Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

NIETZSCHE, THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, AND ESOTERICISM

Author(s): Lawrence Lampert and Laurence Lampert


Source: Journal of Nietzsche Studies, No. 9/10, American Nietzsches (Spring/Autumn 1995), pp.
36-49
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20717623
Accessed: 03-10-2015 02:24 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Nietzsche
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NIETZSCHE, THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, AND ESOTERICISM

Lawrence Lampert

Introduction

My paper is a reporton what I think is a great and neglected theme in the historyof
- the dread theme of esotericism. It is a theme that opens a whole new
philosophy territory

for our and appreciation, even for our gratitude. And it is a theme congenial to a
inspection

Nietzschean perspective partly because Nietzsche recognized its importance and called our

attentionto it,but primarilybecause it enables us to see thatgreat philosophersof our


tradition were, in their own way, Nietzschean philosophers.

My paper has fourparts:


1.What philosophicesotericismis andwhy we don't like it.
2. Some of Nietzsche's own statements on esotericism.

3. How a Nietzschean historyof philosophygains froma recognitionof esotericism.


4. Nietzsche's place in a history of esotericism.

Part 1: Esotericism
Esotericism is somewhat repugnantor repellentto contemporaryscholarship.Let me first
define it,thensaywhy I thinkit seems repugnant,and thenwhy I thinkit should seem an

appealing, even a beautiful and edifying theme.

Definition:The esotericismIwill be speakingabout is thepracticeforcedon philosophersof

masking theirheterodoxyfromthose towhom itcould be of no use, and of enticingto their


heterodoxy those for whom it could be valuable, perhaps even the thing of highest value.

Esotericism employs salutary or at least orthodox opinions to mask its true conclusions. Such

esotericism is an art of communication, communicating selectively, choosing its audience by

36

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The esoteric or hidden core depends upon the exotericor open face: exoteric
itsartistry.

conformity permits esoteric nonconformity. Outward conformity permits inner freedom, the

freedom to entertain and communicate the most radical and dangerous thoughts.

Why does esotericism seem repugnant to us? I think there are two constant and basic reasons

and one contemporary, almost accidental reason.

seemsmorallysuspicious.Were
First: The need tohide and tohide by deceptiveconformity
the practitioners of esotericism our moral inferiors? Were they cowards who lose any claim

on our regardby theirtimidity?


Worse, were theyliarswho lose any claim on our regardby
were theyelitistswho thoughtthattheyand theirlikewere
theirduplicity?Furthermore,

capable of thingsthatexceed thecapacityof therestof us? Cowards, liars,elitists.I thinkit's


safe to say they weren't cowards. As to the other two, there's always going to be something

funnyabout a viewwhich holds thatthehighestand truestthingscannotbe spokenopenly.

The second reason esotericism seems repugnant, I think, is that esotericism seems

intellectually suspicious because of its historic association with occult teachings. To

countenance esotericism seems to give heart to oddness, to alchemy, astrology, or magic, to

secret teachings conveyed mysteriously. Francis Bacon, a master practitioner of philosophy's

esotericart,complainedabout thismisuse, saying thatitruinedthe reputation


of a high and
ancient practice. Occult esotericism with its essential obscurantism, its secret routes to the

heartof things,itsscornfor responsiblemethod, taintsall of esotericism,


making it sound
irrational.

In addition to these two basic or long-standingreasons there is an additionalfactwhich


contributesto thecurrentsuspicionsabout esotericism:we are now experiencinga revival in
the recognitionof philosophic esotericismbut the dominant form of that revival links
esotericism to an unattractive politics. Straussianism, the school of philosophic studies and

philosophicpoliticsgeneratedby Leo Strauss,seems to tie the thesisof esotericismto a very


particularphilosophicpolitics: itseems to endorse its local nationalism,
Americanism,and it
seems topropup the localGod, Yahweh, theGod of our old orthodoxies,thenow dead God.

In my view, Straussianism ismerely a passing phase that can't pass too quickly, whereas Leo

37

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Strauss himself deserves extremelyhigh regard for his lastingand matchless studies of

philosophic esotericism.

Now, to look to thepositive side,why should the recognitionof philosophicesotericismbe


attractive to us? I think there are two main reasons:

First:What was once necessarilyhidden by philosophic esotericismhas now become open

public knowledge regardingnaturaland humanhistory.Philosophic esotericismdid not hide


weird or occult; ithid thenaturalismforbiddenby thedominantsupernaturalism,
something
was reason,
a naturalismnow publicly respectable.And ithid thefact thatits sole standard
that its single-minded method subjected everything to rational assessment.

Second: It is perfectly understandable, why there was such a practice. Partly because of the

persecutionof heterodoxy.Partly because of the convictionthatpublic decency depended


because of the need to educate, tomove a few readers
upon salutary but false opinions. Partly

away from self-evident but actually false opinions toward implausible, even
apparently

criminal that were nevertheless true.


opinions

For reasons of persecution, public responsibility, and private pedagogy, heterodox

philosophersfound itnecessarytopay lip serviceto theprevailingorthodoxy.Therefore,their


or exoteric of professions of loyalty and soundness - but to what?
public teaching consisted

To views thatnow sound obsolete, views theapparentholding ofwhich nowmakes these

philosopherssoundobsoleteorworse: irrational.
The passage of timehas placed thesecareful,

politic, supremelyrationalthinkersinan ironicbind: on theone hand, theexotericface they


had to put on theirwritings inorder towin a hearingnow inhibitstheirwinning a hearing.
That once face is now unsettling, even absurd. What was once a timely necessity
comforting

now makes them look dated, trappedinpast prejudicesfromwhich they in fact extricated

themselvesbut seem not to have. On theotherhand, theesotericcore theyobscured inorder


to avoid being condemnedand inorder tobe socially responsibleis thevery thingforwhich

they could now be celebrated and thanked were that core to become accessible to us. To be

attentive to their esoteric art is to see that itwas driven by one thing above all: a concern for

the place of reason in the world.

38

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Nietzschean perspectiveon thehistoryof philosophyand itsesotericpracticesenables us
to judge thephilosophicpast as a noble spiritualadventure:carriedon in theface of great
it conducted a careful, responsible campaign on behalf of the greatest, most
danger, important

matters, and, to a significant degree, it succeeded.

But a Nietzschean perspectiveadds one more fundamental


point to thishistoryof esoteric
caution: 'That's all over now.' This is the phrase Nietzsche used to describe what happens to

everythingthathas themodern conscienceagainst it(JS 357); therefinedconscienceof good


Europeans considersphilosophicesotericismindecentand dishonestfor itselfA Nietzschean
-
historyof philosophybringstheold esotericpracticesintotheopen itends themby bringing
themintotheopen and itends themforpreciselythesame reason thatphilosophyfirsttook

up esoteric practices: to defend the place of reason in the world.

PART 2: NIETZSCHE AND ESOTERICISM


To indicate Nietzsche's own understanding of esotericism Iwant tomention three of his most

interesting statements. First, near the end of his work, in the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche

reflected on 'the great, the uncanny problem which I have reflected on longest, the psychology

of the "improvers" of humanity.' He then recounted how this problem first presented itself to

him many years earlier: 'A small and really rather modest fact, that of the so-called pious

fraud, gave me my first access to this problem .... Neither Manu nor Plato, neither Confucius

nor theJewishand Christianteachers,ever doubted theirrightto lie' (77 Improvers,5). The

'improvers' of humanity, great innovative teachers of a moral order, Plato among them,

feignedor fakeda belief ina moral order to improvehumanity'smorals.

Second, in an unpublishednote from 1888Nietzsche definedesotericismin a usefulway:


'Leering out of thewritingsof my firstperiod is the grimace of Jesuitism:I mean the
consciousholdingon to illusionand forciblyincorporating
thatillusionas thebasis of culture'

(KGW VII 16 [23]). If Jesuitismleersout of Nietzsche's earlywritings it's not because


Nietzsche was ever a Jesuit; he never advocated the conscious on to illusion. In a very
holding

early essay,On theUse and Disadvantage ofHistoryfor Life, he contrastedthe taskof the
presentgenerationto thetaskPlato gave himself:Plato fed thefirstgenerationof his citybuilt

39

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in speech themighty necessary lie, the lie to be sustained as sacred traditionby every

subsequent generation; Nietzsche on the other hand confronts his generation with the

deadly as it is.
necessary truth,

A thirdstatementbyNietzsche on theproblemof esotericismis fairlylongbut it is simply


basic and needs to be studied in itsentirety:

Let us compress the facts into a few brief formulas: to begin with, the
philosophic spiritalways had to use as a mask and cocoon thepreviously
man -
established types of the contemplative priest, sorcerer, soothsayer, and
in any case a religious type - in order to be able to existat all: theascetic
ideal fora longtime served thephilosopheras a form inwhich to appear, as
a precondition - he had to represent it so as to be able to be a
of existence

philosopher;he had to believe in it in order to representit.The peculiar,


withdrawnattitudeof thephilosopher,
world-denying, hostile to life,suspicious
which has been maintaineddown to the
of the senses,freedfrom sensuality,
most modern times and has become virtually the philosopher's pose par
- it is above all a result of the
excellence emergency conditions under which
philosophyarose and survivedat all; forthe longesttimephilosophywould not
have been possible at all on earth without ascetic wraps and cloak, without an
To put it vividly: theascetic priest provided
ascetic self-misunderstanding.
until themost modern times the repulsiveand gloomy caterpillarform in
which alone thephilosophercould live and creep about.

Has all this reallyaltered!! Has thatmany-colored and dangerouswinged


creature, the 'spirit' which this caterpillar concealed, really been unfettered at
last and released into the light,thanksto a sunnier,warmer, brighter
world?
Is there sufficientpride, daring, courage, self-confidenceavailable today,
sufficientwill of the spirit,will to responsibility,
freedom of will, for 'the
tobe henceforth - on earth? -
philosopher' possible (GM 3.10).

'Emergency conditions' Philosophy appeared in the world as a delicate growth. Adaptation

to its surroundings was a necessary survival mechanism. Adopting the protective coloration

gave ittheappearanceof somethingitwas not: pious asceticism.Through this


of conformity

appearance philosophygave heart to the thingtowhich itaccommodated itself;philosophy


lent rational support to irrational fictions; it authenticated and endorsed the ascetic

misunderstandingof lifetowhich itwas inwardlyopposed.

'Has all this really altered?' Yes, all this has really altered. Old emergency conditions have

40

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
been replaced by new emergencyconditions,those of the presentday which, Nietzsche
seemed to think, again threatened the very existence of philosophy. The new emergency

conditions were powerful modern prejudices, beliefs in progress and enlightenment which

again put the frail growth of reason under the threat of extinction.

How isphilosophyto respondto thenew emergencyconditions?By metamorphosingintothe

butterfly hitherto concealed in the ugly caterpillar. One important feature of Nietzsche's

response to the new emergency conditions is a new history of philosophy which, among other

things, lays bare its old esoteric practices.

Part 3: How a Nietzschean History of Philosophy Gains from a Recognition of

Esotericism

can bemade by a historyof philosophythatpays


Inmy opinion greatgains inunderstanding
attention to the protective coloring of philosophy's rhetoric. I want to make an example of

Descartes.

Everyone reads Descartes. Not everyone reads Descartes as a master of philosophic

esotericism. But Descartes told his readers as openly as possible that he was an esoteric writer.

He tellsus inhis firstpublishedwork thathis publishedwork is being fashionedunder the


new terms set by the Religious Wars and, in particular, by the silencing of Galileo: Descartes

reportsin his firstpublishedbook thathe had to suppressan earlierbook on which he had


laboured for many years for one reason alone: that book had been cautious.
insufficiently

Having suppressedthatbookDescartes had toplan a new way of appearing to theworld in


order to present the gift of his new, world-transforming physics. When Descartes finally came

forth,fouryears aftersuppressinghis plannedfirstbook, he came forthconcealed inwhat he


called a provisionalmoralitythefirst
maxim ofwhichwas thatold tacticamongphilosophers:

conformity to the laws, customs, and religion of the people among whom you find yourself.

Descartes's conformity had an active ingredient: he wrote a chapter on metaphysical themes,

would make him look likea defenderof thereigningorthodoxy.Later,


God and thesoul, that
he would even expand that chapter into a whole book, Meditations on First Philosophy, and

address it to theDean and Doctors of the Faculty of Sacred Theology. But that book
contained the principles of the new philosophy that would undermine and replace theirs; it

41

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
was a subversive work by a writer who took as his motto: 4He lived well who hid well.'

Some readersnoticedhowwell Descartes lived:Hobbes and Leibniz andVico and La Mettrie


knew immediately(as Vico said) thatDescarteswas offeringpoison to a theologicalview he

opposed.

Few readers today know how well Descartes lived. We should know because he tells us; we

don't know because he was forced to tell us obliquely, the onlyway open to him; he was
forced to leave the dangerous conclusions up to us. A fine and easy example occurs in Part

Six of the Discourse on theMethod where Descartes says that his thoughts on the speculative

sciences are not worth publishing for themselves: Part Four of the Discourse, those

meditationson God and the soul, is notworth publishingfor itself.He leaves itup to us to
draw the inferencethatwhen he in factpublisheswhat is notworth publishingfor itselfhe

publishes it as a necessary shelterforwhat isworth publishing for itself,his physics, the


physics leftrelativelyunadorned in the book he suppressedwhen he learnedthe fate of
Galileo and now published in the selective summaryof Part Five and fragmentarily
in the

Dioptrics, theMeteorology, and the Geometry.

But even such easy inferences about the relation of physics to metaphysics in Descartes have

become hard for us because they seem to go against the grain of intellectual honesty : one of

the great philosophers of our tradition seems to be transformed into something dishonorable,

a writerengaged inmassive deception.There is a spiritualexercise thatwould help a lot in

overcoming our natural disapproval of Descartes's procedure: every reader of theMeditations

who isnot on theFacultyof SacredTheology should studyThe Passions of theSoul, a book


whose title and attractive Preface opened it to everyone's interest. Readers of The Passions

of theSoul must reflecton theabsence in itof anyhintof the immortality


of thesoul, or any
hint of a transcendent, moral God, or any hint that we have more to fear or to hope for after

- fears and
this life than have flies or ants hopes Descartes referred to in the Discourse as the

means of keeping weak minds on the straight road of virtue (Discourse 5 end). Readers would

also have to reflecton the presence in The Passions of theSoul of what Descartes calls
'divine providence,' for he quietly but definitively identifies divine providence with natural

necessity. Reflection on such absences and presences would lead readers to appreciate the

42

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
lovelyendingof The Passions of theSoul whereDescartes statesjustwhy it is imprudent
to
lose oneself when one can save oneself without dishonor and that if the contest is very

it is better to make an honorable retreat or ask quarter than to expose oneself


unequal,

to certain death. By the end of the book readers can take pleasure in watching
senselessly

their author defend his virtue, the manly virtue advanced earlier in contrast to the unmanly

vice of servilityor abjectness,Christianvirtuewhich had come to seem likevirtue itselfand


whose advocates exercised authority over Descartes's actions, as Descartes said in the

Discourse in the very act of evading and thwarting that authority (Discourse 6). In our own

time, readers can take pleasure in reflecting on the fact that this contest that was so unequal

between the powers that ruled the age and a solitary writer was won by the solitary writer;

his prudence, his refusal to be foolishly rash, enabled him to help defeat a seemingly
invincible foe, to reduce a tyrannical and pervasive spiritual power to a tepid anachronism.

What do we gain by this,by readingDescartes inhis settingand grantingthathe livedwell


because he hid well? We gain Descartes himself, the masterful advocate of reason in a world

torn by unreason, a world engaged in the religious wars generally conceded to be the worst

wars until our wars, wars fought over supremely irrational views of human nature and human

destiny, wars that cost Europe a Renaissance, as Nietzsche said. We gain Descartes as a

conspirator on behalf of a more reasonable view of things, a view thatwhen it gradually took

root with Descartes's posterity succeeded in fact in tempering the extreme ferocity of the

warring camps, thoseDescartes dared to call inThe Passions of theSoul 'thegreat friends
of God' whose very friendship with God dictated to them, Descartes said, 'the greatest crimes

man can commit, such as betraying cities, killing Princes, and exterminating whole peoples

just because they do not accept their opinions' (article 190). We gain Descartes as a genuine

in Nietzsche's a commander and


philosopher sense, legislator who shares Nietzsche's view

that what matters most is always culture, and who sets out to give a new direction to

European culture and who, in doing so, had the elementary good sense to feign conformity,

to forbearsaying 'Giveme your gun, Iwant to kill youwith it' and to say only 'Giveme

your gun.'

Everyone reads Descartes. But not everyone reads Francis Bacon or Montaigne any more. If

we did read them and read them as master writers writing under the necessity of caution we

43

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
would be in a position to make further gains. We would see in them thinkers and actors on

ambitionson behalf of reason similarto those theytaught


theworld stagewith breathtaking
Descartes. We would gain them too for a Nietzschean understandingof the historyof

philosophy.

But careful study of these great early modern thinkers as esoteric writers would help us to

and appreciatingour philosophichistory:we


make thegreatestof all gains forunderstanding
would regainPlato, for thegreat earlymodern philosophers looked to Plato as theirmaster
in the artofwriting.

Regaining their Plato would mean regaining Nietzsche's Plato. 'I'm a complete sceptic about

Plato,' Nietzsche said (77 Ancients 2). To read Plato sceptically meant to take Plato's irony

seriously. Like Montaigne, whom Nietzsche held in highest esteem, Nietzsche recognized that

as Montaigne -more - 'some


Plato felt free to employ pious fraud. Or, said politely things

[Plato]wrote for theneeds of society, like [his] religion ...When [Plato]plays the lawgiver,
he borrows a domineering and assertive style, and yet mixes in boldly the most fantastic of

which are as useful forpersuadingthecommonherd as theyare ridiculousfor


his inventions,

persuadinghimself (Essays 2.12). Nietzsche speakswithMontaigne when he says thatPlato


wanted to have taught as absolute truth what Plato himself did not regard as even

conditionally true: namely, the separate existence and separate immortality of 'souls' (KGW

VIII 14 [116] = WP 428,March-June 1888).

Nietzsche said harsherthingsas well: thatPlato lackedcourage in theface of reality,thathe


fell away fromthe fundamentalinstinctsof the older Hellenes and became pre-existently
Christian.But he also said thatPlato was themost beautiful growthof antiquity,and that
Plato had thegreatestpower any philosopherhas yet had at his disposal, and thatPlato set
all otherphilosophersand theologianson thesame track.Nietzsche's mix of judgmentsabout
Plato must all be read in the lightof his complete scepticismabout Plato, a scepticism
clarified in the Joyous Science #351. There Nietzsche counts the teacher of the ideas among

those who do not believe in 'men of knowledge.' Nietzsche's Plato is sceptical of claims to

knowledge and Nietzsche is therefore sceptical of Plato's claims to knowledge. But Nietzsche

has no doubt that Plato is a 'monster of pride and sovereignty' driven by the great passion

44

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of the seeker after knowledge. He has no doubt thatPlato 'lived continually in the

of thehighestproblemsand thegreatestresponsibilities.'In thecontextof the


thundercloud

aphorism, thismeans thatPlato livedabove and beyond priestlywisdom, thewisdom that


aimed to bring comfort and repose to the common man. Priestly wisdom brings safety and
- and who would want to deny the common man
security safety and security? Nietzsche asks,

and part of his answer is:Plato did notwant to deny them this- Plato who lived beyond

safety and security went out of his way to restore the safety and security of the common man

threatened by the death of the Greek gods.

This is Plato's lack of courage in the face of reality: it's not fear for himself. The most

beautifulgrowthof antiquity,offspringofAchilles andOdysseus, does not fearforhimself;


he fears for his fellows, he fears for civility and humanity, he fears that the harsh reality to

some degree accessible and fascinating to a mind and spirit like his own, is neither fascinating

nor bearable tominds and spirits less tenacious, less supreme than his own. Plato fears for his

brothers, for Glaucon and Adeimantus, and his fears turn him pre-existently Christian: in the

Republic Plato showshis brothersbeing charmedintomalleabilityby hismagician Socrates,


so charmed that Socrates can persuade them that there are just gods and immortal souls, that

there exists a cosmic order so concerned with human morality that it is watchful and

implacable,rewardingthejust and punishingtheunjust.Plato, thegenuinephilosopher,by


definitionbeyondgood and evil, speaks in a way thatsecuresgood and evil, giving itwhat
looks like rationalsupport.And he does itout of fear,fear forhis friends.
Nietzsche is a

completescepticaboutPlato. And his scepticismopens thedoor to thedialogues as inpart


exercises in salutary education employing inventions as useful for persuading the common

herd as theyare ridiculousforpersuadingPlato.

IfPlato is to be read thisway, what about thePlatonists?Nietzsche accused Augustine, the


most renowned Christian Platonist, of that worst of motives, revenge the high; he
against

accused Augustine of fashioninga theologicalhideout for themost poisonous revenge (JS

359). Immediatelyaftermaking thisaccusation, in the same aphorismabout hideouts in the


Joyous Science, Nietzsche raises a question 'just among ourselves,' he says, a question about

philosophers: 'even theclaim thattheypossessed wisdom, which has beenmade here and
there on earth by philosophers, that maddest and most immodest of all claims, has it not

45

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
always been up till now a hideout above all? At times, a hideout chosen with pedagogical

which hallows so many lies; one has a tenderregardfor those still in the
intent,an intent
process of becoming, of growing, for disciples, who must often be defended against
themselvesbymeans of faith in a person - bymeans of an error*(JS 359). This is Plato's

hideout, themad and immodestclaim to knowledgebased on tenderregardfordisciples; it


fromAugustine's hideout for it isa philanthropic
isdifferent and not a misanthropichideout.

Augustine is counted a Christian Platonist. No, Nietzsche says, as between Plato and

Augustine the motive is entirely different. Nietzsche is able to make little jokes about his

ability to discern fundamental motives, to sniff out the truly fundamental differences: 'my

genius is inmy nostrils,'he says.What Nietzsche sniffsout here is thatPlato may be a


Christianbuthe is a philosopher:beyondgood and evil himself,his philanthropic
pre-existent
regard for humanity, his fear, moves him to secure that most breathtaking of noble lies, the

lie that we live within a cosmic order attentive to our good and evil. An Augustine can turn

that noble lie into a system of cosmic revenge employing an all-powerful cosmic spider

lurking at the centre of itsweb.

Plato, the most beautiful growth of antiquity, ran a great risk with reason, the fragile plant

that had flowered so sublimely in Heraclitus and Democritus, in Aeschylus and Sophocles,

and inThucydides. Plato's greatrisk need not have been runNietzsche argues: inhis praise
of Epicurus,Nietzsche says Epicurus shared 'with all the profoundnaturesof antiquity'

disgust at 'thephilosophersof virtue'who sprangfrom Socrates and hismoralizing (KGW


VIII 14 [129] = WP 434). But Plato's risk was run and itsvery success led eventually to
reason's capture by revenge. Philosophy, the highest, most spirited enterprise, the passion to

understand thewhole rationally,fell prey to a spiritualenemywith a profoundlydifferent

disposition to life.

What do we gain when we read Plato thisway? We regain Plato himself as a genuine
philosopher inNietzsche's sense, a philosopher who gave shape to a whole culture. When we

read Plato in a way thatis attentivetohis ironyhe can be seen to be shelteringtherational


within the irrational,to be defendingphilosophyby inculcatingbeliefs thatwere false but

congenial to the preservation of philosophy. From this perspective on Plato the whole history

46

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
can be understooddifferently
of Platonism,our dominantspiritualtradition, from theway it
has been understood. It has not been progress but regress, a betrayal of the rational view

which eventually gave rise to the necessity of Nietzsche's task on behalf of reason.

Part 4: Nietzsche's Place in a History of Esotericism

Where does Nietzsche himself stand in the historyof philosophyhe makes possible? In

particular, where does he stand in the history of esotericism? 'That's all over now.' This is

the definitive Nietzschean judgment on the great standards that have governed our past. And

it's all over now with the esotericism that has marked the philosophical tradition.

This is not a moral judgmentonNietzsche's part, theexpressionof superiorvirtue; the first


immoralist was never moved by shock or hurt at what the philosophers permitted themselves.

Nietzsche's judgment is historical: it's all over with pious fraud because of the power of the

youngest virtue, honesty. According to Zarathustra, virtues are masters each


jealous

demanding to be first; virtues insist on supremacy in a war of all against ail. Honesty is the

youngest virtue, scarcely two millennia old. Honesty, naively honed to acuteness by

Christianity, by science, by Romanticism, cost each of them their illusions. Honesty, the

youngest and now preeminent virtue, has sapped all forms of noble lying of their apparent

nobility without regard to the cost.

For Nietzsche mat historical judgment seemed obvious and he did not spend his time

chronicling the noble lies of Platonism or Jesuitism or any other supposed improvement on

our morals. But with Nietzschean resources we can do what he did not do, we can chronicle

thenoble liesof our philosophersinorder tounderstandthisgreatchapter,now closed, in the

genealogy of morals.

Nietzsche himself looked to the future: can a human community be founded on what noble

lies were meant to cover up? In an unpublished note Nietzsche has his Zarathustra say this:

'We aremaking an experiment


with the truth. will perishof it!So be it!'
Perhapshumanity
(KGWVII 25 [305])Wohlan! So be it!This isnot theshrugof indifference.
It isNietzsche's

recognition of his incapacity to master necessity, the incapacity of anyone to forestall this next

phase of humanity's history. An experiment with the truth is forced on the contemporary

47

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
by thehistoryof virtue.
thinker

But grantingthenecessityof thisdangerous experiment,grantingthatit's all over now with

pious fraud, can we say that it's all over now with esotericism? Nietzsche indicates that the

answer is: No, it can never be all over with esotericism.

Esotericism survives inNietzsche's chosen art form, the art of the aphorism, an art of writing

does as littleas possible for thereader.But in the littleit


whose thriftiness,
whose brevity,

does, it establishes intimacy between writer and reader, it creates accomplices for the writer

by forcing readers to make his discoveries, partly at least, on their own. The pedagogical

functionof esotericwriting is preservedand advanced inNietzsche's artofwriting.

And esotericismsurvives inNietzsche's wilfulmasks, themost wilful ofwhich he calls 'the


cheerfulvice, courtesy,' thevice of successfullyappearingmore stupid thanyou are (BGE

285). The vice of irony, so necessary for those very few as supreme as Nietzsche, hides their

virtue lest itoffendby casting the restof us into its shade, generatingpoisonous envy or
hatredor dismayor revenge.The philanthropichidingplace survives inNietzsche, not as the
mad claim to knowledge but as the vice of courtesy, the genuine philosopher's 'pathos of

distance.'

But esotericismsurvives inNietzsche ina thirdandmost fundamental


way. Nature loves to
of thingsandwe dwell inquiringly.
hide.We dwellwithin thenatural incomprehensibility At
will affordus glimpses intotheheartof things.And at
best,Nietzsche suggests,our inquiry
best, reportson thoseglimpseswill appear enigmatic;theywill be like thereport
Zarathustra
issuedaftercreeping intothewell-guarded fortressofLife herselfwhere,with her complicity
and with her permission, he stole her secret: 'Life iswill to power,' he reports, and he reports

even thisonly to 'youwho arewisest,' invitingdiem to contemplatethisenigmaticmystery


with him (Z2.12 'On Self-Overcoming').This mysterywith its insurmountable
secretiveness

preserves themost profound esotericism. Such esotericism is neither chosen nor surmountable.

It is not a lie forour supposed good; it is the ineluctablehiddenness in theheartof things.

For Nietzsche, 'Nature loves to hide' is not a lament. That Nature loves to hide is the ultimate

48

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
gift of nature to nature's favourites, inquirers into nature: we dwell within a boundless whole

that will never sate us or bore us or make us disappointed. On the contrary, the enigmatic

the inquirerintoa loverand theobject of thehunt


object of the inquirer'shunt transforms
into the beloved. Through these and similar images Nietzsche's core thoughts are transformed

intoa poetrywhich beautifiestheobject of thought.

Esotericism survivesinNietzsche at theheartof his thought,the impassioned,eroticheartof


a way of thinkingthatis theway of the loverwho loves thehighestbeloved, theenigmatic
whole of things.

49

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:24:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen