IX
Gentlemen, I am joking, and I know myself that my jokes are notbrilliant, but you know one can take everything as a joke. I am,perhaps, jesting against the grain. Gentlemen, I am tormented byquestions; answer them for me. You, for instance, want to cure men oftheir old habits and reform their will in accordance with science andgood sense. But how do you know, not only that it is possible, but alsothat it is DESIRABLE to reform man in that way? And what leads you tothe conclusion that man's inclinations NEED reforming? In short, howdo you know that such a reformation will be a benefit to man? And togo to the root of the matter, why are you so positively convinced thatnot to act against his real normal interests guaranteed by theconclusions of reason and arithmetic is certainly always advantageousfor man and must always be a law for mankind? So far, you know, thisis only your supposition. It may be the law of logic, but not the lawof humanity. You think, gentlemen, perhaps that I am mad? Allow me todefend myself. I agree that man is pre-eminently a creative animal,predestined to strive consciously for an object and to engage inengineering--that is, incessantly and eternally to make new roads,WHEREVER THEY MAY LEAD. But the reason why he wants sometimes to gooff at a tangent may just be that he is PREDESTINED to make the road,and perhaps, too, that however stupid the "direct" practical man maybe, the thought sometimes will occur to him that the road almost alwaysdoes lead SOMEWHERE, and that the destination it leads to is lessimportant than the process of making it, and that the chief thing is tosave the well-conducted child from despising engineering, and so givingway to the fatal idleness, which, as we all know, is the mother of allthe vices. Man likes to make roads and to create, that is a factbeyond dispute. But why has he such a passionate love for destructionand chaos also? Tell me that! But on that point I want to say acouple of words myself. May it not be that he loves chaos anddestruction (there can be no disputing that he does sometimes love it)because he is instinctively afraid of attaining his object andcompleting the edifice he is constructing? Who knows, perhaps he onlyloves that edifice from a distance, and is by no means in love with itat close quarters; perhaps he only loves building it and does not wantto live in it, but will leave it, when completed, for the use of LESANIMAUX DOMESTIQUES--such as the ants, the sheep, and so on. Now theants have quite a different taste. They have a marvellous edifice ofthat pattern which endures for ever--the ant-heap.
With the ant-heap the respectable race of ants began and with theant-heap they will probably end, which does the greatest credit totheir perseverance and good sense. But man is a frivolous andincongruous creature, and perhaps, like a chess player, loves theprocess of the game, not the end of it. And who knows (there is nosaying with certainty), perhaps the only goal on earth to which mankindis striving lies in this incessant process of attaining, in otherwords, in life itself, and not in the thing to be attained, which mustalways be expressed as a formula, as positive as twice two makes four,and such positiveness is not life, gentlemen, but is the beginning ofdeath. Anyway, man has always been afraid of this mathematicalcertainty, and I am afraid of it now. Granted that man does nothingbut seek that mathematical certainty, he traverses oceans, sacrificeshis life in the quest, but to succeed, really to find it, dreads, Iassure you. He feels that when he has found it there will be nothingfor him to look for. When workmen have finished their work they do atleast receive their pay, they go to the tavern, then they are taken tothe police-station--and there is occupation for a week. But where canman go? Anyway, one can observe a certain awkwardness about him whenhe has attained such objects. He loves the process of attaining, butdoes not quite like to have attained, and that, of course, is veryabsurd. In fact, man is a comical creature; there seems to be a kindof jest in it all. But yet mathematical certainty is after all,something insufferable. Twice two makes four seems to me simply apiece of insolence. Twice two makes four is a pert coxcomb who standswith arms akimbo barring your path and spitting. I admit that twicetwo makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everythingits due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too.
And why are you so firmly, so triumphantly, convinced that only thenormal and the positive--in other words, only what is conducive towelfare--is for the advantage of man? Is not reason in error asregards advantage? Does not man, perhaps, love something besideswell-being? Perhaps he is just as fond of suffering? Perhaps sufferingis just as great a benefit to him as well-being? Man is sometimesextraordinarily, passionately, in love with suffering, and that is afact. There is no need to appeal to universal history to prove that;only ask yourself, if you are a man and have lived at all. As far asmy personal opinion is concerned, to care only for well-being seems tome positively ill-bred. Whether it's good or bad, it is sometimes verypleasant, too, to smash things. I hold no brief for suffering nor forwell-being either. I am standing for ... my caprice, and for its beingguaranteed to me when necessary. Suffering would be out of place invaudevilles, for instance; I know that. In the "Palace of Crystal" itis unthinkable; suffering means doubt, negation, and what would be thegood of a "palace of crystal" if there could be any doubt about it?And yet I think man will never renounce real suffering, that is,destruction and chaos. Why, suffering is the sole origin ofconsciousness. Though I did lay it down at the beginning thatconsciousness is the greatest misfortune for man, yet I know man prizesit and would not give it up for any satisfaction. Consciousness, forinstance, is infinitely superior to twice two makes four. Once youhave mathematical certainty there is nothing left to do or tounderstand. There will be nothing left but to bottle up your fivesenses and plunge into contemplation. While if you stick toconsciousness, even though the same result is attained, you can atleast flog yourself at times, and that will, at any rate, liven you up.Reactionary as it is, corporal punishment is better than nothing.