The sublime is the mantle of the ugly

(translated from my Chinese blog)

This is my new project, “Nietzschean Philology”. In each installment, I’ll read a passage from Nietzsche’s original writings. By practicing text analysis, we can enhance our ability to understand the world.

"We Philologists" Section 5. Nietzsche recognized that the critical historical perspective is an inevitable historical attitude of modern people. It’s also consistent with modern people’s skepticism regarding their own life’s goals and purposes. From this historical perspective, linguists must question all claims about the greatness and goodness of ancient people, and accept the ugly realities of life.

We are still behindhand in one type of contemplation: to understand how the greatest productions of the intellect have a dreadful and evil background . the sceptical type of contemplation. Greek antiquity is now investigated as the most beautiful example of life.

As man assumes a sceptical and melancholy attitude towards his life's calling, so we must sceptically examine the highest life's calling of a nation: in order that we may understand what life is.

"We Philologists" 5, Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by J. M. Kennedy 

The answer to the fourth section is revealed: Nietzsche adhered to the position he expressed in “The Use and Abuse of History.” In other words, we should place more emphasis on critical history over monumental or antiquarian history. But the problem is that Nietzsche’s emphasis seems like a last resort, something that has to be done because there’s no other choice. This necessity stems from three factors: 1) the disparity between ancient and modern times; 2) the philologists' incompetence in teaching; 3) the deterioration of the discipline due to the masses (as mentioned at the end of the third section). In other words, Nietzsche believed that we have no choice but to accept the facts that modern society is, in some respects, far inferior to ancient times, that the education system is ineffective, and that the rise of the masses has led to a complete mismatch in the allocation of human resources. We must accept this ugly reality as a starting point for thinking about possible solutions.

Moreover, Nietzsche believed that this “skeptical and melancholic” attitude toward history was consistent with the skeptical attitude toward one’s own life’s calling, as discussed in the first section. Philologists should not only doubt whether their lives should be devoted to philology, but also question the glorified narratives about ancient times that have been passed down through the ages. Yet this seems to contradict Nietzsche’s own assertion, which he made without providing any evidence, that there is a “disparity between philologists and the ancients.” Didn’t Nietzsche always believe that ancient people were nobler and greater? How then can he now question them, claiming that they are merely products of glorification? The ancient Greeks are “now investigated as the most beautiful example of life.” The undertone is, not really, thought Nietzsche. Surely he believed that we should be cautious about such claims and skeptical of what’s called “the highest life's calling of a nation.”

I believe Nietzsche was suggesting that ancient Greeks’ lives contained certain ugly elements, a “dreadful and evil background”. It was precisely these ugly elements that gave rise to greatness. In the section “On War and Warriors” from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, it is said:

You are ugly? Well so be it, my brothers! Then don the sublime, the mantle of the ugly!

And when your soul grows big it becomes mischievous, and there is sarcasm in your sublimity. I know you.

—“Thus Spoke Zarathustra”: “On War and Warriors”, Friedrich Nietzsche, Translated by Adrian del Caro

This is, of course, a mockery of Kantian aesthetics: for Kant, sublimity is a form of beauty. But for Nietzsche, sublimity goes hand in hand with ugliness, while beauty and aesthetics are associated with feebleness. Nietzsche attributed sublimity to warriors, and aesthetics to scholars. The sublime is the “mantle” of the ugly. Only those ugly warriors (and perhaps only warriors) can embody sublimity. Their ugliness becomes a weapon in their lives. It makes life difficult and inevitable, but it also provides them with a path to greatness. Philologists must break away from the traditional notion of linking sublimity with beauty, and face the truth of history, no matter how unpleasant it may be. Philologists must learn to accept the ugly truths, just as modern people must learn to accept the ugliness of the modern world.

Paragraph 2:

……so we must sceptically examine the highest life's calling of a nation: in order that we may understand what life is.

“We” refers to “we philologists.” “Being skeptical” means being skeptical of all historical accounts that try to beautify the truth. If Confucius truly ordered the execution of dancers and actresses, then philologists should not try to gloss over this fact “out of respect for the sage.” But the reason for doing this isn’t “loyalty to history.” Instead, it’s done “in order that we may understand what life is.” Nietzsche clearly didn’t accept the positivist approach. He didn’t believe in “truth for its own sake.” In Nietzsche’s view, the truths presented by positivism were only superficial truths. What mattered to Nietzsche was the deeper truth, namely, what life really is.

Here, Nietzsche does not explicitly state what this “ugly truth” of “life” actually is. But we can make some guesses based on the scattered information provided earlier in his writings:

Perhaps the ugliness of life lies in its element of luck. Human effort is futile in the face of chance or fate. The more one strives, the more ridiculous it becomes. From the moment one is born, one must accept this truth: it’s almost impossible to use one’s life to pursue one’s true passions. It’s all in vain, like trying to force square pegs into round holes. That’s the ugliness of life.

Or perhaps the ugly truths of life are related to religious beliefs. The reality of life on this earth is like the ocean floor; all religious beliefs are merely currents above that ocean floor. Therefore, they can always be transcended. In our era, at least according to Nietzsche, these beliefs have already been transcended. In other words, the ugliness of life lies in the fact that there’s no more fundamental reality than life itself. It’s impossible to “uncover” the “inner essence” of life, whether through religious or ideological means. If there were more fundamental realities beneath life—such as heaven and hell or class struggle—then life wouldn’t need to worry about goals or purposes. Life could simply unfold according to these more fundamental realities, thereby gaining stability. But Nietzsche believed that all these promises of“fundamental realities” were false. Life doesn’t possess any such stability. That’s why life is ugly.

But if “the sublime is the mantle of the ugly,” then, in life, the first thing to do is to acknowledge and confront this ugliness head-on. Then, use this ugliness as a means to pursue sublimity. In this way, one’s soul grows big, and this sublimity can take on a “sarcasm” – on whom? Fate.