/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3843398]

wasn't the clever subversion of the ressentiment a manifestation of the slave group's will to power?

they wanted power, and they got it. the plebs successfully subverted the nobles. i understand the problems nietzsche has with the weak and [at least superficially] self-suppressing nature of the ressentiment group, but can't he at least respect the fact that they, in a way, became the masters?

in the second essay, section 11, he defends revenge as not reactive but ultimately active; for it and feelings previously associated with the ressentiment like hatred, envy, resentment, and rancor "are of a much greater biological value than the reactive feelings and as a consequence rightly deserve to be evaluated and appreciated in a scientific manner: that is, the really ACTIVE feelings, such as the desire to dominate, to possess, and the like." here, nietzsche seems to punch a huge hole in his entire polemic on the ressentiment, for he suggests that feelings previously thought to be reactive which the ressentiment operated on can be construed as essentially active (and therefore noble, etc.)

i found his points well-argued up to this point, at which he seems to become a bit cryptic or contradictory, but perhaps i'm just misunderstanding him.

[Anonymous No.3843403]

OP here. sorry, the work i'm referring to is genealogy of morals

[Anonymous No.3843465]

Well according to Deleuze the real difference between active and reactive is in their origin and their effects (which one dominates) determines the kind of will to power that manifests itself. All this meaning that if you determine your position according to the other (as in: you're bad therefore I'm good, the morality that Nietzsche is criticizing) you are dominated by a reactive type of revenge. If however you determine your position as affirmation (creation of values) and only then comparing it to the other's position then you are exerting an active revenge (aka polemic).

As for the slave mentality, they win not by becoming a greater force than the masters, but by separating them from what they can do (in the end convincing them that they are sinners and must let go of their pride and so on). So the slaves do not become masters, even if they consider themselves so. In fact, all of Western history as nihilism is the scene for slave-slave relationships, not master-slave.

But don't worry if all of this isn't obvious from The Genealogy, most of Nietzsche's commentators have to look through his entire work to understand what he's getting at.

A lot of people have trouble with the active-reactive scheme it seems, but it can be better understood if you consider Nietzsche's description of his own philosophy as "philosophizing with the hammer", aka not just destroying, but rather checking what's behind all things and also as a tool for construction at the same time. So what Nietzsche recommends is a constructive revenge rather than a destroying (nihilistic) one.

[Anonymous No.3843496]

>>3843398
I just checked that section in my copy and I can't find the source of your citation at all. My copy is translation by Francis Golffing.

[Anonymous No.3843501]

>>3843496
my translation is douglas smith's

[Anonymous No.3843507]

>>3843465
>dat filename

[Anonymous No.3843521]

>>3843496
If I recall correctly, OP's citation is from that part (possibly at the end of chapter 11) where Nietzsche criticizes darwinism.

[Anonymous No.3843538]

>>3843521
What? In my version, at the end of chapter 11 of the second essay, he criticises Dühring, but not Darwin.

[Anonymous No.3843542]

>>3843521
the only reference to darwinism i see is in "scientific fairness" and "biological value," in which case i believe he is using darwin to support his ideas

[Anonymous No.3843544]

>>3843542
Neither of those two concepts are vivid references to "Darwinism." He read a lot of biologists and evolutionists, most of them European.

[Anonymous No.3843566]

dat mustache

[Anonymous No.3843619]

>>3843538
You're right, he doesn't mention him by name in that chapter, but the arguments sounded similar since he does criticize him for having a reactive view on evolution as adaptation rather than affirmative will to power. I don't remember how much of this can be found in The Genealogy, but I think in the first essay he mentions darwinists.

[Anonymous No.3843639]

>>3843619
It's probaby just an implicit criticism. He mentions Darwin in the gay science I think.