When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning, we ask ourselves:

Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said

he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian

religion is an antiquity projected into our times remote prehistory; and the fact

that the claim is believed-whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions-

is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with

a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for

the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as

a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers

for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god;

fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in

a time that no longer knows the function and ignoming of the cross-how ghoulishly

all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that

such things are believed?

FAMILY FAILING OF PHILOSOPHERS

All philosophers have the common failing of strating out from man as he is now and thinking they

can reach their goal through an analysis of him. They involuntarily of 'man' as an aeterna veritas,

something that remains constant in the mist of all flux, as a sure measure of things. Everything the

philospher has declared about man is, however, at the bottom no more than a testimony as to the

man of a very limited period of time. Lack of historical sense is the family failing of all philsophers.

-Human, all too Human

TRUTH AS CIRCE

Error has transformed animals into man; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal?

-Human, all too Human

WILL TO POWER

Suppose nothing else were "given" as real except our world of desires and passions, and

we could not get down, or up, to any other "reality" besides the reality of our drives--for thinking

is merely a relation of these drives to eachother: is it not permitted to make the experiment and to

ask the question whether this "given" sufficient for also understanding on the basis of this

kind of thing the so-called mechanistic (or "material") world?...

In the end not only is it permitted to make this experiment, the conscience of method demands it.

Not to assume several kinds of casuality until the experiment of making do with a single one has

been pushed to its utmost limit (to the point of nonsense, if I may say so)... The question is in the

end and whether we really recognize the will is efficient, whether we believe in the casuality of the

will: if we do--and faith in casuality itself--then we have to experiment of positing casuality of the

will hypothetically as the only one. "Will", of course, can affect only "will"--and has to risk the

hypothesis whether will does not affect all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a force is

active in them, will force, effects of will.

-Beyond Good and Evil

MORE TO COME SOON! =)