I'm reading through Beyond Good and Evil and having trouble understanding aphorism 40

I'm reading through Beyond Good and Evil and having trouble understanding aphorism 40.

>There are actions of love and of extravagant generosity, after which there is nothing more advisable than to grab a stick and give an eyewitness a good thrashing: - in so doing we cloud his memory. Some people know how to befuddle or batter their own memories in order at least to take revenge on this single witness: - shame is resourceful. It is not the worst things that make people feel the worst shame. Behind a mask there is not only malice - there is so much goodness in cunning.

What did he mean by this?

IN that passage he's basically saying that only white men can trust be rational, truly ethical, truly love, and truly be loyal

>>/pol/

Nietzsche would've been a regular on /pol/, cuck

What's sad is I have to keep replying to you to keep this thread alive until the 3-4 people who actually know what they're talking about on this shitty board might grace us with their pesence

I know absolutely nothing about Nietzsche's philosophy in particular but I'll give it a crack

I think he is saying that shame is a cunning defence mechanism. Perhaps as Christians it protects us from becoming tall poppies, or from desiring too much. That is all I can extract from it, but granted it seems at odds with what I understand of Nietzsche's idea of flourishing

I've read everything Nietzsche published, plus Will to Power, and I'm not sure myself. Many of the aphorisms in BGE, especially the shorter ones, do not have clear meanings. Perhaps he made them intentionally vague as grist for the adequate reader's creative-interpretive powers?

Throughout his corpus, and that book in particular, Nietzsche has a fixation with masks and play. I can only offer a speculation here: maybe he is enacting a revaluation of the traditional virtue of honesty and the traditional valuation of truth as good. This would definitely fit in with his general revaluation project. I have no idea what to specifically make of the talk of beating the eyewitness and memory. Maybe he thinks such things are even better when obscured? That's funny, considering the obscurity of the passage.

there's something about the power of covering-up that is lost when something is revealed at work here

obscurity heightens

or something

Nietzsche is describing the "tsundere" character trait a hundred years ahead of it's time

OP I'll post a better translation, and if you still have problems I'll interpret. Everything except is completely off the mark btw.


Everything profound loves masks; the most profound things go so far as to hate images and likenesses. Wouldn’t just the opposite be a proper disguise for the shame of a god? A questionable question: it would be odd if some mystic hadn’t already risked something similar himself. There are events that are so delicate that it is best to cover them up with some coarseness and make them unrecognizable. There are acts of love and extravagant generosity in whose aftermath nothing is more advisable than to take a stick and give the eye-witnesses a good beating: this will obscure any memory traces. Many people are excellent at obscuring and abusing their own memory, so they can take revenge on at least this one accessory: – shame is highly resourceful. It is not the worst things that we are the most ashamed of. Malicious cunning is not the only thing behind a mask – there is so much goodness in cunning. I could imagine that a man with something precious and vulnerable to hide would roll through life, rough and round like an old, green, heavy-hooped wine cask; the subtlety of his shame will want it this way. A man with something profound in his shame encounters even his fate and delicate decisions along paths that few people have ever found, paths whose existence must be concealed from his closest and most trusted friends. His mortal danger is hidden from their eyes, and so is his regained sense of confidence in life. Somebody hidden in this way – who instinctively needs speech in order to be silent and concealed, and is tireless in evading communication – wants and encourages a mask of himself to wander around, in his place, through the hearts and heads of his friends. And even if this is not what he wants, he will eventually realize that a mask of him has been there all the same, – and that this is for the best.

You have to read the complete corpus of Hegel, Fichte and Schelling and then Schopenhauer to understand. Soz m8

Nietzsche didn't even read those, except for Schopenhauer. Why should OP read them?

>Everything except (You) is completely off the mark btw.
wow I was just shitposting

>Nietzsche didn't read Hegel

That makes sense given the start of the passage:
>Everything profound loves masks

OP here. I'll take a stab at it.

Is he saying that profound truths might also be seen as ugly or shameful? And that the ubermensch-like may have to conceal what they know?

Before interpreting I'll re-write it to be simple:
>Complex things need to be deceptive; they can only be slandered by iconography and analogy. Surely a God's power would be demonstrated by its [masochistic] openness to slander? But how can I ask such a question: such risky behaviour is more likely to come from a mystic, which should be the opposite of a God. We can stop that complexity within our most delicate actions being misinterpreted or causing us shame by masking them with coarse actions. Acts of love or generosity. Loving and generous actions, our "good" nature, can often be traced to our vices (such as pity) and thus cause us shame, in any case they can be misinterpreted, we can avoid both scenarios by committing violent actions against those who witnessed them: the human memory is easily disturbed. Many people do this kind of thing in their own minds, cognitive dissonance, its a guaranteed feeling of power in the most impotent situations: – shame is such a strong impetuous that it produces all this trickery. When we realise that those parts of our nature most praised as "good" are usually merely those most useful, most comforting, most herd-like, we are more ashamed of those than we could be of any evil actions. Therefore, trickery is not only motivated by evil intentions – so much of our trickery derives from what we need to perform "good" actions. A person of great sensitivity and pain could choose to construct a deceptive appearance of being coarse, simple and stoic; if his pains are truly complex, he will prefer this appearance. Complex pains imply a life where our experiences and choices are unlikely to be understood, and thus this life must be kept to ourselves, trying to convey it is hopeless and only results in miscommunication. Of course this means some of our strongest stimulus will be unknown to our friends, but this acceptance of our ultimate solitude and independence should make us more fit for life. Someone who uses this trickery - who hides himself in the crowd, and is indefatigable in hiding his complexities – enjoys and propagates deceptive accounts of himself among his friends. And even if he doesn't enjoy to do this, he will realize that he will be misinterpreted anyway (a kind of deception itself), – the impossibility of conveying anything beyond the simplicities of life to another person is actually for the best, as life would be less profound/interesting/complex if this were not the case.

pick up zarathustra and read "on compassion"

I've got nothing. Every interpretation a try to come up with seems to fall short of what he's trying to get at. Call me a pleb but It's just not coming to me.

>Is he saying that profound truths might also be seen as ugly or shameful? And that the ubermensch-like may have to conceal what they know?

Think more: hiding sensitivity from others, so as to appear shallow, coarse, yet strong.

> His mortal danger is hidden from their eyes, and so is his regained sense of confidence in life.

There "tsundere" interpretation above isn't even wrong, it's on the right track.

:-]

Wait, so is it really just something along the lines of the coldest, harshest people might really be the most sensitive and hurt special snowflakes?

The only thing I gather is: people are sometimes ashamed to love certain thing and want good things to be done to certain people. One is ashamed of one's love for something. It seems the aphorism can be broken into three parts:

(1) There are actions of love and of extravagant generosity, after which there is nothing more advisable than to grab a stick and give an eyewitness a good thrashing: - in so doing we cloud his memory. Some people know how to befuddle or batter their own memories in order at least to take revenge on this single witness: - shame is resourceful.

(2) It is not the worst things that make people feel the worst shame.

(Which could have been an aphorism on its own, albeit a very cryptic one. The first part seems to indicate that these acts which are liable to cause "the worst shame" are "actions of love and of extravagant generosity", thus informing this 'sub-aphorism'.)

(3) Behind a mask there is not only malice - there is so much goodness in cunning.

(One deceives other also in those sentiment which, in and of themselves, would be considered good.)

It has much more to do with concealing wisdom or 'profundity' than any particular sensitive weakness, if that makes sense.

>a mask of himself to wander around, in his place, through the hearts and heads of his friends. And even if this is not what he wants, he will eventually realize that a mask of him has been there all the same, – and that this is for the best.

That makes it seem like it was a long winded way of saying: It might be best if you dont show the normies your power level, and it may be considered a power of yourself, to at times distance yourself from yourself (?), to not be so affected by shame, but to be able to easily cover it, muddle it, dissipate it, remove it from memory?

>Many people are excellent at obscuring and abusing their own memory, so they can take revenge on at least this one accessory: – shame is highly resourceful.

Shame can be strong, thus many people distort their memory to avoid shame

>Malicious cunning is not the only thing behind a mask

It is not only our evils we might be ashamed of

>I could imagine that a man with something precious and vulnerable to hide would roll through life, rough and round like an old, green, heavy-hooped wine cask; the subtlety of his shame will want it this way

A man might be ashamed of his softer sides,

>A man with something profound in his shame encounters even his fate and delicate decisions along paths that few people have ever found, paths whose existence must be concealed from his closest and most trusted friends

Things that may cause relation to the concept of 'shame', can yield fruits of being, ways of seeing and relating to the world, that because others might not so subtly relate these things, potentially miss out on some deep realizations

>His mortal danger is hidden from their eyes, and so is his regained sense of confidence in life. Somebody hidden in this way – who instinctively needs speech in order to be silent and concealed, and is tireless in evading communication

His mortal danger, he is softer more philosophical, more aware of potential subtitles of shame, than leads on? in short, the goods and bads, highs and lows, of his deep relationships, and potential shames related to these highs and lows and deep thoughts about self and the world, offers him lows, danger, and highs, regained sense of confidence.

needs speech to be silent and concealed, as in reading writing thinking, nietzhe needs his writing philosophy to be silent and concealed, but he is so full and deep, he evades communication with plebs, would rather friends not know how vast he is.

even if he does not want this, his friends must have constructed their view of him, without fully knowing the depth of his inner experience, and he concludes, this is the best, that they do not know the highs and lows, of his inner life, the shameful thoughts, of evil and of softness

Very good, user.

It's an esoteric form of kuudere, which could easily be mistaken for tsundere.

I love this stupid fucking faggot

the world needs more people who look like cartoons

I think he's just commenting on how actions of supreme goodness also create a sense of shame, of embarrassment. And how people often abuse their own memories making themselves seem worse than they are, and encouraging you to remember such acts of kindness and goodness in your own life and appreciate what you have done.

Every time I see that picture I think it's GK Chesterton

What it is done for love never should be shameful.Dont trash your memories abd yourself with the stick of shame.

Basically "its okay to be gay" or something like that.

Just to say, I ( ) never got around to interpreting because I found the standard of the rest of the thread revolting. In any case I think having two translations and my simplification makes interpretation superfluous (if you don't pay attention to those when giving your wretched opinion, you won't pay attention to any interpretation of them).