Oldal 96 [96]
Vorlesungen über die Wissenschaft der Sprache, which, for example,
Nietzsche became acguainted with in 1869. We also know that in
1875 he borrowed the book Einleitung in die vergleichende Religion¬
swissenschaft from the library in Basel. You can see even Nietzsche
is seriously interested in this question. (Campioni 2003.p.401.)
But let us not get ahead of ourselves. Let us examine the re¬
lationship of human to human from the perspective of cultural
history: humans as they relate to the other. After all, the alien can
only and exclusively be interpreted as a relationship. Let us be so
Hegelian as to consider “alien” by itself to mean nothing. Even
before Hegel, no lesser philosopher than Immanuel Kant himself
spoke on this issue. It is very instructive, as Kant in The Metaphysics
of Morals (On Duties to Others Merely as Human Beings) suggests the
following position that has eternal validity, classifying humans
into five basic types in this respect (and not yet according to race):
1. Someone who finds satisfaction in the well-being (salus) of men
considered simply as men, for whom it is well when things go well for
every other, is called a friend of man in general (a philanthropist).
2. Someone for whom it is well only when things go badly for others
is called an enemy of man (a misanthropist in the practical sense).
3. Someone who is indifferent to how things go for others if only they
go well for himself is selfish (solipsista).
4. But someone who avoids other men because he can find no delight
in them, though he indeed wishes all of them well, would be shy of
men (a misanthropist in terms of his sensibility [asthetischer]), and
5. his turning away from men could be called anthropophobia.
(Kant 1991.§.26. p.245., Kant1977. §.26.)
This has nothing to do with race, as it is discrimination applied
to people within a species. And look, everyone decides where they
belong! Everyone belongs somewhere for sure. To be completely and
unreasonably harsh: the “philosopher-type” is mostly the aesthetic