Upon this metaphysical identity of the will, as the thing in itself, in the infinite multiplicity of its phenomena, three principal phenomena depend, which may be included under the common name of sympathies: (1) _sympathy proper_, which, as I have shown, is the basis of justice and benevolence, _caritas_; (2) _sexual love_, with capricious selection, _amor_, which is the life of the species, that asserts its precedence over that of the individual; (3) _magic_, to which animal magnetism and sympathetic cures also belong. Accordingly _sympathy_ may be defined as the empirical appearance of the metaphysical identity of the will, through the physical multiplicity of its phenomena, whereby a connection shows itself which is entirely different from that brought about by means of the forms of the phenomenon which we comprehend under the principle of sufficient reason.
Chapter XLVIII.(44) On The Doctrine Of The Denial Of The Will To Live.
Man has his existence and being either _with_ his will, _i.e._, his consent, or _without_ this; in the latter case an existence so embittered by manifold and insupportable sufferings would be a flagrant injustice. The ancients, especially the Stoics, also the Peripatetics and Academics, strove in vain to prove that virtue sufficed to make life happy. Experience cried out loudly against it. What really lay at the foundation of the efforts of these philosophers, although they were not distinctly conscious of it, was the assumed _justice_ of the thing; whoever was without guilt ought to be free from suffering, thus happy. But the serious and profound solution of the problem lies in the Christian doctrine that works do not justify. Accordingly a man, even if he has practised all justice and benevolence, consequently the { ~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{ ~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{ ~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{ ~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{ ~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{ ~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, _honestum_, is yet not, as Cicero imagines, _culpa omni carens_ (_Tusc._, v. i.); but _el delito mayor del hombre es haber nacido_ (the greatest guilt of man is that he was born), as Calderon, illuminated by Christianity, has expressed it with far profounder knowledge than these wise men. Therefore that man comes into the world already tainted with guilt can appear absurd only to him who regards him as just then having arisen out of nothing and as the work of another. In consequence of _this_ guilt, then, which must therefore have proceeded from his will, man remains rightly exposed to physical and mental suffering, even if he has practised all those virtues, thus is not happy. This follows from the _eternal justice_ of which I have spoken in § 63 of the first volume. That, however, as St. Paul (Rom. iii. 21), Augustine, and Luther teach, works cannot justify, inasmuch as we all are and remain essentially sinners, ultimately rests upon the fact that, because _operari sequitur esse_, if we acted as we ought, we would necessarily be as we ought. But then we would require no _salvation_ from our present condition, which not only Christianity but also Brahmanism and Buddhism (under the name which is expressed in English by _final emancipation_) present as the highest goal, _i.e._, we would not need to become something quite different from, nay, the very opposite of what we are. Since, however, we are what we ought not to be, we also necessarily do what we ought not to do. Therefore we need a complete transformation of our mind and nature; _i.e._, the new birth, as the result of which salvation appears. Although the guilt lies in action, _operari_, yet the root of the guilt lies in our _essentia et existentia_, for out of these the _operari_ necessarily proceeds, as I have shown in the prize essay on the freedom of the will. Accordingly our one true sin is really original sin. Now the Christian myth makes original sin first arise after man came into existence, and for this purpose ascribes to him, _per impossibile_, a free will. It does this, however, simply as myth. The inmost kernel and spirit of Christianity is identical with that of Brahmanism and Buddhism; they all teach a great guilt of the human race through its existence itself, only that Christianity does not proceed directly and frankly like these more ancient religions: thus does not make the guilt simply the result of existence itself, but makes it arise through the act of the first human pair. This was only possible under the fiction of a _liberum arbitrium indifferentiæ_, and only necessary on account of the Jewish fundamental dogma, in which that doctrine had here to be implanted.