On the sublime

�On the sublime� is his famous dissertation about the extent and limits of what it is to be a human being. One trait of the human being is the specific rapport he or she observes with what he or she perceives as power expressed upon him or her.

„No human being must abide“, says the Jew Nathan to the Dervish and these words are, to a large extent, truer than one may be willing to concede. The willpower is a typical disposition of the human genre and reason is its only eternal rule.

 

The whole Nature acts reasonably, the prerogative of the human being is really that he acts reasonably with conscience and willpower. All other creatures must abide; the human being is the only creature who decides for himself. Precisely for this reason, nothing is so undignified to the human being than to endure power, for power suppresses the human being in him.

 

 

No matter who exercises this power upon us, it leads not to a lesser effect than to make Humanity disputable; and he, who endures power in a cowardly manner, throws his humanity away. However, this pretence on the absolute liberation from anything that represents a might, seems to suppose of a creature who possesses enough might that can repel any others.

 

Would this might find itself in a creature who, in the realm of forces, affirms not the highest rank, so an unfortunate contradiction is taking place between impulse and capacity. The human being finds himself in this case. Surrounded by numerous forces which are all superior to his own and which play master over him, he makes pretence, through his nature, never to suffer from any power. Through his intelligence, in truth, he increases in an artificial manner his natural forces, and up to a certain point, succeeds physically to be really master over anything physical. “There is a solution to every problem”, says the proverb, “only not against death”. However, this unique exception, if so it is really in the strictest sense, would nullify the whole concept of Humanity.

 

He can never more be the creature who decides for himself, if there were a single case where he must simply not decide for himself. This unique, dreadful case which he must only accept and not decide, will haunt him as a ghost and will make him, as is really the case with the majority of human beings, prey to the obscure anguish of fantasy; his absolute freedom is absolutely nothing, if he is only still not free in a unique aspect. Culture should set the human being in freedom and should help him to fulfil his whole concept. It should, hence, make him capable to affirm his willpower, so that the human being becomes the creature who decides for himself. This is possible in two manners.

 

Either realistically, if the human opposes power against a power, if he as Nature, dominates Nature, or idealistically, if he leaves the domain of Nature, and hence, towards himself, dissolves the concept of power. What helps him to achieve the first case is physical culture. The human being builds up his intelligence and his sensible forces, in order, either to make of the forces of Nature, according to its own laws, the tools of his own willpower or to secure himself of their effects which he can not govern.

 

This excerpt is 512 word long. The text is 6 154 words. If you if wish to read more excerpts please send a request to [email protected].

Author's Note

copy and paste the passage that is not clear to you

Reviews

[Malenkov]

Well, I think its got the usual desnse german to english stlyle of Schiller which makes it quite tought to wade through but I think underneath there are some good points made.

To me, assuming I understood it, the key part is here:

" if he is only still not free in a unique aspect...Culture should set the human being in freedom and should help him to fulfil his whole concept. It should, hence, make him capable to affirm his willpower,"

That suggests to me a will to power thing: did Schiller form the concept I wonder? In any case man can only be free, in an inner sense if he is cornered by some many forms of hierachy, power, authority -- I guess an almost stoic attitude: we can be slaves, but have inner freedom. Culture, I'm not sure in what sense its mean here, but the words fulfil his whole concept make me think of words like self-actualization as it was used by Maslow -- creativity as the highest expression of ones will to be, and again, by Rollo May, in Mans Search for Himself as a quest to fulful his or her highest potential and the fight against the will-to-be-the-highest-thing-one-can (the will to power again) in so many forms.

The whole thing about dominating nature I didnt quite get. Perhaps he meant mateial, that is scientific domaination. I'd question Schiller there: the whole domination of nature thing has probably been a major factor behind the environmental crisis we are currently in. But maybe I got the thread of Schillers thinking here wrong, it is quite hard to make out from his prose.

On the sublime thought raises an interesting question on what it is to be human, or here, fully human.

I think here the line "his absolute freedom is absolutely nothing, if he is only still not free in a unique aspect." is also a good one, as I understand it, it echoes for me what Simone Weil? said about its not just living daily existence (as free indivuals) that counts, its the purpose we strive for. Its what we do withour lives, some kind of higher purpose than paying the rent. Here the sublime and the fully human are unified, I think, meaning that to be human, really human, is to excercise the highest of mans creative powers, and the will, the discipline, and the drive to truly be what one can be. I do think in this one one can be free, like Epictectus (spellings probably way out) the Stoic, the great creative thinker who was noentheless a slave. Proving that one can submit, be part of a system and yet still have an inner freedom.

While you one can have creative freedom in the sublime, the higher intellect, the gifts of art, and so be free, I also think its important not to see the sublime as an end in itself but as some form of social service: its not art per se thats valuable, not the artist as hermit, but rather art as some way of changing society, whether through showing the human condition, chaging peoples view about something, the sublime ultimately as some vehicle of providing a hopefully better picture of man.

[R J Askew]

I feel like a stone when I read philosophy as I do not understand most of it. I can't make the finer distinctions between concepts. I struggle with the slipperyness of language and instinctively sense our raging animal nature is the key. We are all engaged in savage competition with each other for status in everything we do at every point in our lives. Creativity is just another means to status. This may sound grim but there is a certain beauty in the simplicity of it. Life is exciting. We are not and never have been civilised. Can we ever be tame? No. We are doomed. Nature Fecit.

[Irfan Shah]

Although I don't share the same views as that of the original author in this regard, I will try to help as to which lines may not be clear and/or correct.

"He can never more be the creature who decides for himself, if there were a single case where he must simply not decide for himself."

I guess, the grammatically correct form would be: "He can never be the creature... " or "he can no more be the creature"


The following lines too seem grammatically incorrect: "However, this pretence on the absolute liberation from anything that represents a might, seems to suppose of a creature who possesses enough might that can repel any others.
Would this might find itself in a creature who, in the realm of forces, affirms not the highest rank, so an unfortunate contradiction is taking place between impulse and capacity."

I am not sure as to what is wrong with these lines, but something is definitely wrong. At least one correction would be to change the word "might" to "Might" as in the current format, one may consider it the other kind of 'might' and not the 'Mighty Might'. (still i am not sure if its a correct suggestion).

Also I would like to know , when you write: "Either realistically, if the human opposes power against a power, if he as Nature, dominates Nature, or idealistically, if he leaves the domain of Nature, and hence, towards himself, dissolves the concept of power."

What do you mean by 'towards himself' in this context?

Thanks for sharing the passage,