Help with Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.21471778]

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".

[Anonymous No.21471787]

>>21471778
it's called don't hate the player, hate the game. why are continentals so fucking autistic, why do they have so many of them funny words to get their point across.

[Anonymous No.21471794]

>>21471778
Sounds like you got the gist of it.
But it gets really spooky when you go beyond morality and apply that dichotomy to metaphysics, as Deleuze does through Nietzsches genealogy and concept of eternal recurrence.

[Anonymous No.21471798]

>>21471778
>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.

[Anonymous No.21471814]

>>21471794
What is Deleuze's project actually? Is that project dead? It seems like there's many untapped ideas from Deleuze's corpus waiting to be discovered.

[Anonymous No.21471827]

>>21471814
Deleuze's article (and book) "What is philosophy" that he wrote with Guattari gives you what/why he does philosophy.
Basically, it's a creative project. Its goal is not to set ethics, but to inspire the creation of concepts - concepts such as the master/slave dichotomy.
That is why he's got a lot in common with NEETzsche, they both aspired to provoke thought and continue philosophy rather than to "end" it. Affirmation is, in this case, creating philosophy while negating it is beating the dead horse of the same old platonism.

Thats my idea atleast. Deleuze can be dense, but meditate on the text and draw what you see in it.

[Anonymous No.21471849]

>>21471778
Nietzsche's whole point is that you cannot trust anyone to find your own way but yourself, but that you can look to others for ideas. You become powerful by being true to yourself and facing life for its ups and downs, nothing else. Power isn't the same as strength, and Nietzsche shows a clear friendliness to those with power who help those that lack it.

[Anonymous No.21471913]

>>21471814
Deleuze is a self-described empiricist (a la Hume). According to Deleuze, all transcendence is found within immanence, meaning there is a common ontological ground to all of reality (a plane of immanence, as he calls it). This reality is constantly moving and changing, and Deleuze, being a process philosopher, discusses this constant movement by referring to "difference in itself." Difference is the brute fact of all of reality, but to make sense of this pure difference, thought must bind it to representation and identity. So far as I understand it, all of Deleuze's thought seeks to explore this idea, namely that difference is ontologically prior to identity. Deleuze finds a similar strain of thought in Nietzsche, wherein the world is seen as the ground or departure point for everything else. There is an optimism that runs throughout the thought of both philosophers, because they both see our understanding and experience of reality as malleable and therefore full of possibility. Whereas an idealist such as Hegel looks at history as an unfolding that happens according to a sort of "plan" or at least towards a definable endpoint, Deleuze sees reality as more "bottom-up" I would say, in that our understanding seeks to capture some portion of reality as opposed to aligning our thought to some eternal logic which operates through all things. So the infamous Body without Organs (BwO gang rise up) is a pure space of possibility, as opposed to a machinic assemblage operating according to fixed principles to achieve some specific end. In other words, Deleuze wants to free us of thinking which applies rigid categories to reality and instead to see thought as a grand experiment, which we can actively tinker with to discover new ways of being. The book Pure Immanence is a short read and a good place to start if you're interested in him.

[Anonymous No.21471919]

>BwO gang rise up

[Anonymous No.21471920]

>>21471913
sounds like pretentious bullshit desu

[Anonymous No.21471932]

>>21471913
>Deleuze is a self-described empiricist (a la Hume).
Enough reason to ignore him outright. He's basically telling you not to take anything he says seriously.

[Anonymous No.21471953]

>>21471919
>I am the egg-man

[Anonymous No.21471959]

>>21471778
>The master move
Would be to love your enemies and self-overcome. Revenge is slave morality.

[Anonymous No.21471963]

>>21471913
I like the dichotomy between transcendence and immanence, negation and affirmation. That said, would you categorize the logical positivists as working within an immanent paradigm?

[Anonymous No.21471970]

>>21471959
Hmmm, dunno why but that sounds wrong to me. In fact, the rationalization of revenge as something "bad" or "evil" can only emerge from slave morality. If "revenge" is seen as a positive, natural, bodily, biological impulse as opposed as "forgiveness" which can only emerge through "artificial" moralistic edifice, then revenge can be seen as life affirming.

[Anonymous No.21471983]

>>21471970
If you don't get it you're a natural slave and that's fine. Be who you are.

[Anonymous No.21471991]

>>21471970
You engage your enemies to self-overcome and you love them for it. It's what makes life worth living. Without enemies we're alone.

[Anonymous No.21471993]

>>21471991
That all sounds good but in the real world, conflict avoidance is preferable.

[Anonymous No.21472010]

>>21471993
For you.

[Anonymous No.21472022]

>>21471963
I don't really know enough about them to give a good answer honestly but my guess is yes, considering that they establish scientific verification as the sole criterion of truth, meaning you're throwing out the whole concept of metaphysics. I would bet this is the legacy of Kant, although he didn't want to go that far with it and still "made room for God."

[Anonymous No.21472035]

>>21471920
Kinda. But there is a lot of beauty to it, and Deleuze isn't a charlatan in the way that some people like to characterize some of the French poststructuralists. There is some metaphysical gobbledygook and the writing can be opaque at times, but Deleuze is basically a bloomer in the same way that Neetch and Spinoza are. He allows you to believe in a world that is filled with possibility, even radically so. For all its difficulty and strangeness, I think this is ultimately what he and Guattari wanted to show in Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Capitalism is a machinic assemblage but schizophrenia is wild and imaginative.

[Anonymous No.21472040]

>>21471932
Could you explain your hostility toward empiricism anon?

[Anonymous No.21472059]

>>21472022
I really don't meant it that way. What I meant is seeing reality using positivistic or "negativistic" paradigm. Positivism is affirmative, you posit, you determine "position". According to positivism, the world can be explained through "positive propositions". Positivism is diametrically opposed to Hegelianism. I remember that Zizek said something like this, basically he agrees with Einstein. Einstein said that the contortions in space tells matter how to move, while matter tells space how to bend. According to Einstein, he said, the space is real while matter is illussory. The space or the bents in space is a network of formal relations (negative) while matter is "positive" existence. He said that materialism should be defined this way, of privileging formal relations over matter. This way, Zizek is a negativistic/transcendence philosopher par excellence.

[Anonymous No.21472153]

>>21472059
Ah, yeah Deleuze is definitely a positivistic thinker in the way you described. I find the Zizek reference interesting because it makes me wonder why the split between space and matter is necessary in the first place. Why privilege the formal relations you described when matter exerts its own influence over spacetime? Why is the Idea primary? I've been thinking about this a lot lately anyway since I've been reading Plato.

[Anonymous No.21472158]

>>21471778
Concern yourself only with the point and being clear and direct. You are trying to write well and make an intelligent impression. This works against itself. You're also doing it in the worst place. 4chan can't help you with Nietzsche.

But yes, this is more or less correct. You put it in complicated language, you should look for the simplicity in it.

Yes, the master calls good what they like. The slave calls good what is unlike what they dislike. This way of valuing becomes the big ol modern problem.

[Anonymous No.21472174]

>>21471778
Aren't expressions like 'sour grapes' the same thing you described with the apple? You can find master morality in common wisdom as well.

[Anonymous No.21472222]

>>21472174
Yes, exactly.
>>21472158
I have to admit I have the bad habit of wanting to explain things "thoroughly" even if such attempt most of the time backfires, anyway thanks for the remarks!

[Anonymous No.21472388]

What does Nietzsche prescribe in terms of moral behavior? Should one take a step back if one catches oneself thinking in terms of slave morality? And, a vaguer question: Do people value Nietzsche for his prescriptive views (if they exist), or for his descriptive delineation of morality (and everything else)?