How much scientific is the gay science?

Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher with peculiar theories, but the page is exclusively referred to his concept of “gay science” (first publication 1882). As usual, I talk about the content of ideas, without any academic or pedagogic intent. Nietzsche’s vision of science is finalistic and optimist. Possibly, it’s rooted into the esoteric tradition of alchemy, or influenced by alchemy itself. In effect, the thinker sees science as a path of friendship, sharing, and understanding, whose purpose is a deeper and strong affirmation of an enhanced humanism, freed from the limitations coming from theology (God is dead). The source of gaiety is the center of emotions and enlightenments, which is the same for the author and for alchemists, the heart. 


To say the truth, the scientific discovery of the nature and functions of the heart is rather recent, and coincides with the Baumann and Grollman verification of the Fick principle, in the year 1930. Some ancient geniuses previously had a similar intuition, and William Harvey has been the nearest to the truth, incredibly in the year 1628. However, the vast majority of intellectuals was convinced of the brainy role of the heart, until the beginning of the 20th century. More precisely, alchemists affirmed that the heart is the sun-like laboratory of the body, as the source of vital heat, and of spirituality. Still today, esoteric organizations, such as freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, maintain the same positions of alchemists in the matter of the heart. It means that a notable number of contemporaries are bound to a finalistic and optimist notion of science, similar to the gay science. Despite, those who want to be intellectually honest should ask themselves the same question of the title. With other words, is true science friendly to mankind, or to an elite of it? 


After having remembered that most of the times scientific discoveries create disenchantment, clarity on the burden of truth, and failure of analytical approaches to joy, one should admit that the gay science doesn’t belong to true science. With the same words of a pop song, there’s no comfort in the truth, intended as objectively verified factual reality. In conclusion, the heart is an involuntary muscle, while will, emotion, and spirituality are present into a different organ, named brain. The conclusion might seem banal and obvious. Despite, a lot of pop and rock songs are stubbornly proposing the traditional, wrong illusions about the heart, as you can hear by listening to the mix of the page.  

    


File name “emotional life of the heart, by Max Look DJ (May 2026)”, 1 hour 21’ and 30” of beautiful songs based on wrong ideas about the heart. 


Brainy heart, the playlist:

Chatmonchy and Kaela Kimura – heart of glass

Mandy Moore – lock me in your heart

Billie Eilish – bitches broken heart

Simple Minds – direction of the heart 

Kylie Minogue – heart beat rock                          

Chris Rea – I can hear your heartbeat (original extended)  

Cut Copy – hearts on fire

Rolling Stones – sweethearts together 

Lady Gaga – diamond heart

Taylor Swift – I can do it with a broken heart 

Divinyls – heart telegraph 

Michael Jackson – with a child’s heart 

Gruesomes – unchain my heart

Astronauts – unchain my heart  

Big Brother & the Holding Company, Janis Joplin – piece of my heart 

Paul and Linda McCartney – heart of the country

Captain Beefheart – ashtray heart

Knife – heartbeats

Motley Crue – kickstart my heart 

Tom Jones – I’ve got a heart 

Paul Young – what becomes of the broken hearted 

Aretha Franklin – look into your heart                             

Bee Gees – heartbreaker