/lit/ - Literature

>>16952244
>>16952266
>>16952536
you just literally don't understand what master/slave morality is, and you're rejecting the people who do.
Like I said in my very first reply in this faggot thread: it is all about reason and motive.
It's not about literal slavery you absolute fucking retard.
If a slave moralist kills a tyrant he will have done it for slavish reasons (like "because the tyrant is evil" as a disguise for resentment of the tyrants power, as an extremely obvious example). If a master moralist kills a tyrant he will have done it for masterly reasons (like that he disliked the tyrant, not out of a resentment of the tyrant's power, good and evil, or any other such mendacity, he simply disliked the tyrant and he recognized that this is why he wanted to kill the tyrant with no moral judgements supplanting this simple dislike, to be as masterly as possible for you).
Killing a tyrant or any other such person does not make the slave a master. They will still be a slave moralist, even if they overthrow the kingdom and crown themselves king.
Killing a tyrant does not make the master a slave either. They will still be a master moralist as they overthrow the kingdom and crown themselves king.
If the slave should, before killing the tyrant, have some sort of epiphany and reject their morality (or rather pull it out by its roots, which is the only way to rid yourself of slave morality) and embrace a master morality and decide to kill the tyrant, then they will be a master.
Do you get it yet?
As I said, the slave revolt is a crucial component of master/slave morality and all of Nietzsche's thought on the matter. The slaves revolted (through a reversal of power and virtue via Christianity) and they won. The slaves run the world. They are still slaves, not because they are being controlled literally by someone else or some other physical force, but because their morality and their psychology are slavish. Their reasons for doing things are corrupt impure, and weak, they originate from a belief in good and evil, from ressentiment, or otherwise from a place of dishonesty.
They could imprison the master, put him in bondage, torture him and force him to work the fields for them. He would remain a master and they would remain slaves.
If you're still not understanding, or think there's any sort of logical inconsistency here, then you're unironically too stupid for philosophy and should just give up. Even the schizo Christian faggot above hasn't struggled with this.

>>15052380
i completely buy this one

>>12840049
>Opinion in Jack Reacher's bioks by Lee Child. Has any if you read them?