the eternal original text, homo natura; to bring it about that man shall henceforth stand before man as he now, hardened by the discipline of science, stands before the other forms of nature, with fearless Oedipus-eyes, and stopped Ulysses-ears, deaf to the enticements of old metaphysical bird-catchers, who have piped to him far too long:  “Thou art more! thou art higher! thou hast a different origin!”—­this may be a strange and foolish task, but that it is a task, who can deny!  Why did we choose it, this foolish task?  Or, to put the question differently:  “Why knowledge at all?” Every one will ask us about this.  And thus pressed, we, who have asked ourselves the question a hundred times, have not found and cannot find any better answer. . . .

231.  Learning alters us, it does what all nourishment does that does not merely “conserve”—­as the physiologist knows.  But at the bottom of our souls, quite “down below,” there is certainly something unteachable, a granite of spiritual fate, of predetermined decision and answer to predetermined, chosen questions.  In each cardinal problem there speaks an unchangeable “I am this”; a thinker cannot learn anew about man and woman, for instance, but can only learn fully—­he can only follow to the end what is “fixed” about them in himself.  Occasionally we find certain solutions of problems which make strong beliefs for us; perhaps they are henceforth called “convictions.”  Later on—­one sees in them only footsteps to self-knowledge, guide-posts to the problem which we ourselves are—­or more correctly to the great stupidity which we embody, our spiritual fate, the unteachable in us, quite “down below.”—­In view of this liberal compliment which I have just paid myself, permission will perhaps be more readily allowed me to utter some truths about “woman as she is,” provided that it is known at the outset how literally they are merely—­my truths.

232.  Woman wishes to be independent, and therefore she begins to enlighten men about “woman as she is”—­This is one of the worst developments of the general uglifying of Europe.  For what must these clumsy attempts of feminine scientificality and self-exposure bring to light!  Woman has so much cause for shame; in woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmasterliness, petty presumption, unbridledness, and indiscretion concealed—­study only woman’s behaviour towards children!—­which has really been best restrained and dominated hitherto by the fear of man.  Alas, if ever the “eternally tedious in woman”—­she has plenty of it!—­is allowed to venture forth! if she begins radically and on principle to unlearn her wisdom and art-of charming, of playing, of frightening away sorrow, of alleviating and taking easily; if she forgets her delicate aptitude for agreeable desires!  Female voices are already raised, which, by Saint Aristophanes! make one afraid:—­with medical