On the aim of science. – What? The final aim of science should be to give man as much pleasure and as little displeasure as possible? But what if pleasure and displeasure are so intertwined that whoever wants as much as possible of one must also have as much as possible of the other – that whoever wants to learn to ‘jubilate up to the heavens’ must also be prepared for ‘grief unto death’?8 And that may well be the way things are! At least the Stoics believed that this is how things are, and they were consistent when they also desired as little pleasure as possible in order to derive as little pain as possible from life (by using the saying ‘The virtuous man is the happiest man’,9 they had both a school slogan for the masses and a fine casuistic delicacy for the refined). Even today you still have the choice: either as little displeasure as possible, in short, lack of pain – and socialists and politicians of all parties fundamentally have no right to promise their people any more than that – or as much displeasure as possible as the price for the growth of a bounty of refined pleasures and joys that hitherto have seldom been tasted. Should you decide on the former, i.e. if you want to decrease and diminish people’s susceptibility to pain, you also have to decrease and diminish their capacity for joy. With science one can actually promote either of these goals! So far it may still be better known for its power to deprive man of his joys and make him colder, more statue-like, more stoic. But it might yet be found to be the great giver of pain! – And then its counterforce might at the same time be found: its immense capacity for letting new galaxies of joy flare up!