would it also be utterly unfounded arrogance to wish for a homogeneity of
opinion regarding, say, the evil of rape? Yes, yes, I am sure I don't
need anyone to lecture me on the difference between rape and bad literary
judgement, but my point is not to suggest the two are equal. My point is
simply that there are some things upon which one cannot avoid wishing for a
homogeneity of opinion, and this is the result, not of arrogance, but of
simple moral thinking (here, I, of course, agree with Kant). I cannot
avoid wishing that the condemnation of rape were universal, and I cannot
avoid wishing disgust at self-glorification were universal as well. I
think self-glorification is just another kind of solipsism, and this is
especially clear in N.'s prodigal praise of his own work. No one else was
praising it (except, perhaps, his anti-Semitic brother-in-law), so he had
to--lonely man, could console himself only with embarrassing self-flattery.
By the way, if N. truly knew that his work was as great as he claimed, he
would not have indulged in such insufferable megalomania. Methinks N. doth
protest too much.
Tootles,
Paul S. Rhodes
______________________________________________________________________________
Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes
and ale?
--Sir Toby Belch
--- from list nietzsche@jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---