Friedrich_Nietzsche - Untimely_Meditations_(Cambridge_Texts_in_the_History_of_Philosophy__1997)

Untimely MeditationsExperience unfortunately teaches us better - or rather, worse: ittells us that nothing stands so much in the way of the production andpropagation of the great philosopher by nature as does the badphilosopher who works for the state. A painful fact, is it not?recognizably the same as that to which Schopenhauer first directedattention in his celebrated treatise on university philosophy. I shallreturn to it later: for one has to compel men to take it seriously, thatis to say to let it inspire them to action, and I consider every wordbehind which there does not stand such a challenge to action to havebeen written in vain; and it is in any event a good thing again todemonstrate the truth of Schopenhauer's always valid propositions,and to do so by direct reference to our closest contemporaries, sincea well-disposed man might think that since he launched his accusationseverything has taken a turn for the better in Germany. Evenon this point, minor though it is, his work is not yet done.Considered more closely, that 'freedom' with which, as I havesaid, the state now blesses some men fo r the good of philosophy isno freedom at all but an office of. profit. The promotion ofphilosophy nowadays consists, it seems, only in the state's enabling anumber of men to live from their philosophy by making of it a meansof livelihood: whereas the sages of ancient Greece were not paid bythe state hut at most were, like Zeno, honoured with a gold crownand a monument in the Ceramicus. Whether truth is served whenone is shown a way of living off it I cannot say in general, becausehere it all depends on t h e quality of the individual who is shown it. Icould well envisage a degree of pride and self-esteem which wouldlead a man to say to his fellow-men: look after me, for I have somethingbetter to do, namely to look after you. I n the case of Plato orSchopenhauer, such grandeur of disposition and expression wouldnot alienate one; which is why precisely they could even be universityphilosophers, as Plato was fo r a time a court philosopher,without demeaning the dignity of philosophy. But even Kant was, aswe scholars are accustomed to be, cautious, subservient and, in hisattitude towards the state, without greatness: so that, if universityphilosophy should ever be called to account, he at any rate could notjustify it. And if there are natures capable of justifying it - suchnatures as those of Schopenhauer and Plato - I fear they will neverhave occasion for doing so, since no state would ever dare to favoursuch men and install them in university posts. Why is that so?Because every state fears them and will favour only philosophers itdoes not fear. For it does happen that the state is afraid of philosophy184