, and wonders how it is possible to act “disinterestedly.” There have been philosophers who could give this popular astonishment a seductive and mystical, otherworldly expression (perhaps because they did not know the higher nature by experience?), instead of stating the naked and candidly reasonable truth that “disinterested” action is very interesting and “interested” action, provided that⁠ ⁠… “And love?”⁠—What! Even an action for love’s sake shall be “unegoistic”? But you fools⁠—! “And the praise of the self-sacrificer?”⁠—But whoever has really offered sacrifice knows that he wanted and obtained something for it⁠—perhaps something from himself for something from himself; that he relinquished here in order to have more there, perhaps in general to be more, or even feel himself “more.” But this is a realm of questions and answers in which a more fastidious spirit does not like to stay: for here truth has to stifle her yawns so much when she is obliged to answer. And after all, truth is a woman; one must not use force with her.