Beyond Good and Evil -- A Philosophical Prelude to the Future

Author: Cheng Zhimin
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-03-01
Features: Excerpt: What is produced? For example, is truth produced from error? Or, is the will to seek truth produced from the will to deceive? Or, how does selfless action arise? Or, does the pure, clear observation of a wise person arise from greed? Such productions are impossible; whoever dreams of these is a fool, or even worse; the things of the highest value must have a different, their own origin—they cannot be derived from this fleeting, tempting, deceptive, and tiny world of illusion and desire! Rather, their foundation must be here, in the embrace of existence, in the eternal, in the hidden God, in the "thing-in-itself," and never elsewhere! This mode of judgment constitutes the typical prejudice that identifies metaphysicians of all ages; this way of valuing stands behind all its logical procedures; from this "faith," it dedicates itself to its "knowledge," to something that is solemnly named "truth." The fundamental faith of the metaphysician is the faith in the opposition of values. Even the most cautious among them have not realized that it is absolutely necessary to doubt the boundaries here, even when they praise themselves as "deomnibusdubitandum" (everything should be doubted). Because one can doubt: first, whether there is any opposition at all; second, whether the common value judgments and value oppositions stamped by metaphysicians are perhaps merely superficial evaluations, merely temporary perspectives, perhaps even from one perspective to another, perhaps looking down from above, as it were, like the perspective of a frog, to borrow an expression familiar to painters? Although the true, the real, and the selfless may possess all values, it is possible that a higher and more fundamental value is ascribed to the will to deceive, selfishness, and desire in all life. It is even possible that the very essence of value in those good and respected things lies in their self-revealing resemblance, connection, and intertwining with, perhaps even in their essential equivalence to, those bad and apparent opposites. Maybe! But who has the will to concern themselves with this dangerous "maybe"? For this very reason, one must wait for the arrival of new philosophers, those with opposite tastes and inclinations from all previous philosophers—the philosophers of the dangerous "maybe" in any intellectual sphere. Seriously speaking, I see these new philosophers arising. After observing philosophers closely in the interstices of the words long enough, I tell myself: a large part of conscious thought must be attributed to instinctual activity, and even in the case of philosophical thought; one must learn anew here, just as one has learned anew in the areas of heredity and the "innate." Just as the act of birth is ignored in the entire progress and advancement of heredity, "consciousness" is not opposed to the instinctual in any decisive sense—a philosopher's most conscious thoughts are secretly guided by his instincts and forced onto a certain track. Even behind all logic and their apparent arbitrary movements, there is a value judgment, to say the least, there are physiological needs to maintain a certain way of life.