Summary
Nietzsche introduces this essay by asking, "what is the meaning of
ascetic ideals?" He answers that it has meant many different things to
many different people, suggesting that we would "rather will
nothingness than not will."
Nietzsche seizes upon the example of Richard Wagner, asking why Wagner
embraced chastity in his old age, and why he wrote Parsifal.
After a brief discussion of Wagner, Nietzsche concludes that we can
learn little about the meaning of ascetic ideals from artists, because
they always lean on the authority of some prior philosophy, morality, or
religion. Wagner's asceticism, Nietzsche suggests, would not have been
possible without Schopenhauer's philosophy. Wagner may have been
attracted to Schopenhauer because of the prominence Schopenhauer gave to
music in his philosophy: while all other art forms are merely
representative of phenomena, Schopenhauer suggested that music speaks
the language of the will itself.
Schopenhauer followed Kant in suggesting that the beautiful is what
gives us pleasure without interest. Schopenhauer adapted this
definition to his own philosophy, seeing the beautiful as having a
calming effect on the will, freeing the will from the urgency of its
constant volition. Nietzsche first remarks that Kant's definition of
beauty comes from the standpoint of the spectator, not the artist. Next
he contrasts this definition with that of an artist--Stendhal--who
defined beauty as a "promise of happiness." This definition is quite
the contrary of Kant's and Schopenhauer's, as it arouses both the will
and interestedness. Finally, Nietzsche suggests that Schopenhauer's
position was a personal one and by no means disinterested. Here we get
a preliminary insight into a philosopher who honors an ascetic ideal: he
does so to gain release from the constant torture and torment of his
will.
Everything strives to secure for itself those conditions under which it
maximizes its feeling of power. Philosophers thus abhor marriage
(Nietzsche observes that Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz,
Kant, and Schopenhauer never married) and all other distractions from
their philosophical pursuits. In this, Nietzsche finds the meaning of
ascetic ideals among philosophers: it is a means to maximize the feeling
of power. Ascetic ideals are not a denial of existence, but rather an
affirmation of existence, wherein the philosopher affirms his and only
his existence. Thus, Nietzsche concludes, philosophers do not write
about asceticism from a disinterested standpoint. They think of its
value to themselves, and how they can benefit from it.
Philosophers are at their best when they isolate themselves from the
bustle and chatter of the world about them.
Having identified the value of ascetic ideals among philosophers,
Nietzsche goes on to argue that philosophy was born of and depends on
ascetic ideals. All major changes in our world have been achieved
through violence and have been mistrusted. The contemplative, skeptical
mood of philosophy ran counter to ancient morality, and must have been
mistrusted. The best way to dispel this mistrust was to arouse fear,
and Nietzsche sees the ancient Brahmins as paramount in this respect.
Through self-torture and asceticism, they made not only others fear and
reverence them, but they came also to fear and reverence themselves.
Essentially, Nietzsche suggests, philosophers could not parade as
philosophers, and so chose a different mask to present themselves. With
the Brahmins, and with most philosophers since, this mask has been that
of the ascetic priest. Nietzsche suggests that this is still the case:
there is not yet enough freedom of will on this earth for the
philosopher to drop the pretence of the ascetic priest.
