. So much with regard to what is most personal in the case of Schopenhauer; on the other hand, there is still much which is typical in him⁠—and only now we come back to our problem. It is an accepted and indisputable fact, so long as there are philosophers in the world and wherever philosophers have existed (from India to England, to take the opposite poles of philosophic ability), that there exists a real irritation and rancour on the part of philosophers towards sensuality. Schopenhauer is merely the most eloquent, and if one has the ear for it, also the most fascinating and enchanting outburst. There similarly exists a real philosophic bias and affection for the whole ascetic ideal; there should be no illusions on this score. Both these feelings, as has been said, belong to the type; if a philosopher lacks both of them, then he is⁠—you may be certain of it⁠—never anything but a “pseudo.” What does this mean? For this state of affairs must first be interpreted: in itself it stands there stupid, to all eternity, like any “Thing-in-itself.” Every animal, including la bête philosophe