Genuine question: why is "slave morality" bad again? Are the poor, weak and non-powerful people supposed to just let themselves be trampled, fricked over and made to suffer by the powerful and not ever complain about it? The "plebs" are just supposed to suffer under the iron fist of the "nobility" and this isn't supposed to be wrong?
There's something not quite right about this. Did neetzsche really mean that?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
It was just like that before democracy struck.
There is no such thing as good or bad. Slaves are slaves and masters are masters, that's it.
>There is no such thing as good or bad
Giga moron take. Finitely circumscribe a goal, a given, or a theory and 'good' and 'bad' can be derived from it based on function or explanatory power. Obvious examples abound, but something as simple as "goal: remain alive" means that you now have options that can be evaluated as 'good' or 'bad' based on how well they function to accomplish the goal. Drinking water to avoid dehydrating to death is 'good'; cutting open your veins to exsanguinate yourself, 'bad.'
Is it a good if someones goal is to exsanguinate themself?
if the goal is to exsanguinate oneself, then choosing successful means is a 'good choice' in the context of the goal. Similarly, a sharp knife is a 'good tool' to accomplish this; a stick of room-temperature butter, a 'bad tool'.
Sounds like hedonism to me.
If there is no coherent morality and good is whatever serves the goals of the people who aim for those goals there is nothing special about morality, it's akin to saying I don't like that.
It's almost like outside the human mind there is no such thing. Which is kind of what the anon before you said.
>Drinking water to avoid dehydrating to death is 'good';
No, it isn't.
stop doing it then, and livestream the results
That wouldn't make it good or bad. For a suicidal person death is good, for you death is bad. Completely subjective. Therefore there is no good or bad.
see
You're being amazingly moronic.
You might understand better if I describe it this way: Connect Four is a solved game; the first player always wins with perfect play. Within the finite space of the game, there are good moves and bad moves; the good moves advance the game state towards the defined victory condition. Just because you can choose to personally have a different goal at a different level of analysis, like
>I want to lose!
>I want to pretend to be moronic and eat as many of the game pieces as possible!
doesn't make the set of good moves subjective WITHIN THE FINITE SPACE OF THE GAME AS DEFINED.
defining good and bad via utility is giga moronic and I hope you have a nice day
my current goal is to enjoy watching you cope and seethe, so I am satisfied
homosexual, you might understand why this is one of the most profoundly moronic posts I've read on this site if I describe it this way: comparing something as broad as the collective array of individual's "theories" and "goals" of life to a one-dimensional, tabletop board game with perfect information falls completely flat if you spend even a single momentary second thinking through on the applications of this example. I'm not going to do it for you, because if you're incapable of doing so I don't want to engage you and give you any further encouragement to continue shitting up this board.
But as this website's resident psychoanalyst I will let you know that you knew this already, otherwise you wouldn't have constrained your example to "the finite space of the game as defined", which obviously renders it completely irrelevant to real life. This is also why you decided to frame your original example in terms of basic survival needs like drinking water. Woah, pissing and shitting is "good"? Thanks for the insight you colossal fricking moron.
Sure, in the vast, vast majority of cases 'good' cannot be known with certainty, which is why we use heuristic approaches based on incomplete information. This is why ethical generalizations and maxims exist; I cannot prove, for example, whether making you look like the dumbfrick you are is 'good' in the absolute sense of 'better state of the universe according to my preferences at T1, T2, Tₙ'; but here I am doing it anyway.
The fact that we are not gods and thereby have to orient ourselves based on imperfect models of the world and of what constitutes 'good' doesn't invalidate the principle, you stupid shit.
This tbh. Survival of the fittest.
And people are just meant to ignore it?
If the slaves have the power, they can become masters. If masters lose power, the become slaves.
Most master races escape from slavery or commit suicide if they cant.
Slavish peoples proliferate under those same conditions.
You mongoloid, slave morality is bad because it leads to people being hypocrites.
See Muslims lynchings and Christian Inquisition.
whats wrong with lynchings and the Inquistion? got something against violence?
yes that is his point,
"oh no we are Christians we are meek and weak and we will inherit the earth"
you turn around the corner and they do the inquisition and purge all the non-Christians from Europe and beyond
Meek doesn't mean weak. Its the exact same teaching found in the dhamapada, when the lord takes the tame elephant to war; a meek horse is a warhorse. It means the one ready to obey his master will overcome the world. The meek does what his master tells him to do, and this he knows from the Church. So there is no "hypocrisy" there's no mask or play anywhere involved.
To be meek is to be effeminate. It's unbecoming of a man. A man is independent and takes direct control.
The question of master versus slave morality isn't focused upon well being. It's more so a civilizational question. The nobility -- an aristocracy, more specifically, advances civilization. The masses do not. When the masses come to rule, things like literature, art, high learning, etc. -- the things that truly make life worth living -- well end up in a state of decadence and decay. And that is indeed what happened. And now that democracy has fully matured in the West, we are now seeing not just the disappearance of great art and men of learning, but also the standard of living.
And further, those who embody slave morality, Nietzsche argued, are hypocrites. They, too, desire power. They cloak this desire for power in morality -- that the weak must overcome the noble, because the noble class is 'bad.' The nobleman has always been unambiguous and direct regarding his desire for power. The weak pretends he doesn't want power. He does, though, couching such a desire in 'justice.'
This is the correct answer. No wonder there's zero replies because you have to actually have read Nietzsche to engage with this Anon: But it's obvious that nobody here reads.
Master versus slave morality is not about individual happiness. It's about the future of mankind. When individual safety, contentment and happiness become both the goal and the basis of all actions, you get the last man.
>The nobleman has always been unambiguous and direct regarding his desire for power. The weak pretends he doesn't want power. He does, though, couching such a desire in 'justice.'
"All my life I wanted money and power"
Lamar, Kendrick.
>The question of master versus slave morality isn't focused upon well being. It's more so a civilizational question. The nobility -- an aristocracy, more specifically, advances civilization. The masses do not. When the masses come to rule, things like literature, art, high learning, etc. -- the things that truly make life worth living -- well end up in a state of decadence and decay. And that is indeed what happened. And now that democracy has fully matured in the West, we are now seeing not just the disappearance of great art and men of learning, but also the standard of living.
When the CCP. A creation of the Masses of chinese society, came to power. Literacy dramatically increased among the population, meaning that information and ideas could now be developed and shared among millions of people, and those ideas among the chinese population could be trialed and errored. China today, under the leadership of the CCP, has underwent a renewal of culture, and this organization only came to power because the masses wanted it against the old aristocracy which kept slaves in Tibet and had stuff like foot binding in other regions. The aristocracy are often parasites that hold nations back from progressing into healthier and more developed conditions of existence.
Likewise, the masses in pre-bolshevik Russia transformed Russia from a post-serf shithole where most people were in debt to landowners into a superpower that was launching probes onto Venus in the 60's.
As I said before, Nietszche was an evil, selfish, middle class german thinking only about himself. History proves him completely incorrect. The best thing that came out of Nietzsche is when leftists like Che Guevara twisted his ideas to implement idealism into stuff like marxism and combine the idea of the Superman with communist solidarity.
The comment you're replying to makes mention of how a aristocratic societies make for the development of the arts. Your comparisons in communist China and the USSR may have had technological improvements over thier predecessorsband improvements in baseline education like literacy, but you don't seriously believe that communist China and the USSR produced superior cultural works than the aristocratic societies your comparing them to do you? Hell even in regards to citizen well being, the Theoretical gain you're getting at the expense of high culture by removing the aristocracy, both those societies were catastrophic example of not only how bad mob rule can make things, but how quickly the slave-master dynamic returns to societies like those.
So what exactly did feudal Russia produce compared to the USSR? All the stuff Russia is famous for like Tchaikovsky happened after serfdom was abolished and the power of the nobility became in slow decline afterwards. Stuff like Tolstoy was a reaction against the Nobilit and their systems like the serfdom one. Likewise the USSR had its own cultural achievements. Stalker/roadside picnic (although that one deconstructs the soviet union lol), Tale of Tales, Solaris, Socialist Realism, etc.
The aristocracy themselves kind of held Russia back. Today. Russia is in the hands of the Oligarchs, who play a similar role as to old feudal lords as being unchallengeable lords of capital that lord over the public and have no concerns to the population or the country, and Russia is more stagnant than ever before today.
Likewise. America now has an Elite in the form of the people in the silicon valley wing of the democrat party and the oil lord barons of rightwing capital, and neither is really doing anything substantial. Launching cars to space is not "progress" or breaking any barriers, and the GOP is actively hurting the Earth by being reactionary about oil against the improvement of green energy and nuclear energy is out the window basically lol. America has had an unaccountable Elite growing from both parties since the 70's and the country has just gotten gradually worse and worse from it
>Commie apologist who shills for governments who killed tens if not 100 of millions of people call Nietzsche evil
Commies never had self awareness, even more funny considering you never lived under communism.
Lmao do you really think the masses ran china or the ussr? you just disproved your own point moron
peabrained take. CCP is an obvious example of cultural decline
You absolute giga-Black person moron.
The masses didn’t magically ‘take over’, it was the élite that grew effete and degenerated like in Hellenistic Greece or Late Imperial Rome or maintained power of those that did as today. The masses don’t have a say in anything. Democracy is just a survey as to how far they can shift the Overton window without substantial dissent - the real decisions are never in the hands of the people considering that All The World’s A Stage. The greatest ‘Master Morality’ of all is for the Cabal to give the masses the illusion of choice limited to perversion and self-destruction and make them spit on all their old traditions and culture simply as an obedience test.
Servus Dei Sum
based and actually readspilled
Sneedzche is offering a taxonomy of morality itself, not making a moral statement
at best you can judge whither these two simplified opposites will lead to in various aspects of life, e.g the destiny of the concept itself of "beauty"
Game theory renders Nietzsche irrelevant. Look up the Hawk-Dove game. All-Hawk is a suboptimal non-equilibrium solution. There will always be some proportion of Hawks and Doves, and frankly it’s mostly genetics and congenital neurology. If you’re wired to be very pro social with “””””””slave””””””/Dove morality, LARPing as a Hawk will just cause psychological problems.
>Game theory renders Nietzsche irrelevant.
Game Theory doesn't have any applications in real life, or at l least at the personal or household level. Game Theory is largely irrelevant because it is only applicable to rational actors in static information environments.
>Game Theory doesn't have any applications in real life
Lol
Slave morality is a cope, thats why its bad, theyre not supposed to take it, they should revolt, but they are too week for that, therefore they cope
>they should revolt, but they are too week for that
It's more about being poisoned with the ruling classes' ideology.
>they should revolt
They do. That's literally what the french revolution was.
nietzsche doesn't want a return to master morality for the exact reason you said. he wants to transcend all morality, master or slave
Suffering is unavoidably built into reality so attempting to achieve uniform justice would just mean ubiquitous suffering. There's a word for that, and it's spite. But there are days when settings absolutely everything permanently on fire seems reasonable to me.
>why is "slave morality" bad again?
Because its ugly
>define good as beyond good and evil
>define evil as not going beyond good and evil
"bro you should transcend good and evil"
i will never understand the cult following of this man
Good is power, the feeling of power increasing; bad is whatever stems from weakness. No one in their heart disagrees with this, but few are honest about it.
one aspect of good is power yes, but they are not identical
for example it may be good to relinquish your power over your child so that they may act freely on their own
Neither of you are honest.
>i know what you really think
god i wish logic and reason was popular again
If you are being honest, then you're unaware of what the meaning of the word "power" is in this context. It doesn't just refer to social power, i.e., power over others' thoughts and feelings. It's less decentralized and anthropomorphic than that when Nietzsche uses the term, instead referring to the growth of a drive within us (each of us having many drives which compete with one another) and the feeling that comes along with that growth / internal competition. Even the Christian martyr does what he/she does for power in the Nietzschean sense, in other words.
less centralized*
>then you're unaware of what the meaning of the word "power" is in this context
yes, i am. And to a certain degree you are wrong. He co-opts the meaning of the word "power" to essentially mean "goodness" "being" or "perfection" from ancient philosophies, while at the same time dismissing the very philosophies that he steals from. Because he's fundamentally a reactionary mystic that wants to emphasize natural and military might. Yes, you can argue that everyone is pursuing power in their own way in the same way plato and Aristotle argue being is power and the purpose of a being is to maximize its potential, but it becomes tautological. Either he is saying something new, or he is a naturalistic might = right reactionary. You cant have it both ways.
>Either he is not saying something new
>He co-opts the meaning of the word "power" to essentially mean "goodness" "being" or "perfection" from ancient philosophies, while at the same time dismissing the very philosophies that he steals from.
None of that is in contradiction with what I wrote. Yes, he "co-opted" modern terms—as in reversed the established value system with his own values (and he is not the first to do this)—while expressing his philosophy, but his philosophy nonetheless has a certain structure to it that you are ignoring (not a systematic one, mind you, but still a structure). Will to power is not simply the desire for social power, because "will" for Nietzsche is a multiplicity and "power" for him must be understood within the context of that multiplicity.
>None of that is in contradiction with what I wrote. Yes, he "co-opted" modern terms—as in reversed the established value system with his own values (and he is not the first to do this)
then I would argue his philosophy has no real meaning separate from the ideas that have already been expressed. What he did was just dress up an old concept in a new garb, and if you are claiming that he is within his right to do this then i dont see why I am not within my rights to understand the word "power" in a different way.
>What he did was just dress up an old concept in a new garb
Who had the concept of the will as a multiplicity of biological drives each thirsting to dominate the other? Not that a lack of originality would invalidate him or excuse you from misunderstanding him, anyway.
>Who had the concept of the will as a multiplicity of biological drives each thirsting to dominate the other
Nietzsche's will to power is a metaphysical principle, despite his insistence that he hates metaphysics, he clearly states that all beings that exist are manifestations of will to power, the biological part is just a corollary of this. Plato was the first I know of to equate existing with power, but there might even be presocratics that did it.
>Nietzsche's will to power is a metaphysical principle, despite his insistence that he hates metaphysics
Define metaphysics. His hatred of metaphysics stems from all the erroneous, self-defeating conclusions that philosophers derived from the notion—metaphysics became seen as a layer "above" reality, rather than an illusion "within" reality, which is how he sees his own concept of the will to power.
meaningless schizo babble, he thought the will to power was the fundamental principle of reality. This is metaphysics.
>meaningless schizo babble
It appears that way to you because you haven't done the necessary thinking.
>he thought the will to power was the fundamental principle of reality
He thought that within the context of his philosophy, which had already dismissed all absolutes in favor of perspectivism. When Nietzsche puts something forward, he doesn't do so with the intention that he is putting it forward for all of the species—that an idea is something separate from the body that produced it—but for himself and his readers who are psychically similar to him, all of whom are in flux rather than fixed beings. Therefore, his will to power, rightly understood, is not "metaphysics" in the sense that you use the term, but merely Nietzsche's (acutely self-aware) interpretation, an interpretation that has behind it far more thoughtful consideration than any other so far. It is not a fact or a principle but a perspective that is more encompassing than any other to this date.
>It appears that way to you because you haven't done the necessary thinking.
thinking is exactly what reveals it to be suspect
>perspectivism
the problem is, if perspectivism is true, then even non-perspectivists are just looking at truth through their own perspective. It all just amounts to nihilistic poetry that is under no moral obligation to explain ideas to other people. Genuine critiques of perspectivist ideas can always be refuted with "you just don't understand", "you haven't done the necessary thinking" etc.
>thinking is exactly what reveals it to be suspect
What is suspect about it?
>the problem is, if perspectivism is true, then even non-perspectivists are just looking at truth through their own perspective
Perspectivism is not "true." Such an idea is untenable within a moral system that values truth above all else. Perspectivism is powerful: it grants one the ability to distinguish the self from others more deeply, thus elevating the self over others in importance.
>Perspectivism is not "true."
kek
i will never understand people that claim Nietzsche is not a precursor to post modernism and post structuralism. You have no intent on expressing your intuitions in logical form, you only care to change meanings of words.
Okay, now try reading the rest of the post.
That very example implies that you hold power and are choosing to use it in a constructive way, you're choosing to step back for the good of the child. Were the situation one in which you involentarily had no power over the child it would not be good. It would imply that the child does not respect you, or you do not have the means, knowledge or wisdom to guide the child adequately, or the child has been taken from you. The circumstance of the child having freedom is still achieved but I don't believe there are really any "good" circumstances that result in the child not being influenced by you.
I agree that the acquisition of power is a good thing. But I don't think it's the entirety of 'Good' in itself. It's positive because it enables the opportunity for one to act in ways that are good but--
Actually, I think i just saw the next step of that idea, wherein it may be right as is. The more I think about it, whatever you do either enhances or diminishes power and in many cases what may be commonly considered 'good and bad' are congruent with acquisitions and loss of power. For example. To use power positively, you're may be using connections/wealth/dicipline to improve personal knowledge/skills, you may be making wealth grow further through good investments, you may be using wealth/influence to gain support/soldiers/followers to preserve and grow social/physical power, you may be using your wisdom and logical faculties to reflect on yourself, your weaknesses, your future obstacles etc.
when done right these things grow your power and give it a strong foundation. However, when power is used in pursuit of more power in a 'bad' way, the ultimate result is an eventual loss of power through sewing the seeds of future demise. To elaborate, to use power to gain power through force, coersion, or manipulation (at inappropriate times, aka as a shortcut to power) leads to diminishing power in the long run through things like (1)social risks, (such as others seeing you not as a wise leader but a power seeking threat, or you
losing a moral/logical justification for your power - which hampers your ability to employ reason in gaining support since you don't have a sound factual basis for why you ought to hold power beyond your current forceful upper hand) and (2)increased expense to maintain your power (mental energy in maintaining lies, further reliance on resource intensive physical force). So with this in mind. The long term wear and tear from power acquisition that is caused by taking shortcuts actually diminishes power in the long run and is bad. Where gaining power in 'good' ways is good because the foundations of power better stand up to logical challenge (you ought to have power because you really are a strong, wise, compassionate, competent leader.) The motivation for 'bad' paths to power stem from being too weak/stupid to do it the 'good' way. One may hold power, but if it's foundations are bad they are in fact weak.
I disagree with this in my heart.
Slave
It's not automatically about power over others. You can read it as strength of spirit, purity of instinct, or drive to live if that helps you. Whatever it is that is attracting you, and that you want to attain: It will require some sort of growth to get there. For instance, for most scholars, scientists and professors, the growth in power lies in the growth of their knowledge and understanding. For an athlete, it lies in practice and competition, for a musician it lies in advancing their technical abilities, for an artist, it lies in balancing tradition with ingenuity.
>t. slave
unironically
>Are the poor, weak and non-powerful people supposed to just let themselves be trampled, fricked over and made to suffer by the powerful and not ever complain about it?
Slave morality is precisely avoiding complaining about it by internalizing your disagreement instead of expressing it and having to defend or assert yourself.
Whatever wiki article you skimmed isn't cutting it anon.
>complaining is ubermench behavior
lmao, kek aswell
Complaint here clearly just means objecting, resisting, rebelling, etc...
For your sake I hope you are pretending to be moronic.
>if you can interpret yourself as being oppressed you must rebel against the system simply because there is a conceivable hierarchy
sounds like gutter punk drivel
I did read him tho. Just finished reading the first essay on Genealogy of Morals.
He literally describes the israelites overthrowing the Romans through christianity as slave morality tho, and it's clearly supposed to be bad because of the dialogue where the observer says that it "stinks".
It just doesn't sound as really good to me.
>>Are the poor, weak and non-powerful people supposed to just let themselves be trampled, fricked over and made to suffer by the powerful and not ever complain about it?
No, actually they are supposed to moralize and turn it into their strength, their goodness, and be proud of what they are, because they can't be anything else. There's no necessary reason why a ruling race would have to oppress its subjects, you're reading that into him.
>hasn't read Nietzsche
Value systems are inversions of the slaves weaknesses into virtues and projected on the strong. Key word being "projected" onto the strong. The only way the slaves are prevented from outright destabilizing society is by the action of the priests, who teach them to be more introverted for the sake of stable society, because their natural tendency (eg the early Christians) is to be rabidly counter-authority and subversive. Read the first essay of Genealogy. The difference is the strong assert themselves immediately through a direct defence after which they forget, the weak delay their reaction and become cunning and manipulative, deceitful, and vindictive. In both cases there is a defence and self-assertion.
>Value systems are inversions of the slaves weaknesses into virtues and projected on the strong. Key word being "projected" onto the strong. The only way the slaves are prevented from outright destabilizing society is by the action of the priests, who teach them to be more introverted for the sake of stable society, because their natural tendency (eg the early Christians) is to be rabidly counter-authority and subversive. Read the first essay of Genealogy. The difference is the strong assert themselves immediately through a direct defence after which they forget, the weak delay their reaction and become cunning and manipulative, deceitful, and vindictive. In both cases there is a defence and self-assertion.
So what I said, lol moron.
It's funny to see people who can only quote the text instead of restate it and demonstrate they understand it rather than 'know' it. One wonders what drives these things to continue continuing.
You said that they internalize it, and I showed you that does not happen at all. It becomes externalized and projected onto better people, for example in the mass outcry of early Christians.
>no they don't internalize it!
>The only way the slaves are prevented from outright destabilizing society is by the action of the priests, who teach them to be more introverted
ok moron
can you maybe adopt a tripcode so I know not to read your drivel?
Guilt is internalized. Guilt is not "slave morality" though, it is just one aspect of it. Have you actually read anything written by him?
>The difference is the strong assert themselves immediately through a direct defence after which they forget, the weak delay their reaction and become cunning and manipulative, deceitful, and vindictive. In both cases there is a defence and self-assertion.
Do people ever think about how this happens in your everyday relationships on the micro level?
Slave morality is really school shooter mentality. It's revenge for being weak. The strong are above revenge.
Have you ever read Nietzsche? He says the opposite, that slaves turn the other cheek because exacting revenge would require strength and courage they lack, so they simply make a virtue out of their weakness. He says it's the masters who are vengeful.
it is way more complicated than that, if you'd actually read him. a master doesn't "hate" the weak, the same way a predator doesn't "hate" its prey, it just sees it as a means or an end. a prey will hate it's predator, a slave its master, because the one with power above them will take everything from them.
So what is your thoughts on transhumanism? sounds like nietszche would be the type to advocate for it.
Read him, Black person.
War, on the other hand, is something different. At heart I am a warrior. Attacking belongs to my instincts. To be able to be an enemy, to be an enemy—maybe these things presuppose a strong nature; in any case all strong natures involve these things. Such natures need resistance, consequently they go in search of obstacles: the pathos of aggression belongs of necessity to strength as much as the feelings of revenge and of rancour belong to weakness. Woman, for instance, is revengeful; her weakness involves this passion, just as it involves her susceptibility in the presence of other people's suffering. The strength of the aggressor can be measured by the opposition which he needs; every increase of growth betrays itself by a seeking out of more formidable opponents—or problems: for a philosopher who is combative challenges even problems to a duel. The task is not to overcome opponents in general, but only those opponents against whom one has to summon all one's strength, one's skill, and one's swordsmanship—in fact, opponents who are one's equals.... To be one's enemy's equal—this is the first condition of an honourable duel. Where one despises, one cannot wage war. Where one commands, where one sees something beneath one, one ought not to wage war. My war tactics can be reduced to four principles A First, I attack only things that are triumphant—if necessary I wait until they become triumphant. Secondly, I attack only those things against which I find no[Pg 24] allies, against which I stand alone—against which I compromise nobody but myself.... I have not yet taken one single step before the public eye, which did not compromise me: that is my criterion of a proper mode of action. Thirdly, I never make personal attacks—I use a personality merely as a magnifying-glass, by means of which I render a general, but elusive and scarcely noticeable evil, more apparent. In this way I attacked David Strauss, or rather the success given to a senile book by the cultured classes of Germany—by this means I caught German culture red-handed. In this way I attacked Wagner, or rather the falsity or mongrel instincts of our "culture" which confounds the super-refined with the strong, and the effete with the great. Fourthly, I attack only those things from which all personal differences are excluded, in which any such thing as a background of disagreeable experiences is lacking. On the contrary, attacking is to me a proof of goodwill and, in certain circumstances, of gratitude. By means of it, I do honour to a thing, I distinguish a thing; whether I associate my name with that of an institution or a person, by being against or for either, is all the same to me.
If I wage war against Christianity, I feel justified in doing so, because in that quarter I have met with no fatal experiences and difficulties—the most earnest Christians have always been kindly disposed to me. I, personally, the most essential opponent of Christianity, am far from holding the individual responsible for what is the fatality of long ages.
May I be allowed to hazard a suggestion concerning one last trait in my character, which in my intercourse with other men has led me into some difficulties? I am gifted with a sense of cleanliness the keenness of which is phenomenal; so much so, that I can ascertain physiologically—that is to say, smell—the proximity, nay, the inmost core, the "entrails" of every human soul.... This sensitiveness of mine is furnished with psychological antennæ, wherewith I feel and grasp every secret: the quality of concealed filth lying at the base of many a human character which may be the inevitable outcome of base blood, and which education may have veneered, is revealed to me at the first glance. If my observation has been correct, such people, whom my sense of cleanliness rejects, also become conscious, on their part, of the cautiousness to which my loathing prompts me: and this does not make them any more fragrant.... In keeping with a custom which I have long observed,—pure habits and honesty towards myself are among the first conditions of my existence, I would die in unclean surroundings,—I swim, bathe, and splash about, as it were, incessantly in water, in any kind of perfectly transparent and shining element. That is why my relations with my fellows try my patience to no small extent; my humanity does not consist in the fact that I understand the feelings of my fellows, but that I can endure to understand.... My humanity is a perpetual process of self-mastery. But I need solitude—that is to say, recovery, return to myself, the breathing of free, crisp, bracing air.... The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude, or, if I have been understood, in honour of purity. Thank Heaven, it is not in honour of "pure foolery"! He who has an eye for colour will call him a diamond. The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger....
And why should I not proceed to the end? I am fond of clearing the air. It is even part of my ambition to be considered as essentially a despiser of Germans. I expressed my suspicions of the German character even at the age of six-and-twenty (see Thoughts out of Season, vol. ii. pp. 164, 165),—to my mind the Germans are impossible. When I try to think of the kind of man who is opposed to me in all my instincts, my mental image takes the form of a German. The first thing I ask myself when I begin analysing a man, is, whether he has a feeling for distance in him; whether he sees rank, gradation, and order everywhere between man and man; whether he makes distinctions; for this is what constitutes a gentleman. Otherwise he belongs hopelessly to that open-hearted, open-minded—alas! and always very good-natured species, la canaille! But the Germans are canaille—alas! they are so good-natured! A man lowers himself by frequenting the society of Germans: the German places every one on an equal footing. With the exception of my intercourse with one or two artists, and above all with Richard Wagner, I cannot say that I have spent one pleasant hour with Germans. Suppose, for one moment, that the profoundest spirit of all ages were to appear among Germans, then one of the saviours of the Capitol would be sure to arise and declare that his own ugly soul was just as great. I can no longer abide this race with which a man is always in bad company, which; has no idea of nuances—woe to me! I am a nuance—and which has not esprit in its feet, and cannot even walk withal! In short, the Germans have no feet at all, they simply have legs.
The Germans have not the faintest idea of how vulgar they are—but this in itself is the acme of vulgarity,—they are not even ashamed of being merely Germans. They will have their say in everything, they regard themselves as fit to decide all questions; I even fear that they have decided about me. My whole life is essentially a proof of this remark. In vain have I sought among them for a sign of tact and delicacy towards myself. Among israelites I did indeed find it, but not among Germans. I am so constituted as to be gentle and kindly to every one,—I have the right not to draw distinctions,—but this does not prevent my eyes from being open. I except no one, and least of all my friends,—I only trust that this has not prejudiced my reputation for humanity among them? There are five or six things which I have always made points of honour. Albeit, the truth remains that for many years I have considered almost every letter that has reached me as a piece of cynicism. There is more cynicism in an attitude of goodwill towards me than in any sort of hatred. I tell every friend to his face that he has never thought it worth his while to study any one of my writings: from the slightest hints I gather that they do not even know what lies hidden in my books. And with regard even to my Zarathustra, which of my friends would have seen more in it than a piece of unwarrantable, though fortunately harmless, arrogance? Ten years have elapsed, and no one has yet felt it a duty to his conscience to defend my name against the absurd silence beneath which it has been entombed. It was a foreigner, a Dane, who first showed sufficient keenness of instinct and of courage to do this, and who protested indignantly against my so-called friends. At what German University to-day would such lectures on my philosophy be possible, as those which Dr. Brandes delivered last spring in Copenhagen, thus proving once more his right to the title psychologist? For my part, these things have never caused me any pain; that which is necessary does not offend me. Amor fati is the core of my nature. This, however, does not alter the fact that I love irony and even world-historic irony. And thus, about two years before hurling the destructive thunderbolt of the Transvaluation, which will send the whole of civilisation into convulsions, I sent my Case of Wagner out into the world. The Germans were given the chance of blundering and immortalising their stupidity once more on my account, and they still have just enough time to do it in. And have they fallen in with my plans? Admirably! my dear Germans. Allow me to congratulate you.
In reality two negations are involved in my title Immoralist. I first of all deny the type of man that has hitherto been regarded as the highest—the good, the kind, and the charitable; and I also deny that kind of morality which has become recognised and paramount as morality-in-itself—I speak of the morality of decadence, or, to use a still cruder term, Christian morality. I would agree to the second of the two negations being regarded as the more decisive, for, reckoned as a whole, the overestimation of goodness and kindness seems to me already a consequence of decadence, a symptom of weakness, and incompatible with any ascending and yea-saying life. Negation and annihilation are inseparable from a yea-saying attitude towards life. Let me halt for a moment at the question of the psychology of the good man. In order to appraise the value of a certain type of man, the cost of his maintenance must be calculated,—and the conditions of his existence must be known. The condition of the existence of the good is falsehood: or, otherwise expressed, the refusal at any price to see how reality is actually constituted. The refusal to see that this reality is not so constituted as always to be stimulating beneficent instincts, and still less, so as to suffer at all moments the intrusion of ignorant and good-natured hands. To consider distress of all kinds as an objection, as something which must be done away with, is the greatest nonsense on earth; generally speaking, it is nonsense of the most disastrous sort, fatal in its stupidity—almost as mad as the will to abolish bad weather, out of pity for the poor, so to speak. In the great economy of the whole universe, the terrors of reality (in the passions, in the desires, in the will to power) are incalculably more necessary than that form of petty happiness which is called "goodness"; it is even needful to practise leniency in order so much as to allow the latter a place at all, seeing that it is based upon a falsification of the instincts. I shall have an excellent opportunity of showing the incalculably calamitous consequences to the whole of history, of the credo of optimism, this monstrous offspring of the homines optimi. Zarathustra, the first who recognised that the optimist is just as degenerate as the pessimist, though perhaps more detrimental, says: "Good men never speak the truth. False shores and false harbours were ye taught by the good. In the lies of the good were ye born and bred. Through the good everything hath become false and crooked from the roots."
Fortunately the world is not built merely upon those instincts which would secure to the good-natured herd animal his paltry happiness. To desire everybody to become a "good man," "a gregarious animal," "a blue-eyed, benevolent, beautiful soul," or—as Herbert Spencer wished—a creature of altruism, would mean robbing existence of its greatest character, castrating man, and reducing humanity to a sort of wretched Chinadom. And this some have tried to do! It is precisely this that men called morality. In this sense Zarathustra calls "the good," now "the last men," and anon "the beginning of the end"; and above all, he considers them as the most detrimental kind of men, because they secure their existence at the cost of Truth and at the cost of the Future.
The problem that I set here is not what shall replace mankind in the order of living creatures (—man is an end—): but what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life, the most secure guarantee of the future.
This more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but always as a happy accident, as an exception, never as deliberately willed. Very often it has been precisely the most feared; hitherto it has been almost the terror of terrors;—and out of that terror the contrary type has been willed, cultivated and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick brute-man—the Christian....
Mankind surely does not represent an evolution toward a better or stronger or higher level, as progress is now understood. This “progress” is merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea. The European of today, in his essential worth, falls far below the European of the Renaissance; the process of evolution does not necessarily mean elevation, enhancement, strengthening.
True enough, it succeeds in isolated and individual cases in various parts of the earth and under the most widely different cultures, and in these cases a higher type certainly manifests itself; something which, compared to mankind in the mass, appears as a sort of superman. Such happy strokes of high success have always been possible, and will remain possible, perhaps, for all time to come. Even whole races, tribes and nations may occasionally represent such lucky accidents.
You killed the vibe bro
God forbid having to read an author on a literature board.
They are bad because I don't like them, thats it
>Genuine question: why is "slave morality" bad again? Are the poor, weak and non-powerful people supposed to just let themselves be trampled, fricked over and made to suffer by the powerful and not ever complain about it? The "plebs" are just supposed to suffer under the iron fist of the "nobility" and this isn't supposed to be wrong?
>There's something not quite right about this. Did neetzsche really mean that?
You are still thinking in Platonic realism as if there were a "Form of the Bad" or a "Form of the Good". From the Epicurean/nominalist perspective, there appears to be nothing like "moral causality" where "immoral causes" have "punishing effects", like physics.
>why is "slave morality" bad again?
Fundamentally, there appears to be no criterion for 'bad', unless we take Nietzsche's own view that power is good and impotence is bad - of course, even then, nominalistically, why power is good and impotence bad is entirely another question entirely. It's bad to the extent that it's based on realist dishonesty, but it is in fact very useful and good for persuading moral realists to your ends.
> Are the poor, weak and non-powerful people supposed to just let themselves be trampled, fricked over and made to suffer by the powerful and not ever complain about it?
If your own only means avoid trampling, getting fricked over is mere words reified, you're fricked anyways. Might as well become a Marxist-Leninist.
>The "plebs" are just supposed to suffer under the iron fist of the "nobility" and this isn't supposed to be wrong?
Again, you engage in moral realism. Where is the external, objective property of wrongness to adhere to? If the plebs wish to overcome suffering, they must fight!
>There's something not quite right about this. Did neetzsche really mean that?
Nietzsche was probably spooked himself.
But if the weak and the slaves wish for justice, they must realize mere words reified are not sufficient. They must be nominalists and become the new masters.
>>why is "slave morality" bad again?
>Fundamentally, there appears to be no criterion for 'bad', unless we take Nietzsche's own view that power is good and impotence is bad - of course, even then, nominalistically, why power is good and impotence bad is entirely another question entirely
Have you ever been in a position where you withhold your anger and your assertiveness, a situation where you feel like you should speak up and correct a wrong, but you feel to timid or scared or any other reason you don't dare to do it, so what you do instead is that you start acting out in passive aggressive ways against the person you are angry at? You try to sabotage them in underhanded ways and so on. Is that a pleasant state to be in? Is that healthy for you? Your psychology, your physiology , your self esteem? People usually feel really bad in situations like those.
best post ITT
>People usually feel really bad in situations like those.
Usually? What's so unusual about Stoiccuck and Christcuck slave morality contriving an imagined future revenge? Why would the mere word "bad" correspond to the real feeling of "badness", beyond description by words? What's so fundamentally sick about such cuck worldviews masochistically degrading people? Doesn't "badness" assume some sort of realism beyond nominalism?
Does fox-like behavior not exist in the Nietzschian world-view? Does any sort preference toward the future exist
>Might as well become a Marxist-Leninist.
Might as well become israeli since you're so interested into being a israelite
People use slave morality to push their claims when they have no power. When they become masters, this is forgotten. Both words and weapons are used to push agendas, even though words have very little causal power, only soft, persuasive power. Slave moral words have a might of their own.
You should stop being a israelite before you get bad case of gas.
Is israelitekishness bad, become they are "Other"? Or is it the wish there is some great Anti-israelite to stop this "Other" acting against your interests?
Why cling to moral realism when it is not advantageous?
You wouldn't control the media and culture and impose your views to justify yourself if you gain power, as more soft power?
nietzsche praises israelites the same way one praises a wienerroach for being able to survive a nuclear blast
>nietzsche praises israelites the same way one praises a wienerroach for being able to survive a nuclear blast
Is this bad merely because of aesthetics?
Nietzsche wanted to limit the amount of israelites in Germany
slave morality = white boi mentality
You see bbc thug ubermenschen fricked you sissy bois up real good, but when christ (who is a major cuck btw) came he demanded we black kangz stopped living in our lavish wayz. That meant no more rangz, chainz or gold, he told us to be humble. We killed that homie on god, fr but the rest of you sissies followed through.
Now we have this modern day situation where the black kangz are on the comeup again, you whitebois finna take the bbc again.
Nietzsche never really wrote for the people trapped in a slave morality. His works aren't "how-to" manuals for the common, average guy to Become The Thing That's Extolled. Nietzsche wrote for people who were already free spirits, and from a position of wisdom rather than superiority to those few free spirits in the world. It's a fundamental misapprehension to see the works of Nietzsche as a bog-standard, philistine 99 percenter. I say that not to reference economic class, of course — Nietzsche was himself essentially a pauper for most his life. Nietzsche wrote for the very exceptional few who bucked the yoke regardless of their social status. His atheism was a stab primarily at dogmatism, and the people who make their lives climbing abstract ladders derived therefrom. Slave morality is neither good nor bad. It just is. And it's probably yours.
Based actual reader
That's why he has the ubermensch to go beyond the class a and class b meme, and slave morality is bad because it's not master morality, it's really joker tier shit, Nietzsche is overrated and people don't understand their own minds. He's held in esteem because people are trolls.
The main takeaway is that building your morality on resentment is a bad idea because whatever worked on the past won't hold up later. Master morality is blunt but to the point.
It was just like that before democracy struck.
Yes, yes, and yes. Look up Aristotle on slavery.
Nietzsche never got over his seething resentment at le philosophers to recognize that Aristotle was basically right about everything.
Ignore Neetzschecucks. Don’t legitimate the thought of this moron by responding to it.
>Are the poor, weak and non-powerful people supposed to just let themselves be trampled, fricked over and made to suffer by the powerful and not ever complain about it?
If the poor and weak are able to do otherwise, to trample on the rich and powerful, then how are they poor and weak?
>t. seething resentful slave
>nooo you have to accept being a slave !!
Slave morality is self-defeating and self-destructive. The most moral thing a slave-moralist can do is become a martyr. You don't seem to understand what slave morality is, because you say this:
> Are the poor, weak and non-powerful people supposed to just let themselves be trampled, fricked over and made to suffer by the powerful and not ever complain about it?
Yes, according to slave morality. That is the entire premise of slave morality: that being poor, weak, and powerless and then getting trampled, fricked over, and made to suffer is itself moral.
What makes slave morality so noxious is that basically nobody actually believes that, so it results in a lot of hypocrisy. You end up with the people in power telling the people getting stepped on "well, at least you've got the moral high ground. I mean sure, I may have all the money and power, but God likes you more and I'm going to Hell after a long life of luxury, while you'll go to Heaven after a short, miserable life as my slave."
The plebs are going to suffer under the iron fist of nobility whether the nobility embraces master morality or slave morality. The only real difference is whether you prefer the guy with power over you to be honest or a total hypocritical douchebag about it.
And then there's the possibility of the superman, who is beyond good and evil, master and slave.
The “slave-master morality” dichotomy is complete bullshit with no basis in reality.
I think Nietzsche was a loser tbh Once I realized that I stopped caring what he wrote at all.
Because it allows people to believe their power lies in suffering, that suffering makes them blameless, and that by being victims they could never have responsibility for the things they do, and so they can divert all consequences and responsibilities for their actions to a higher power, and externalise their own will onto others.
Victim complexes, crybullies, Nazis, and so on are all results of slave morality. They think by claiming the world, everyone else, the israelites, or some other spiritual suffering is out to get them that it doesn't matter they are lashing out and burning bodies in the street; they think it makes them pure and blameless and their actions the fault of others', whether they're really under any external influence or just imagining they are because it's more convenient to them than owning their own bullshit.
the problem is that slave morality is dishonest. instead of admitting they are envious of the masters and that they want to be like them - want to be as strong and beautiful as them, etc. - they instead tell themselves that having these qualities of superiority is inherently evil and that equality is a higher ideal
no, the plebs are not supposed to just take it. but they should strive to be more like what they admire instead of letting their envy stew into resentment.
>they should strive to be more
No one can do such a thing. A slave is a slave and a master is a master by blood, just like Theognis wrote, Nietzsche's original mentor on the subject.
>itt: Neo serfs who don’t even own their own house larping as master morality ubermensch
digits prove it
Nietzche was evil. Anybody who does a postmodern take about how there is "no good or evil" is defending evil or the capability of doing evil to others for their own self benefit. His ideology is about enslaving and hurting everyone else in order to elevate yourself as an individual.
It's weird how the far right is going on this recent tirade against transhuman but continues to praise Nietszche.
>It's weird how the far right is going on this recent tirade against transhuman but continues to praise Nietszche.
I'll let you in on a secret - anyone of any ideological persuasion whatsoever can praise Nietzsche and fit his words into any number of wildly varying systems of thought, because the truth is that Nietzsche was a fricking barely coherent rambling lunatic like 90% of the time and what the vast majority of people are thinking about when they claim to "like" Nietzsche are the very rare moments where he approaches lucidity in his writings as opposed to veering off into nonsensical crackhead tangents, flatly asserting delusional shit that he made up in his head without evidence, or calling random people names and accusing them of being israelites unprompted like a disheveled junkie in an alleyway
Most of what's actually interesting about Nietzsche is how others respond to him; the man himself produced an occasional nugget of poetic wisdom amidst pages upon pages of unintelligible babbling
>meds
Stopped reading there
transhumanism is basic b***h humanitarian utopianism
I'm late to the thread and can't be bothered to read it all but I don't think master and slave morality is meant i a good-bad dichotomy. I wouldn't even say it's either this or that exclusively in a person or group or whatever. I'd say that for example a person is a constant battleground of both. Slave morality has it's uses even though master morality is in most cases the "better" option.
The point is not that slave morality is "bad". The point is that it's just the reality of the world.
It's not that they're "supposed" to do anything. They can't help it more or less. That's what makes them slaves in the first place.
If you are strong you cannot simply will a weak person to become strong like you. You can help maybe but ultimately it's determined by their own capabilities. And so at some point the strong have no other course but to leave the weak behind.
Maybe try reading books before shitting your misunderstandings and moralisms all over the place
>Genuine question: why is "slave morality" bad again?
It is the difference between slavish resignation, and charitable servitude.
>"Carefree"? Yes, I care for free.