/lit/ - Literature

Am I correct in my understanding of Nietzsche regarding slave morality and transvaluation of values? A recurring theme in Nietzsche's works is about the dichotomy between affirmation and negation. Affirmation is a positive act. For Nietzsche, a master would see an apple and he will eat it because it is good for him. A slave, while also seeing the apple as good, yet powerless to wrest it from the master, denounce apples as bad since it is a negatory movement borne out of ressentiment. I think much of our common "wisdom" is imbued with slave morality. Take for example, a child is being bullied by his peer or upperclassman and he feels sad about it and wants to get revenge. His mother would communicate to him "if you do that, then you would be the same as him", this is a form of ressentiment par excellence. The master move would be to get revenge because it is good, while the slave would just negate the actions of whoever he hates and denounce it as evil, therefore not taking revenge is good for the slave. The master sees things and actions as good (not bad), while the slave sees things and actions as good (not evil), this is the core idea of transvaluation of values, how "good" becomes antonymous with "evil" instead of "bad".

He attributed slave morality to Christianity but now we're in the most atheistic times in human history, and yet slave morality is more present than ever. So most humans have the aptitude to internalize a slave morality without the need of a religion, let alone singling Christianity for it.

>>19589604
*Blocks your path*

>For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. Matthew 25:29
Is there a better expression for the main of Nietzsche's thought?

Maybe if you got rid of that old yee-yee ass haircut you got you'd get some bitches on your dick. Oh, better yet, maybe Salomé'll call your dog-ass if she ever stop fuckin' with that linguist or scholar she fucking with. Nigga

>I have a dream. That one day every person in this nation will control their own destiny. A nation of the truly free, dammit. A nation of action, not words, ruled by strength, not committee! Where the law changes to suit the individual, not the other way around. Where power and justice are back where they belong: in the hands of the people! Where every man is free to think - to act - for himself!

>Christianity is diseased. Rotten to the core. There's no saving it - we need to pull it out by the roots. Wipe the slate clean. BURN IT DOWN! And from the ashes, a new religion will be born. Evolved, but untamed! The weak will be purged and the strongest will thrive - free to live as they see fit, they'll make this nation great again! In my new world, people will die and kill for what they BELIEVE! Not for money. Not for oil! Not for what they're told is right. Every man will be free to fight his own wars!

>>18542316
o rly?

Can morality exist witout the concept of religion/God?

>>16858743
waddup

So if morality's not even real does that mean I can cheat on my girlfriend and not have to feel bad?

>>16805548
Yes!

>>16798218
>Wow, Zarathustra, you can articulate your philosophy in the form of a parable and keep it sub 300 pages?
Once again based Nietzsche makes all other philosophers look like total jabronis.

Power

>>16328055
This Chad right here.

Truly, death of the author

>>15261212

What system of government would he support?

>>14833219
>implying your choices and decisions weren't determined by your external environment
>implying you are the ultimate source of your decisions

>>13459133
they did what now?