/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22825055]

I fail to see why resentment is something inherently bad. If resentment allows a downtrodden and subjugated class of slaves to defeat their masters and take their rightful place then wouldn't this imply that resentment is simply an expression of the will to power? Bear in mind that in my hypothetical scenario the former slaves turned masters do not establish an egalitarian society and in fact this new society can be every bit as unequal as the one which preceded it if not more therefore resentment is only instrumentalized by the wannabe revolutionary leaders. Did Nietzsche ever consider the possibility of weaponizing resentment and using it to seize power?

[Anonymous No.22825061]

>>22825055
Resentment is not only inherently bad, it is the worst thing that exists on Earth and is responsible for 99% of human problems.

[Anonymous No.22825069]

>>22825055
>Did Nietzsche ever consider the possibility of weaponizing resentment and using it to seize power?
Yes. He explicitly says that this is what Jews are as a people.

[Anonymous No.22825081]

>>22825061
t. teenage faggot who has no understanding of how the world works

[Anonymous No.22825086]

>>22825081
I'm 30 years old. Do you have an argument or just drive by insults that have nothing to argue.

[Anonymous No.22825099]

>>22825055
Imagine if Nietzch was alive today. He'd be defending blown out porn stars and would probably think that Jake Paul was the uberman

[Anonymous No.22825103]

>>22825099
No he wouldn't you worthless faggot.

[Anonymous No.22825134]

>>22825099
Both of these statements are true thoughever

[Anonymous No.22825144]

>>22825134
Back to the sharty you tranny loser

[Anonymous No.22825170]

>>22825055
Nietzsche never says resentment is inherently bad. "You ought never to experience resentment" is not something he ever says. He discusses, in The Genealogy of Morals, men who were dominated by resentment towards people they couldn't physically attack. Their intense hatred combined with their impotence lead to the invention of slave morality.

One of the problems with slave morality is that it makes you less capable of defeating your enemies in battle, even with zerg rush human wave attacks. The slave moralists won by converting their enemies to slave morality with the triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire, not by defeating them by force.

[Anonymous No.22825188]

>>22825170
Nietzsche also contends that the other added benefit of slave morality, is a pronounced intellectualism that comes about through the shattering of delusion. He doesn't say it explicitly, but hints at it here and there.
The master position allows for a sort of uninterrupted ego delusion in the form of culturally expressed fantasy. Take Rome as an example. The Roman's triumphed and for a long time, only dealt with conflicting feedback in the form of wars of expansion on the outskirts of empire. The entire Roman culture was just a collective delusion, as all cultures are; when in the master position, one has less encounters with resistance that cannot be overcome. This causes less nuanced thought as time progresses, because it isn't necessary; power and force of will are generally enough.
In the slave position, ones attempts to execute their immediate will nearly or always fail, thus, you have to go back to the drawing board. You have to become critically minded, you have to look for what others don't see. You deconstruct cultures, concepts, instead of interfacing with them. Because you have to in order to survive or ever have a hope of gaining the upper hand. The resistance feedback and the failed attempts to overcome it force you to realize your sheer belief or will or whatever won't always be enough.

[Anonymous No.22825197]

>>22825170
>One of the problems with slave morality is that it makes you less capable of defeating your enemies in battle, even with zerg rush human wave attacks.
A state built upon resentment towards the strong and wealthy (Soviet Union) defeated a state built upon the ideas of inequality between peoples and races (Nazi Germany) and made it its bitch.
>The slave moralists won by converting their enemies to slave morality with the triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire, not by defeating them by force.
Doesn't matter. They won in the end. Right now Christianity is losing to a new slave morality that is leftism and atheistic progressivism.

[Anonymous No.22825221]

>>22825197
You can spin these all kinds of ways. You can say late stage Rome was based on resentment against those it considered poor and weak, and that's why Christianity was able to defeat it. It doesn't really matter. I love Nietszche but he was a sperg and didn't hold a candle to Jesus Christ. The reason Christianity spread and got popular was because the world needed it at the time, because things had become so cynical, one man's unrelenting kindness and reminder that there's no reason NOT to be that way, was enough to restore people's faith and topple an empire based on subjugation and slavery. Not politically, as it persisted for another thousand years, but spiritually, in that it lost its justification for its own cruelty.
Because there isn't one.
Nietzsche was an anxious guy. He was very intelligent. But he got a lot of things wrong.

[Anonymous No.22825581]

The creative resentment is what allows slaves to become masters. The poisoning, uncreating resentment causes slaves to take pride in their meekness and lack of creative power.

[Anonymous No.22825601]

>>22825055
oh look, a wikipedia skimmer who uses his own definitions when parsing a writer's idiosyncratic terminology

[Anonymous No.22825776]

>>22825221
>But he got a lot of things wrong.
literally nothing

[Anonymous No.22827156]

>>22825055
>>22825170
>>22825188

Resentment is always proactive, i.e. the resentment of the "strong" toward the "weak". In fact, does Power have any other definition? No.

[Anonymous No.22827172]

>>22827156
There's an even greater power in overcoming, integrating or removing resentment from ones self. Indisputable

[Anonymous No.22828504]

>>22825055
>Did Nietzsche ever consider the possibility of weaponizing resentment and using it to seize power?
Read Nietzsche. Specifically On the Genealogy of Morals

[Anonymous No.22828555]

>>22825055
its completely unhealthy, look at the Irish, who actually likes hearing them complain about the English after one hundred years of their own independence.
it comes from an unhealthy and rotten instinct.

[Anonymous No.22828561]

>>22825055
Correct. Most people in life have something to be rightfully resentful of

[Anonymous No.22828563]

>>22828504
you know he won't ever consider that, look at the OP image. He has his mind made up

[Anonymous No.22828568]

>>22825086
You’re still a child, get married and divorce raped and then say what you just said with a straight face. Protip: you won’t.

[Anonymous No.22828586]

>>22828568
he is just upset that Nietzsche wasn't nice to christianity

[Anonymous No.22828641]

>>22825601
>Noooooo my totally based and epic interpretation of this dead guy I never met is actually the correct one

[Anonymous No.22828686]

>>22825197
>A state built upon resentment towards the strong and wealthy (Soviet Union) defeated a state built upon the ideas of inequality between peoples and races (Nazi Germany) and made it its bitch.

We're talking here about what is and what isn't the true origin of morality.
Slave morality is factually wrong in all of it's conclusions about good and evil.

The moral basis of the soviet union was objectively wrong, the fact it managed to beat the Nazi's doesn't change that (or vice versa).

>Doesn't matter. They won in the end

We're having a discussion here and the topic isn't who-won-what.

OP didn't understand Nietzsche's writting quite well.

[Anonymous No.22828709]

>resentment
It's ressentiment you fucking retards

[Anonymous No.22828811]

>>22825055
>If resentment allows a downtrodden and subjugated class of slaves to defeat their masters and take their rightful place then wouldn't this imply that resentment is simply an expression of the will to power?
What the fuck are you even talking about? Ressentment is violence turned inwards. How could it possibly usurp the master-slave dynamic? The DEFINITION and the ESSENCE of the Master is precisely that they are not convinced or compelled by the ressentment philosophy the slave subsists on, it is impossible to "shame" them into abdicating their power as an axiom, for in the case of Christian or Communism if someone of means begins preaching equality or ressentment they are a slave, not a Master, and conversely if someone preaches equality or ressentment to amass power and means by manipulating the herd, they are a Mater (eg Stalin.

Wealth != power.

I suggest you re-read the Trannypedia article you got your tldr understanding of Nietzsche, because you're using the basic terms wrong.

[Anonymous No.22828984]

>>22828568
>>22828586
I have been through an absolutely hellish existence in this life. I am 30 years old. Some of you are extremely arrogant, self absorbed, dismissive faggots who should get a correction in the jaw that you'll likely never receive.
But no my position is not derived from ignorance of life's realities, far from it. It is because of my experience with these things that I have this stance on resentment. I almost put a gun in my mouth a few years ago. Suck a dick you condescending Mary's.
Resentment will destroy you

[Anonymous No.22828998]

>>22828984
no Resentment will destroy you, and it seems like it almost has completely
this post is proof that Nietzsche was right imo

[Anonymous No.22829141]

>>22828998
Yes, it almost did
It would do the same to you
Be happy that your life has not revealed reality to you, shelterbug

[Anonymous No.22829204]

>>22828984
>>22828998
Why are you two speds making the same exact point and arguing about it lmao

[Anonymous No.22829307]

>>22829204
He's saying it'll destroy me specifically bc of who I am and that it would not destroy everyone
Basically saying it's (you) problem
You didn't catch that bc you are dumb