/lit/ - Literature

>>21377314
Imperialism

>>16955587
>So it is not that the slave moralist hates the tyrant, but rather that the slave moralist perceives the tyrant as an oppressor? How does the master moralist perceive the tyrant (note that a tyrant is an oppressor by definition)?
I thought the quote I posted from Nietzsche cleared this up, but here is another one at the beginning of The Antichrist that establishes the primary difference between master and slave morality:

>What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing, that resistance has been overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, free from all moralic acid).

This is a depiction of master morality. Notice first that it speaks of "good" and "bad" rather than "good" and "evil." The master moralist doesn't view his enemies as agents of "evil" — as something emerging from a morally corrupt source which exists outside himself. Rather, the master moralist knows that it is himself who labels his enemies as enemies; they are enemies because they serve as obstacles for him, making their existence undesirable on a personal level only. The master moralist acknowledges perspectivism, and he is strong enough to not need to distort this business with a concept such as "evil" in order to take action confidently. The slave moralist, on the other hand, has a weak, reactionary will, and needs to use cunning to win battles, and as a result views his enemies as "evil," and designates them under the banner of a delusion called Satan, so that he can simultaneously wipe his hands clean of being vermin while also gaining the intellectual upper hand. Second, the passage talks of "not peace at any price," which is also a signature attribute of the master moralist — the master moralist is honest, and knows that all he does is for his own personal gain, therefore he knows that life comes to an end as soon as he puts his pursuit of power to an end. The slave moralist, being weak of will, suffers life instead, and wants to rest from it as often as possible, because mere living exhausts him; he sees the pursuit of power meaningless, because he is a meaningless creature in the world.

>If the master moralist wishes to become the master and construct, and the slave moralist wishes to become the master and destruct because he is full of resentment towards the tyrant, then I concede the point.
A master moralist doesn't "wish to become master," he is master on the inside — his will makes him so. He can be in prison, he will still be master. Prometheus can be chained to a rock, he is still a god. "The superior caste [...] are not at liberty to take a second place" (The Antichrist, §57).