Raids on the Unspeakable

Share this post

On the historians of philosophy

unspeakable.blog

Discover more from Raids on the Unspeakable

Play is the exultation of the possible.
Continue reading
Sign in

On the historians of philosophy

"I would only believe in a god who knew how to dance."

Gil-Martin
Aug 24, 2021
2
Share this post

On the historians of philosophy

unspeakable.blog
Share

I have found myself acting as a scissor, as when a room is divided at my supposed irreverence; that I dare to dance in hallowed halls! There are those that say I should handle their idols as sacred objects, to carefully inspect and appraise them; but no more than that! Such are as morbid archaeologists taking dead cities and mere corpses as the topic of their inquiry. Somehow they seek answers among fragments, dead bones; it is but a variation on the Cadaver Synod. You wish to play-act as defence for the accused? Alright, as you will—but that is not my game.

Yes, herein lies my arrogance: to think that I have the capacity for thought! Yes, of course, a heresy; yet sadly one of which I am really quite convinced—I believe that an individual can think for himself; and by that I mean, think in concrete confrontation with the questions of actuality. Those of the Cadaver Synod prefer to wear sock-puppets in their thinking; it makes them more comfortable. This way there are no sharp edges; no mistakes. They need never bare themselves.

They will punish any that do, that I have seen; waving credentials they will demand respect for the sacred texts which we maltreat by claiming to know what they were talking about!1 This is the whole task, according to them: that we pay due reverence to the sacred texts and then, after that, we may perhaps offer a tentative appraisal of what they meant. This is a mode of philosophy suited only to the end-times! They are pharisees; or worse, mere hangers-on. There is no arriving at the past; only the present exists and to seek strict historicity is an absurdity. All seem to accept that; yet here, how do you act?

Yes, I claim to speak of Being and Becoming as if my words were meaningful without reference to some external authority; what arrogance! And worse yet, or much the same, I even pretend to see shapes below the specific words which your beloved author used—such irreverence; it is not enough that I be exiled, better that I be executed. This was the crime of Socrates, to show the emperor was naked; in this he was taken as presupposing himself above them, but I am not. If I appear to raise myself up it is only that I tear others down. You who would trust in the masses and their idols, as if always needing always check with the collective; as if only by such a divinity did your words have any meaning! I will take my ostracism; it is easy for me. Solitude is the proper partner for such a dance.

Nietzsche would be horrified by you, frigid sheep; the all-too-many. You ask that I write of great texts, alright—what but that for which you were gathered? You pretend to know him, far more than me; I say only that I have heard him, or heard in this some echo, and then I speak for and of myself alone! You say: ‘Nietzsche thought’—over and over, you repeat this invocation as if a protective charm. You hide behind his books! He would have hated you:

“Go away from this town, oh Zarathustra,” he said. “Too many here hate you. The good and the just hate you and they call you their enemy and despiser; the believers of the true faith hate you and they call you the danger of the multitude. It was your good fortune that they laughed at you: and really, you spoke like a jester.

Yes, I am a fool; it is sensible of you not to take me seriously, carry on as you were my Nietzschean friend—as if it were a diet or a brand; you have bought the books, performed the various rites; now you are a Nietzschean! If that it is what it means, then what was he? He was Nietzsche and never wanted another; why would you try to wear his skin? Disgusting. But there are many that embody this spirit, that which he encouraged, in their daily lives; many far more than me, at least physically, as Nietzsche himself was also a sickly sort; and yet here, in thought—here you are timid in comparison. Of course, you ask, what does Nietzsche say? Here, you like to read:

Courageous, unconcerned, sarcastic, violent—thus wisdom wants us: she is a woman and always loves only a warrior.

1

Not what they were saying, and this is an important distinction: what they were talking about.

2
Share this post

On the historians of philosophy

unspeakable.blog
Share
Previous
Next
Comments
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 Gil-Martin
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing