To become Gauguin, or to submit to the Grand Inquisitor

(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.

To summarize the first three sections of “We Philologists”. The issue of life’s purpose stems from the irreconcilable conflict between an individual’s ability to understand and their ability to take action. This conflict means that the vast majority of “philologists” in the world should not be practicing their profession at all. Philologists either try to comfort themselves by saying “It’s all fine,” or they turn to religion to avoid facing the question of the meaning of life. In the end, this leads to the complete deterioration of the field of philology. Overall we can identify three sub-issues: religion, linguists, and luck. The aim of this article is to clarify this overall structure and provide a brief analysis of these three sub-issues.

The previous article seems to have sparked quite a bit of controversy. * Mainly, those with religious beliefs expressed their dissatisfaction. I’m not sure whether they were upset by my promotion of Nietzsche’s ideas or by my inaccurate interpretation of them. If it’s the former, I wonder if they’ve always been ignorant about Nietzsche’s views, or if they’ve known about them but chosen to ignore them (after all, other authors also avoid discussing Nietzsche’s religious views). It’s been centuries since Nietzsche declared that “God is dead” . Is there any need for me to repeat that idea? But if it’s the latter, I urge them to provide evidence to refute my arguments.

So, let’s pause our reading for now and go over the first three sections of “We Philologists” from scratch. Nietzsche’s main questions are as follows:

Imagine a person who has spent most of their life thus far. Looking back on the first half of their life, or perhaps due to some unexpected event, they suddenly realize that what’s truly meant for them to do isn’t the job they’ve been doing for decades (for example, a bank clerk who suddenly feels a strong desire to pursue a career in art). But by this point, they no longer have the energy or motivation to start over from scratch. What should they do?

The simplest way is to accept one’s fate and acknowledge the limited value of one’s life up to that point. Although it doesn’t align with one’s own life aspirations, decades of hard work have still contributed to the well-being of others, society, and oneself. So, it’s not a bad outcome after all. That’s quite satisfactory.

But if one adheres to “the more strict religions,” such perfunctory responses are unacceptable. Fortunately, the “metaphysical scheme” of religion—such as the promise of an afterlife—provide an alternative way of escaping from these problems. This life on earth is merely a trial leading to eternal life in the afterlife. Just as the Chinese language exam in high school is necessary to get into a good university, no one bothers to review those ancient poems after the exam. Similarly, no one will continue to think about their earthly pursuits after entering heaven. This perspective makes the content of the Chinese language exam seem meaningless. So, if someone realizes in their later years that they didn’t pursue their true “calling,” it doesn’t matter. After all, it’s beyond their control. After all, they’ve worked hard for decades. And their religion certainly won’t condemn them to hell just because they didn’t fully realize their potential in life.

But the result of this is the emergence of a large number of “philologists in general.” This phenomenon continues to be perpetuated through imitation, generational transmission, and social incentives, thereby making the field of literature increasingly insincere and hollow, and further distorting its true purpose. In Nietzsche’s view, these social mechanisms are merely external factors. The real root cause lies in people’s tendency to avoid taking responsibility for their lives. This can manifest as a tendency to say “everything’s fine,” or as a reliance on religious metaphysical solutions for finding ultimate values. In other words, Nietzsche wasn’t concerned with institutional issues, but rather with human nature.

The above roughly summarizes the issues Nietzsche raises in the first three sections of “We Philologists”. However, two points need to be added: ① Regarding “philologists.” Nietzsche is referring specifically to philologists throughout the text. This isn’t a problem that applies to everyone. Extending this idea to all professionals is questionable. ② Luck. also plays a role in whether one’s life goals are achieved. It’s highly unlikely that these goals will be achieved. Unlike winning the lottery, where the prize can vary greatly, here it’s either achieved or not achieved at all. There’s no intermediate state.

Let’s deal with these problems one by one.

Firstly, religion.

Let’s consider Gauguin’s example. In his youth, he was a successful securities broker, with a happy marriage and a stable family life. But one day, he decided to abandon his comfortable life and pursue a career in art. He even left his wife and children behind, abandoning urban life in Paris to live with the indigenous people of Tahiti. In “The Moon and Sixpence,” W. Somerset Maugham largely adhered to Gauguin’s actual experiences. The questions raised in this book are essentially the same as those posed by Nietzsche: What if, one day, you were driven by some inexplicable impulse to change your life completely? Would you have the courage to do so? And for those who do make such choices, like Gauguin, were their decisions right or wrong?

From a Christian perspective, whether Catholic or Protestant, Gauguin’s actions were undoubtedly wrong. Abandoning one’s wife and children is a grave sin. Of course, one can always repent sincerely, and God will forgive them, as long as the repentance is genuine. But the issue here isn’t whether one can strategically abandon family to pursue dreams, and then sincerely repent and return to God’s embrace. I doubt that such a cunning approach would even be acceptable to God. The real issue isn’t trying to optimize one’s entire life—that’s impossible. For example, you can’t even decide what you’ll be doing five years from now. The real question is: In this very moment, when a strong impulse overcomes you and demands that you deviate from your current path in life, what will you do? Of course, you can also imagine that despicable plan in your mind: abandon wife and children first, then “return to the right path”. But I really doubt whether such a despicable person actually has the courage to pursue a new life, or the determination to truly change their ways. (Nietzsche would say that such people ultimately do nothing at all, simply staying at home and enjoying the small pleasures they already have.)

Therefore, there’s no reason to believe that the Christian Church would approve of Gauguin’s actions, neither at that particular moment nor throughout his entire life. This is precisely what Nietzsche meant by the conflict between religious commands and life's calling. To think that there’s no conflict between the two is naive. Of course, religion must also regulate the life's calling, the “driving force of life.” For example, this driving force can be interpreted as divine grace. But unless religion approves of all human impulses, there will always be behaviors like abandoning one’s wife and children, which religion does not permit.

There are only two ways to reconcile these two ideas: either to believe that “simplicity is the ultimate virtue”. In other words, most people’s lives can be considered to be “meaningful” as long as they’ve lived their lives with diligence and effort. Even the most ordinary jobs can be meaningful if done with dedication. Thus, many people can go to heaven, as they’ve fulfilled their purpose in life through their ordinary lives. These two ideas aren’t contradictory after all. I don’t know… Just typing these words seems absurd to me. Isn’t this just self-deception?

Or, one could adopt a highly elitist religious view: that the vast majority of those who claim to be believers actually do not truly possess faith. Only those few who are truly dedicated to their ideals, those martyrs, are worthy of entering heaven. This leads to the question posed by Dostoevsky in “The Grand Inquisitor”: If Jesus set such high standards, how many people out of ten thousand can actually meet them? What about the remaining nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine? It falls to us, the “Grand Inquisitors,” to take care of these weak and helpless people, offering them some form of religious comfort. But even the Grand Inquisitors would not consider these people to have “fully realized their potential as human beings.” They would still say: They’re just ordinary people.

Is Christianity a religion that cares for secular matters? Of course. Buddhism can also care for secular matters. Islam and Confucianism may be even more so. Did Nietzsche oppose Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism then? The issue here has nothing to do with whether a religion is focused on secular matters or not. In fact, Zarathustra, the protagonist of one of Nietzsche’s books, was a person who wasn’t religious at all but who, by worldly standards, was extremely “a-secular”. All religious founders were like this in a way. Did Jesus believe in any religion? What religion did he believe in? Christianity hadn’t yet emerged at that time. What existed were Judaism and the various Roman religions. By those standards, the teachings of Jesus were far more radical than one might imagine. No one demanded that Nietzsche be crucified, but at that time, countless people truly wanted to crucify Jesus. Nietzsche held Jesus in high regard, but he viewed contemporary churches very negatively. For Jesus, faith was something genuine. But as religions became more organized and standardized over time, their true nature was lost. This is also a theme in Nietzsche’s philosophy of history.

So, Nietzsche wasn’t opposed to all religions in general. What he objected to was the practice of using religion as a pretext to trample upon individual vitality. He particularly despised the mindset of the petty bourgeoisie that emerged in society during the 19th century. Doctors, lawyers, and intellectuals had respectable jobs, social status, and comfortable material lives. They thought they were doing well, without ever considering the importance of dreams and aspirations. Of course, they could talk about dreams and goals, and say things like “I’ve done my best” or “I lead a meaningful life.” But in such a safe and comfortable life, is there any spirit of willingness to sacrifice everything for one’s dreams? Or, when faced with life-and-death decisions, do these people still choose to stay in their safe surroundings, preferring to preserve their own safety? There are always many excuses for this. After all, what these people excel at is instrumental rationality—precisely what Nietzsche despised.

Then there’s the issue of “philologists”. At first glance, it seems strange. Most people probably haven’t even heard of this profession. But what Nietzsche meant by “philologists” were actually people who studied the ancients. In a sense, all modern people are potential philologists, because we all need to study the ancients in order to gain some kind of spiritual energy. In the previous section, Nietzsche briefly mentioned the “help of the ancients” – that’s what he meant.

Of course, not all modern people believe that they need to draw inspiration from the lives of ancient people. There are many who prefer the modern era over the ancient one. Therefore, it can be said that Nietzsche chose the title “We Philologists” precisely to exclude those who did not believe in the value of the ancient world from his audience from the very beginning. Nietzsche’s target audience were those who desired to learn from the ancient people. This, of course, contradicts modern views of historical progress.

It is only within the realm of philologists that the issue of one’s life’s purpose can be discussed. After all, when we look back at the great individuals throughout history and then consider our own lives, we inevitably feel how insignificant and unimportant our own lives are. But if one adopts the modern perspective of historical progress, it becomes possible to use modern civilization to oppose the barbarism of ancient times. In this way, one can avoid any responsibility to “learn from the ancients”. This is why Nietzsche often referred to himself as a “philologist”. He knew too well that not everyone could accept this premise. “Philologist” isn’t a concept that can be applied to everyone. This isn’t due to the nature of the profession itself, but rather due to the underlying assumptions of this concept.

Finally, the problem of luck. In Nietzsche’s view, the errors of religion can be seen as a refusal to acknowledge that life is largely a game of chance, rather than something that can be made more predictable or optimized. Of course, it’s important to note the opposite view held by certain sects, like Calvinism. Calvinists believe in predestination: life is completely determined in advance, making it impossible to optimize anything. Whether a person is good or evil is determined by fate alone; no efforts on one’s part can change this. So, there’s no need for any clever tricks or shortcuts. The only thing one can do in life is to determine whether they’re destined for heaven or hell. It’s a matter of fact, not something that can be debated. For a long time, I found this doctrine strange and hard to understand. How could anyone truly believe in such things and still strive to live their life accordingly? I’ve met people like that, and I admire them. But now I understand that there’s a kind of honesty in this belief, something that other religions lack. After all, they face the reality head-on: life cannot be optimized, and one might be destined for hell.

Let me clarify a misunderstanding here. By “meaning” in the context of one’s life, I mean what happens when a person in their fifties suddenly realizes that the meaning of their life isn’t found in their work. To put it more clearly in English, the word “meaning” here shouldn’t be interpreted as “meaning” but rather as “sense”. Suddenly, the entire life doesn't make sense, even if there’s still some kind of “meaning” to it. For example, Gauguin, who worked in the glamorous world of finance, understood the “meaning” of stock trading. He might even have been good at interpreting those meanings and profiting from them. But suddenly, he found the entire financial system absurd and not making any sense. On the surface, he could continue to carry out his duties as usual. But on a deeper level, he could no longer tolerate such a senseless existence.

So, the sense of life isn’t something that can be quantified. Just because you’ve worked hard at a certain job for decades, that doesn’t mean it necessarily makes any sense. If that job goes against your inner impulses and desires, then no matter how well you do it, it still makes no sense to you. The meaning of life can’t be measured by external factors like money, social status, dignity, reputation, power, or influence. It’s a matter of either having meaning or not having any meaning at all. “Working hard” isn’t enough to answer the question of what gives life meaning. Efforts can be quantified, but meaning cannot. It’s more of a matter of narrative—the ability of a person to explain to themselves what their actions mean for themselves and the world. A person must make their actions make sense to themselves (which almost always involves self-expression). Otherwise, there’s no such thing as “a meaningful life”.

Finally, it seems that readers still haven’t understood the warnings I gave at the beginning. Reading Nietzsche is extremely dangerous. It’s harmful to your mental health! Those with fragile egos had better stay away. As for those who dare to face the harsh realities of life, come ahead. But please don’t complain or pretend to understand. Calm your mind and prepare yourself to hear Nietzsche’s harsh critiques of our lives. These critiques won’t be pleasant to hear. For those who prefer sweet talk and positive nonsense, this is not for you.

* The last post received multiple objections, mostly from Christians.