Genealogy of Morals

[Anonymous No.11723483]

Wait, so guilt is something we invented and isnt good for us? There was a time when we didnt have guilt and even criminals facing charges had no concept of guilt?

Anyone who owns a dog has seen that thing experience guilt when he knows hes done something wrong. It's written on their face, they hide, etc. Monkeys do this too.

Guilt is a natural construct, not invented.

[Anonymous No.11723490]

>natural construct

[Anonymous No.11723495]

>>11723483
Morals are a western idea of the natural state and actions of a being which is given from above (God) rather from below (nature).

[Anonymous No.11723498]

>>11723495
>Morals are a western idea

[Anonymous No.11723500]

>>11723490
This

[Anonymous No.11723531]

>dogs and monkeys are incapable of forming social constructs
yawn, don't bore me with such trite anthropocentrisms

[Anonymous No.11723542]

>>11723483
Dogs don't have guilt. Generally speaking they are reacting to, or anticipating, the coming punishment or correction. The look of guilt is just a body posture of submission. This is why in training there is a general rule of ten seconds between an act and a correction, beyond that and you can't be sure if the dog is truly connecting the act with the correction. Their memory does not work like ours.
That said, I don't think this easily translates to human behaviour. We are different and exist in our thoughts more, and guilt can be a 'natural' function of working out these complex relations.
What is the exact Nietzsche quote?

[Anonymous No.11723554]

>>11723531
>feeling cold around the stomach area
>having bad gut signals
Oh wow, I see where you're coming from! Now that's definitely a social construct, right there! Ants invented it.

[Anonymous No.11723569]

>>11723483
>Anyone who owns a dog has seen that thing experience guilt when he knows hes done something wrong.
That’s been debunked for nearly ten years now. Dogs don’t feel guilt - they experience fear... Fear of your reaction, fear of being scolded. We project guilt onto them by anthropomorphising their fear reaction as guilt, but in the end they don’t feel bad for what they did, they’re just scared you’ll grab a rolled up newspaper. Guilt isn’t a natural construct, but it’s a useful social construct.

[Anonymous No.11723574]

>>11723569
post link faggot

[Anonymous No.11723577]

>>11723542
Not OP, and this quote isnt from Genealogy of Morals, but I read the antichrist today and here's something he wrote in it:

—I have been understood. At the opening of the Bible there is the whole psychology of the priest.—The priest knows of only one great danger: that is science—the sound comprehension of cause and effect. But science flourishes, on the whole, only under favourable conditions—a man must have time, he must have an overflowing intellect, in order to “know.”... “Therefore, man must be made unhappy,”—this has been, in all ages, the logic of the priest.—It is easy to see just what, by this logic, was the first thing to come into the world:—“sin.”... The concept of guilt and punishment, the whole “moral order of the world,” was set up against science—against the deliverance of man from priests.... Man must not look outward; he must look inward. He must not look at things shrewdly and cautiously, to learn about them; he must not look at all; he must suffer.... And he must suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest.—Away with physicians! What is needed is a Saviour.—The concept of guilt and punishment, including the doctrines of “grace,” of “salvation,” of “forgiveness”—lies through and through, and absolutely without psychological reality—were devised to destroy man’s sense of causality: they are an attack upon the concept of cause and effect!—And not an attack with the fist, with the knife, with honesty in hate and love! On the contrary, one inspired by the most cowardly, the most crafty, the most ignoble of instincts! An attack of priests! An attack of parasites! The vampirism of pale, subterranean leeches!... When the natural consequences of an act are no longer “natural,” but are regarded as produced by the ghostly creations of superstition—by “God,” by “spirits,” by “souls”—and reckoned as merely “moral” consequences, as rewards, as punishments, as hints, as lessons, then the whole ground-work of knowledge is destroyed—then the greatest of crimes against humanity has been perpetrated.—I repeat that sin, man’s self-desecration par excellence, was invented in order to make science, culture, and every elevation and ennobling of man impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin.—

[Anonymous No.11723585]

>>11723574
4chan think it’s spam. Literally just google these three words: “dogs guilt fear” and you’ll get fifty responses all talking about the same study.

[Anonymous No.11723589]

>>11723585
>one study
>about the feelings of some dog

[Anonymous No.11723611]

>>11723483
You teach a dog that he is not supposed to do something; he does it and then he feels guilty because he's done it. But the condemnable act is up to you to decide. Probably if you didn't want your dog to ever touch you, he would feel guilty when doing it by accident or something, even while other dogs are freely licking their owners on the face.
Same thing with humans. Nietzsche's point was that weak humans (ascetics, priests, slaves) have managed to make the stronger ones guilty for being strong and enjoying life. They have invented a kind of guilt that is not natural, but artificial, abstract and generalized.

[Anonymous No.11723614]

>>11723589
iT’s JuSt OnE sTuDy GuYs

[Anonymous No.11723623]

>>11723614
>1 (one) study about feelings
>"now that's some evidence! morals are just a western invention, see!"

[Anonymous No.11723627]

>>11723483
To feel guilt, you need to have a theory of mind.

[Anonymous No.11723636]

>>11723614
>>11723623
>>11723623
If you actually Google it, you’ll see it’s two studies. Also I didn’t say anything about the West.

[Anonymous No.11723644]

>>11723636
>thinks anyone would change their opinions over some dog studies

[Anonymous No.11723649]

>>11723611
Different dog (and human, by the way) races will react and learn differently--so there is something natural going on here.

[Anonymous No.11723691]

You are projecting human traits into another animal. Just because what he is doing is similar to what you see humans doing, doesnt mean that you can grasp his subjectivity. Even implying they have a subjectivity is the same error.
Anthropomorphism and bla bla bla. Did you read on truth and lies in a nonmoral sense?

[Anonymous No.11723708]

>>11723691
Facial cues are kinda easy to understand. Autism is rampant here, so I'm not too surprised that you're belonging to the mere quarter of the population who cannot identify secondary emotional expressions of an animal.

[Anonymous No.11723714]

https://wagwalking.com/sense/can-dogs-feel-guilt

[Anonymous No.11723716]

blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/do-dogs-feel-guilty/

[Anonymous No.11723724]

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201802/dogs-and-guilt-we-simply-dont-know

[Anonymous No.11723729]

>>11723649
So what? What matters is the thing they're made to react to.
And obviously humans react differently, that's why Nietzsche refers exclusively to the western civilization and the jews in the genealogy.

[Anonymous No.11723749]

>>11723724
There you have it. The answer is right there. Autists can't perceive it, so it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.11723756]

>>11723708
You are totally missing the point. That the facial expression is similar doesnt mean that the feeling behind it is the same.
Whats your arguments agaisnt this idea?

[Anonymous No.11725751]

desu I don't feel guilt as much as fear and expectation of reprisal.

[Anonymous No.11725771]

>>11723483
Your thread is pointless. Try starting it with a quote next time if you want a real discussion.

[Anonymous No.11725785]

>>11725751
I believe this very sentiment, since the dawn of humanity, has been ingrained so deeply into the nature of man, to form what we know as guilt. Reprisal by the tribe as whole or individuals within it has, I believe, given birth to a mental mechanism of guilt, which itself is rooted in simply just that - fear of negative repercussion.

I would agree with Freddie-boy that the church has heavily capitalized on this very mechanism and utilized it to further its own agenda, but I am not at all convinced that it originates with it.

[Anonymous No.11725872]

>>11723483
Guilt is difficult to differentiate from fear of punishment. But assuming there is biological guilt, its extension to society has to be cultural.

[Anonymous No.11725889]

>>11723749
True genius psychologist right here folks. "But it looks like he's guilty." So how did you juxtapose that with humility, fear, anger, or sadness?

[Anonymous No.11725895]

>>11723483
>natural construct
Yikes.
Also isn't the book predominantly about the capitalization of guilt through morality making it more easy to impose?

[Anonymous No.11726141]

>>11723708
>>11723756
Emotional cues are not universal you retard, hence why you can't discern the emotions of most creatures. Dogs have evolved to correspond their cues to their human masters, as many animals have, hence why they do a lot of superfluous movement (and seemingly express emotions) in a way that is irrelevant or unused in dog-to-dog interaction. You could forseeably evolve a humanoid creature who's emotional cues are all opposite to that of humans, or indeed, who's emotions are incommensurable.