1 2 0 D O C U M E N T 1 0 4 D E C E M B E R 1 9 2 7 life. It is less frequent than what was previously described. Even in Nietzsche and Frank Wedekind there is little about it.[6] Nonetheless, I wouldn’t want to fail to re- fer to works like Hugo von Hofmannsthal’s Death and the Fool and almost all of Thomas Mann, especially Death in Venice.[7] If nothing else, a caricature of the in- tellectual like me ought to convince you. 3. Whatever works against the natural hierarchy. (Democracy, ideals of “human- ity,” and so on.) Sex life has on the whole the natural hierarchy. Intellectual life is already a falsification. Love for one’s neighbor and compassion (which I conceive as originating through the projection of one’s own ego into other persons) are com- pletely, utterly immoral. But artificially keeping alive something incapable of life, out of a feeling of humanity, is simply a sin. 4. Further, anything that causes a deterioration of the human race, no matter how slight, for instance, producing inferior children, where “inferior” includes a large percentage of “healthy” people in addition to cripples and cretins, is a mortal sin. In particular, intensive intellectual work and procreation should always be mutually exclusive. However, what is generally called “immoral,” homicide and fraud, is not neces- sarily immoral. It disturbs the state and public convenience, but the state and public convenience are not values in themselves. Suicide is in most cases entirely and be- yond all measure moral. From my memory rise up objections you have made, such as: we instinctively feel that not animal-like life but science is an end in itself, and the people who make the greatest impression on us are always intellectuals. I too have had such feelings, but it is ludicrous to consider them binding. No wonder that the mind, when it has been diligently nourished, ends up demanding its daily feeding. So far as science is concerned, I can easily imagine that it might someday be able to logically reduce the whole of existence to a few basic concepts. But that would do absolutely noth- ing for life: it offers a few disadvantages and no advantages at all. The essential thing is just scientific inquiry itself, and this is a poor substitute for life, no matter what our sophisticated feeling about it might say. When life in and of itself no lon- ger excites us, that merely indicates the degree of our degeneration. I have long said: For anyone who seeks the meaning of life, life has already lost its meaning. A vigorous animal is surely entirely satisfied by its life. You need not think of an “animal” as a domestic pig. A domestic pig is a disgusting animal. Think of an ea- gle. An ant is already not as exemplary. It is too socialized. Nevertheless, its society