know, I don't think I can really describe it. Stillness, I guess. A moving thing is "in" motion, but motion itself can't move. Similarly for change, finitude, mind, etc. In a developing person it seems separate until it logically cycles back to the ordinary. It's just a matter of completing the logical cycle. Not to say that it's one train of thought, like going from 2 to + to 2 to = to 4, it's more like an ever expanding state of being, I guess.

Best I can do right now.

[sevens]

Matt,

What are your spiritual interests? What sparks your mind?

[Matt Gregory]

Sevens,

What are my spiritual interests? I don't think I understand the question. The nature of Reality is my spiritual interest. There is no other spiritual thing, so any other type of interest wouldn't be spiritual.

What sparks my mind? Just anything new that makes me think differently about myself or reality.

How about you?

[sevens]

Matt,

Do you have any interest in Buddhism? - for example. Are you able to decipher poetry?

I'm interested in Reality, as well. Through Reality, all other interests multiply.

[Matt Gregory]

Do you have any interest in Buddhism?

Yeah, I like Buddhism. I'm about sick to death of Buddhism right now, though, because I've spent the last year or so reading virtually nothing but sutras and Zen texts, so I'm pretty worn out on it.

- for example. Are you able to decipher poetry?

It depends on the poetry. For the most part, I'm terrible at poetry and just reading in general. I'm slowly getting better at it. I feel I can get something out of Buddhist poetry. The purpose of Buddhism is pretty clear, so that makes it a lot easier. Plus I make more of an effort to study it than most other things. Your poetry on the other hand, I don't really understand because I don't really know why you're writing it. I haven't really figured out what your purpose in life is. Plus, I haven't really had time to study it. It takes me many months of studying to reach a good understanding of a piece of writing.

Nietzsche is probably the most impenetrable writer for me. I just don't connect psychologically with that guy very easily even though I've read probably five or six of his books. He started to click for me, though, when I realized he's like Jim Haz or me or someone writing a little piece on here about space or time or some philosophical topic. He just wrote more of these little pieces and periodically took a bunch and organized them into a book. For a long time I thought he was trying to unsystematically describe a philosophical system, and that really confused me. But he doesn't have a system, he just let his mind go off on whatever tangent he felt like at the time. His systemizations are just reflections of what interested him the most. He didn't consciously systemize anything beyond organizing his books by topic. I don't think he was interested in that.

Edit: Another thought about this: It may have also been the formality of Nietzsche's writing that threw me. But it's not formal writing, it's casual writing. It only seems more formal to us today because writing was more of an event back then, so people took more pride in it. Everything from the pens to the act of getting published was more difficult back then.

I'm interested in Reality, as well. Through Reality, all other interests multiply.

For me Reality makes my other interests diminish.

[avidaloca]

It only seems more formal to us today because writing was more of an event back then

The sentiments were informal and introspective, but presented in high-quality language so that they were well described and able to convince.

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah. I get the impression that he often wrote down his thought processes backwards to make them more dramatic, too.

Edit: Deleted some stuff.

[unknown]

Nietzsche was a fool. He was good but he succumbed to his existance.

[Matt Gregory]

What was it that succumbed to his existence?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Another bit from the Nachlass. This one has been quoted often enough but I found the English translation lacking in power so I submit hereby my own as well as the original German.

What I recount, is the story of the coming two centuries. I describe, what comes, what no longer can come in any other way: the rise of nihilism. This story can already be told: for necessity itself is at work here. This future speaks already in a hundred signs, this fate announces itself everywhere; all ears are already perked at this music of the future. Our whole European culture is moving already for a long time with a torturing suspense, growing from decade to decade, toward a disaster waiting to happen: anxious, forceful, overhasty: like a river, that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.

from Nachlass, november 1887 - marts 1888

Was ich erzähle, ist die Geschichte der nächsten zwei Jahrhunderte. Ich beschreibe, was kommt, was nicht mehr anders kommen kann: die Heraufkunft des Nihilismus. Diese Geschichte kann jetzt schon erzählt werden: denn die Nothwendigkeit selbst ist hier am Werke. Diese Zukunft redet schon in hundert Zeichen, dieses Schicksal kündigt überall sich an; für diese Musik der Zukunft sind alle Ohren bereits gespitzt. Unsre ganze europäische Cultur bewegt sich seit langem schon mit einer Tortur der Spannung, die von Jahrzehnt zu Jahrzehnt wächst, wie auf eine Katastrophe los: unruhig, gewaltsam, überstürzt: einem Strom ähnlich, der an's Ende will, der sich nicht mehr besinnt, der Furcht davor hat, sich zu besinnen.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The lie. The unconscious lie.

Every ruling instinct has all the other ones available as tools, royal household, bootlickers: it doesn't let itself be called by its ugly names: and it doesn't allow to be described by any negative terms: and it doesn't allow any other praise, which doesn't indirectly praise itself.

This is why around every ruling instinct all the praise and blame crystallizes, mostly in a rigid order and etiquette.

This is one cause of the lie.

Every instinct that seeks domination, but is placed under a yoke, needs as support for his self-assurance, as reinforcement, all beautiful names and approved values: for this it mostly ventures under the names of its battled "rulers", which it wants to be set free from (e.g. under the ruling christian value the bodily lust or desire for power).

This is the other cause of the lie.

In both cases complete naivety rules: the lie does not enter consciousness. It is a sign of damaged instinct, when a man sees what drives him and its "imprint" ("the mask") removed -- a sign of self-contradiction, and much less victorious. The absolute innocence in the gesture, word, affect, the "good conscience" in the lie, the certainty, with which the man grabs the biggest and most beautiful words and attitudes -- all necessary for victory.

In other cases: with extreme foreknowledge it needs the genius of actors and unbelievable growth of self-control, to become victorious. Hence priests, the most clever conscious liars; then princes, whose ranks and lineage turns theatre into art. Third: social beings, diplomats. Fourth: women.

Underlying thought: the lie appears so deep, so all-round, the will is in such a way directed against directly knowing itself and calling-it-what-it-is, that the suspicion becomes a very strong possibility: truth, the will to truth is actually something completely different and also merely a dressing.

Fragmente XI, Sommer 1887, own translation from:

Die Falschheit. Die unbewußte Falschheit.
Jeder souveräne Instinkt hat die anderen zu seinen Werkzeugen, Hofstaat, Schmeichlern: er läßt sich nie bei seinem häßlichen Namen nennen: und er duldet keine anderen Lobsprüche, bei denen er nicht indirekt mit gelobt wird.
Um jeden souveränen Instinkt herum krystallisirt sich alles Loben und Tadeln überhaupt zu einer festen Ordnung und Etiquette.
Dies die Eine Ursache der Falschheit.
Jeder nach Herrschaft strebende, aber unter einem Joch befindliche Instinkt, braucht für sich, zur Unterstützung seines Selbstgefühls, zur Stärkung, alle schönen Namen und anerkannten Werthe: so daß er sich hervor. wagt zumeist unter dem Namen des von ihm bekämpften "Herren", von dem er frei werden will. (Z.B. unter der Herrschaft christlicher Werthe die fleischliche Begierde oder die Machtbegierde)
Dies die andere Ursache der Falschheit.
In beiden Fällen herrscht vollkommene Naivetät: die Falschheit tritt nicht ins Bewußtsein. Es ist ein Zeichen von gebrochenem Instinkt, wenn der Mensch das Treibende und dessen "Ausdruck" ("die Maske") getrennt sieht — ein Zeichen von Selbstwiderspruch, und viel weniger siegreich. Die absolute Unschuld in der Gebärde, im Wort, im Affekt, das "gute Gewissen" in der Falschheit, die Sicherheit, mit der man nach den größten und prachtvollsten Worten und Stellungen faßt — Alles nothwendig zum Siege.
Im anderen Falle: bei extremer Hellsichtigkeit bedarf es Genie des Schauspielers und ungeheure Zucht in der Selbstbeherrschung, um zu siegen. Deshalb Priester die geschicktesten bewußten Heuchler; sodann Fürsten, denen ihr Rang und ihre Abkunft eine Art von Schauspielerei großzüchtet. Drittens Gesellschafts-Menschen, Diplomaten. Viertens Frauen.
Grundgedanke: Die Falschheit erscheint so tief, so allseitig, der Wille ist dergestalt gegen das direkte Sichselbst-Erkennen und Bei-Namen-nennen gerichtet, daß die Vermuthung sehr große Wahrscheinlichkeit hat: Wahrheit, Wille zur Wahrheit sei eigentlich etwas ganz Andres und auch nur eine Verkleidung.