So, no one is right.

[Will to Power]

... It is no different with the faith which so many materialistic natural scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have its equivalent and its measure in human thought and human valuations--a "world of truth" that can be mastered completely and forever with the aid of our square little reason. What? Do we really want to permit existence to be degraded for us like this--reduced to a mere excercise for a calculator and an indoor diversion for mathematicans? Above all, one should not wish to divest existence of its rich ambiguity: that is a dictate of good taste, gentlemen, the taste of reverence for everything that lies beyond your horizon. That the only justifiable interpretation of the world should be one in which you are justified because one can continue to work and do research scientifically in your sense (you really mean, mechanistically?)--and interpretation that permits counting, calculating, weighing, seeing, and touching, and nothing more--that is a crudity and naivete, assuming that it is not a mental illness, and idocy.

Would it not rather be probable that, conversely, precisely the most superficial and external aspect of existence- -what is most apparent, its skin and sensualization--would be grasped first--and might even be the only thing that allowed itself to be grasped? A "scientific" interpretation of the world, as you understand it, might therefore still be one of the most stupid of all possible interpretations of the world, meaning that it would be one of the poorest in meaning. This thought is intended for the ears and consciences of our mechanists who nowadays like to pass as philosophers and insist that mechanics is the doctrine of the forst and last laws on which all existence must be based on a ground floor. But an essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world. Assuming that one estimated the value of a piece of music according to how much of it could be counted, calculated, and expressed in formulas.

Our new "infinite".--How far the perspective character of existence extends or indeed whether existence had any other character that this; whether existence without interpretation, without "sense", does not become "nonsense"; whether, on the other hand, all existence is not essentially actively engaged in interpretation--that cannot be decided even by the most industrious and most scrupulously conscientious analysis and self-examination of the intellect; for in the course of this analysis the human intellect cannot avoid seeing itself in its own perspectives, and only in these. We cannont look around our own corner; it is a hopeless curiosity that wants to know what other kinds of intellects and perspectives there might be; for example, whether some beings might be able to experiance time backward, or alternately forward and backward (which would involve another direction of life and another concept of cause and effect). But I should think that today we are at least far from the ridiculous immodesty that would be involved in decreeing from our corner that perspectives are permitted only from this corner. Rather has the world become "infinite" for us all over again, inasmuch as we cannot reject the possibility that it may included infinite interpretations. Once more we are seized by a great shudder; but who would feel inclined immediately to deify again after the old manner this monster of an unknown world?

And to worship the unknown henceforth as 'The Unknown One'? Alas, too many ungodly possibilities of interpretation are included in the unknown, too much devilry, stupidity, and foolishness of interpretation- -even our own human, all too human folly, which we know.