Add new comment

That quote from the text above further supports my point:

"My historical dissidents are people like Oscar Wilde, Renzo Novatore, Milan Kundera, Angela Carter, Sam Delany, some of the pirates of Nassau…they are people who are MY chosen ancestors. I arbitrarily create a fictitious history for myself, because the history given to me is also fictitious but pretends to be true. I prefer to take away the truth element and allow myself a broader view of history and then carve out my ancestry within it."

We do go with historical narratives that fit our ideals and in itself there's no wrong in that, as we're also made of narratives.

Yet there a moment where we turn them into full bigotry, routing our small minds away from a broader examination as critical reconsideration from different perspectives, which would only make it richer, more universal comprehension of the world. And what goal in life is better than understanding the world you were born into?

If your goal is to continuously comfort and validate yourselves in ideology -may it be racial, sexual, political or religious- well that's your problem, but there are those with an adventuring spirit who enjoy to -like Nietzsche himself wrote- to eat the coarse parts of a meal and not just the sweet parts, in a quest not for a final Truth, but better knowledge and UNDERSTANDING. The over-valuing of technical mental abilities over this intellectual value are delusional, intelligence first and foremost a quest for learning and comprehension. It's examination not validation. And yes this is where you can easily distinguish the worthy from unworthy historian... i.e. the one interested in a quest for "knowing what happened there/what led to this" vs the one only interested in storytelling, of "what happened in general".

That is the superior paradigm that Nietzsche was trying to explain, imo.