[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 446 KB, 1280x1736, Nietzsche187a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22168462 No.22168462 [Reply] [Original]

If a group of low level social people kill and take over the position and goods of a high level social person would that be slave morality or master morality?

>> No.22168474

Slaves who know they are their own masters

>> No.22168482

>>22168462
He would be a goyim
If he tried to free himself he would be antisemitic

>> No.22168598

>>22168462
Slave morality is when you build your identity on defying an Other. That Other is le evil, and doing like such one is a big no-no.
Master morality is when you do something for fun and growth. There is no evil, only badness, i.e. of poor quality.

>> No.22168612

>>22168462
Slave morality and master morality aren't independent categories. They are different outlooks that arise from conditions of exercising power or being subjected to it. Master morality is an umbrella term for ways of thinking about the world that are rooted in independence, power, pride, and confidence. Slave morality is rooted in weakness, dependence, and fear of violence, exploitation, etc. and all kinds of negative feelings towards one's "masters". An individual usually possesses ideas and attitudes that are come from both types of morality. For example, a European aristocrat might possess an air of easy authority and a kind of arrogance you'd assume comes from a lifetime of privilege, but can also be a devout Christian have his head stuffed with all kinds of Christian ideas about sin, the virtues of humility, meekness etc. which Nietzsche frequently associates with slave morality. Your question doesn't help you understand those concepts better because in either case the answer would depend on an psychological analysis of the individuals or groups in question which is of course impossible since your scenario is completely abstract.

>> No.22168615

sm if their ancestors already fantasized about it
mm if it was spontaneous discharge
t. genealogy of morals
i'm not even simplifying

>> No.22168945
File: 80 KB, 896x785, 1683622553507143.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22168945

>>22168598
>verification not required

>> No.22168960

>>22168615
I started spontaneously discharging after one encounter with OP's mother

>> No.22169201

>>22168462
I wouldn't know what that would means.

>> No.22169340

>>22168612
slave morality never made sense on christianity tho. early christians, saints, martyrs, etc. 100% believed what they preached. they never cared about power or other earthly, material things. nietzsches understanding of christianity is just his own view of protestantism, because he came out of a protestant priest family. slave morality fits well to modern, secular christianity/protestantism. not the original one

>> No.22170353

>>22168462
Is there any other philosopher who rejects morality and embraces evil?

>> No.22170434

>>22170353
>embraces evil?
"When power becometh gracious and descendeth into the visible—I call such condescension, beauty.
And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good because they have crippled paws!"