Corpus · Human, All Too Human

Where Do Our Highest Values Come From?

Human, All Too Human — Essential Reading Path · Reading 1 of 10

Read: Volume I, §§1–3.
Allow: About 35–45 minutes, including the passages, this guide, and a short written response.

Open the reading: Human, All Too Human, Volume I, §§1–3

The free text uses Helen Zimmern’s translation. Begin at 1 under First Division: First and Last Things, and stop before 4. These are the opening aphorisms of Volume I, published in 1878. The numbered sections of the 1886 preface are a separate text. The site’s preferred edition is R. J. Hollingdale’s translation, with an introduction by Richard Schacht. The explanations and everyday examples below are this guide’s commentary.

Before you read

Think of a quality you admire: generosity, honesty, artistic sensitivity, or intellectual independence.

Now imagine learning that someone’s possession of this quality has an unexpected history. A musician who seems absorbed in the music first practiced to win approval. Someone whose honesty you trust began by fearing punishment. A generous person once wanted the gratitude that giving could secure.

Would discovering that history diminish what you admire? Would it make you curious about how the quality developed? Would you suspect that the apparently admirable quality is still something less impressive in disguise?

Those responses raise different questions. We will need to distinguish what began a development, what changed along the way, and what deserves our judgment now.

The main question: Does explaining where a belief or value came from settle what it is worth?

Read §§1–3 once before continuing. Notice how Nietzsche moves from the origins of elevated things to the history of human beings, then to the kind of knowledge he wants us to value.

Three things to notice

1. The supposedly impossible transitions. Nietzsche asks how something could develop from what seems to be its opposite. Why might that difficulty encourage belief in an extraordinary origin?
2. The philosopher’s starting point. What goes wrong when someone treats the human beings they know as a timeless measure of humanity?
3. The preference for modest discoveries. Why might a carefully established truth disappoint us, and what would it take to appreciate it?

A way to read the passages

Must an admirable thing have an admirable origin?

Section 1 opens with apparent opposites: reason and unreason, concern for others and egoism, truth and error. The problem arises when we assume that one side could never develop from the other. A valued capacity then seems to require a source outside the ordinary processes that produce everything else. I §1, opening discussion

Nietzsche associates that response with metaphysical philosophy. In this setting, it means explaining the origin of what we admire by appealing to an underlying reality beyond the processes available to historical and scientific investigation. The elevated thing receives an elevated source of its own.

The alternative he proposes is historical philosophy working with the natural sciences. Instead of accepting the apparent opposition as final, investigate the stages, mixtures, and transformations through which one condition might produce another.

Consider the child who first tells the truth to avoid punishment. Over time, the child might come to understand how deception damages trust, care about other people’s ability to rely on them, and find dishonesty increasingly difficult to accept. Such a development would connect motives that a simple opposition between selfishness and honesty might keep apart.

This is an invented possibility, not evidence that all honesty actually develops this way. Its purpose is to make the question intelligible: what would we discover if we investigated how an admired capacity was formed?

Nietzsche goes further than observing that motives are sometimes mixed. Strictly understood, he denies entirely unegoistic action and entirely disinterested contemplation. Those are substantial claims. Understanding the historical approach should make us interested in their evidence, rather than cause us to accept them automatically.

The chemistry: what has changed in the mixture?

Nietzsche describes the inquiry through the image of a chemistry of moral, religious, and aesthetic feelings. He imagines beautiful colors emerging from materials people regard as base or contemptible. The image makes the investigation both attractive and disturbing. I §1, the chemistry image

Attend to the transformation in this comparison. A history should explain what happens between a beginning and an outcome. Simply attaching an embarrassing name to the beginning leaves that work undone.

Return to the musician. Discovering an early desire for applause might help explain why practice began. It would leave further questions: how did attention develop, what became rewarding in the work, and what now sustains it when nobody is listening?

Nietzsche’s own image of sublimation retains a fundamental element that can become difficult to detect. We should therefore avoid making the example promise a complete escape from earlier motives. At the same time, identifying continuity does not relieve an explanation of the need to describe change. Calling the musician vain explains very little unless we can show how vanity operates in the activity we are examining.

The passage reports that historical inquiry has challenged apparent oppositions in particular cases and anticipates a wider result. Its ambition exceeds the evidence it supplies here. It announces work to be done across many kinds of human experience.

Why might someone resist that work? Perhaps an admired activity feels diminished when its origins become ordinary. Perhaps we have allowed its worth to depend on its supposed purity. Nietzsche’s closing questions make that reluctance part of the subject: our attachment to an explanation may have a history too.

The human being in front of us has a history

Section 2 turns the method toward the investigator’s starting point. Philosophers examine the people they know, then treat the resulting account as a description of humanity at all times. Religious and political conditions that helped form those people disappear from view. I §2

Imagine observing a workplace where people compete intensely for a small number of rewards. One observer declares that human beings are naturally interested only in defeating one another. Another asks how this arrangement encourages competition, what happens under different incentives, and which features persist across settings.

The second observer has begun to investigate the scope of the claim. They have not yet proved that competition is entirely produced by institutions, or that people could become whatever we wish. A historical question opens possibilities for comparison; it does not decide the answer in advance.

Nietzsche also includes our capacities for knowing within development. The mind from which a philosopher constructs an account of the world is itself something to investigate. This challenges the ambition to treat its present operations as an unquestionable standard for reality.

His own account includes sweeping assertions, including the claim that essential human development occurred before recorded history. We should distinguish his demand for historical inquiry from his particular conjectures about that history. The demand remains applicable to those conjectures.

The section ends by denying eternal facts and absolute truths, then calling for historical philosophy and modesty. That is a strong challenge. Read it beside the next section’s confidence in durable knowledge. The relationship between those claims needs thought; it cannot be settled by declaring that all opinions are equally good.

Learning to appreciate a smaller discovery

Section 3 asks us to value modest truths reached through strict methods more highly than exhilarating errors. The obstacle is partly a matter of taste. A comprehensive explanation can feel profound and satisfying before we have examined how well it is supported. A limited finding may feel disappointingly small. I §3

Suppose someone announces that every act of generosity is a concealed bid for admiration. The claim is memorable. It can also make its audience feel perceptive, as though a single insight has opened every locked door.

Compare a narrower finding: in a particular setting, people gave more when their names would be displayed. If established through a careful investigation, that result would tell us something worth knowing. It would still leave open what motivated people who gave anonymously, how different circumstances might change the result, and whether several motives worked together.

The example is hypothetical. It illustrates the difference between the reach of an explanation and the support available for it. A limited claim does not become true merely by being limited. Its value depends on how it was established and what it allows us to understand.

This gives us a standard to carry back into §1. Has Nietzsche demonstrated the continuity he proposes, or identified a possibility for further inquiry? Is a particular explanation well supported, or are we enjoying its power to deflate something admired?

The section also imagines a different kind of beauty becoming perceptible as intellectual life develops. Careful inquiry might acquire pleasures of its own. Nietzsche’s invitation includes learning to enjoy the work that an exciting generalization would let us skip.

His account nevertheless ranks cultures and describes intellectual courage in gendered terms. Those judgments deserve the historical scrutiny urged in §2. We can ask what warrants them while taking seriously his demand that the appeal of an idea answer to the quality of its support.

A difficulty to keep in view

When does an explanation of origins actually change an assessment of value?

It is tempting to draw one of two quick conclusions: a disreputable origin discredits everything that follows, or origins never matter to present judgments. Both shortcuts avoid examining the particular claim at stake.

If a belief’s authority depends on having arrived untouched by human history, evidence of its development could undermine that claimed authority. If a person claims to act from wholly disinterested motives, an accurate account of the motives involved could challenge the claim.

Other questions would remain. Is a particular statement true? What does an action accomplish? What qualities has a practice developed? How should we judge its effects on the people involved? A historical explanation may change the evidence relevant to these questions without answering all of them by itself.

These distinctions are tools for reading Nietzsche, rather than a complete argument he gives us in the opening three sections. They let us ask exactly what his proposed chemistry establishes and what still requires evaluation.

Apply that discipline to the historian too. An unflattering explanation can be satisfying for reasons of its own. Our pleasure in exposing an ideal is no better evidence than someone else’s pleasure in preserving it.

The question to keep open is precise: Which claim about this value would its history support, weaken, or leave undecided?

Check your understanding

Try answering before reading each suggested response.

What should I write in my notes?

Choose one quality or practice you admire. Write six to eight sentences that do four things:

1. Identify a claim you make about why it deserves admiration.
2. Sketch one possible history of its development, clearly distinguishing your hypothesis from anything you actually know.
3. Name evidence that could support or challenge that history.
4. Explain which part of your original judgment the history would affect, and which questions it would leave open.

Finish with this sentence:

The modest discovery I would most like to establish is…

A successful response makes a connection between history and evaluation without confusing them. You do not need to expose something admirable as a fraud. You do need to make your explanation answerable to evidence.

Continue the reading

Reading 2: Are We as Selfless as We Think? — Volume I, §§35 and 57.

The next guided session is forthcoming. You can read the primary passages below in the meantime.

The next session brings the historical proposal into psychological observation and self-sacrifice. We will ask how a person can give up something important for another attachment within their own life, and what that explanation does to our understanding of selflessness.

Carry this question forward: What would we need to know about a sacrifice before deciding which motives explain it?

Open the next primary passages: I §35 and I §57. Read each numbered aphorism through to the next number.

Return to the Human, All Too Human book overview

← Essential Reading PathTexts & translations