Each has its own law of being; what is safe for one is perilous for the other—the social man is liable to degenerate when he tries to be an independent individual, and the higher man descends when he becomes a mere social functionary.[1] "The flock feeling shall rule in the flock, but not beyond; the leaders need their own valuations, and the independent ones theirs."[2] dd And not only the moral, but the religious sentiment may shape itself differently in the two classes, and this be well. A religion like Christianity, with its emphasis on unselfishness and pity, may, if it avoid excesses, be valuable to the flock,[3] though to others it may be inadequate, or, if taken absolutely, false and pernicious and something to be fought—as matter of fact, the higher classes, so far as they have not been themselves debilitated by Christianity, have in favoring it usually done so pour encourager les autres.[4] All along the line, the differences between the classes are in the total interest to be accentuated rather than diminished. To attempt to bring the types together is as great a mistake as it would be to seek to abolish the distinctions of the sexes. Fundamental biological needs determine sex differentiation—if there were not more or less antithesis and antagonism, there would not be attraction; and the greater purposes of life determine the differentiation of classes. Nothing is more undesirable in Nietzsche's eyes than "hermaphroditism," or the Tschandala (his term not for the lowest class, as is often supposed, but, following ancient Hindu usage, for the result of a mixing of the classes—he would have agreed perfectly with Mrs. Carlyle's saying that the "mixing up of things is the great bad"). To develope the distinctly typical and make the gap deeper—that is the true course.[5] Even the extreme leveling and mechanizing of men going on under the modern democratic and industrial movement may have meaning and
- ↑ Cf. Will to Power, §§ 901, 904, 886.
- ↑ Ibid., § 287.
- ↑ Nietzsche says distinctly that his aim is not to annihilate the Christian ideal, but to put an end to its tyranny (Will to Power, § 361; cf. § 132, and Werke, XIV, 66-7, § 132); cf. G. Chatterton-Hill's discriminations, op. cit., p. 136. See still further as to the uses of religion for the common man. Beyond Good and Evil, § 61; Werke, XIII, 300, §§ 736-7.
- ↑ Will to Power, §§ 216, 373 (cf. Halévy, op. cit., p. 373; Faguet, op. cit., pp. 248-9).
- ↑ Will to Power, § 866.
