Friedrich_Nietzsche - Untimely_Meditations_(Cambridge_Texts_in_the_History_of_Philosophy__1997)

Schopenhauer as educatoras such, and when this is the case it will try all the more to draw to itphilosophers who will give it the appearance of having philosophyon its side - because it has on its side those men who bear the nameof philosopher and yet are patently nothing to inspire fear. If,however, a man should arise who really gave the impression ofintending to apply the seal pel of truth to all things, including thebody of the state, then the state would, since it affirms its own existencebefore all else, be justified in expelling such a man and treatinghim as an enemy: just as it expels and treats as an enemy a religionwhich sets itself above the state and desires to be its judge. So if anyoneis to tolerate being a philosopher in the employ of the state, hewilf also have to tolerate being regarded as having abandoned anyattempt to pursue truth into all its hideouts. At the very least he isobliged, so long as he is the recipient of favours and offices, torecognize something as being higher than truth, namely the state.And not merely the state but at the same time everything the stateconsiders necessary for its wellbeing: a certain form of religion, forexample, or of social order, or of army regulations - a noli me tangere *is inscribed upon everything of this sort.Can a universityphilosopher ever have realized to the full the whole gamut of dutiesand limitations imposed upon him? I do not know; if he has done soand has nonetheless remained an official of the state he has been abad friend of truth; if he has never done so - well, I would say hewould still be no friend of truth.This is the most general objection: to people as they are now,however, it is of course the weakest objection and the one to whichthey are most indifferent. Most will be content to shrug theirshoulders and say: 'as though anything great and pure has ever beenable to maintain itself on this earth without making concessions tohuman baseness! Would you prefer it if the state persecuted thephilosopher rather than paid him and took him into service?'Without immediately replying to this-question, I shall only observethat these concessions to the state on the part of philosophy go veryfar at the present time. Firstly: it is the state which selects itsphilosophical servants, and which selects just the number it needs tosupply its institutions; it therefore takes on the appearance of beingable to distinguish between good philosophers and bad ones and,even worse, it presupposes that there must always be a sufficiency ofgood philosophers to fill all its academic chairs. It is now the authority,not only with regard to the quality of philosophers, but also in"noli me tangere: do not touch me185