become that of all men whatsoever, ‘Rather than live longer under lies, we will die!’ – that is the new New Act in World-History. New Act, -- or, we may call it New Part: Drama of World-History, Part Third. If Part Second was 1800 years ago, this I reckon will be Part Third. This is the truly celestial-infernal Event: … . (…) For it is withal the breaking-out of universal mankind into Anarchy, into the faith and practice of No-Government, -- that is to say … into unappeasable revolt against Sham-Governors and Sham-Teachers, -- which I do charitably define to be a Search, most unconscious, yet in deadly earnest, for true Governors and Teachers . … When the Spontaneous Combustion breaks out; and, many-coloured, with loud noises, envelopes the whole world in anarchic flame for long hundreds of years … .” [817W-{1-3/72} Introduction to ‘Art and Revolution,’ ‘The Artwork of the Future,’ and ‘Opera and Drama’: PW Vol. I, p. 23]
[818W-{1-3/72} Introduction to ‘Art and Revolution,’ ‘The Artwork of the Future,’ and ‘Opera and Drama’: PW Vol. I, p. 25-26]
[P. 25] {anti-FEUER} “Actively aroused by the perusal of some of Ludwig Feuerbach’s essays, I had borrowed various terms of abstract nomenclature and applied them to artistic ideas with which they could not always closely harmonise. In thus doing, I gave myself up without critical deliberation to the guidance of a brilliant writer, who approached most nearly to my reigning frame of mind, in that he bade farewell to Philosophy (in which he fancied he detected naught but masked Theology) and took refuge in a conception of man’s nature in which I thought I clearly recognised my own ideal of artistic manhood. From this arose a kind of impassioned tangle of ideas, which manifested itself as precipitance and indistinctness in my attempts at philosophical system.
{FEUER} While on this subject, I deem it needful to make special mention of two chief ‘terms,’ my misunderstanding of which has since been strikingly borne in upon me.
{FEUER} {SCHOP} I refer in the first place to the concept Willkuer and Unwillkuer, in the use of which a great confusion had [P. 26] long preceded my own offending; for an adjectival term, unwillkuerlich, had been promoted to the rank of a substantive. Only those who have learnt from Schopenhauer the true meaning and significance of the Will, can thoroughly appreciate the abuse that had resulted from this mixing up of words; he who has enjoyed this unspeakable benefit, however, knows well that that misused ‘Unwillkuer’ should really be named ‘Der Wille’ (the Will); whilst the term Willkuer (Choice or Caprice) is here employed to signify the so-called Intellectual or Brain Will, influenced by the guidance of reflection. Since the latter is more concerned with the properties of Knowledge, -- which may easily be led astray by the purely individual aim, -- it is attainted with the evil qualities with which it is charged in the following pages, under the name of Willkuer: whereas the pure Will, as the ‘Thing-in-itself’ that comes to consciousness in man, is credited with those true productive qualities which are here – apparently the result of a confusion sprung from the popular misuse of the term – assigned to the negative expression, ‘Unwillkuer.’ “ [818W-{1-3/72} Introduction to ‘Art and Revolution,’ ‘The Artwork of the Future,’ and ‘Opera and Drama’: PW Vol. I, p. 25-26]
[819W-{1-3/72} Introduction to ‘Art and Revolution,’ ‘The Artwork of the Future,’ and ‘Opera and Drama’: PW Vol. I, p. 26-28]
[P. 26] {FEUER} “ … I have to fear that my continual employment of the term‘Sinnlichkeit,’ in a sense prompted by the same authority [Feuerbach], may give origin, if not to positively harmful misunderstanding, at least to much perplexity. Since the idea conveyed by this
