Фридрих Ницше - Утренняя заря - 0-2 - текст песни, слова, перевод, видео

The question of good and evil has so far been resolved in the most unsatisfactory way: it was too dangerous to solve it. Habit, good name, hell did not allow one to be impartial: in the presence of morality one cannot think, much less can one say: here one must obey. To criticize morality, to take morality as a problem, is a sign of immorality! But morality not only possesses all kinds of means of intimidation in order to restrain critical hands, its security lies even more in a certain art of charming, which it fully masters - it knows how to “inspire.” She often manages to paralyze the critical will with just one glance; there are even cases when she knows how to turn the will against itself and turn it into a scorpion, piercing its sting into its own body. From time immemorial, morality has had the inhuman art of persuasion: there was not and is not a single speaker who would not turn to it for help (even anarchists - they resort to morality when they need to justify themselves; they even call themselves “people of goodness and justice” ). Since they began to speak and persuade on earth, morality has constantly shown itself to be the greatest mistress of seduction - and as for us philosophers, it has been for us a real Circe.

What is the reason that all philosophers, starting with Plato, have worked in vain? Why are all the buildings erected by them threatening to collapse or already lying in ruins, although they themselves honestly and seriously considered them “stronger than solid copper.” Oh, how erroneous is the answer that is given even now to this question - “because they all lost sight of the test of the foundation, the criticism of reason” - this fatal answer of Kant did not put us philosophers on more solid or at least less shaky ground . And isn’t it strange, really, to demand that the weapon itself evaluate its suitability and its quality? So that the intellect itself “knows” its price, its limit, its strength? Doesn’t this sound even a little nonsense?.. The correct answer would be that all philosophers built their buildings under the seduction of morality, including Kant himself; that they promised to seek “the truth,” but in fact only cared about building “majestic moral edifices.” Kant himself innocently called his “not brilliant, but not without merit” task and work a means of “leveling and strengthening the ground for great morals.” h z d a n i y.” Alas! he failed. Quite the contrary!” one could say now. With such a fantastic goal, Kant was a true son of his time, which more than any other was the time of chimeras: fortunately, he remained so in relation to the more valuable phenomenon of his age - sensationalism, which he borrowed in his theory of knowledge. He was touched by the sting of Rousseau's tarantula morality; in the depths of his soul lay the thought of moral fanaticism, the executor of which was Robespierre with his de fonder sur la terre l'empire de la sagesse, de la justice et de la vertu. And in order to create his “moral kingdom”, he saw himself forced to place an as yet unproven mitre, a logical “beyond” - for this he needed the criticism of pure reason. To put it differently, he would not have needed it if he had not necessarily needed to make his moral kingdom inaccessible to attacks by reason: he felt that the moral order of things was too accessible to attacks from reason. Taking into account nature and history, taking into account the absence of morality in nature and history, Kant was, like any good German, a pessimist. He believed in morality, not because it was proven by nature and history, but despite the fact that nature and history constantly contradicted it: credo, quia absurdum est.