A Petty Game Unworthy of both Men and Gods

It was Nietzsche who said:

“Be careful, lest in casting out your demons you exorcise the best thing in you.”

I have not been able to locate the exact book this quote derives from, but I’m fairly sure the context was his critique of “sin”, which would have been part of his larger critique of Christian Morality in general. When I first came across this years ago, I wasn’t quite sure how to interpret his line of thought. Was Nietzsche implying that our personal demons should not only be kept safe, but celebrated? Or that our most base inclinations should trump our better judgments? A literal reading would certainly imply that stance since Nietzsche had quite a reputation for turning the most cherished religious beliefs on their head with his bold assertions.

But after having read a fair amount of his writings now, I believe it’s far less likely that he was endorsing immoral behavior than simply reminding his readers that we are all collections of differing natures, and it is the interplay between them that makes life so engaging. In his personal life, he was an advocate of high conduct, proper mannerism, and honesty, so the likely target with his statement was the Christian ideal of surrendering our “sinful” nature to God, which I believe Nietzsche considered a perversion, if not a blatant insult to our integrity.  After all, it takes only a short stroll through a few Old Testament books such as Joshua, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus to clearly see God in all his genocidal glory. Don’t be shocked, it’s there in the book.

I believe Nietzsche’s intellectual aim was to point out that the Christian concept of human ‘morality’ first begins by devaluing that human by condemning our nature as sinful, and then blames us for it. It then invents the cure for that sinfulness, and thus a Savior is born. But here’s the rub, goodness carries no moral weight when the choice is coerced. Consider it for a moment, how meaningful can goodness be when the imperative is offered with the threat of an eternity in a fiery hell if rejected? It doesn’t compute, and how could it?

It is precisely this self-preserving, submissive surrender, that Nietzsche railed against, even referring to it as “slave morality”. It was his argument that true morality can only hold value, and therefore respect, when exhibited from personal integrity, and not from the threat of a fiery hell or the promise of a heavenly reward.

Note: If I’m allowed to point out an uncomfortable truth on this uniquely Christian calculous; the threat of punishment and a reward for submission are the very methods we use to domesticate livestock. 

I easily recall a wonderful paragraph from Saul Bellow’s, “Henderson the Rain King”, which I believe echoes Nietzsche’s point beautifully. It appears in a scene when King Dahfu, in Bellow’s wonderful display of the African dialect, explained to Henderson his views on the nature of good and evil. This exchange comes after Henderson had just told the King how deeply “high conduct” affects him. King Dahfu then responds by reminding Henderson that high conduct is meaningless if it comes merely from following orders.

Henderson: “Yes, your Highness. No bunk. The true good. The honest-to-god good”.

King Dahfu: “Yes, I know how you feel over it….they say that bad can easily be spectacular, has dash or bravado and impresses the mind quicker than good. Oh, that is a mistake in my opinion…. perhaps of common good it is true. Many, many nice people. Oh yes. Their will tells them to perform good and they do. How ordinary! Mere arithmetic. ‘I have left undone the etcetera’s I should have done and done the etcetera’s I ought not have.’ This does not even amount to a life. Oh, how sordid it is to bookkeep. My view is opposite, or contrary, that good cannot be labor or conflict. When it is high and great, it is too superior. Oh, Mr. Henderson, it is far more spectacular. It is associated with inspiration.”

Whether consciously or not, Bellow beautifully framed that exchange as an affirming nod to Nietzsche’s rejection of a prescribed morality that we must adopt. There is another quote from Nietzsche that could easily be the bookend to the first when he quipped; “In Heaven, all of the interesting people are missing”. Again, the same idea of implying that our most interesting qualities are those not commandeered by submission and dogma.

In a recent article I found in RollingStone, I came across an interview with Bono as he made an astute observation regarding Johnny Cash, which again, elicits the same theme.

“Johnny Cash doesn’t sing to the damned, he sings with the damned, and sometimes you feel he might prefer their company.”

It is not my intention to denigrate Christian virtues here at all, yet it cannot be denied that it indeed teaches, promotes, and even requires followers to surrender to the authority of God, which the Apostle Paul spews ad-nauseam. The Christian ideal to “die to yourself and be reborn in Christ” was certainly a target for Nietzsche because it promotes the denial of the individual, which he valued above all else. In fact, Nietzsche’s main complaint with Christianity was its elevation of what he termed “herd behavior” to the status of a guiding principle.

One of the more memorable pieces of writing that I’ve ever read on this topic comes from the infamous Tom Robbins, from his book “Jitterbug Perfume.” In the passage below, his protagonist, King Alobar, explains his indifference to what he had learned from living for many years in a monastery of Christian Monks and their professed “secret” for reaching the presence of God, which consisted of eliminating all temptations that can lead to sin. But Robbins, being the radical individualist that he is, would have none of that. Speaking through King Alobar, he states his own thoughts on the matter.

“I want life, all of life, the miserable as well as the superb. If the Gods tax ecstasy, then I shall pay: however, I shall protest their taxes at every opportunity. If Shiva, or Buddha, or that Christian fellow cannot respect that, then I’ll accept their wrath. At least I will have tasted the banquet that has been spread before me on this rich round planet, rather than recoiling from it like a toothless bunny. I cannot believe the most delicious things were placed here merely to test us, to temp us, to make it more difficult for us to capture the grand prize: the safety of the void. To fashion of life such a petty game is unworthy of both men and gods“.

And there you have Tom Robbins in “beast mode”.

Of course, none of this had been even remotely on my mind until this past week when I heard a lyric while cutting my grass. I was simply listening to random songs on my iPod when this verse suddenly jumped out of nowhere. It comes from a song by AudioSlave titled “Exploder”, written by Chris Cornell.

There was a man who had a face that looked a lot like me
I saw him in the mirror, and I fought him in the street
Then when he turned away, I shot him in the head
Then I came to realize I had killed myself

I heard this verse and was immediately reminded of Nietzsche’s quote mentioned at the onset of this note, and though I am quite sure Cornell wasn’t thinking of Nietzsche when he penned it, they still echo his thoughts surprisingly well.

“Be careful, lest in casting out your demons you exorcise the best thing in you.”

Without wanting to wade too deeply into this topic, for which I am ill equipped to do, I nonetheless want to end this note on what I believe is the proper way to think of this misunderstood pluralism in our nature, which Christianity have made such a fuss about. Instead of throwing around accusations of sin against God and his retribution, I believe it’s far better explained and captured by the ancient Chinese Ying/Yang symbol (below).

We all know the symbol well, which consists of identical but opposing figures, yet bound together within a unified whole. There is also the additional symbolism that each figure contains an element of the other (the eye) to further imply the relationship at play within the symbolism. Considered all together, the symbol cuts straight through a lot of needless theological nonsense and clearly communicates how opposite or even contrary forces within us may be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent to one another.

Not surprisingly, I recall a favorite line from Walt Whitman that expresses the fundamental key to what is most important to consider here…. that we are complex individuals, and that should not be seen as a sin. This line comes from one of his more famous declarations on individuality and his own pluralism:

“Do I contradict myself?

Very well then, I contradict myself.

I am large. I contain multitudes”

So, there you have my brief counterargument against the notion of our “sinful” nature, which is an idea that I detest. That dogma simply never found a receptive ear with me and has always struck me as a graceless projection from lesser men. My final point here begins and ends with the sentiment that Nietzsche alluded to, suggesting that genuine morality cannot come from pious “bookkeeping”, but rather through personal integrity, which rightfully begins from an authentic consultation with a mirror……..no holy book required.