CXXIII.

"30 years ago when I was in grad school, I studied with Ed Green, who taught me this one sentence from Eli Siegel, which enabled me to understand jazz (and life in general) in a deeper and more holistic way: “Beauty is the making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are all about.” Although the 3 most obvious sets of opposites in music are loud/soft, fast/slow and high/low, in jazz heavy/light is crucial, and probably more crucial than in any other music. This has much to do with the concept of swing.

When asked what swing is, Duke Ellington replied, “Swing is when the music feels like it is getting faster, but it isn’t.” What the Maestro was talking about is forward motion.  I would add that swing is the perfect relationship of tension and relaxation or as my mentor Jimmy Maxwell used to say, “It makes me want to wiggle my hands, shake my ass and holler.” "

© David Berger
(cit. from HamiltonX: Music160x Jazz: The Music, The Stories, The Players)
[link]

CXXII.

"You know jazz is a lot more than just playing by ear or by feeling. There’s this misconception {beatnik rap, sings} oh I’m a jazz man, I play what I feel man. And that’s not what it is. I mean jazz is really, four things have to hook up, right? What you can think, what you can hear, what you can feel and what you can execute on your horn. But the thinking part is really important. Because unless you’re really thinking about the music you can’t really manipulate the changes, right, if you want to put substitutions in or if you want to kind of play a different key or you want to just kind of use some harmonic devices to kind of accentuate your playing. That requires some thought."

© Gary Smulyan
Interview by Monk Rowe, October 17, 2010, Fillius Jazz Archive, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY
[link]

Gary Smulyan live in Jazz Club Torino, 2013:

CXXI.

"Students on social studies and humanities courses are expected to undertake training in computing and to become competent in the use of statistical techniques, employing computers for data analysis and presentation. Added to this is the trend towards combined degrees.

Alongside a traditional education, students are expected to acquire a set of personal transferable skills. The basic elements of communication, such as writing reports, making presentations and negotiating... time management, organisation of materials, computer use, information handling, on-line searching and writing.

Scholarly activity is about knowing how to: do competent research; read, interpret and analyse arguments; synthesize ideas and make connections across disciplines; write and present ideas clearly and systematically; and use your imagination."

© Chris Hart
"Doing a Literature Review" (1998) 

CXX.

"There's a parasite known as toxoplasmosis that lives in the bodies of rats. But it gets passed on when the rats get eaten by cats. And then it ends up in the cats' feces and then it ends up back in rats. If you are a rat and you have toxoplasmosis, you are perfectly healthy except for one thing. The toxoplasmosis rewires your brain and it makes you less afraid of cats. Now, again, this is not some sort of bizarre quirk of a humorous god. Rather, it's because this is a perfectly — this is the adaptive strategy of the toxoplasmosis virus.

In fact, a real powerful virus would skip the respiratory system altogether, even better than a cold virus. What it would do is it would take over the brain and it will make people want to run around and have sex with other people and kiss them on the mouth. And in fact, there is some evidence that this happens. There's some evidence, for instance, that one of the effects of sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis is it arouses the libido, makes people more sexually engaged, because this is part of the strategy through which these viruses replicate themselves. Imagine a virus, for instance, that captured an animal's brain and then modified the animal's brain such that the animal would run out and bite other animals so as to pass on the virus. And then, of course, you would call that virus "rabies." Along these lines, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins took the general step of suggesting that animals are the vehicles through which genes exploit to reproduce. From this perspective, an animal is just the person's — is just the gene's way of creating another animal."

© Paul Bloom
Yale Lectures on Introduction to Psychology
[link]

CXIX.

"What is man in natural conditions? What makes us man as distinct from animal? There are very different answers you can give. Well Schiller, the German poet said, "What makes us humans? That we know how to play." Right? Play makes us human. Marx said what makes us human, that we work. Labor, that we transform the material world to meet our human needs, with a plan in our head, that's what makes us human. There are animals which kind of work, like bees, but they don't work with a plan. There are only humans who have an idea about my house we'll build, and then you build the house as you had the idea about it. That is the essence of human beings. And he said the problem is that we, in a commodity producing society, we are alienated from labor, what makes us human. So we are alienated from our very human essence. That's the most horrifying thing for Marx, in a commodity producing society. Right?
(...)
And then finally we are alienated from our fellow man. This is probably the deepest idea in the whole theory; namely, that we're beginning to treat each others as object. Right? As we are entering the world of commodity production, profit maximization, self-interested individuals maximizing utility and thinking instrumentally around the world. What are the most least expensive means which gets us the cheapest to this end? When we're beginning to treat each others as instruments. Right? And he said this is the worst alienation. Which is new, right? It has — this is very important to see in Marx's theory of alienation. It's not a general condition of humankind, as Hegel thought it.
Alienation is emerging in modernity. It does not have the term capitalism yet, or the capitalist mode of production.

This is — the characteristics of modernity and modern industrial and urban life, that we are not interacting with each other as human beings, in an all-sided personal relationships, but we tend to treat each others as objects. Right? We treat the other person as a sex object. Right? The erotic complex relationship is reduced to a brutal act of sex. Right? We treat each other as an instrument to reach an end. Right? We call the others only when we need that person for something. Right? We act out of simply self-interest in interacting with the others. We lack compassion. Right? We lack love. Right? We lack sympathy. Right? You know, he probably did not read his Adam Smith carefully enough. Right? He has not been reading much Smith until '44. This is where he's beginning to read Smith very carefully, around this time, in '44. Anyway, you see the point what he is making. And I think what Marx describes in alienation, particularly alienation from fellow human beings, is something what probably some people in this room can respond to, and to say, "Well yes, I did experience that. I have been treated as an object."
(...)
...you can see the extraordinary impact of the idea of alienation in literature. Some of you may have read Albert Camus, the French novelist — The Stranger. This is right out of the theory of alienation. You may be familiar with Franz Kafka, right? There you go. That's the sense of alienation. You may have watched ever the play, wonderful play, of Henrik Ibsen, Peer Gynt. That's about alienation. Right? So in the twentieth century literature, we are full with the senses of alienation.

And so is twentieth century social theory. There is no twentieth century social theory without the theory of alienation. By the way, it's interesting, because The Paris Manuscript, for the first time, was published only in 1931. Nevertheless, the idea was already beginning to creep in earlier. Smart people read the theory of alienation in Marx earlier; Georg Lukács, for instance. And then the Frankfurt School. There is no Adorno, there is no Horkheimer, there is no Marcuse, without the theory of alienation. And I can go even further. There is no cultural theory without the theory of alienation. There is no Bauman, there is no Kolakowski, without the theory of alienation. This is a very important idea."

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

CVIII.

"Basically, what modern scholars believe is that all four of these gospels were anonymously published. They don't tell us who their author is. Notice, they're not pseudonymous. There's a difference between pseudonymous writings — easy for me to say — and anonymous. Anonymous means we don't know who wrote it. It's published without an author's name being listed. Pseudonymous means it's published with a false name, a false author attributed. The four gospels are not pseudonymous because the earliest manuscripts of these gospels, we believe, did not contain the titles, "Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of John." They just published the text as it was. If it ever did have an author's name attached to it, we don't have any evidence in the manuscript history. Nor do we have any evidence in any other historical place. What happened was, these names got attached to these documents. And that's, eventually, how they got included into the canon. People thought that these documents eventually were written by the people whose names that they possess. And therefore, they thought they had some kind of connection to the apostles.
(...)
The problem was we can tell historically that these texts were not written by apostles. Nor do we believe they were written even by the close disciples of apostles. They're anonymous texts. So if that was the reason they were included in the ancient world, it's not the reason they're still in now, because modern scholars don't believe the apostles actually wrote all of these texts in the New Testament.
(...)
People tended to want to include the documents that matched their own theology. In other words, you believed something was apostolic if it taught stuff you believed. So, of course, documents that did teach that the creator God was an evil demonic god and not the father of Jesus Christ — and there are early Christian documents that teach this — they were excluded. Why were they excluded? Well, some of them claimed to be by apostles. Nobody exactly knew how old they were. They were excluded because they taught a doctrine that other Christians thought was heretical and not accurate.
(...)
Yeah, most of the stuff that we'll say has a wrong name attached in the New Testament is not anonymous, although there are some. It's pseudonymous. But there are some that are anonymous, too. The gospels we say are anonymous, because they didn't come attached with a name, as far as we know. How did those names get attached? By different people — partly it was because they wanted this text to be authoritative in some way, and so they tended to attach the name of a particular apostle to them or a particular disciple. Or in some ways, for example, the Gospel of Luke may have gotten its name Luke, because in the Acts of the Apostles, which is also written by the same author, Luke is an actual character who follows Paul around. So it may have been that the name Luke and the Acts of the Apostles got connected with the acts of the apostles, and the Gospel of Luke as its author. So sometimes, it's something in the text itself that may have prompted someone to think that. Often, we just don't know how it got it, and it just happened because somebody just said, "It's authoritative. It must've been written by an apostle."."

© Dale B. Martin
Yale Lectures on Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
[link] 

CVII.

"At the Reformation, the reformers, Martin Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, they decided that — this was, remember, after the Renaissance and the beginnings of the rediscovery of the study of Greek and Latin text in the original documents. They wanted to go back to the Hebrew. So they learned Hebrew. They started reading the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, not in Greek or Latin translation. They, also, tried to come up with the correct Greek text of the New Testament documents, by doing textual criticism. They were practicing what was burgeoning scholarship of the period, in the sixteenth century, to go back to the original texts, as close as they could get. What these reformers then did, they said, "Wait a minute. Look at all these Greek Jewish books that aren't part of the Hebrew Bible. They don't exist in Hebrew. They only exist in Greek." So they said, "We're not going to accept those as part of the Old Testament." They decided to go back to what the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, and not accept the Greek Jewish documents. The Roman Catholics decided, "No. We're going to keep these documents, also." Which is why the Roman Catholic Old Testament is larger than the Protestant Old Testament. The Roman Catholic Old Testament has the same books that the Protestant Old Testament has, but they kept these other Greek Jewish documents. We call those the Apocrypha, "the hidden writings," is what it means."

© Dale B. Martin
Yale Lectures on Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
[link]

CVI.

"Boethuis, not perhaps literally the last person in the west who knew Greek, but certainly the last person who tried to make Greek knowledge known to people who could only read in Latin. He conceived the project of translating all of Plato and Aristotle into Latin. He started by doing a kind of introductory textbook. Like a lot of great projects, this one was not completed. In fact, this one barely got off the ground because he was accused by Theodoric of conspiring with the Byzantine Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, to overthrow him.

He was imprisoned for a year. In prison he wrote one of the most magnificent works of philosophy, of why we are alive and why we die. The Consolation of Philosophy. And then he was executed.

Boethius is a Christian and he wrote on Christian topics, but The Consolation of Philosophy, interestingly enough, is a Stoical work, has very little explicitly about Christianity."

© Paul Freedman
Yale Lectures on The Early Middle Ages, 284 - 1000
[link]

CV.

"Is finance good? Is it helpful to people? You know, a huge issue in the history of humankind is inequality. And that people get upset when it seems like other people have an unfair advantage over us. But inequality is something that you'd think finance works against. Modern finance is about risk management. So, you can get rid of the purely random elements in people's lives, that should make people more equal. It should be a good thing. That is the way I view it.

But the other side of finance is that it also creates opportunity, and opportunity is very important also. We can all be equal and living in poverty, and we don't particularly like that. So, that's why financial inventions eventually inspire and get people excited. I always remember Deng Xiaoping's famous statement in the late 1970's, when China was adopting modern financial methods. And some people were getting rich, and someone asked Deng, isn't this inconsistent with our ideology? And he said, well, and I'm quoting approximately, “we're all going to get rich, but somebody has to get rich first.” And that's the way it is. Financial markets do manage risk. But they also create opportunities and that can actually increase inequality. So, you have to consider both sides of it."

© Robert J. Shiller
Yale Lectures on Financial Markets (2011)
[link]

CIV.

"This goes now to China, Township and Village Enterprise or TVE. I'll try to say it in Chinese. Xiang zhen qi ye, did I say that right? Close anyway. So, what was this? When China emerged from a communist, strictly communist state, in the early period in the--maybe starting in the late '70s, but more in the 1980's, the Chinese economy increasingly became built on a certain kind of organization called a township or TVE. And the TVE was like a company, a corporation, except that it always involved the town. So, in other words, if you wanted to start a business, making something, making toys for export to the world, you wouldn't just start a toy company. You would go to the mayor of your town, and you'd talk to the mayor and say, I want to start a toy company as this town's enterprise, and I want to share the profits with you, with the whole town.

Now, this is kind of unique. Well, I don't know if it's unique, but we don't see this in the United States. But it proliferated. It was actually the invention that led to initial successes of the Chinese economy. By 1985, I believe, I have the statistics here, there were 12 million TVEs in China. By the mid-1990's, most of the industrial production of China was done by TVE. So then you have to ask why--this is an invention, but we don't see it in other countries. Why in China? Well, people who look back on it think that it was inventing around certain constraints at the time in China. And that the invention got around a legal constraint. That China, having been a communist country, did not have all these financial lawyers. And they did not have courts that enforced legal contracts the way we do in the U.S.

And that entrepreneurs in China were inhibited from starting an enterprise, because they thought it would just be usurped by the village. You live in a village, you start a toy company, as soon as you start making money, they'll just put a tax on you. Or, they'll take it. That was your worry. So, you had to involve them. It was a fact of life, a very important fact of life. You had to involve the whole community. You could not start a business without involving the community. But it was a very successful invention, because it actually led the Chinese economy on its first huge successes."

© Robert J. Shiller
Yale Lectures on Financial Markets (2011)
[link]

CIII.

"And who was Francis Bacon, and what is his influence? Francis Bacon was a philosopher who rejected the Aristotelian logic and system, which basically was a speculative system — started out from some major assumptions and through deductions developed his philosophical system. ... Bacon, in some ways, is the Founding Father of modern sciences. Because he said every scientific investigation should start with induction, from sensual observation, and what you cannot observe, you should not assume it does exist. Therefore he advocated a methodology which was exactly the opposite of the Aristotelian methodology, which was deductive. He advocated induction."

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

CII.

"This is the First Edition of "Leviathan", 1651. This is about the idea that people are by nature evil, and we need an all powerful sovereign to avoid the state of war of everyone against everyone else — a powerful proposition.
(...)
So what are the major themes of the book? First, about the theory of human nature. The second one is the relationship between nature and the theory of social contract. Hobbes is really the first of the contractarians, who advocates that what brings society together is a social contract.
If you want to understand society, you have to understand that we have contracts with each other. And then finally the theory of the sovereign. The major desire, the essence of Hobbes's work, is to try to find an identifiable sovereign. He lived in turbulent times when you did not know who the sovereign is. Is this the king? Is this the landlord? Are these the burghers? Is this the parliament? Who on earth is the sovereign? He wanted to find one identifiable sovereign — we can all agree, this is the proper source of law.
(...)
And the sovereign actually can be — and I just point out two words from this citation — can be transferred on one man, the king, or upon one assembly of man. That's, I think, extremely important. Though he was very strongly in favor of absolutism, he did consider that the sovereign can be a properly assembled body of man. But how they will be properly assembled, he doesn't have the faintest idea, or doesn't have the guts to say it. It will become much more clear in Locke, and particularly in Rousseau, where the sovereign is, and it becomes, of course, crystal clear in the American Constitution, which starts, "We the people." That's where the sovereign is. In Hobbes's time, it was not quite we the people, but he did consider that it may not be the royalty, the king."

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

CI.

"Self-sacrifice is a romantic folly; death does not end life; it is a temporary phase of life as night and winter are of terrestrial activity. Many other conceptions are implied in this word, Thelema. In particular, each individual is conceived as the centre of his own universe, his essential nature determining his relations with similar beings and his proper course of action. It is obvious that these ideas are revolutionary. Yet to oppose them is to blaspheme science. Already, in a thousand ways, the principles involved have replaced those of the Dying God. Little remains but to accept Thelema consciously as a statement of law, so that any given problem may be solved by applying it to each case."

© Aleister Crowley
"The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography" (1929)
[link]

C.

"Well, and another way to do it is sublimation — of the instinct — to suppress and ennoble in some ways these instincts that were — actually you move into the sphere of fantasies; you fantasize rather than live out your depressed desires. And this is the mechanism of fantasy, which creates art and science; and the most noble human activities are actually sublimated unsatisfied desires —  which came from the ego — came from the id; the ego confronted with reality and then suppressed it, and then was sublimated into these higher elements."

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

XCIX.

"Well, he [Freud] has a very nice quotation from Goethe on an unpublished poem, and not surprisingly unpublished. This says: "The people who have science and art also do have religion. Those who do not have either science or art have to have religion." Well it's a very interesting idea. In fact, I don't think it is totally obvious how you have to interpret it, especially the first part. I think there's a way one can interpret the first sentence: Wer Wissenschaft und Kunst Besitzt hat auch Religion. It basically means well, you know, science and art is a sort of a religion, and if you are actually a scientist or an artist, you have your religion; you even don't have to be religious. But if you have no science or no art, in order to make sense of the life you need religion. And that's — I think it's not surprising that he never published the poem."

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

XCVIII.

"Breuer was not using the hypnotic method. What he did, he did something what he called "the talking cure". This is something what you occasionally do, or your friends do with you. If something is on your chest, then you call your friend and you say, "I need somebody to talk to". There is some real big trouble in you; you want somebody to listen. Now this is exactly what Breuer did. He did ask his patients to talk to him. And it turned out that this talking cure was very effective, as you've probably all experienced. When something is on your chest and you have a good friend who's willing to listen and does not rush to give you advice — right? — this is whom you want. Just to listen and nod, to be sympathetic, and try to understand you and let you talk, and ask the good questions, but not to give advice. That's what Breuer discovered."

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

XCVII.

"...all the Gospel writers want to go out of their way to say Jesus was not mounting a violent revolution. He was not a criminal, this was not an armed rebellion, he is completely innocent of any political charge of insurrection. But if Jesus' disciples were armed with swords at his arrest, in the middle of the night, at the Passover in Jerusalem, that's insurrection, folks. The Romans did not allow Jews just to go around in the middle of the night in gardens carrying swords. For a Jew to be armed, at the Passover, an especially dangerous time, that the Romans were really worried about, for a Jew to be armed following around a guy who some people were saying was the King of the Jews, you can be arrested for that, you can be crucified for that."

© Dale B. Martin
Yale Lectures on Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
[link]

XCVI.

"What do we believe about the birth of Jesus? Most of us think we don't know anything about the birth of Jesus. All the Christmas stories are later tradition, probably the one thing most of us would say is that Jesus probably was from Nazareth, his family was simply from Nazareth because he's called Jesus of Nazareth. And the traditions that got him to Bethlehem for his birth are probably later pietistic traditions that Matthew and Luke later developed for different reasons, but to get Jesus born in Bethlehem for fulfillment of prophecy reasons. If you take the birth of Jesus in Luke and Matthew, it's — from a historical point of view it's impossible really to harmonize them without coming up with fantastic unbelievable conjugations of Jesus moving back and forth to Egypt and the holy family and all this sort of thing."

© Dale B. Martin
Yale Lectures on Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
[link]

XCV.

"They [Ellinistic Jews] all practiced a certain kind of Greek education. The Greek word paideia, ...means education, but it also means more than simply rote learning or memorization or learning to read, like we think. Paideia is the Greek word that means the formation of the young man. And I say young man because throughout all this it was mainly young men and boys who were educated. Girls could be given some education, if their families were wealthy enough, but the cities didn't really concern themselves so much with girls' education. Their family might, but the cities concerned themselves with the education of their boys. So paideia referred to the education of the young man, both mentally, but militarily — so you were taught to fight — and culturally; you might be taught other things about culture. You might even have some music training or something like that."

© Dale B. Martin
Yale Lectures on Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
[link]

XCIV.

"And they [Macedonians] all would speak what developed to be a common form of Greek, slightly different from Classical Greek, and we call that Koine Greek; and koine is just a Greek word that means common, or shared. So the Bible is actually written in Koine Greek, because this was the form of Greek that had become spread around the eastern Mediterranean by the time the Hebrew Scriptures were translated themselves, and by the time the New Testament writings were themselves written."

© Dale B. Martin
Yale Lectures on Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
[link]

XCIII.

"...the big project in Nietzsche is to offer a critical scrutiny of human mind, but not to have any critical vantage point. To criticize the very principles of good society and good, to critical scrutiny. Where does it come from when we have the conception of good and good society? That is his project. It's an incredible intellectual venture. As I said, it is this kind of squaring of the circle, what he does; what he does with a great deal of power.
...He is like Rousseau; he is only worse than Rousseau. He provokes us even more than Rousseau. But, you know, deep down he's a very sensitive — you know? — very humanistic human being. He provokes you. But if you listen carefully, you figure out there is something what you actually can relate to it, when you think what he's actually trying to get at.
(...)
And, of course, there is no Freud, there is no Weber, and there is no Michel Foucault; there is really no modern and post-modern social theory without Nietzsche's insight. This is a radicalization of critical theory. Right? Critical theory — we talked about this, from Hegel to Marx — was a critique of consciousness; that what is in our mind is a distortion of the reality. And therefore they were trying to subject human consciousness to critical scrutiny. Nietzsche does it the most radical way. He said, "I am capable to show the shortcomings of our consciousness, without showing you what is the right consciousness." That's the project."


© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

XCII.

"He [Nietzsche] does not need a critical vantage point. The good and the evil distinction can be criticized from the good/bad distinction point of view, and the good — and vice-versa. You see what this is the essence of genealogical method. As Foucault will interpret it: "Give me a notion, tell me what is right. And what I do, I take the same conception back in history, and that will show what you think is right, just, or noble, has been at one point of time regarded as evil, what you should fight for. And tell me what you think is evil, and I'll go back in history and I will show you instances where what you think is evil was actually admired and was seen as ethical." This is the essence of the genealogical method. That you compare two ways how morality has been constructed, and you are criticizing one from the point of view of the other, without taking sides where do actually you stand, as such."

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

XCI.

"The Übermensch is basically the person who brings his life under his own control. It's not quite what you think the Übermensch is. ...The Übermensch is the person who achieves self-mastery, who — basically the alienated person — who is in control of his own life — and can express himself authentically, without oppressive civilization.

In a way this is a Buddha. It is an idea of a Buddha, but not a passive Buddha. He disliked Buddhism as much as he disliked the Judeo-Christian tradition. The problem with Buddhism was that it is too passive. He wanted to have an active Buddhism. Right? Somebody who becomes a master of its life, through action, acting out his feelings and his even sensual essence in life. And therefore he can overcome what he calls "the eternal return." He can overcome the iron law of these — you know, this is again comes from almost Marx. Reified consciousness. The reified word can be broken. There are no rules. You can realize yourself in the world, and you are not ruled by the external world."

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
[link]

XC.

"He was born in 1844, in the small city of Röcken in Germany, near Leipzig. And this is very important: his father was a Lutheran minister, and the family was all clergy, Lutheran clergy. And he's bringing up, in a very religious sentiments, very religious family. And in many ways his work is a reaction against the father, and it is a reaction against the kind of Lutheran Christianity he was deeply internalized into. I think this is very important to understand.
...This is a revolt against the father. This is a revolt against what he was brought up to. It is an attempt to find himself. That's what he's trying to get at. And you have to be a little tolerant about him, you know, and his attempt. You did that as well. You were revolting against your parents, and you were revolting against some of the fundamental principles you were born into.
(...)
In '88 he becomes mentally ill. The story of his beginning of his mental illness tells you a lot about him. He is in Genoa, in Italy, and then he walks on the streets, and then he sees a carriage driver beating a horse vengefully. And then he suddenly cuddles the horse, beginning to cry, and his mind is gone. He falls deeply into mental illness. He never recovers anymore. It I think tells a lot about who Nietzsche as a human being was and how much compassion he could have with suffering.
Nietzsche was an impossible person. He'd fall in love with people and then he broke.
Just strong love or strong hatred; there was nothing in between.

© Iván Szelényi
Yale Lectures on Foundations of Modern Social Thought
 [link]