Corpus · The Gay Science · Full-text route

Consciousness, Knowledge, and the Stage-Player

Optional full-text route · Station 28 of 35

Read: Book V, §§354–356, in full, added in 1887. Begin at §354 and stop before §357.
Allow: About 60–80 minutes, including the passages, this guide, rereading, and a short written response. This is an editorial estimate, not a measured reading time. The three sections total about 2,400 words in the free edition; §354 alone is over 1,100. If you need two sittings, stop after §354.

Preferred translation: Walter Kaufmann. Free alternative (Thomas Common, The Joyful Wisdom): begin at §354 · §355 · §356.

Quotations on this page follow Common’s free translation, including his section titles. Kaufmann’s wording differs, and none of it is quoted here; this lesson has not been compared with Kaufmann’s text. Where a word drives the interpretation, this page notes the German, from the Projekt Gutenberg-DE text.

Before you read

Three long sections from Book V, added in 1887. §354 is the first assignment of Reading 9, which reads it with §374 and asks how we can judge within a perspective we cannot leave. This station reads §354 for what it says about communication and about whom consciousness serves, and gives equal time to §§355–356, which no introductory lesson assigns. The route’s checkpoint for Reading 9 comes after station 32, once §374 has been read.

The main question: What can consciousness communicate, and for whom?

Keep using the marks: P, H, V, and ? for Nietzsche’s own hedge only. Much of this station is hedged; watch for “it seems to me,” “conjecture,” and “perhaps.”

What to notice

1. Command. §354 says that consciousness was needed “especially between those commanding and those obeying.” Ask what that adds to a theory of communication.
2. The known. §355 says, “The known is the accustomed.” Compare §333’s account of knowing (station 24).
3. Roles. §356 says that Europeans become their roles, “nature out of art.” Compare §290’s style and §301’s “actors” (station 21).

Close reading

One way to group the sections

These groups are this guide’s, not Nietzsche’s.

• Consciousness and the herd: §354.
• Knowledge as the familiar: §355.
• Roles, actors, and building: §356.

Consciousness and the herd

§354, “The ‘Genius of the Species,’” begins with a claim it credits to physiology: we could think, feel, will, and act without any of it having to “come into consciousness,” and “the far greater part of our life still goes on without this mirroring.” What, then, is consciousness for? The answer comes with hedges: “it seems to me, if you will hear my answer and its perhaps extravagant supposition” (German vielleicht ausschweifenden Vermuthung; mark ?), “that the subtlety and strength of consciousness are always in proportion to the capacity for communication.” Consciousness “has only been developed under the pressure of the necessity for communication,” and was needed “only between man and man (especially between those commanding and those obeying).” Mark it H: the section calls its own thesis a conjecture (Vermuthung). §354, consciousness and communication

From there the section draws its sharpest conclusion. “Consciousness is properly only a connecting network between man and man.” So each of us, trying to know himself, “will always just call into consciousness the non-individual in him, namely, his ‘averageness.’” Our thought “is translated back into the perspective of the herd.” “This is the proper phenomenalism and perspectivism as I understand it”: “everything which becomes conscious becomes just thereby shallow, meagre, relatively stupid,—a generalisation, a symbol, a characteristic of the herd.” The last sentences are bolder still: “we have not any organ at all for knowing or for ‘truth’”; we know only what is useful to the herd, and even usefulness is “perhaps precisely the most fatal stupidity by which we shall one day be ruined” (vielleicht; mark ?). Reading 9 follows this argument closely. §354, perspectivism

Knowledge as the familiar

§355, “The Origin of our Conception of ‘Knowledge,’” takes its example “from the street.” Someone said that he knew the speaker; what do people want when they seek knowledge? “Nothing more than that what is strange is to be traced back to something known.” Then the question turns on philosophers: “is our need of knowing not just this need of the known?” “Is it not possible that it should be the instinct of fear which enjoins upon us to know?” These are questions, not assertions. Mark them P, and note that they are asked rather than claimed. §355, the need of the known

The claim that follows is flat: “Error of errors! The known is the accustomed, and the accustomed is the most difficult of all to ‘understand,’ that is to say, to perceive as a problem.” So the natural sciences are more certain than psychology, “unnatural sciences as one might almost be entitled to call them,” because they take what is strange as their object. The section also says, “One philosopher imagined the world ‘known’ when he had traced it back to the ‘idea.’” It names no one; Plato and Hegel both fit the description, and this guide does not decide. Compare §333 (station 24): there knowing was a truce among impulses; here it is relief from fear.

Roles, actors, and building

§356, “In what Manner Europe will always become ‘more Artistic,’” begins with work. The need to earn a living forces “a definite rôle on almost all male Europeans” (German fast allen männlichen Europäern), and most come to confuse themselves with their role: “their characters have actually evolved out of their rôle, nature out of art.” In some ages people believed in their predestination to a trade, and ranks and guilds built the towers of medieval society, which had one merit: “capacity for duration (and duration is a value of the first rank on earth!).” In democratic ages, “the Athenian conviction” of Pericles’ time and “the American conviction of the present day,” each person believes he can play almost any role, and “all nature ceases and becomes art.” The Greeks became “actual stage-players,” and “the Graeculus histrio conquered Rome”: the little Greek actor, not Greek culture. Mark it H and V. §356, roles and actors

Then the fear: “we modern men are quite on the same road already,” and “whenever man begins to discover in what respect he plays a rôle, and to what extent he can be a stage-player, he becomes a stage-player.” What suffers is “the great ‘architects’”: no one will now plan works that take millenniums, because the belief is dying “that in fact man has only value and significance in so far as he is a stone in a great building.” The conclusion: “that which from henceforth will no longer be built, and can no longer be built, is—a society in the old sense of the term.” “None of us are any longer material for a society.” The section ends by mocking “our friends the Socialists,” “perhaps the most honest” (German vielleicht; mark ?) and certainly the noisiest of men, whose “free society” is to be built “Out of wooden iron!” The German idiom, hölzernes Eisen, names a contradiction in terms. Mark it V. Compare §291’s Genoese builders and §301’s practical men as “our actors” (station 21). §356, a society in the old sense

A difficulty

Can the book communicate what it says consciousness cannot?

§354 says that whatever becomes conscious, and so whatever is put into words, is “a generalisation, a symbol, a characteristic of the herd.” Yet the section is itself written in words, for readers, and claims to describe an individual that consciousness cannot reach. §356 adds that anyone who sees his own role becomes an actor.

Three readings are possible.

• Self-defeating. If §354 is right, its own claim is a herd generalization, and the book cannot communicate anything individual, including this.
• Consistent. §354 says that conscious thought is shallow and general, not that it is false. A general claim about the limits of generality can be true; the individual is pointed to, not described.
• A practice. The book’s aphorisms, quoted voices, and masks (§§285, 311, 356) are ways of writing against the herd character of words, and the book knows it.

Decide which the text best supports. Name one sentence from §354 and one passage elsewhere in the book that shows how Nietzsche writes around the problem.

Check your understanding

Try answering before opening each suggested response.

Writing prompt

Write 200–250 words answering:

Choose §354 or §356. Whom does what it describes serve: the individual, the herd, those who command, or the builders?

• Quote no more than two short phrases.
• Mark the section’s hedges where you rely on them.
• Say whether the section’s own writing escapes the limit it describes.

A successful response states the section’s thesis as a conjecture where the text offers it as one, identifies whose interests the section names, and does not treat §354’s perspectivism as the claim that all views are equal.

Continue

Reading 9, later. §354 is the first of Reading 9’s two sections. The route’s optional checkpoint for it comes after station 32, once you have also read §374.

Continue to station 29: Good Europeans and the German Question →

Read next: Book V, §§357–359. Its question: do historical and national claims support the diagnosis?

Previous station: station 27, §§348–353. Return to the route list in the book guide.

A reading guide from Reading Nietzsche · Revised September 27, 2026.

← Full-text routeTexts & translations