/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21654635]

>slaves using slave morality to gain a modicum of advantage in this arena of life is... le bad!
>they need to abandon their defense mechanisms put in place for centuries meant to protect themselves against the tyrannous rule of masters and not to be treated like cockroaches
Excuse me if I didn't completely understand him, but from what I'm interpreting, what exactly did he mean by this? Were Nietzsche's books exclusively written for the overman in the distance? Most people cannot be masters by virtue of competition alone, and being blindly critical against what the herd uses for comfort, solace and protection feels a bit drastic, for lack of better word.

[Anonymous No.21654664]

>>21654635
>...le bad!
>they need to abandon their defense mechanisms...
I don't think he said those things. I'm not a Nietzsche expert by any means but I can't see him as a social reformer. His writings aren't political pamphlets and they're not meant to be read by the masses, much less serve as instructions.

[Anonymous No.21654669]

>>21654635
N doesn’t prefer one morality over another. A misconception is that two of these morals are separate when they need each other. N also doesn't say we need to discard the slaves and all be masters, this is a simplification. Master and slave morality are a genealogical explanation for our modern-day moral ideas. This means our modern-day moral ideas are descended from both: the intermingling of master and slave morality. We hold presumptions related to both within our thought process even today. This produces tension and sometimes unhealthy regulation of the master/slave relationship within the self. This is what Nietzsche is trying to address. He felt it was the master morality, which is ultimately derived from the pagan Greeks, which had been largely suppressed, even though its moral footprint was still within every individual human.

He wanted to make the master morality: understood once more; palatable once more. He had to bring into the light that this domineering, indifferent, self-centered aspect exists within the human being, and force the European mind to accept the truth of its existence, even though the society was currently enchanted by Christian pro-slave morals. Now, modern-day Nietzsche fan edge lords riff on the idea that "you should be more like a master than a slave", which always involves abstract ideals of independence and self-determination, or outright parasitism and immorality made into virtues by that same token. Mostly, the people who talk like this are not actually independent and have not self-determined anything; they all end up justifying parasitism in the end because it is a form of existence that they end up living by. And is that admirable? Is that what Nietzsche saw coming up, as his future audience, his philosophers of the future, A bunch of cynical parasites?

[Anonymous No.21654670]

>>21654635
>exclusively written for the overman in the distance
yes, you will always be a slave if you are animated by ressentiment

[Anonymous No.21656087]

I like this explanation from Paul Loeb:

Nietzsche thinks that there is nothing that is affirmable in those who are “slaves”—that is, in those who are essentially slavish, weak and impotent. Moreover, Nietzsche insists, these slaves know in their hearts that this is the case, and they are steeped in self-hatred, so any claim on their part to the contrary is simply an unsuccessful attempt at self-deception.

What Anderson calls the slaves’ distinctively moral virtues that they come to value (such as humility and patience) are in fact merely their weakness and impotence that they have lied into something meritorious. And when these slaves attempt to affirm themselves for having achieved these moral virtues, they need to lie to themselves again by claiming that they had some choice about being essentially weak and impotent and that they therefore deserve some credit for this. In any case, none of these slaves’ lies are really about themselves, they are merely afterthoughts to their overriding obsession with their masters—that is, with those strong and powerful people who make them feel oppressed. When the slaves lie to themselves by saying that they are good and virtuous because they are different than their masters, this is not actually some kind of self-affirmation, it is just a reactive negation of their masters. And, in fact, this negation is actually a demonization that is inspired by feelings of ressentiment, hatred, and vengefulness against their oppressors. So it is certainly not the case, as Anderson claims, that according to the standard story there are two separable powerful motives animating the original slaves’ revolt and governing the shape of their values. There is actually just one powerful and indispensable motive, ressentiment, and this is the true source of what Anderson calls the slaves’ desire for self-affirmation.

[Anonymous No.21656093]

>>21656087
From this it follows, according to the standard story, that there is no way to purify morality of its vengeful aspects. When present-day moralists focus on what Anderson calls morality’s self-affirmative function, they are actually being driven by feelings of hatred and vengefulness toward those who are strong, fortunate and happy. In fact, only present-day people who are essentially weak and impotent will feel oppressed by those who are strong, fortunate and happy. Only they will feel the need to place all their weight on what Anderson calls the positive, self-affirmative work morality does for its adherents. But they are self-deceived if they believe that this work will make any difference to their own fortune or happiness. Deep down in their hearts they know that this is not the case. They know that their own essential slavishness, weakness, and impotence condemn them to misfortune and misery and that there is nothing they can ever do to change or remedy this basic fact. Just as with the original leaders of the slave revolt, all this moral work really does is provide them with a constantly available justification for self-righteously revenging themselves on those whom they despise for being strong, fortunate and happy.


Source: conclusion of this paper
https://www.academia.edu/37842451/The_Priestly_Slave_Revolt_in_Morality

[Anonymous No.21656132]

>Most people cannot be masters by virtue of competition alone
Exactly. And These weak people should be swallowed by natural selection.