Beyond Good and Evilinnocence—almost worthy of honour—Schopenhauer
represents his own task, and draw your conclusions con-
cerning the scientificness of a ‘Science’ whose latest master
still talks in the strain of children and old wives: ‘The prin-
ciple,’ he says (page 136 of the Grundprobleme der Ethik),
[Footnote: Pages 54-55 of Schopenhauer’s Basis of Morality,
translated by Arthur B. Bullock, M.A. (1903).] ‘the axiom
about the purport of which all moralists are PRACTICAL-
LY agreed: neminem laede, immo omnes quantum potes
juva—is REALLY the proposition which all moral teachers
strive to establish, ... the REAL basis of ethics which has
been sought, like the philosopher’s stone, for centuries.’—
The difficulty of establishing the proposition referred to
may indeed be great—it is well known that Schopenhauer
also was unsuccessful in his efforts; and whoever has thor-
oughly realized how absurdly false and sentimental this
proposition is, in a world whose essence is Will to Power,
may be reminded that Schopenhauer, although a pessimist,
ACTUALLY—played the flute ... daily after dinner: one
may read about the matter in his biography. A question by
the way: a pessimist, a repudiator of God and of the world,
who MAKES A HALT at morality—who assents to moral-
ity, and plays the flute to laede-neminem morals, what? Is
that really—a pessimist?
- Apart from the value of such assertions as ‘there is a
categorical imperative in us,’ one can always ask: What does
such an assertion indicate about him who makes it? There
are systems of morals which are meant to justify their au-