📹 Nietzsche on Morality
Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas. Today they will be looking into Friedrich …
Why does Nietzsche think art is important?
Nietzsche viewed art as the highest form of self-expression and considered artists to be noble and revered citizens. He argued that artists demonstrated high autonomy and rejected moral obedience and societal norms. He described artists as true rebels who rejected conventions and followed their own path, leading to an unexpected new future. Nietzsche was critical of societal conformity and supported individual agency and personal freedom.
These attitudes inspired a wide range of artists, offering legitimacy for their unconventional and challenging life choices. Influenced by these ideas, artists like Leon Spilliaert, Symbolist painter, created atmospheric, individualist paintings in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
What is Nietzsche’s master morality based on?
In Nietzsche’s view, Master morality is a form of selfish individualism that values strength, courage, power, and freedom. It is a ‘yes-saying’ attitude that affirms life and the self. Nietzsche believed that all established morality was flawed and that morality must be transcended to respond to a more authentic and esoteric form of morals. He distinguishes between Master and Slave moralities, analyzing them as a medical doctor would diagnose correlated pathologies.
Master morality is a form of selfish individualism that focuses on dominance, with indicators of moral value such as victory, wealth, virility, social esteem, and recognized outcomes of physical or mental strength. Winning is everything and losing is unthinkable, as winning/losing determines moral worth. Donald Trump is an example of someone instilled with Master morality, but it is a common moral worldview that attracts many people who see his overblown’masterism’ reflected in their self-image.
Slave morality is a form of communalism that focuses on virtuousness, with indicators of moral value such as kindness, selflessness, restraint, humility, and cooperativeness. Moral worth is determined by one’s ‘Goodness’, with Mother Teresa being an iconic example.
What are the types of morality according to Nietzsche?
Nietzsche’s theory of morality consists of two main types: master morality and slave morality. Master morality refers to the self-designation of aristocratic classes, focusing on “good” as synonymous with nobility and powerful things. In slave morality, “good” is interpreted as the antithesis of the original aristocratic “good”, which is referred to as “evil”. This inversion of values arises from the ressentiment felt by the weak towards the powerful.
Nietzsche believes that morality is inseparable from the culture it values, and each culture’s language, codes, practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two moral structures. He criticizes the view that good is everything that is helpful and bad is everything that is harmful, arguing that this view is based on habit and has forgotten its origins. For strong-willed individuals, “good” is the noble, strong, and powerful, while “bad” is the weak, cowardly, timid, and petty.
What did Nietzsche say about creativity?
Nietzsche’s spiritual philosophy emphasizes the unity of human beings through feelings of awe and pain. He believes that we all, as artists, must strive to create beautiful lives despite hardships. He emphasizes the importance of cultural health, balancing the Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of life. Despite fear and pity, we are happy living beings united by our creative joy. Through art and life, we witness the transformative power of emotions and passion, highlighting the transformative power of emotions.
What does philosophy say about creativity?
Creativity, a significant topic in philosophy, has been studied by prominent figures throughout history. Some scholars believe that the abstract noun for creativity did not appear until the nineteenth century, but the phenomenon existed and many philosophers took an interest in it.
Plato, Aristotle, Margaret Cavendish, and Emile du Châtelet were among the philosophers who championed the creative use of the imagination to pursue freedom, overcome prejudice, and cultivate natural abilities despite social and political oppression. Immanuel Kant conceived artistic genius as an innate capacity to produce original works through the free play of the imagination, a process that is neither learned nor taught and is mysterious even to geniuses themselves.
Schopenhauer stressed that the greatest artists are distinguished not only by their technical skill but also by their capacity to “lose themselves” in the experience of what is beautiful and sublime. Friedrich Nietzsche argued that the greatest feats of creativity were born out of a rare cooperation between the “Dionysian” spirit of ecstatic intoxication and the “Apollonian” spirit of sober restraint. William James theorized about creative genius exerting the causal power to change the course of history.
In summary, creativity has been a significant topic in Western philosophy, with various philosophers exploring its significance and potential.
What does Nietzsche think about reason?
Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the standard view of reason, which advocates for unsoiled knowledge or “immaculate perception”, which views reason as pure theory, viewing, and contemplation of the being. Nietzsche argued that reason does something different, schematizing and reshaping things as lies. He argued that reason is the cause of our falsification of the evidence of the senses, and that we cover up the singularity and variability of phenomena by means of fictive generality and constancy.
This perspective on reason is worth considering, as it challenges the dogma of unsoiled knowledge and the idea that reason is merely a tool for cognizing things. Nietzsche’s “restored reason” perspective offers a more nuanced understanding of reason, challenging the traditional view that reason is merely a tool for cognition.
Why did Nietzsche reject morality?
Nietzsche’s critique of morality is not based on unsubstantiated claims; rather, it is grounded in the notion that morality is a hindrance to the growth and evolution of European society. He rejects the notion that morality is inherently negative, akin to a vice.
How does Nietzsche explain the origin of morality?
Nietzsche postulates that individuals who are prosperous and free have developed morality through their inherent goodness, whereas those who lack prosperity are attributed with bad morality.
What is the paradox of creativity?
The paradox of creativity suggests that creativity has evolved and is collectively regulated within the human species due to adaptive reasons. This concept is explored in a detailed text about ScienceDirect, which uses cookies and holds copyright for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. The text also mentions the Creative Commons licensing terms for open access content.
What is Nietzsche’s inversion of morality?
In his “First Treatise”, Nietzsche argues that the two opposites “good/evil” and “good/bad” have different origins and that the word “good” represents two opposing meanings. In the aristocratic way of thinking, “good” is synonymous with nobility and powerful actions, while “bad” refers to the common or “low” and their qualities and values. In the “good/evil” distinction, Nietzsche calls it “slave morality”, the meaning of “good” is re-labelled “evil”, resulting from the ressentiment felt by the weak towards the powerful.
Nietzsche criticizes English psychologists for lacking historical sense in explaining altruism, arguing that the judgment “good” originates not with the beneficiaries of altruistic actions but with the powerful themselves. He sees it as psychologically absurd that altruism derives from a utility that is forgotten, and that meaningless value judgment gains currency through expectations shaping consciousness.
Nietzsche also suggests that the priestly mode of valuation, which develops into its opposite, is fueled by longstanding confrontation between the priestly caste and the warrior caste. This confrontation leads to a deep hatred for the powerful, leading to the slave revolt in morality, which begins with Judaism and continues through the Roman Empire.
📹 Nietzsche’s Most Controversial Idea | Beyond Good and Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche was in a constant state of revolutionising philosophy. It seems that every book he wrote was a new frontier for …
The script to this article is part of the Philosophy Vibe – Ethics eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe4 For an overview and introduction to Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology paperback set, available worldwide on Amazon: Volume 1 – Philosophy of Religion mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1 Volume 2 – Metaphysics mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2 Volume 3 – Ethics and Political Philosophy mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
Numerous errors: the most important are: 1. Master morality is not defined by what benefits the master, but by the characteristics of the master – truth, bravery, activity, self-reliance; 2. Will to power is the drive to be the person you are, not a desire to dominate others; 3. The idea of a mixture of characteristics shows a fundamental misunderstanding. One cannot be both liberated and motivated by ressentiment. There is no middle ground between the übermensch and the last man. Like satori, one is either enlightened or not.
What this article gets wrong is characterizing actions as either acknowledging and furthering the will to power or not when Nietzsche believes all actions are a will to power even if some are less straightforward or obvious. The slave themselves want what the master has so by making the master feel guilt or shame the slave is exercising their power on the master.
Perhaps Nietzsche would counter the sore throat guy by asserting that the masters occasionally indulge in displaying ‘slave morality’ not out of compassion or a sense of duty, but only to placate the weak and poor to avert the possibility of a revolt and thus reinforcing and perpetuating their privilege.
Hi guys, I really like your articles, every one of them. Nice criticism you made here of Nietzsche’s morality, and I can see what you mean. I just red “Beyond good and evil” and it is true, describing the world as he sees it, he does it a lot in this kind of dualism, strong or weak, master or slave. And throughout the book he really pushes the reader to be willing to become a master, to revolt against slave morality. But talking precisely about real existing/existed morality he writes that there are two FUNDAMENTAL moralities, master and slave morality, but that “in every superior or hybrid society it’s clear that it has been tried to mediate between these two moralities, and most of the time, to mix one into the other (…) – even in the same man, even in the same soul” . So he knew that standing between the two was possible, he’s only trying to describe morality HISTORICALLY, I suppose – and what for him is the best attitude is the most NATURAL one (everybody was looking for the essence back then), the one that a wild human beast would follow – will to power, so master morality. Since I think you guys are cool and I like your articles I thought to share what I red. Keep uploading!! xx
I don’t think Nietzsche ever said it was black or white, yes a rich person can be a Christian but what you never seem to take into account is that Nietzsche doesn’t believe in freewill, so if a rich person was descended from slaves he has probably had their morals passed down to him generationally it’s not necessarily going to be something the rich person has the power to change. The way I interpret Nietzsche is he wants us to go through challenges and adventures which change us with the belief that the more experiences you go through the more adaptable you become to the world around you. The will to power is not only about obtaining power, it is also about using power or making expressions of power, when a artist paints a fantastic painting that is an expression of power, the artist is showing off how skilled they are, when a rich person sleeps with multiple people that is a expression of power because they are showing that they are able to act in a way that most cannot. Nietzsche did talk about how the masters showed pity towards people, he actually believed pity was acceptable in these cases because the elite where using pity as a expression of power. Another big problem is that a master and a rich person are not necessarily the same to Nietzsche, being good with money being able to manipulate money is not something Nietzsche would see as a master trait. That is more closer to Ayn Rands belief, Nietzsche was not in favour of capitalism.
Hi guys, My compliments on the article. However, I don’t think Nietzsche’s theory about slave morality is that simple. Nietzsche wasn’t saying that who’s rich is master morality and who’s poor is slave morality, but it is more about collective conditioning. You spoke about black and white, and, yes, Nietzsche likes to be strong in his opinion and creates contrasts. But who’s rich can still be a slave and who lives humble a master. Let’s see why. Let’s take as an example a wealthy man that considers himself a Christian, as you said. That man can be either a master or a slave, it depends on how he sees the world. It depends on how he faces life, on if he takes risks and questions all the morals, including Christianity. Maybe that man didn’t get rich challenging himself every day, thinks he’s Christian, but in the act, he’s selfish, or doesn’t want to think much about it and just joined a collective thought. Most of the time people lie to themselves first. Sometimes they feel obliged by practicing, as you said, celibacy. I don’t think in the first instance practicing celibacy because of a God is master morality, it wouldn’t be even considered at that point. But practicing celibacy to challenge your capacities maybe could be considered like that. Nietzsche preached the hymn to life and urged young people not to follow without wondering and create rather than follow. A man with enough food and shelter, who chooses to live a life that is less conditioned by money, can still be a master.
I must say I do not agree with the black/white criticism. I do not feel Nietzsche is looking at it in a simplistic manner. Day and night are moving into one another gradually, causing countless states of ‘gray’ but at the same time they are still 2 distinct entities. Likewise, although every relationship has a different measurement/dynamic in terms of authority, one is always master to a slave or slave to a master, in any relationship. If you put 2 entities together one will be stronger than the other. You mentioned that some Christians may be less prone to slave morality and some non-Christians maybe prone to slave morality. Nietzsche is not disputing this. Nietzsche is not talking about labels but about mental dynamics. Christian ethics as expounded by St Paul are per-say slave ethics. I can have master ethics and call myself a Christian, but in that case I am not imbued with St-Paul ethics, but with some other brand of Christian – or other – ethics. Although I still need to meet the first citizen of a culture that adheres or used to adhere to a monotheist religion or was dominated by it through colonization, who does not unconsciously lives according some form of slave ethics. Nietzsche uses simple, coarse, terms to describe a very subtle reality. I also have to add that in essence all of us adhere to master ethics, by birth. Slave ethics is a dis-formed,, unconscious, concealed version of the natural ethics of mankind which is just the same driven by the will to power, but inefficient, unsuccessful and creating mental suffering and impotency and actually enabling a few masters to manipulate and subdue everybody else.
I have similar ideas as neitzche, but I agree his way of thinking is black and white. There is something to say about caring about others. Unfortunately, having compassion and empathy is useless with out the power to act upon it. Compassion gives purpose to power and power gives capability to compassion.
The master and slave morality have a different interpretation of the word better. A person can be strong, powerful well off (master morality good) and still assert the slave interpretation of better, and while they can achieve status and well being in society promoting these values, they are, when the big picture is considered, on a path to nowhere. A person can be both ambitious and humble? Of course, but they can’t both be prideful and humble. That would be hypocrisy, and when they try to assert themselves as good, of the first rank, not of the popular moral good, they will get cut down. They are only allowed to further the vindictive poison of the herd which lowers the entire group. Trying to bring up everyone and yourself is really exactly what Nietzsche’s writings are trying to achieve. A lot of red herrings and mental gymnastics are going on in the last part. Kind of missing a key point of the philosophy, the fact this is the exact danger of the slave morality, is only when it corrupts strong individuals and stops humanity from reaching its full potential. His philosophy is dedicated toward the strong and optimistic in shedding the values that are of no use, humility, Christian values, giving to the downtrodden because they are downtrodden (not the same as giving to a downtrodden person because you believe you can better their situation and see good in them, that the master morality would see in themselves. The giving is not driven by sympathy with failure.) The fact that a philosopher who has such deep insights into ourselves and our psychology, the correct origin of our moral values, the ones that have been for the most part unquestioningly digested by great masses of people for millenniums and then gets called a black and white thinker is the exact reason many of us can’t hold up your definition of good and feel any sense of justice.
The will to power is using morality for the greatest possible good for both the individual and the world at large. Paradoxically it becomes black and white in application by default of being the will to power.Relatively it is not black and white but simply the application of energy and power to acquire more power. So yes it is a combination of virtue, vice,positive and negative values with specific results in mind.
The problem is that christianism is not about being weak, you’re only good if you have the option to be bad and decide not to do so when it’s not necessary. Christ could have been the emperor of the world if he would have wanted so, if you are powerful is easier to be a tyrant, if you are powerful it’s hard to continue being powerful without being a tyrant. You cannot say that Christianism is based on the idea of weakness (even when some people want to see morality in their weakness) because Christianism is full of stoic ideas, few people can be stronger than a stoic.
I have never been so digested at perusal this article, that agreeing thing in the background mademe want to shout. And the final argument against Nietzsche morality, made me throw up. Firstly anything can be black and white take negative and positive number, differ by magnitudes. Secondly all moralities start as a master morality(for the master have the confidence to begin one, to posit new values as Nietzsche calls it).And then as a result, master morality becomes slave morality, there is no in between, only the strength one believes in a morality
Ure amazing thank you. I want to ask ..what ABT those in the middle..like religious ppl in power…those who seem seperated from the masters and seem close to the herd…they own the power of masters but they also are envy proof from the herd…do they take same stand of political oppressive power or are they seen in a different light…since they are seen virtuous while they actually exercise their power and enjoy riches in the dark but still get to keep status quo especially in thrild world countries for example..did nirtzche include those in the masters?
Just a quick comment on those that are in positions of power but demonstrate slavish virtues. N addresses these people in the first treatise of the genealogy of morality – they are nobles with a higher sense of purity – the priests who founded Christianity. N believes that all of our actions are at least partly egoistic. Hence, powerful people doing ‘virtuous’ deeds are doing so with partly selfish intentions based on a misconception of morality.
I have never been so disgusted at perusal this article, that agreeing thing in the background made me want to shout. And the final argument against Nietzsche morality, made me throw up. Firstly anything can be black and white take negative and positive numbers, differ instead by magnitudes. Secondly all moralities start as a master morality(for the master have the confidence to begin one, to posit new values as Nietzsche calls it).And then as a result, master morality becomes slave morality, there is no in between, only the strength one believes in a morality. And to even have the audacity to say such a petty argument against one of the most influential philosophers of all time, is disgusting to be on a philosophical chanel. How dare you already misinterpret a already misinterpreted man.
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at [email protected]. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7 CORRECTIONS: I want to clarify that I was re-using Nietzsche’s own “philosophising with a hammer” analogy to emphasise a part of his philosophy but that is not what he meant by it. He meant it as in a “tuning” hammer to find the truth of a matter. I should have been clearer about this and sorry for any confusion caused.
This was eye opening. I feel like I received free therapy. I grew up in a very religious household. I thought I had broken free from the dogma by no longer believing, but I come to realise that a lot of my values are still shaped by what I’ve just learned is called “slave morality”. I often feel the examples of resentfulness that was mentioned. I half jokingly think that if I could go back to my believing self, it might be easier, but I cannot force my mind to believe. I’ve listened to a lot of essays on Nietzsche before, but this stood out to me. Thank you for what you’re doing.
Weakness is not a virtue, only the strong can be virtuous. A rabbit is not a moral creature because it is too weak to do harm, but a wolf that does not attack is because it is capable of harm and chooses not too. It’s an idea Nietzsche nailed, as those with a choice can be moral and those without a choice are not.
I have read some of Nietzsche & I think that the ideas of self-overcoming, ressentiment, eternal recurrence, life affirmation, showing strength against suffering are the key takeaways. I take it that he wanted us to examine our preconceived notions of morality and wanted his readers to choose their own moral system and not take even him at face value and adopt his moral system. (see his quote on the highest feeling) I cannot fully agree with his assertion that “good (traditional)” is always a reaction against “powerful”. Are all forms of “goodness” a hateful reaction against “powerful”? Sometimes people are kind because it “feels great” to be kind. Sometimes people do good things because they derive a source of meaning from doing it. Was “meaning” as an idea developed during that time? Also his text can be easily interpreted by someone as advocating for master morality (or something close to it), as was used by his sister in the Nazi Germany. This leads to “survival of the fittest” and “removal of the weak”, you can imagine what follows after that. Still my reading has been superficial so maybe he meant something else.
I think a large portion of what people take away from Nietzsche is a kind of petition for a Machiavellian power fantasy, yet Nietzsche himself lived no such life. So he is either promoting an idea which he doesn’t embody (a kind of moral projection similar to the “moral man”) or rather he is showing the other side of a coin of thinking about morality which is the interpretation I think holds more water. In his Dionysian kind of way, Nietzsche is getting closer to the “truth” of how we create morality and revealing the kind of pre-existing divine rulebook that religions like Christianity used to control people as what it is, a rulebook made by weak men to exploit the weaknesses of others. The embodied morality is the actual correct one, and the philosophized morality is quite meaningless and un-moral which is the truth Nietzsche points out. This is abundantly made clear in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and I think without reading this one cannot really understand what Nietzsche was trying to convey in his earlier works. Which is why his ideas actually line up more with Kierkegaard, because his propositions are only valid when embodied, not merely philosophized. This is the “beyond labels” which he was trying to show to others, it is not literally beyond good and evil, but beyond the conventional boxes used to label people in a strictly dualistic, weakening sense.
I had a full circle moment perusal this. I was raised Catholic, but rejected all religion. I noticed that my parents promoted a moral system that could not survive first contact with the world beyond our door. I also noticed that nothing good ever happened to a sheep. Nice work. This helped me. Thank you.
This is entirely symbolized in the very first chapters of Thus Spoke Zarathoustra: A Camel, A Lion and A Child. To be like a Camel is to be dominated and submissive to a state of reality or system of moral, to be, figuratively, at the bottom. To be a Lion is to be at the top: having seized the power this system encourages and allows. To be a Child is to be free of the system entirely; acting without constraits, acting beyond good and evil.
I studied philosophy at St Andrews and specialized in German 19th century metaphysics. Your summary is very good….back when I studied there was no youtube or Wikipedia to take shortcuts we had to read thousands of books and understand synthesize the ideas. I wonder what it is like to study today when you can absorb phenomenal quantities of information in very short periods of time. I submit that reading is a more active activity than listening to oral presentations.
I’m quite new to this website, can’t lie I love your content and your formal voice that I could listen for hours. Lately I’ve been interested in philosophy and read some books of different ideologies. Find interesting how everyone projects the meaning of life or human life in very different ways. Apart from this, keep it up!
I felt personally attacked at some point when you talked about the unfulfilling desire that leads to resentment, i ve always thought that accepting the outcome of never being great or just “not grabbing the grape” is the best thing a person can do in the face of incompetence, or misfortune, but you highlighted a great point that might be that that acceptance is less painful than facing the truth. But in the long run I don’t see blaming yourself is gonna do any good, so acceptance is still favorable. A mediocre life is not that bad if you spend some time to think of it, that’s why i refuse Nietzsche’s concept to the will of power as the best way to build your life around. Monotony is as important in one’s life as excitement. Comparing a mediocre person to Dostoevsky underground man is a bit extreme, but i got the idea beautiful, me always wishing and fantasying with no actions will get me anywhere, and might i add that those wishes will eventually lay ground for not only a boring life but painful life also. Keep it man, love your articles! ❤️
Great article! I first read Nietzsche in college, ages ago. Recently re-read him, and I feel like he speaks to me even more now that I’m in my 40s. The Master Morality vs. Slave Morality thing repels many readers, which is unfortunate, as Nietzsche wasn’t endorsing one over the other–in fact, he said the two often coexist in the same person. By all accounts, Nietzsche himself was a polite, soft-spoken, gentle guy. He would’ve been a very interesting person to have a conversation with.
Awesome and inspirational article. Please keep making them. Nietzsche’s amazing brilliance & insight has stood the test of time. At the individual level, it’s great for when you’re young and have the luxury of time to be optimistic. But when you get a bit older, it becomes easier to see the problematic issues with his ideas. Personally, Nietzsche’s bombastic style and inspirational rhetoric gave way to Camus’ defiant rebellion in the face of hopelessness. But without first taking the Existentialist train as far as it can go, and riding until it goes off the rails, I think it’s very hard to accept Camus’ resignation to the world.
Love this explanation. Studying analytical Philosophy at Uni, but I’ve recently become enamoured by Nietzsche’s approach and ideas which have made me rethink all the presuppositions from childhood that have been holding me back. Keep up the great articles!! P.S. do you have a social media to follow 🙂 ?
You know, the more self-centered I am, and the more concerned I am with my own interests, the more miserable I feel. But when I begin to shift my focus onto helping others, my problems seem more and more insignificant. I worry that Nietzsche’s ideas can (and perhaps have already) lead to a society of narcissism.
Nietzsche gets transported back in time to the Late Roman Empire, during a particularly bloody barbarian invasion Upon seeing the slaughter and destruction surrounding him, he exclaims to the invading force: “I TAKE NO MORAL ISSUE WITH YOUR ACTIONS!” “YOU ARE PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN EXERTING YOUR WILL UPON THOSE WHOM CANNOT STOP YOU!” “RAPE AND SENSELESS KILLING IS ABSOLUTELY FINE AS LONG AS YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE!” “THESE PEOPLE ARE GETTING EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO STOP YOU, AS THEY FOLLOW THE DECAYING MORTALITY OF SLAVES!” Nietzsche gets captured and enslaved “BUT I AM AN UBERMENSCH, NOOOOOOOOOO”
I’ve noticed the weak fear the consequences of action, whereas the powerful feel avarice towards the consequences of their actions. They feel excitement when contemplating the same actions that make the weak afraid to even consider. I grew up poor and indoctrinated in the beliefs of slave morality. But I never wanted that, made millions, then the same people that loved me when I was young and broke demonized me after I was rich. I thought they would be happy for me, but that experience was my awakening. I talked about how to gain power and to them, that was basically evil.
The chapter What is Noble still is one of the most powerfull things I have ever read. Pissed me off at first but now that I am older and have seen many things and met many people he seems to be right. He gets much deeper into this topic in the first essay of his next book “On the Geneology of Morality.”
In ancient times people defined the line between good and evil as those who “transgressed” aka (those who go beyond the limit/line or those who have no limits or those who do not love and treat their neighbour as themselves) aka the hypocrites who don’t care how many eggs they break to make an omelette but get morally outraged if someone breaks their egg.
As much as I love Nietzsche’s work, you have to wonder how much of it was a product his own psychological and emotional turmoil. He boasts about power and exceptionalism when he was anything but those things. For all intents and purposes, he was a failure while he was alive. None of his work caught on to the masses, his beloved left him for someone else, and he spent the last decade catatonic under the care of his Nazi loving sister. You can get this sense in Kafka’s work as well; a prisoner of circumstance, coming from an unassuming man who was deemed a failure by his overbearing father.
Ayn Rand is often accused of being simply a rehash of Nietzsche (eg the Partially Examined Life podcast) But she has a recommendation I find persuasive: the alternative to both master and slave morality is trader morality That is, pursuit of one’s own well-being via reason and cooperation rather than force and domination
In my experience exercising strenght without restraint will only lead to regret. When pushing yourself to your limits you may find you never wanted to know. On the other hand anyone who has strength to do good should use it. Just because i only found pain and suffering on my journey doesnt mean you will to.
I don’t know why but Nietzsche’s idea of only two moral systems and vast simplification of religious systems of morality has always given me this strong feeling of disagreement. I am not a learned person so it always feels like I have no sword to swing in this battle or way to properly put together a thought. Me largest criticism of this idea of developed slave morality being bad and should be re placed with a master mindset or moral system is the thought of a rat king or similar story. Pure will and strength without alignment is like a circle of rats with their tails tied together and them all striving to pull as hard as they can in the direction that benefits them individually most, what happens is their tails tie together harder and they collectively fail. The end normally for this is the last rats living fight and kill and eat each other. I think that in a sense if left to vacuum Nietzsche argument/principle leads to. Every one should be as dominant as possible but work together, a many headed dragon struggles. I have been in teams where that has been the mind set and it does not result in a more dominant group compared to others but a group which oversteps unto itself. This is one of my biggest problems I have many more but those topics were not touched apron in this article so I won’t mention them. Ps if you read the whole thing thanks
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🤔 Nietzsche challenges conventional notions of right and wrong, good and evil, and questions their validity. 00:27 🧐 Nietzsche’s views on morality are radical and deserve consideration beyond being associated with rebellious teenagers. 02:05 💪 Nietzsche distinguishes between Master morality (valuing strength, competence, and dominance) and Slave morality (valuing submission and obedience). 03:42 🌍 Nietzsche suggests that Christianity embodies Slave morality, demonizing strength and dominance in favor of passivity and submission. 04:40 🌟 Nietzsche introduces the concept of the “will to power,” the drive to dominate and reshape the world. 07:13 🚀 Nietzsche argues that fearing power suppresses the potential for individuals and societies to achieve greatness. 08:08 😓 Slave morality, according to Nietzsche, can lead to misery as it suppresses the natural human desire for power and achievement. 11:10 😇 Nietzsche critiques moral individuals who impose their moral values on others, accusing them of fundamental dishonesty. 12:50 🤯 Nietzsche’s analysis challenges traditional philosophical views and encourages reevaluating our fundamental concepts of good and evil. 15:08 🤔 Nietzsche emphasizes the freedom to question and alter our values, encouraging a life-affirming engagement with the world. Made with HARPA AI
The thing about resentment and replacing grapes with something else hit home with me. For me, replace grapes with women and you have the whole spiral of resentment of not having a girlfriend that I ended up justifying not needing one. The result being I’m in my late 20’s and still don’t know how to talk to them. I’m going to need to get some of these books by Nietzsche and start figuring these things out
What Nietzsche didn’t realize is that he was looking at two corrupted systems. What he calls the Master morality is more of a Dominator morality, which creates the Slave morality. True Master morality is one where, through perseverance and strength, one finds a better path. That reguarldess of there strength to dominate chooses to not and instead lead others to do the same. As well as in spite of others trying to dominate to show they are right, to show them mercy that there is a better way. Not only might makes right, but strong enough to be gentle. This would lead to the Apprentice morality, where the strong lift up the weak to be as strong as them to continue where they left off. On top of this, the Apprentice morality is independent of the Master morality, the the fact that one can choose the hard way to find the better path, and test it against other masters. For while there is an ultimate path to take, the path leading there will often run parallel or even intersect on the way
I agree altough I think only the truly strong can love their enemies, but many people arent that strong so they love their enemies out of weakness. The strong person loves enemies for the challange but also for the difficulty in altough not forgiving them but making sure they can never be an enemy of anyone including themselves ever again.
Nietzsche was psychopath and built twisted excuses for antisocial fascist bullying behavior, strength not only does not require subjugating others or those other things that cause harm, but believing strength does have these things shows the internal weakness, those that desire power over others, do so because of their fear that they themselves are weak, so like the bullies they are they inevitably are compelled to wield power over others, like the idea that you have to step on others to be better than them as though it is a zero-sum game in an oversimplified world of masters and slaves, internally they feel this proves their “strength”, and they only value that supposed “strength”, when this just displays that internal weakness. It is clear that he had a fear of weakness, and even the appearance of it, when the reality is that everyone has weaknesses and strengths, and those that cannot accept and work on their weaknesses will fear them and make excuses for the behaviors caused by them, that was Nietzsche. People like him and Ayn Rand were psychopaths that seriously needed mental help. Let us state the obvious, you do NOT need to dominate others to have a satisfying and happy life, why would you have to rely on others, let alone your domination of them, in order to be happy, you DON’T, that is absurd. Advisory: If you laud the writings of people like Nietzsche or Ayn Rand, you should seriously consider psychoanalysis and therapy, as it is likely that you are drawn to these ideas because of fearful feelings of internal weakness and the excuses they provide for the want of domination.
So being Mafia is good. It embodies the perfect will to power. In Mafia culture weakness and mediocrity is for the dead people walking, and for the peasants who must “co-operate” or starve to death. Being Mafia forces you to cultivate your highest potential. You need to be highly efficient. You need to be smarter, more ruthless, more determined and better organized than the agents of slave morality (law enforcement) or you will fall prey to the slaves and end in their prison cells. Thank you, Freddie Nietzsche, for opening my eyes. (Did you find sarcasm here? Keep it for yourself.)
Nietzsche: “assumes the desire to be good is a sham.” So many people for no real reason: “brilliant. Philosophizing with a hammer. Destroys our notions of good and evil.” Ok, let me try: Nietzsche just wanted an excuse to justify doing whatever he wanted in a feeble effort to escape the feelings of guilt often associated with them. He was a shady coward who attacked the idea of good because moral constraints were getting in his way. Oh, see, I assumed the worst of his motivations and framed him as a loser with dishonest motives. Guess I must be philosophizing with a hammer and destroy Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals.
“I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.” – Napoleon
I’m quite certain that nature was an introvert. As a fellow introvert, I recognized his folly in not recognizing the intrinsic necessities that are necessary in order to be successful under a social community. If one were to have a society in which there is no socialization, then surely it would be the case that Nietzsche’s master and slave morality would be correct. I think it’s pretty obvious with recent social developments where the far left embody slave morality and the red pill embody Master morality that those who fail to socialize do indeed fall into this terrible dichotomy. When in a social situation, things follow much closer to the Bibles verse the meek shall inherit the earth for it is not those who violently take control who truly succeed in a social world, but rather those who are capable of doing so but choose instead to outreach their hand.
Perhaps Nietzsche would have a point if humans truly did operate in the way he claims they do, but we do not. Altruism from an evolutionary/survivalist standpoint is a more successful strategy, and it is the exact reason why democratic countries dominate the dictators – humans have a natural inclination towards cooperation, because it is effective. Selfish ambition leads to inevitable destruction. Another point is that Nietzsche has a very limited view on what is or isn’t worthy of admiration, such as greatness necessarily meaning success & the attainment of power – while many would see that spending times with those you love & care about to be the most fulfilling thing you can do in life. The research has been done, close bonds with other people tends to lead towards more happiness, it’s more a determining factor of happiness than power or wealth is.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:13 🚫 Nietzsche criticized traditional moral values such as sympathy and altruism as arbitrary and undesirable. 00:41 🔄 He believed that so-called “good” people are often dishonest about their motivations, being secretly resentful and liars. 01:37 🌍 Introduced the concept of “Master morality” vs. “Slave morality,” where the former is constructive and life-affirming, while the latter is resentful and life-denying. 02:32 ✊ Highlighted the importance of personal excellence and the will to power as central to human achievement and societal prosperity. 03:29 ⚖️ Argued that slave morality emerged as a reaction against master morality, valuing weakness and submission over strength and dominance. 04:11 ✝️ Claimed that Christianity is the pinnacle of slave morality, promoting values that demonize strength and celebrate passivity. 06:17 💪 Warned that fearing power and strength could lead to societal insignificance and individual mediocrity. 07:41 🚫 Discussed the negative consequences of a morality that fears power, suggesting it stifles exceptional individuals and societal progress. 09:30 🍇 Used the fable of the sour grapes to illustrate how slave morality creates internal conflict by demonizing natural human desires for power and achievement. 11:24 🎭 Criticized the moral person as fundamentally dishonest, using morality as a facade for their will to power. 14:01 🔄 Suggested that Nietzsche’s critique invites us to reconsider our values, potentially embracing strength and power as not inherently bad.
First of all thank you for this thought provoking summary of NIetzsche. I will try in turn to make some thought provoking observations : -Slave morality is far more likely, in my opinion, to be theorised and enforced by those in position of power, in an attempt to make the weaks resilient about their status and unwilling to pursue power. -All in all it makes me think aout “Atlas shrug” encouraging people to pursue power in spite of the consequences it has on other people life and equivoking solidarity and weakness, altruism and self-sacrifice -The potential for a group of individuals to strive is far more function of cooperation than competence of the individual. Thinking the contrary is forgetting than every historical character was part of group, by yourself you’ll accomplish nothing.
Nietzche says; “‘the miserable alone are the good; the poor, powerless, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly are also the only pious, the only blessed in God, for them alone is there blessednesss – whereas you, you noble and powerful ones, you are in all eternity the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless, you will eternally be the wretched, the accursed, the damned!'” thus nietzsche predicated that such morality would be the dominant form and would infect civilisation for ages to come. “While all noble morality grows from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says no to an ‘outside’, to an ‘other’, to a ‘non-self’: and this is its creative act. The reversal of the evaluating gaze – this necessary orientation outwards rather than inwards to the self – belongs characteristically to resentment. In order to exist at all, slave morality from the outset always needs an opposing, outer world; in physiological terms, it needs external stimuli in order to act – its action is fundamentally reaction. The opposite is the case with the aristocratic mode of evaluation: this acts and grows spontaneously, it only seeks out its antithesis in order to affirm itself more thankfully and more joyfully.”-On the Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche
While i don’t entirely agree with your definition of meek, and therefor Nietzsche’s perception of those, I must say that this was an interesting perspective and summary regarding Nietzesche’s fundamental ideas regarding morality and its applications. It’s astonishing how informative and thought through and thought provoking beyond good and evil is.
Let’s not confuse the ‘preferred social behavior’ that has enabled man, and so many other species survive through co-operative behaviors, with the ‘morality’ now professed by so many religious groups. The former was evolved and inherited after millions of years of struggle, after many species learned co-operative behavior was beneficial to themselves and the rest of their group to improve their chances of survival, over other species who were less co-operative. The latter religious morality is derived from our ‘evolved moral behavior’, and has expanded and mutated it beyond mere co-operative behavior, to become a proclamation of social practices that in many ways have little to do with improving our chances of survival. Philosophers like Nietzsche seem to form their own ‘philosophies’ while oblivious to the origins of our morality, and the beneficial effect it has had on our survival. I sympathize with their objections to many of the ‘moral values’ professed by religions as being in many cases harmful, man-created, and totally unnecessary to our well-being.
“our current moral system” Nietzsche philosophized on the history up to his point in time, the 1860’s Your dictum assumes nothing has changed since those times, or those times were much like our times now. Current? Are we still in that colonial world with thoughts on empires? It seems to me this can only be false. This idea of current is not static. Nietzsche presented many differing points of views in the characters he invented to voice his thoughts. He spoke to both leaders and the led, To the wise and the foolish. His works are open to interpretation, there for each to draw from it whatever idea supports his own views, his own perception of his times. His was a form of words to absolve the mind of notions like right and wrong. The world, post Nietzsche, has been affected by his philosophy, never more so than the schisms of the 1930’s. We’ve lived with, and it would seem, forgotten the extremes of that philosophy. The will to power, its vague egocentric idea of the uberman, might well summarise a force that thrives in nature, but we aren’t solely of nature. Unlike the rest of nature, we exist with a knowledge of the past, with a knowledge of our inherent flaws. with both memory and foreboding. Those other moralities were also founded on that same knowledge of humanity’s best and worst natures, those other moralities evolved as answers to old and reoccurring questions, to temper the worst of those natures. As modern as we claim to be we will always live in the shadow of our beastly natures.
From this article, and what I understand, it seems like there are only two types of people, the powerfully and dominating ones and the weak useless ones. That’s not how society and humans work though. We are social animals and live as complimentary tribes, each member of the pack providing their own value. Being good is respecting life (including other humans) and seeing the value in everyone. Not classifying people between useless and useful.
Nietzsche’s ideas on morality are pretty interesting, but him criticising mediocrity like this doesn’t seem productive. To me it sounds a lot like being regular is somehow not good enough, which by definition should lead to only a select few special individuals being able to obtain happiness. I may just be misunderstanding this tho…
What i took from most of his philosophy is that power, strength, will, essentially anything that is considered an advantage is, just like any tool or skill, completely neutral. It is not good or evil. With that knowledge i just come upon the conclusion that what you do with those tools is truly what dictates right and wrong. Should the concept of good and evil prove legit.
Funny enough reading Beyond Good and Evil lead me to Jesus. Through all the babble – Nietzsche is basically saying be your own God and follow your own will to power. Now read Genesis 3 and you will realise, mans will to power is the cause of suffering in the world. The first lie Satan told humanity. Genesis 3:4-5 – “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Read your Bibles people, it answers all important questions. Great article btw 🙏🏾
The thing is we have evidence of so called “slave morality” going back to the beginning of civilization. We have people praising fairness and altruism in Babylonia, Egypt, China and Greece way before Nieztche said slave morality arose. There may have been something like master morality among some individuals and groups like the viking and mongol warriors, but we have hardly any evidence of it as they didn’t for the most part leave written records. Perhaps instead of one following the other both have always existed side by side? As to Christianity being slave morality, I think this is a bit of a strawman. It may be true of some denominations such as the anabatists, but I doubt it’s true of more traditional Christianity such as catholicism and orthodoxy. Christ is the poor opressed man but he’s also the king of kings and judge over all. Christ fills up evey section of the hierarchy with meaning so that every man outcast and poor and wealthy and noble can say “christ was in a position similar to me” and act as christ would. Power, vitality and pleasure are not bad in themselves in Christianity but at worst things that can serve as distractions from higher goods like love and fairness. What Nieztche interprets as Christianity not adopting slave morality whole hog I interpret as Christianity being from the outset a combination or synthesis of slave and master morality. It seems to me that the real religion of slave morality was gnosticism. The gnostics believed that pleasure and the physical body were inherently evil and the soul was good and were condemned by the church.
if there is one thing i have learned from the elephants. is that power and kindness are NOT mutually exclusive. nietzche was a product of his time. and he reached in the right direction, but could never really go beyond the arbitrary dualistic distinction between master and slave morality. nuace and finesse was not his forte.
Having only been dominated by an organization with guns, actual excellence is obviated. Subjugation has always been most effectively avoided by dispersal. Mediocrity is illustrated here by sweeping overgeneralization and the presumption that the supposed excellent, strong, or other overgeneralized heuristic term, has, should, or will, be “followed.” Vision, for example is a specific sense, having nothing whatsoever to do with contrafactual ideations promoted and propagated among the submissive. If you feel fulfiled by submission, by all means, do the chimpanzee and baboon thing of placating those you erroneously imagine (more contrafactual ideation, but yours) as superior in some way useful to you. Machiavellian manipulation folows, but your lack of recognition of the EQUAL validity of ANY other individual organism. Niezsche was socially obsessed, which comp!etely diminishes actual excellence into social dominance orientation. Great benefit to humanity is exhibiting sufficient humility to avoid exploitation and dominance orientation. Philosophy, should it include narrow definitions of nonphysical nouns, which themselves should be questioned, as they are mere rhetoric, used and even devised to control others, is transparently meaningless due to its rhetorical intent. Prescription: remain attentive to exteroceptive senses, question your own interoceptive associations and your response. Question ALL others, whether they be grandiose narcissists, grandiose psychopaths, grandiose Machiavellians attempting to convince you to agree with meaningless nonfactual assertions.
People really would take any excuse to just not be a decent person. I believe Nietzsche was profoundly brilliant and I agree with him for the most part. Be mindful of where your morals come from, as well as who may face the effects of them. Mankind may or may not figure it out, but we as individuals absolutely can. No pressure. We don’t owe each other anything. We just owe it to ourselves 🙃
I’m pretty sure, if Christianity is connected to the slave morality in this way, it is a manifestation of the most refined embodiment of this perspective, to the point that it begins to transcend the problems of it. People forget easily to use Christ as a guide to what Christianity is about. While I can understand the tendency to favour the critique of the behaviour of real life Christians as evidence of what Chritianity truly is, (often failing to embody the spirit of Christ) I believe this is expecting the students to be the master. If Christians were already living in the spirit of Christ, there would be no need for Christianity, and so, there is no way around the issue, other than to hope a critic will actually understand the mechanics of what Christianity is apparently setting out to do.
I spent a lot of time agonizing over this, and I came to this halfway conclusion (a conclusion that is not the final one in itself, but is the one I will use before reaching the final one)I will only talk about the part of kindness, humility and compassion. Humans are a social creature, we need each other, from my point of view, this is where those qualities come from, but I won’t go too far into this,what I want to get at is that these qualities have a biological background,Therefore they are the actions that are right, they are the right qualities that we should all go for. Using logic, the “masters” do not have those characteristics, since if they did, they would not be the characteristics of the slave and that would prove that the characteristics have nothing to do with weakness. Therefore, it can be said that the owners are bad people, someone who is cruel, arrogant and not kind cannot be someone good. Weakness does not necessarily mean evil, just because someone is weak does not mean they are evil, and just because someone is not weak does not mean they are not evil. Therefore, I believe that it is preferable for someone to be weak than for that someone to be bad, because let’s say that Nietzsche was right and that weak people were going to make a mediocre world,But that world was going to be good, the world made by people without humility, compassion and kindness was going to be a cruel and unfair world, and something good will never be lower than something bad.
Does anyone actually think power is inherently bad though? I have a feeling that if my ask my very Christian grandparents they’d say “no” or “only in the wrong hands”. And how many rich and powerful people think murder is good or vice versa, how many powerless people? Yes they’d make variables and specifics sure, but they’d never outright say “Murder is good”. Good and Evil come from humans being social creatures, like wolves. Things that are seen as ‘evil’ damage the pack or your standing in it. Human consciousness has made this “Pack Morality” more complex, but that’s all it is when you boil it down.
There are many problems with Neitzsche’s view (and wilful misinterpretations of it). But the obvious one is that we can’t all be alpha-male (or female) chimps. Not even chimp society is sustainable with that model, let alone the human world. I suspect Neitzsche went crazy because he knew he was fundamentally wrong – but couldn’t put his finger on it. If he’d paid more attention to (and been less derisive of) religion he may have come up with a more nuanced understanding of the purpose of morality (i.e. the religious idea that human consciousness – that from which we derive morality – resides outside of ourselves).
Great breakdown brother! You have helped me understand Nietzsche and quite frankly I have tried to accept his philosophy in an intellectually challenging but accepting way. And the man is a consequence of his weird German imperialist colonialist white supremacist self I’m not surprised the nazis adopted his philosophy.
Great presentation.. I wish though that you mentioned one important aspect regarding Nietzsche’s theory of morality……. In the history of ethics, as well as in the courses in philosophy of ethics his views of morality are hardlly ever even mentioned…. And if they are, ussually that is because of the historical consenquences of his idea of supermen and his views on morality….. As far as the philosophical value of his theory of morality is concerned, there are ethical giants in philosophy that have their place on the merit of theiir theories…… Of course in the current climate where post modernism has taken hold as a domininat view of history as well as of the reality, his moral theory will be favoured, as both views solelly interpret everything in the terms of power……… Anyone familiar with the overall history of philosophy, even at a glance, will be aware of how simplistic and naive both theories are……. As for Nietzsche, if it was not for the historical context and the negative impact, that he had, not only in Germany, but also in the movement of Nihilism that was very strong in Russia and throughout Europe, on the actual merrit of his philosophical thought, he would be left in the realm of mediocrity……… Definitelly not a giant of thought, but rather a king of contraversy…….
If only Nietzsche knew those who are disciples of Christ… he would know that they are the most powerful physically and mentally. Who previously used that strength to enslave others, yet now control their strength to make all free. Strength and power are nothing without control… meekness is strength and power under control. Only a few are chosen to turn the same strength and power they dominated others that they considered less then themselves actually turned them into a slave to hate and wealth. I dont think he has enough power nor strength to love his enemies. Do you actually realize how difficult that is to do when you can just physically and verbally end them? Yet would you want that done to you? If you were someone elses enemy?
I don’t think that Nietzsche was exactly the best “personal example” of atheism and how it affects your life. I think that Daniel Dennett was. Dennett, a confirmed and active atheist expanded his portly frame to provide more sustenance to the earthworms consuming him after his death. I’m sure they celebrated their new meal. Nietzche was miserable and frail. Perhaps, despite his outpouring of “Sturm and Drung” he was just an idiot. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Out of most of this discussion, the only issue I really have is that people are more complex beyond the idea of strength and weakness, we can’t judge humanity and it’s values around such specific historic moments like in Europe, diversity goes beyond strength, so domination will always be the weakest form of strength
Deeper Understanding and Limitations: Strength, Will and Domination: The deeper issue of Nietzsche is imposition of morality and the acceptance of that morality after coercion. Nietzsche was arguing that we are either sheep or wolves and that is reductionist. A St Bernard and a shepherd have valuable functions and sometimes the shaper either sheers or slaughters a sheep and the wolf keeps certain system flaws from getting too sick or bloated. Insofar as we see Nietzsche as a vanguard if individual self-actualization it’s fine, but actualization does not have to happen at other expenses. Nietzsche is about our understanding that we have choices, and we have a duty to actualize our lives, where he fails is that some people choose a moral code of their own not due to brain washing, lack of opportunity or coercion but to actualize their will and truth in the world. Prime example: HARRIET TUBMAN and MOSE: MOSES allow MASS MURDER and ECO-BIO WARFARE (GOD and the 1st born and plague) Tubman killed LAW ENFORCEMENT, RECALCITRANT SLAVES and any MASTERS (LEGAL OWNERS) in order for them to allow their people’s will to freedom to unfold over the generations, what became of that will time is always a silent witness; ALTRUISM BY SUPERMEN AND WOMEN ON BEHALF OF THOSE THAT CAN’T BHELPM THEMSELVES.. It about refusing to be what others impose on you and try to imprint in your mind; sometime it means walking away form that grape in order to own a vineyard in another place, Nietzsche gives a zero sum and in some context it can’t but be that until you find your people your kind that your boldness and will to power is an asset to that community and neither will remove every obstacle, it’s about context.
Why Nietzsche’s insights are most unattainable for middle class: CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS I need understand my society more than wealthy person for there are more pitfalls for myself. I am MORE aware not less I am CLOSER to rejecting societies herd mentality for i see it’s faults and am less inclined to buy into it
i mean…your review is about beyond good and evil, a small puzzle piece in nietsche’s life, and a stage of hes life, and haid many more epiphanyies… if u really comprehent the scale and viewpoint from nietzsche’s view on human society and our human evolution… then imo he is 100% right in what we were and are… and 100% wrong when u comprehent what we have to become…living as close minded and onconnected beings for so long untill now … 15:27 for me its easy… good and evil and right and wrong dont really exist… but to me its depending on the ignorance and controlling instinct of the being and how open minded and universal view u have… the only right way is to understand and comprehent what the goal of divine source really is for our species and our evolution, with all universal laws in place and our beings… if anyone ever mind comprehenting what i mean… music is the way i gess… ” “Solariser – To The Unknown (Online Release)” “Audiofreq – Chrysalis (Official Epik 2021 Anthem) (HQ Edit)” “Hard Driver – Rise Again (Defqon.1 2022 Closing Theme) (HQ Edit)” 🕉Satya Yuga
How did a poor man born in a cave, raised as a blue collar man, turn the entire world upside down by preaching love, humility, and charity?? The exact opposite that has EVER been said? Anyone who has ever loves purely, like mother-child, knows the joy of selflessness and pureform life. It’s not about power- it is all about love. Nieztche died a miserable, lonely, gutted man. His is a story of a deadly morality. Pure poison.
I always heard about Nietzsche, I’m kinda interested but hearing this summary.. it makes me think that his so called knowledge hinders him to obey God. He only use his brain and forgot his heart. He takes so much pride on that knowledge, he doesn’t want to submit. His ideas sound so sad. I don’t want it. The so called slave morality teaches us to love God and neighbors. We’re called to love. It’s our choice if we obey that. It reminds me of Adam and Eve, when the serpent tricks them that if they eat the fruit, they will be like God to know good and evil. Whatever we do, we can’t be like God. We should not follow Satan who thinks he can be god, he will never be. About power – Jesus said: “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Philosophy makes me realized how God’s teaching is more superior. Makes me appreciate the bible more.. I feel more happy and free when I follow God. He knows all the truth, we will just struggle if we only lean on our OWN understanding.
The problem with playing the role of the trickster–people actually agree with you. *smack on the forehead*. Nietzsche understood human nature enough to realize most people who are adults don’t need Idols (Twilight of the Idols), so the natural inclination for most is to argue with you by taking the opposite approach of what you are saying. I say this is bad, you say it is good. This is “Going Beyond Good and Evil.” I say the Anti-Christ is good, you say disagree and show me how it is Christ who is good and how the anti-Christ is evil. It is just a teaching strategy. Benjamin Franklin claimed he did it all the time–it is how Wisdom and Reason work (Two Sides merge into “Truth” in the Middle). I say human nature is innately evil…
I am a Christian, Christ is King, I like majority of the points that you’ve made and agree with them aswell, except the slave and the master mentality. Every other world Religion has a set of rules for you to follow to make it into “Paradise” after death. Jesus Christ came and died for that entrance into paradise for us, because we couldn’t make it ourselves, REGARDLESS if we had a “slave” mentality or a “master” mentality. Christ destroyed both arguments for it is not works which gives us eternal life, but the Grace of God and what Christ did on the cross.
The idea is that in antiquity and pre-abrahamic faiths and zoroastrianism the courageous, beautiful, higher in status, powerful and noble can do what they will, while the weak suffer and endure what they must. Ancient Greeks and Aristotlean ethics basically affirms this self-interested one sided worldview. Greek heroes make their will into reality no matter the cost. In fact that’s the point of my second book World Mastery. Slaves merely react to external things and external ie their orientation to outside the self, they say no to the “other” and their action is fundamentally reaction. Rather than affirm and become grounded in their own power of choice, abilities and potential (merit). Rather, the slaves base their perception on reversing what they see as the cause of their pain. But pain is caused by weakness, from boundaries, restriction and limitations. Slave moralists don’t get this. The former is resentment and the latter is self-centered, strong and glorious. The aristocratic mode of evaluating does sometimes seek an antithesis but only to affirm itself, not to merely cope with suffering by blaming external stimuli, others usually rather than upbringing, but who know they might blame that too, and instead the slave moralists base their reactions on what others are doing and reverse what angers them or what puts them in a precarious situation. They are merely resentful, as in disgusted and angry and demonise those of high status or power. They don’t value action for the sake of it and to do so spontaneously or atleast work to create a environment where it is then more convenient to do that.
Nietzsche was nothing but confused, off course: When beyond good (or evil), what more can be said? If there is no standard, then nothing can be ‘better’ or ‘preferable’ to anything else. In such a scenario Nietzsche’s own advise (whatever it will be) will be absurd, because they themselves cannot be better than any alternative. If the term ”good’ is irrelevant, then the term ‘better’ will be equally irrelevant. In this case Nietzsche’s own imperatives cannot hold any meaning.
id love to agree that christianity is all of those things in regards to slave morality.. but, im not christian btw nor do i idolize any human being, jesus christ did once say “the poor are no better than the rich”. He did not say the rich were no better than the poor. He likened the unlikely hood rich could get into heaven, but he demonized the poor for having slave morality and false sense of comradery against the rich. This is actually why i think jesus christ was technically a genius of his time. He disrupts a backlash.. of a backlash. he nips the idea in the bud. he levels everybody in classism. Again, i do not think he was a god no, but a smart activist rebel…still one of my favorite quotes of all time … “the poor are no better than the rich”
This is weird, I had an acid trip two nights ago and I realize that despite my seemingly objective, altruistic morality, I was only manipulating individuals into betterment for the sake of recognition. Because I wanted the pain I went through to come to my revelations and epiphanies known, a sneaky rampant ego indeed.
A major flaw in nieche argument is his claim that the morality values of religion start with the demonisation of the opposition when in actual fact is starts with the idea that you should love your neighbour as you would love yourself therefore avoiding a society of hate and violence and oppression and hypocrites.
You don’t need power to influence society or have a huge impact or be successful. You just need a computer to design a gadget that will improve the quality of life for millions and who gets the credit for the result is irrelevant unless you have a big ego. Nieche probably came from a powerless childhood and therefore craved power. As stated previously you don’t need power or the need to dominate or abuse or dominate others to have a big impact, you just need a computer or a pen. That is where nieche went wrong.
Yes, it’s good to be strong, competent, great, and even competitive… That’s why I’m not ok with a few strong people conquering those around them for the sake of it. If you like having the most amount of people exercising their will to power as much as possible, you’re gonna want things like egalitarianism and altruism.
Interesting stuff. I don’t know if Nietzsche meant that there should be no morals, or more that the effectiveness, usefulness, and results of the morals we adopt should be examined. And it probably needs to be done on both an individual and societal level. For example, if a person decides to act on his “will to power”, and it involves murder and rape, the society he lives in will be negatively affected and a chain of mayhem and eventual revenge will follow. Therefore, this sort of amorality will not survive. It is possible to establish some ground rules or morality by mutual agreement and looking at the cost/benefit. This is the same with lying. A business man may think it benefits him to lie, but his business will probably fail at one point because of it. A lover may cheat as well, but the more times he is caught the closer to having no willing partners remaining he will be. I believe that was Napoleon’s downfall as well. He took upon himself morality only towards the French, conquering (which is theft, rape, and murder) of other people’s was allowed. But he didn’t count on the fact that he would need to completely subjugate the whole of Europe or eventually those who did not want to be conquered (stolen from, raped, and murdered) would join forces against him. I imagine his soldiers also tired of what he was subjecting them to. There was no greatness in this miscalculation. Thus, the golden rule still survives: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” The corollary is, “Because they will do unto you as you have done to them, especially the nasty bits.
Morality is based on culture’s ability to apply relative values. Humans individually and collectively do not have the power or capacity to embody God’s values of right and wrong, good and evil. For Judeo-Christian values, the establishment of good and evil was lost at the time of the Fall and Exile from the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 3.) What modern democratic societies do have is the basis within democratic principles to authorize and legislate civilly, relative value resulting in ascribing what is considered healthy and secure for a society at that time and at that place. But legislated values can never reach God’s valuation because of original sin and the limits God has set in the creation since the Fall and Exile from the Garden of Eden. See Jürgen Habermas’ late writings and also Werner Elert’s Das Christliche Ethos.
Nietzche’s philosophy is all about all the manly qualities he lacked, but wished for. Perhaps his understanding of his lack of these qualities led to his resentment towards God for creating him in this fashion. Therefore, he crys out in bitter disappointment in his anguish, and lack of solution to his condition, “God is dead!”
We are social creatures and in order to construct a functioning society we will devise frameworks and rules for those wishing to engaging within that structure. Defining good and evil is a simple but effective rule to start off with, it may be arbitrary but its a starting point on which to build and develop future shared frameworks….. its not rocket science!