Book Two: A Criticism of the Highest Values That Have Prevailed Hitherto
V: The Moral Ideal§331 Very few are aware of what is involved in the standpoint of desirability, in every “thus should it be, but it is not”, or even “thus it should have been”: such expressions of opinion involve a condemnation of the whole course of events. For in the course of things nothing is isolated: the smallest thing bears the largest on its back; on your small injustice the whole nature of the future depends; the whole is condemned by every criticism which is directed at the smallest part. Now granting that the moral norm, even as Kant understood it, is never completely fulfilled and remains like a sort of Beyond hanging over reality without ever falling down to it; then morality would contain in itself a judgment concerning the whole, which would still, however, allow of the question: from where does it get the right to it? How does the part come to be judge of the whole?
And if, as some have declared, this moral condemnation of and dissatisfaction with reality is an ineradicable instinct, is it not possible that this instinct may perhaps belong to the ineradicable stupidities and immodesties of our species?
But in saying this, we are doing precisely what we deprecate; the point of view of desirability, of our unauthorised playing the judge is part and parcel of the whole character of our lives, as is every injustice and imperfection -— it is our concept of “perfection” which is never satisfied. Every instinct which desires to be indulged gives expression to its dissatisfaction with the present state of things: how? Is the whole perhaps made up of a host of dissatisfied parts, which all have desiderata in their heads? Is the “course of things” perhaps this “the road away from here, away from reality”? Eternal dissatisfaction? Is the conception of desirability perhaps the essential driving force in all things? Is it — deus?
* * * It seems to me of the utmost importance that we should rid ourselves of the idea of the whole, of a unity, of some kind of power or form of the unconditioned. For we shall never be able to resist the temptation of regarding it as the supreme being and of baptising it “God”. The “All” must be shattered; we must unlearn our respect for it, take that which we have lent to an unknown and imaginary entity and give it back to that which is nearest to us, to ourselves.
Whereas, for instance, Kant said: “Two things remain forever worthy of honour” (at the close of his Practical Reason) — today we should prefer to say: “Digestion is more worthy of honour”. The concept of “the All” will always give rise to the old problems — “How is evil possible”? etc. Therefore, there is no “All”. There is no great sensorium or inventarium or source of power.