Ci a ion: Ma ín Na a o, Alejand o.
2023. Value A chi ec u e and
Sal a ion Technology—The Sac ed in
Nie zsche’s Za a hus a. Religions 14:
567. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/
el14050567
Academic Edi o s: Glenn Mo ison
and Cal in Me ce
Recei ed: 4 Feb ua y 2023
Re ised: 19 Ap il 2023
Accep ed: 21 Ap il 2023
Published: 23 Ap il 2023
Copy igh : © 2023 by he au ho .
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land.
This a icle is an open access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/
4.0/).
eligions
A icle
Value A chi ec u e and Sal a ion Technology—The Sac ed in
Nie zsche’s Za a hus a
Alejand o Ma ín Na a o
Depa men o de Filoso ía, Lógica y Filoso ía de la Ciencia, Uni e si y o Se ille, 41004 Se illa, Spain;
[email p o ec ed]
Abs ac :
This a icle app oaches he eligious phenomenon om a pe spec i e ha combines he
an h opology o he sac ed and he science o eligions and om which eligion can be in e p e ed
as an “a chi ec u e o alue”, ha is, as a echnique o cons uc ing alues and, a he same ime,
as a “ echnology o sal a ion”, ha is, as a mechanism o indi idual and g oup healing. On his
heo e ical basis, ce ain aspec s o Nie zsche’s Thus Spoke Za a hus a a e analysed no as me e
he o ical o polemical de ices bu as he backbone o a wo k o a eligious na u e. The esul is a
eligious in e p e a ion o Nie zsche’s g ea wo k and, a he same ime, a e lec ion on eligious li e
i sel and he scope o pos -me aphysical eligiosi y.
Keywo ds: eligion; Nie zsche; Za a hus a; alue; wisdom; echnology; sal a ion
1. In oduc ion
This a icle deals wi h he meaning o Nie zsche’s g ea es wo k, emphasising he
p ophe ic and isiona y ace o his au ho a he han his pos - heis ic and pos -humanis
dimension, ha is, looking o he in ima e and pious Nie zsche as opposed o he cu en
image, no less ue, on he o he hand, o he en an e ible who philosophises wi h a
hamme . A he same ime, his ex is he esul o an app oach ha b ings oge he
he e ogeneous ields, such as he science o eligions o an h opology, which, when hey
con e ge, seem o si ua e he p oblem add essed in ha place ha he Ko an calls ba zaj:
an in e media e land be ween wha is no longe he one, bu no ye he o he —a bo de zone
be ween he sac ed, powe , emo ions, alue, and, in sho , e e y hing ha makes up wha
has always been a he cen e o Nie zsche’s hough : li e.
1
While he e is a signi ican amoun o seconda y li e a u e on he eligious dimension
o Nie zsche’s philosophy, much o i is based on an incomple e unde s anding o wha
cons i u es he eligious, as I will explain sho ly. E en Ka l Löwi h, who is knowledgeable
abou con empo a y ends in Ab ahamic escha ology, ails o in e p e he philosophy
o Nie zsche’s Za a hus a as a genuinely eligious p ac ice. Al hough he e a e some
sub le di e ences, I will no del e in o he ideas o Pe e Slo e dijk in his ega d, who has
de o ed se e al essays o he ques ion, among which I would highligh On he Imp o emen
o he Good News: Nie zsche’s Fi h Gospel (Slo e dijk [2000] 2005). Indeed, he e a e some
monog aphs (I am hinking o olde s udies such as Fouillée’s o ecen ones such as
Med ano Ezque o’s (2014,2016)) ha do no limi hemsel es o posing he ela ionship
be ween Nie zsche and eligion in exclusi ely c i ical e ms bu also da e o add ess i s
p oblema ic aspec s, aspec s ha ha e o do wi h he ac ha , on he Nie zschean ba le ield
agains adi ional eligion and mo ali y, he lowe s o an un o eseen spi i uali y sp ou
om ime o ime: a spi i uali y ha ises p ecisely agains he sac ilegious emp a ion o
he ansmundane, and which, on close inspec ion, illumina es su p ising aspec s o he
e y adi ion i claims o comba .
Ano he aspec ha needs o be cla i ied a he ou se is he need o dis inguish ca e ully
be ween wo ypes o eligious eadings o Nie zsche’s wo k based on wo absolu ely
Religions 2023,14, 567. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ el14050567 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/ eligions
Religions 2023,14, 567 2 o 12
opposi e concep ions o eligion i sel . The i s o hese is based on a concep o eligion
as a cogni i e ac , whose o igins can be aced back o ea ly e olu iona y an h opologis s,
such as Tylo , and who unde s and eligion i s and o emos as a o m o knowledge o
as a se o speech ac s. In o he wo ds, eligion would undamen ally consis o a ce ain
s ance owa ds eali y and he e y co pus o a i ma ions ha would de i e om his
s ance. Thus, o example, when Va imo makes his aggio namen o o Ch is iani y as a
eligion o he emp ying o God in o de o make i coincide wi h his indica ion o he
Nie zschean-Heidegge ian legacy (Va imo 1996), he is esolu ely si ua ed in his eading.
The i s concep unde s ands eligion as a se o heses abou he di ine. This is also
he con ex o he impo an analyses o And eas U s Somme , who sees in he slogan
“Dionysus agains he c uci ied” an a emp o es ablish “Nie zsche’s eligious al e na i es
o Ch is iani y” (Somme 2006, p. 47).
The second app oach, howe e , is based on a concep o eligion as a li u gical e en ,
i.e., as a se o p ac ices aimed a dealing wi h he sac ed. In his case, eligion is unde s ood
as a p axis o aluing, p ese ing and ealising he di ine. This is he amewo k o he
s udies o Vale o Sánchez, who dis inguishes “ eligiosi y” as humankind’s admi a ion o
ha which amazes i as opposed o eligion as a dogma ic and doc inal body, a dis inc ion
he inally dispenses wi h in o de o speak o “Nie zschean eligion” (Vale o Sánchez 2019,
p. 209). Simila ly, Ma in Chicolino has en u ed o look o he “numinous” aspec o
he expe ience o powe in Za a hus a (Chicolino 2012). Pa icula ly impo an a e he
con ibu ions o Valadie (2006), who ecognises he p esence o he di ine in Nie zsche’s
hough : he unnamable sac ed, e ocable h ough images, o e o ic madness, o celeb a ion
(Á ila 2001), o he beau y and sublimi y o he wo ld, pu ely con empla ed. Hence he
impo ance o : “no clinging o Dionysus as such, no esea ching in e udi e encyclopaedias.
One could say, he e o e, ‘dea chance’, pe sonal p o idence ha plays wi h us, beau i ul
chaos o he wo ld, in ini e i e, abysmal and un a homable dep h, Will o powe iden i ied
wi h li e and he eal, o ci e he a ious names ound h oughou he ex s and h own as i
ca elessly, like someone h owing s ones on a pa h, bu he e a he o con use han o lead
o a su e e m” (Valadie 2010, p. 229). This is also he s a ing poin o he p esen s udy.
Fi s o all, i is wo h emembe ing, once again, ha Nie zsche himsel has decla ed
his magnum opus o be a “ i h Gospel” and a “sac ed book” (Le e s o E ns Schmei zne
and Mal ida on Meysenbu g, in Slo e dijk [2000] 2005, pp. 29–30)2. F om his s a emen ,
i is possible o ocus he discou se in he ollowing pages on h ee ques ions: i s ly, he
possibili y o eading Nie zsche as a eligious hinke , ha is, as a hinke in whom he
old he apeu ic conce n o adi ional wisdom, in which knowledge is linked o pe sonal
sal a ion and o he cons uc ion o an emo ional and axiological edi ice, akes cen e s age;
secondly, he e lec ion on wha a eligion is, wha is speci ically eligious in ha angle
o ac i i ies ha we call “ eligion”; and hi dly, wha Nie zsche, om he pages o his
Za a hus a, in ends o say o he humani y o he u u e, ha is, o elucida e he message
i sel , he un imely “good news” ha Nie zsche’s Za a hus a b ings, his las pa being
me ely ske ched, pending u he de elopmen .
2. Value A chi ec u e
Unde s anding any cul u al ac is a i anic unde aking, an endea ou eminiscen
o he cha ac e played by Ron Pe lman in Annaud’s ilm Ques o Fi e: a man whose
ha es ed ui s a e alling o as he s i es o ga he new ones. The in icacy o his subjec
a ises om he ac ha cul u al phenomena o en ope a e on mul iple signi ican le els ha
can a y g ea ly. Tha is o say: a cul u al ac is a phenomenon o indi idual consciousness
as well as a social eali y and a his o ical momen o human a ionali y. O all cul u al ac s,
eligion is pe haps he one ha mo es in he mos con using way be ween sphe es ha
go beyond i s bounda ies, ha o e low i and call i in o ques ion again and again. All
his becomes e en mo e p oblema ic i we s op o hink abou he di icul y o compa ing
eligious o ms ha a e dis an om each o he in space and ime. We call “ eligion”, hen,
poli ical s uc u es such as he chu ches, magical p ac ices such as shamanism, mo al and
Religions 2023,14, 567 3 o 12
ci ic p esc ip ions such as hose con ained in he Talmud, li e a y mani es a ions such as
mys icism, p ac ices o bodily sac i ice such as hose o he sadhus o Hindu asce ics, ecs a ic
dances such as he Su i had a, and so on. This is he well-known ep oach made o classical
an h opologis s such as Tylo and F aze : how could one call “ eligion”, wi hou mo e, a
a ie y o e en s ha could be conside ed—wi h equal jus ice—law, cul u al exchange, a ,
o simple symbolic exp essions o sociabili y?
Addi ionally peculia o he complexi y o he eligious phenomenon is ha many
o he bes e lec ions on i ha e come ei he om he ealm o heological p osely ism o
om he ealm o philosophical c i icism. Peculia and, o some ex en , a bi a y because i
i is ue ha u h is an essen ial issue in eligious he o ic, i is no less ue ha eligion
i sel canno be educed o a simple se o s a emen s abou eali y. I is no he a i ma ion
o denial o ce ain ac s ha cons i u es he essence o eligious li e. In his sense, much
o Nie zsche’s hough is an example o a polemical app oach o eligion. I is on hese
ma gins ha he long adi ion mo es, on he c i ical side, om Luc e ius o Dawkins, and
on he apologe ic side, om S . Jus in o F ancis S. Collins. Pe haps his obse a ion—
ha o being a phenomenon always imp isoned by polemical passion—gi es us a clue
abou he peculia i y o he eligious ac : ha i is always and a all imes linked o he
ques ion o alue, ha in eligion e e y hing ha has alue o humani y, including i sel ,
is comp omised.
Mo eo e , in his ma e , as in so many o he s, he old polemic o nominalism is
epea ed. In ac , he he o ic o much con empo a y eligious polemicism is pe mea ed by
a epea ed nominalis dispu e. We ind, on he one hand, he old uni e salis s: hey ask wha
a eligion is, answe wi h a gene al cha ac e isa ion and om he e dis ega d, applying
P oc us eanism, all possible eligious mani es a ions ha do no mee hei de ini ion. On
he o he hand, and opposi e o hese, he old nominalis s insis on poin ing ou ha each
hing is each hing, ha he indi idual is essen ially di e en om any o he , and, om
such useless ob iousness, hey make all science impossible. The eali y, howe e , is ha
he e a e ees because he oo s, unks and lea es a e epea ed; he e is g een because he e
is some hing be ween blue and yellow; he e a e eligions because men do and say hings
which a e dis inc om philosophy and wisdom; all his is as eal as ha ce ain bushes
look like ees, ha he e is blue-g een and yellow-g een and ha ce ain eligions look
like philosophies o wisdom. Unde s anding is only possible in a lucid mo emen wi hin
his con usion. This is a uism, and pe haps, o his eason, i is o en o e looked. The e
is eligion whe e he e is a communi y ha belie es in ce ain supe na u al en i ies and
p ac ices ce ain i es. Howe e , he e is also eligion in he he mi who u ns away om
all Chu ch, in he Buddhis who seeks a pa h o pu i ica ion, and in he mys ic who places
himsel abo e o beyond pa icula belie s and dogmas. The e is a philological eligion o
he Book o o books, jus as he e is a eligion o hose who w i e only in he sand.
The e o e, a ional, dogma ic and e en li u gical con en s di e o he ex en ha —
speaking on ologically, no his o ically— hey a e de i ed con en s. Religion is no p ima ily
a discou se on di ini y bu an e alua ion o he di ine. In English, as in o he languages,
he wo d “belie e ” is used o designa e one who p ac ices a eligion, which con uses he
p oblem emendously because he eligious li e i sel , which is gi en in his “belie e ” as
an emo ional and e alua i e s a e, is no educed o “holding ce ain judgmen s o be ue”.
This would be a e y es ic i e in e p e a ion o eligious li e, which would pu i on he
same le el as any o he belie , mis aken o no , and which, by he way, comes om ha
19 h-cen u y an h opology o eligion ha wan ed o in e p e eligion as a ( ailed) mode
o knowledge. Max Schele said ha alues a e no bu a e wo h. The same could be said
o di ini y since i is he e y sou ce o alue and is con igu ed in he e y ac o aluing. I
is he imagina y place whe e he highes ( he sac ed) is a anged as a suppo o he lowes
( he p o ane). Wha eme ges be ween eligious di e ences is, hen, a ce ain emo ional
disposi ion, a e eb a ion o human emo ions wi h espec o he alue o hings. Valua ion
is emo ional: i is in i sel he de e mina ion o wha p o okes admi a ion, ea , ene a ion,
and powe . Religion is, in sho , an emo ional a chi ec u e wi hin which human beings
Religions 2023,14, 567 4 o 12
cons uc he meaning o he wo ld and he alue o hings. How ha a chi ec u e akes
shape will depend on many ac o s, bu wha is clea is ha i will ine i ably de e mine
people’s sel -consciousness: he speci ic way in which human beings ha e unde s ood
hemsel es as membe s o a o emic clan, as ollowe s o a mo al decalogue, as “child en o
God” o as seeke s o a sac ed in imacy.
O cou se, he a emp o de ine eligion in e ms o belie in God o gods has long since
been abandoned, al hough he eason o his abandonmen has usually been ha such a
de ini ion was heologically biased, a ionalising o oo es ic i e (Pals 2006). Howe e ,
he e is, as we no ed ea lie , a u he eason o abandoning a heological- heo e ical
de ini ion o eligion: belie , ha is, he a i ma ion o ce ain judgemen s abou human
o di ine na u e, does no in i sel cons i u e he undamen al p ac ice o eligious li e,
no e en in hose eligions wi h a highly de eloped dogma ic body. Nie zsche himsel
s a es his abou Ch is : “The whole li e o he Redeeme was no hing else bu his p ac ice”
(Nie zsche [1888] 2016, p. 733), no he belie in an a e li e bu he p ac ice o a li e ee o
guil and esen men . To be eligious is no o asse a se o heses, no o issue p oposi ions
abou a supe na u al eali y. To be eligious is an emo ional s a e om which a speci ic
mode o e alua ion is a icula ed. I is no he eali y o he wo ld ha is a s ake, bu
some hing much mo e impo an : he s uc u e o alue, he con igu a ion o wha is o be
aluable o humankind. Because he e is an a chi ec u e o alue, an awa eness o “us”
and “ hem”, an image o belonging, as well as a wo ld iew in which up and down, high
and low, hea en and hell, angels and demons, and good and e il a e d awn.
This in e p e a ion o eligion as an a chi ec u e o alue is no alien o ce ain con em-
po a y app oaches o he p oblem. Thus, o example, Jim S one sees eligion as “a sys em
o p ac ices a ionalised by belie s acco ding o which he p ac ices si ua e he p ac i ione
in a ela ion o alue o he sup amundane eali y” (S one 2001, p. 183). Ne e heless,
e en i we go back o he classical heo is s o eligion, we ind he same idea, pe haps no
always explici ly de eloped. Du kheim’s explana ion o he o em as a symbolisa ion o he
“we” is well known, o example. Howe e , he “we” is o emised in a con ex in which he
collec i i y mus be s ongly p o ec ed as a gua an ee o li e. I is i s alue ha o emises
collec i i y. Such a cha ac e is ic canno simply be ex apola ed o con ex s o social disso-
lu ion such as la e Hellenism, he la e Middle Ages in Cen al Eu ope o he p esen day,
whe e i is common o ind exp essions o eligious li e ha a e a he inwa d-looking, i
no openly an i-social. Fo his pa — o con inue wi h he classics—Mi cea Eliade made
amous he idea ha eligion was, abo e all, he e ec ion o a sac ed ime and space (Eliade
[1957] 1998), and Rudol O o in e p e ed i dispensing wi h mo al and a ional ca ego ies,
ocusing on wha he called “ he numinous” (O o [1925] 1985).
Indeed, i was Eliade himsel who began his amous wo k on The My h o he E e nal
Re u n by aking his e y ac in o conside a ion, namely ha eligion s ands in he con ex
o he symbolic ac i i y o men who y o gi e alue o a eali y de oid o alue (Eliade
2001, p. 7). I we combine bo h de ini ions, eligion would cons i u e a alua ional di ision
o space and ime by means o an expe ience o ha which “o e whelms”. In he i s ac
o ene a ion is hus he ecogni ion o he hie a chical na u e o hings. The e o e, he
opposi e o eligion is no unbelie bu indi e ence. Wha bo h Eliade and O o a e saying
is ha eligion es ablishes a bounda y be ween alue and dis alue: space and ime a e
a ionalised only inso a as hey e ec bounda ies beyond which he e is nei he space no
ime bu na u e, da kness, chaos o di ini y. The o igin o alue places us a i s on ie , a
i s ma gins: on he o he side is he jungle, ha is, wha is no ye language, no ye eason,
no ye humani y. Human beings know wha hey a e; hey each hei place in he cosmos
by means o his symbolic cons uc ion o alue. Be ge and Luckmann say some hing
in e es ing in his espec : “Iden i y is de ini i ely legi imised by placing i in he con ex o
a symbolic uni e se. My hologically speaking, he “ eal” name o he indi idual is he one
gi en o him by his God. In his way, he can know ha he “is himsel ”, subjec ing his own
iden i y o a cosmic eali y, p o ec ed bo h om he con ingencies o socialisa ion and om
he male icen sel - ans o ma ions o ma ginal expe ience. E en i his neighbou does no
Religions 2023,14, 567 5 o 12
know who he is, and e en i he himsel igno es himsel in his anxie ies, he indi idual can
be su e ha his ‘ eal sel ’ is a eal en i y in a de ini ely eal uni e se” (Be ge and Luckman
[1968] 2003, p. 128).
The eligious a chi ec u e o alue is he backbone o he gigan ic scheme o human
emo ions. Religion is whe e alues a e moulded, and consequen ly, i shapes he pa icula
way in which indi iduals and socie ies come o emb ace o ejec lo e and ha e. Thus, a
he co e o eligious li e a e h ee mu ually dependen eali ies: lo e, iden i y, and alue.
To be eligious is o espec he sac ed: his is wha pie y is all abou . The sac ed is, a he
same ime, ha which dese es o be lo ed and ha which makes us wha we a e. As
Max Schele says, “He who possesses he o do amo is o a man possesses he man” (Schele
[1933] 1996, p. 27).
I eligion is an a chi ec u e o alue, in wha sense can Za a hus a’s philosophy be
said o be “ eligious”? Is i an a bi a y echnique o a he a disco e y? Indeed, Nie zsche’s
hough seems o oscilla e be ween an uncomp omising indica ion o ue-li e alues and a
ela i isa ion o hem ha would de i e om he e y co ela ion be ween knowledge and
he will o powe . Thus, Sca le Ma on a gues ha alues a e a cons uc ion and, as such,
ha e a his o y: “Unde s anding he ans alua ion o all alues as a wo k analogous o
ha o lawgi e s, [Nie zsche] hinks ha , in o de o do so, i will be necessa y o concei e
o man in ano he way” (Ma on 2016, p. 132). Howe e , in his eading, i gi es he
imp ession ha ans alua ion ope a es in a acuum, ha i is an a is ic c ea ion made
in hin ai . In o he wo ds, in he in e p e a ions o Nie zsche whe e he ela i ism o
his au ho is accen ua ed, i gi es he imp ession ha he ans alua ion had no o he
ounda ion han he me e will o o e come alues pe cei ed as ou da ed and ha he new
alues had no g ea e aison d’ê e han he old ones (Sánchez Meca 2013). This eading
is e iden ly possible i we s ick o a la ge numbe o Nie zsche’s ex s, and i is, in ac ,
he usual one among he g ea schola s o Nie zsche. Howe e , i we go deepe in o his
ambigui y, we could ne e heless e u n o he pe plexi y al eady shown by Max Schele
and no e ha i “ he e o ” o Wes e n mo ali y has been o oppose na u e and cul u e,
hen “ he igh hing” would be a mo ali y whe e hey do no oppose each o he . In o he
wo ds, he e is a heal hy ela ionship be ween human beings and eali y, a ela ionship
ha mus be e lec ed in cul u e. The e o e, he e a e ue alues—o , i he adjec i e is oo
me aphysical—“mo e adequa e” han o he s, close o he Ea h and o heal h.
Acco ding o his eading, he e is a e y speci ic mo i e o ans alua ion: “ eligious”
espec o a li e ha is pe cei ed as iola ed. Wi hou such espec , ans alua ion would
e ec i ely be an exe cise in pu e a bi a iness. In ac , Ma on u he explains ha : “I is
necessa y o comba hese alues in o de o b ing o h o he s. As a c ea u e and c ea o
o himsel , he supe man will che ish alues ha will be in consonance wi h he Ea h,
wi h li e, wi h he body” (Ma on 2016, p. 133). Howe e , p ecisely om his easoning, i
should be deduced ha hese alues a e he “au hen ic” alues, which had been de alued
by a esen ul dis o ion o eali y. The e o e, he ans alua ion could no be concei ed,
wi hou u he ado, “as a wo k analogous o ha o legisla o s”, bu a he o ha o he
ounde s o eligious sys ems on he basis o a alua ional expe ience o he eal.
3. Sal a ion Technology
Religion, in e ec , cons uc s alues, and he e is no hing s ange abou he ac ha ,
in his exe cise, i is some imes di icul o dis inguish i om o he o ms o spi i ual li e.
The human being needs o know wha is wo hy o es eem: wi hin himsel and ou side
himsel . The ques ion o eligious dema ca ion hus in ol es p oblema ising he di e ences
be ween eligion and o he exp essions o spi i uali y, and he e is no hing special abou
his: e e y uni e sal eali y has uzzy ma gins. Religion is con amina ed by sociabili y,
a , wisdom and science, and i is no di icul o hink ha he g ea dogma ic sys ems
we know oday a e bu he complex de elopmen o an o iginally simple ea u e: he
human c ea ion o alue. Valuing allows us o o ganise he i ine a y o ou own exis ence,
poin ing o wha is impo an and wha is no , wha is wo h pu suing and wha is o be
Religions 2023,14, 567 6 o 12
a oided a all cos s, wha dis inguishes us om beas s and demons and ensu es ou heal h.
The ques ion o alue is he eligious ques ion pa excellence. I is also he philosophical
ques ion pa excellence, he one ha s i ed he spi i o he old p e-Soc a ics, he one ha
made Anaximande concei e o exis ence as he epaymen o an o iginal deb . Fo i he e
is a ques ion o alue, i is because he e is also an expe ience o dis alue, o discon en ,
o deg ada ion, and i is he e ha eligion is con igu ed as a way o es o ing los alue.
Asce icism is he echnology o he es o a ion o alue, jus as i ual is he echnology o i s
p ese a ion. The a chi ec u e o alue is, in any case, linked o a echnology o sal a ion.
To elabo a e on his poin , I would like o explo e some concep s pu o wa d by
Foucaul when he se ou o in es iga e he condi ions in which he genesis and de elop-
men o epimeleia heau ou (“sel -ca e”) akes place in he a chaic G eek wo ld because hey
illumina e his ela ionship be ween eligion, wisdom and alue. Religious li e—a leas in
his o ical eligions—is ha dly comp ehensible wi hou he eme gence o he subjec as a
p oblem o himsel : he human being pe cei es himsel in a s a e o allenness in ela ion o
which eligion becomes a sal i ic echnique. The human being is, in his p esen condi ion,
deg aded, sick, los , allen, and a om alue; he e o e, he memo y o a sac ed alue also
demands i s es o a ion, i s e u n. This is why eligious my hs a e o en he na a ion o
an exodus and a jou ney.
Foucaul ecalls how his concep o epimeleia heau ou is linked o ha o gno hi seau on
(know hysel ) in he cha ac e o Soc a es. Soc a es is basically elling he A henian ci izens
ha hey a e conce ned wi h many hings bu no wi h hemsel es (Foucaul [1982] 2005,
pp. 18–21), and his is so because he majo i y o humani y is numb, blind, and aliena ed
om i sel . Man inds himsel in ha s a e o desc ibe which Pla o had o c ea e he
abulous allego y o he ca e. Indeed, man’s s a ing poin is in he da kness and chains
o an unde wo ld. In Epicu us, we also ind he e m he apeuein, a e b ha e e s o
medical ca e, bu also o he se ice p o ided by a se an o his mas e , and e en o he
di ine se ice p ope o eligious wo ship (Foucaul [1982] 2005, pp. 22–23). I is also he
e b used by Luke (Lk. 9:1–6) o e e o Ch is ’s healing powe , oge he wi h au ho i y
o e demons. Healing powe and subduing demonic e il a e wo aspec s o he same
di ine powe (dynamis) and au ho i y (exousia). The e is indeed some hing o his, in ha
sel -ca e mus be a echnique o epai ing some hing sick o damaged, bu also a se ice
o onesel ha has a eligious cha ac e , as a wo ship o he ue di ine being ha dwells
wi hin man. I will come back o his. The poin is ha Foucaul a gues ha his eligious
o spi i ual dimension o sel -ca e was eclipsed by wha he calls— e y much in quo a ion
ma ks— he “Ca esian momen ”, ha is, he p og essi e eplacemen o a li ing, emo ional,
eligious subjec by a pu e subjec o a ional knowledge, o wha we could al eady call in
a Nie zschean way—also wi h all he in e ed commas— he “ iumph o he Apollonian
dimension o exis ence”.
This p ac ice o sel -ca e, which we ind in eligions, also o ms he axis o philosophical
p ac ice as a mode o access o u h. “Spi i uali y”, in he sense ha Foucaul gi es o his
wo d, pos ula es ha access o u h is impossible o he subjec unless he goes h ough a
se ies o p ac ices whose aim is, so o speak, his sel -dissolu ion, o a leas his econ e sion.
Man mus change his being in o de o become a possible ecep acle o u h. Ano he
e m om he Gospel illumina es his idea: me anoia. I is he wo d usually ansla ed as
“ epen ance” o “con e sion”, bu wha i s oo eaches us is unequi ocal: i is necessa y o
change one’s hinking, o go beyond wha we ha e belie ed up o now, in o de o a ain
sal a ion.
I is only a e some ime ha academic “philosophy” ans o ms his p ac ice, making
he condi ions o access o u h ha e mo e o do wi h logical ules, p ocedu es, me hods,
and ex insic condi ions, han wi h he in e nal condi ions o he subjec . We could say
ha philosophy uly sepa a es i sel om eligion when i abandons sel -ca e o become
a me hod o asep ic knowledge, which has no hing o do wi h he ans o ma ion o he
pe son and his o he sal a ion. In ac , Foucaul sees in 19 h-cen u y philosophy an
a emp o eco e spi i uali y in he ace o heology, ha is, a ype o hough ha assumes
Religions 2023,14, 567 7 o 12
he ques ion o sel -ca e as a condi ion o he possibili y o u h. Thus, o example, in
psychoanalysis, whe e he belie eappea s ha access o u h demands a ans o ma ion
o he subjec and ha , con e sely, his access o u h gi es ise, in a jus co espondence, o
a modi ica ion o he subjec ’s being (Foucaul [1982] 2005, pp. 40–41). This is ce ainly ue
o Nie zsche’s wo k, and i is in line wi h his ha we can make he aim o he p esen essay
somewha mo e conc e e: o app oach Nie zsche’s philosophy, especially ha con ained in
Thus Spoke Za a hus a, as an a emp o econs uc wisdom as sel -ca e, ha is, as eligion.
E iden ly, his eligious wisdom, his sel -ca e ha we ind in Nie zsche’s philoso-
phy, is no he same as wha we ind in adi ional asce ic exp essions. I s undamen al
inspi a ion lies in he G eek wo ld, in a chaic spi i ual o ms, om which Pauline asce ic
mo ali y would be a degene a ion. Speci ically, he p ocess o ans o ma ion expe ienced
and p eached by Nie zsche’s Za a hus a would be inspi ed by he ka ha moi o Empedocles
(Babich 2020). In de ailing he cha ac e is ics o G eek philosophical asce icism, Foucaul
exp essly poin s ou he di e ences wi h espec o Ch is ian asce icism: “Fi s , in his
philosophical asce icism (
. . .
) he ul ima e goal is ob iously no he enuncia ion o sel .
On he con a y, he aim is o pos ula e onesel , and in he mos explici , s onges , mos
con inuous, and mos obs ina e way possible, as he end o one’s own exis ence. Second
(
. . .
) i is a ma e o cons i u ing o onesel an equipmen , a de ence equipmen o
he possible e en s o li e. And his is wha he G eeks called pa askeue. The unc ion o
asce icism is o cons i u e a pa askeue [so ha ] he subjec cons i u es i sel . Thi dly, i seems
o me ha his philosophical asce icism, his asce icism o he p ac ice o he sel , does no
ha e as i s p inciple he subjec ion o he indi idual o he law. I s p inciple is o bind he
indi idual o he u h” (Foucaul [1982] 2005, p. 310).
Howe e , hese di e ences, while eal, a e no as ma ked as Foucaul and Nie zsche
hemsel es belie e, o Nie zsche’s s uggle agains eligious adi ion o en u ns in o an
unsuspec ed e-encoun e wi h i . Nie zsche’s (o he wise ob ious) an i- eligious cha ac e
is o en emphasised in he con ex o he genealogical na u e o his hough . Thus, o
example, in o de o unde line he di e ence be ween his philosophy and ha o Le inas,
William La ge (2004) insis s on he mo e genealogical ex s and unde lines Nie zsche’s
c i ique o eligion as an exp ession o a sociohis o ical way o aluing, which places him
in con as o Le inas’s e hical educ ion o immanence. Howe e , his exposi ion omi s
p ecisely hose ex s o Za a hus a in which alua ion akes on a eligious slan , such as
he episode o he Feas o he ass, whe e he supe io men edisco e a pos -me aphysical
li u gy and make Za a hus a himsel see he meaning o he i e ha has as i s objec
he “kingdom o he ea h” and in which he bounda ies be ween he indi idual and he
communi y a e blu ed (Buñuel Fanconi 2019, p. 112)3.
The human being is a p oblem o himsel because he does no know his alue and
his posi ion in he wo ld. He equi es an emo ional e e ence sys em ha can also se e
as a amewo k o his belie s because ha which has alue is also ha which p o okes
lo e, in he same way, ha dis alue has ha e as i s emo ional exp ession. Lea ning o alue
is lea ning o lo e and o ha e. Tha which is o alue will be he objec o ene a ion and
ado a ion. The mos holy and numinous is hus e ec ed as he symbolic e e ence o ha
which man, in an a bi a y way, delimi s as li u gical: he sac ed animal e sus he es
o na u e, ce emony e sus e e yday li e, he space o he emple e sus he space o he
ci y, es i e ime e sus na u al ime, he p ies ly cas e e sus he people. Religion is he
cons uc ion o alue and, wi h i , o hie a chy. Paul Claudel used o say ha “He who
admi es is always igh ”. He is igh who con empla es he o de o hings in an a i ma i e
way. Li e, meaning, and eali y come om con ac wi h wha is “abo e” in he p i ileged
posi ion: he imagina y place whe e he gods dwell o he i al o ce (wakan) ha o de s
he cosmos. Fo his eason, philosophy was o iginally unde s ood as a li u gical, sac ed
and sac i icial e o , as an asce ic sys em o app oaching he p i ileged o de , he Pla onic
sunligh . In Foucaul ’s wo ds: “This is wha cons i u es he e y p ac ice o philosophy
and i s eali y: ha he philosophe has o cohabi wi h i . Synousía: cohabi a ion. Syzén: o
li e wi h. And, Pla o goes on o say, by din o synousia, by din o syzen, wha will happen?
Religions 2023,14, 567 8 o 12
The soul will be illumina ed, a li le in he way a ligh is li (phos; he ansla ion says “a
lash o ligh ning”), ha is o say, as a lamp is li in con ac wi h i e, un il he lamp o he
soul is li o un il he lamp is li as a soul: in ha aspec , and in ha way, philosophy will
e ec i ely ind i s eali y. (
. . .
) Philosophy will li e in his way, in he o m o cohabi a ion,
o he ligh ha is ansmi ed and kindled, o he ligh ha is nou ished by he soul i sel ”
(Foucaul [1983] 2008, p. 218).
Fo ancien hinke s, access o u h was inex icably in e wined wi h ce ain in e nal
condi ions o he subjec , so science and asce icism we e wo aspec s o he same p ocess.
Sensible eali y poin s o an in elligible wo ld on he condi ion ha he mind has been
eed om he blindness o ca e nous da kness. The ka ha moi, he pu i ica ions, a e he
beginning o wisdom and pie y a he same ime. The eyes ha e o hu in o de o see he
ligh o he i s ime. Pla o does no simply speak o he heo e ical di icul y o science
bu o he su e ing i gene a es in e ms o sel -es eem, social es eem, and shock. Nie zsche
ecei es—o , a he , escues— his ision o knowledge as a s a e ha is conque ed by din
o su e ing. In his philosophy, su e ing has o do wi h he assump ion o emp iness, a
dese o alue ha ou philosophe , as he p i ileged deposi a y o a his o ical des iny
( ha o nihilism), will eel compelled o inhabi . “We a e o he opinion,” said Nie zsche in
1886, “ ha ha shness, iolence, sla e y, dange s in he s ee and in he hea , concealmen ,
s oicism, he a o emp a ion and de il y o e e y kind, ha e e y hing ha is e il, e ible,
y annical, e e y hing ha is animalis ic and se pen ine in he human being se es he
species “man” as well as i s opposi e” (Nie zsche [1886] 2016, p. 327). By aking on su e ing,
loneliness, and incomp ehension, Nie zsche eels himsel o be he bea e o a message ha
he ecei es om his o y and ha he mus pass on o a u u e ha is ye o come. As Do ian
As o says, “Man has no chance o o e come he anxie y o he p esen in he ho izon ali y
o de-spi i ualised asce icism” (As o 2018, p. 485). Del ing in o his su p ising e icali y,
Hado exp essly s a es ha Nie zsche has p ac ised philosophy acco ding o he ancien
model o philosophical li e as a ques o a “cosmic consciousness” ha goes beyond he
“sel -ca e” highligh ed by Foucaul (Hado 2006).
So a , I ha e ied o elabo a e a en a i e de ini ion o eligion ha includes i ual as
a echnique o “ alue p ese a ion” and asce icism as a echnique o “ alue eco e y”. This
de ini ion b ings oge he concep s om a long adi ion in he an h opology o eligion,
s a ing wi h Du kheim and leading o he wo k o some con empo a y au ho s, such as
Jim S one, ia he classics Eliade and O o. Acco ding o his adi ion, he speci ici y o
eligious li e has less o do wi h linguis ically and concep ually o mulable belie s han
wi h he expe ience o a sac ed eali y ha is p ecisely de ined by i s ela ion o alue o
he p o ane. Acco dingly, i he asce ic a emp s o pu i y his inne sel o a “ allen” s a e,
he does so because he pe cei es his p esen s a e as “dis aluable”. Fo i s pa , i ual, in
i s epe i i e symbolic ac ion, would se e o keep he eligious man in a “s a e o g ace”,
i.e., in connec ion wi h he sac ed o wi h he aluable dimension o his own being. In he
ollowing sec ion, I would like o sugges , h ough hese ideas and agains he backg ound
o his own cul u al adi ion, a speci ically eligious eading o Nie zsche’s g ea wo k.
Nie zsche’s philosophy can be desc ibed as a echnology o sal a ion ha in ol es he
es o a ion o los alues, he eco e y o an o iginal message los o his o y, a p ophe ic
mission, he ee alua ion o all alues, he p oclama ion o good news, he econs uc ion
o inne heal h, and a con empla i e iew o he wo ld.
4. “A Sa age Wisdom”: F om Roman ic My hology o Za a hus a’s Religion
Paul Loeb, a no ed specialis in Nie zsche’s wo k, ale s us o an ob ious ch onological
anomaly in Nie zsche’s hough : while la e wo ks a e usually p esen ed by hei au ho s as
addi ions, nuances o culmina ion o ea lie wo ks, he ac is ha ou philosophe insis s
ime and again ha his undamen al wo k is Thus Spoke Za a hus a (w i en be ween 1883
and 1885) while books such as Beyond Good and E il (Nie zsche [1886] 2016) o Genealogy o
Mo als (Nie zsche [1887] 2016) should be unde s ood as p epa a o y ex s o his g ea wo k
(Loeb 2010). I is, he e o e, necessa y o ake e y se iously he e idence ha Za a hus a
Religions 2023,14, 567 9 o 12
goes beyond any hing Nie zsche has been able o say be o e (and since!). I is mo e p o ound
in i s dep hs, mo e a - eaching, because i seeks o place i sel in he his o y o he spi i , on
he same le el as he Gospels o he Vedas. The wisdom ha Za a hus a eaches in i s pages
is, in his own wo ds, a sa age wisdom. As sel -ca e, as a eligion ha seeks sal a ion (i.e.,
inne heal h as an ag eemen o he sel wi h he alue o eali y), Za a hus a’s good news
is announced as “wild”. Wha does his exp ession mean? No , o cou se, wha Eugenio
T ías limi s o he a chaic age o eligions as he pe soni ica ion o he ellu ic powe s o
na u e (T ías 1996, pp. 880–81). The e m he e e e s o a polemic ha ook place in he las
yea s o he eigh een h cen u y, which was o pe mea e all he hough o he ollowing
cen u y, and which occupies an impo an place in he o igins o he c isis o mode ni y.
In On he Aes he ic Educa ion o Man (Schille [1795] 2004), Schille amously dis inguished
be ween wo ypes o human beings: he ba ba ian, pe manen ly subjec ed o he c i e ion o
eason, incapable o being guided by impulses which he s i es o ep ess, logical, in lexible,
abso bed by he cul u al dimension o exis ence; and in con as , he sa age, unawa e o
a ionali y, ules, s anda ds o conduc , mo al no ms, in sho : cul u e. I is no di icul
o see he e a dis an an eceden o he Nie zschean di ision be ween an Apollonian and a
Dionysian dimension o exis ence. Mode n cul u e is a cul u e ha ensh ines ba ba ism,
ha is, he despo ic p edominance o eason o e any o he dimension o exis ence.
Indeed, he e a e nume ous a emp s o link Nie zsche o ea ly Ge man Roman icism
and, mo e gene ally, o he a ious cul u al mo emen s ha eme ged in la e 18 h-cen u y
Cen al Eu ope in eac ion o an excessi ely a ionalising and mo alis ic Enligh enmen .
As Ansga Ma ia Ho —and, be o e him, E ns Behle —ha e shown, i is clea ha ea ly
Roman icism is no a ec ed, wi hou u he quali ica ion, by Nie zsche’s cons an polemic
agains wha he calls “Roman icism” (Ho 2002). Howe e , his linkage is usually made—
and Ho himsel does so—only in e ms o i s aes he ic pa hos: he use o he agmen
and he apho ism, he ole o a as a heale o cul u e, and so on, some imes, as Vale o
Sánchez (2019) does, o e e us o he idealised ela ionship o bo h wi h G eek mo ali y.
In eali y, he link is deepe : wha is glimpsed in Ge man hough a he end o he 18 h
cen u y is he e idence ha Eu opean his o y has led o a disin eg a ed, spli cul u e in
which he o ces o man a e pi ed agains each o he and whe e he necessa y link be ween
man and na u e is a ally b oken, how such a spli is exp essly hema ised in Schille bu
also in No alis and Schlegel, who concei e o hei own in ellec ual ac i i y as an a emp
o econnec man wi h na u e and o hink o him as pa o i . I is in e es ing, in his
espec , ha he Roman ic app oach o na u e akes place in he con ex o he con o e sy
abou pan heism ha a ose in Ge many a ound Lessing’s and Jacobi’s eading o Spinoza.
Spinoza is indeed he inspi e o an a emp o hink he o ali y o he eal in a non-dualis ic
way, and Nie zsche himsel acknowledges his legacy when in a le e o 30 July 1881, he
con esses o F anz O e beck o ha e disco e ed in Spinoza an eno mous p ecu so o his
own doc ine (quo ed by Gawoll 2001, p. 44).
The Roman ic—and Nie zschean—app oach o na u e is anima ed by he conscious
desi e no o le human cul u al cons uc ions ha e he las wo d and o make oom o
he un a homable, amo al, unp edic able and iolen dimension o exis ence. I is he
yea ning o u h in uins, a clea ing in he hicke o human meaning, o a p imo dial
o ce be o e which all discou se e eals i sel o be supe s i ion and ani y. Su ely he
wo a is s who bes e lec his spi i a e Tu ne and Caspa D. F ied ich. The Ge man,
because o he collec ion o Roman ic hemes ha un h ough his pain ings: he uins
o old emples in he middle o he o es , he walke s anding on a ock in he mis , he
s illness o he sea and he monk who con empla es i ; The Englishman, because o ha
Dionysian u y ha en elops and des oys all human wo k, ha u y ha goes beyond
hemes ( he heme, o example, o he empes ) and becomes a ace, he e y o m o
eali y. In Nie zsche’s Za a hus a, he e is some hing o Tu ne and F ied ich: some hing o
he silen con empla ion o na u e alongside he iolen s oke o ime and a e.
The mos isible eligious aspec o he Roman ic spi i is p ecisely his de e mina ion
no o gi e in o he idola ous emp a ion o cul u e. The li u gical, i ual p axis o eligion
