Page 96 [96]
OCR
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 Religionswissenschaft 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 relationship 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
