There are various representations of the "beast of prey" in Nietzsche's texts. In some contexts of the writing, the "beast of prey" is a barbarian, pure and simple.
But there is also the more subtle, esoteric aspect to the same idea.
In this case, the "beast of prey" is one who has found a way to make her instincts and her idea of civilisation work in accordance with each other -- and no longer to be 'at odds'. At least in her conception of the world, and indeed very often, in terms of how she actually experiences it, the two aspects of life, that are often seen to be quite separate from one another, are actually one. Such a one who is in touch with all of their animal powers is innately dangerous, but not by virtue of any overt characteristics of aggression or barbarism. They are dangerous to "little sheep" because their minds and bodies are one, and not at odds. This integration of mind and body facilitates the most ultimate form of individualism, but without effort, as a matter of reflexive instinct.
Conversely: The most common human animal is the "sick" animal, the one in whom the ideals of civilisation and his own instincts remain at odds. He is the servile animal, the tame (and hence, unhealthy) animal. His particular form of trust in the notion of 'civilisation' -- (with which he is already at odds) -- requires him to depend upon the herd for psychological support. He is perhaps best understood as one of Freud's notional "discontents".
But there is also the more subtle, esoteric aspect to the same idea.
In this case, the "beast of prey" is one who has found a way to make her instincts and her idea of civilisation work in accordance with each other -- and no longer to be 'at odds'. At least in her conception of the world, and indeed very often, in terms of how she actually experiences it, the two aspects of life, that are often seen to be quite separate from one another, are actually one. Such a one who is in touch with all of their animal powers is innately dangerous, but not by virtue of any overt characteristics of aggression or barbarism. They are dangerous to "little sheep" because their minds and bodies are one, and not at odds. This integration of mind and body facilitates the most ultimate form of individualism, but without effort, as a matter of reflexive instinct.
Conversely: The most common human animal is the "sick" animal, the one in whom the ideals of civilisation and his own instincts remain at odds. He is the servile animal, the tame (and hence, unhealthy) animal. His particular form of trust in the notion of 'civilisation' -- (with which he is already at odds) -- requires him to depend upon the herd for psychological support. He is perhaps best understood as one of Freud's notional "discontents".
No comments:
Post a Comment