University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
  
  
  
  

expand section1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
 8. 
 9. 
 10. 
 11. 
 12. 
expand section13. 
 14. 
 15. 
 16. 
 17. 
 18. 
 19. 
 20. 
 21. 
 22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
 25. 
 26. 
 27. 
expand section28. 
 29. 
 30. 
30.
 31. 
expand section32. 
expand section33. 
expand section34. 
 35. 
 36. 
 37. 
 38. 
expand section39. 
 40. 
 41. 
 42. 
 43. 
 44. 
expand section45. 
 46. 
 47. 
expand section48. 
 49. 
 50. 
expand section51. 
expand section52. 
expand section53. 
 54. 
expand section55. 
expand section56. 
expand section57. 
 58. 
 59. 
 60. 
 61. 
 62. 

30.

The instinctive hatred of reality: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility to pain and irritation—so great that merely to be “touched” becomes unendurable, for every sensation is too profound.

The instinctive exclusion of all aversion, all hostility, all bounds and distances in feeling: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility to pain and irritation—so great that it senses all resistance, all compulsion to resistance, as unbearable anguish (—that is to say, as harmful, as prohibited by the instinct of self-preservation), and regards blessedness (joy) as possible only when it is no longer necessary to offer resistance to anybody or anything, however evil or dangerous—love, as the only, as the ultimate possibility of life. . .

These are the two physiological realities upon and out of which the doctrine of salvation has sprung. I call them a sublime super-development of hedonism upon a thoroughly unsalubrious soil. What stands most closely related to them, though with a large admixture of Greek vitality and nerve-force, is epicureanism, the theory of salvation of paganism. Epicurus was a typical decadent: I was the first to recognize him.—The fear of pain, even of infinitely slight pain—the end of this can be nothing save a religion of love. . . .