[p. 497]
|497| as a consciousness of peculiarity, indeed fixed and held fast, but the same in complete impotence and powerlessness; or else let the antithesis present itself also in a divinity self-feeling and conscious in itself, which with consciousness generates for itself antitheses and games in which it with absolute levity stakes individual ones of its members on the winning of a definite prize and lets its manifold sides and moments bring themselves forth into perfect individuality and form themselves into organisations of their own, just as it can also as a whole take its movements not as movements against a fate but as contingencies, holding itself invincible, esteeming loss as nothing, certain of the absolute dominion over every peculiarity and excess and conscious of what Plato says in another respect, that a polis has a nature strong to be marvelled at. Such an ethical organisation will thus, for example, without danger and anxiety or envy drive individual members out to extremes of talent in every art and science and skill and make them into something particular therein, – sure of itself that such divine monstrosities do not harm the beauty of its shape but are comic features that cheer a moment of its shape. As such cheerful heightenings of individual features we shall be able, to cite a definite people, to regard Homer, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Plato, Aristophanes and so on, but [shall] also, both in the serious reaction against the particularisation of Socrates, growing more serious, and above all in the repentance over it, and [also] in the teeming multitude and high energy of the individualisations sprouting up at the same time, not fail to recognise that the inner vitality [had] thereby stepped out into its extremes, in the ripeness of these seed-grains announced its strength,

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.