PITY VERSUS PITY. PART III OF 3.

So, it is pity versus pity , but which pity versus which pity! The pity of a compassionate crowd for the pain of a childbearing genius versus the pity of a genius toward the plight of another potential genius, robbed of his chance to evolve as a genius by the protective pill of comfort and “freedom from pain,” which, like the antibiotics, kills indiscriminately every kind of bacteria it finds, the good and the bad, suppressing man’s suffering, but destroying his creativity as well.

On the earlier point of my grounds for disagreement with the prospective critics, concerning the affinity of the two spirits, Nietzsche’s spirit and the Russian spirit, both glorifying suffering, here they are:

Nietzsche provides the first ground in the opening paragraph of the quoted passage, speaking of the “ways of thinking which measure the value of things in accordance with pleasure and pain.” Both the Russians and Nietzsche belong to the same camp, which sees pain as a positive force, as opposed to the Western outlook, which sees pain as an evil. This difference is so profound in itself already that the question why pain should be a positive force, becomes secondary right away. It is quite legitimate therefore to assert a close similarity on the basis of the primary principle alone, leaving all secondary principles aside as non-defining and non-substantial.

Next, even the secondary question of why pain should be a positive force at all, brings the Russian thinker and Nietzsche together. Both Nietzsche’s suffering hero and the Russian suffering saint are united in their denial of the creature in man (for the creature suffering is an abomination, and must be abolished) in favor of the creator, for whom suffering is the prime mover of genius. Indeed, the Russian experience has shown that out of the pain of redemption a creative power is born, that selfsame creative power, which Nietzsche is pointing to, in his glorification of the creative pain.

Ironically, the dichotomy of pleasure and pain strongly reminds me of the musical dichotomy of the major and minor chords. The sugariness of the major becomes sickening without the contrast with the minor. A good example here may be Bach’s frequent resolution of his pieces written in minor keys with a final major chord. One can even say that it is the minor, which gives legitimacy and grandeur to the major. By the same token, it is the suffering that justifies the pleasure, just as God’s labor of Creation has justified His rest.

The End.