[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 220x294, 220px-1864c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5037146 No.5037146[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Did Nietzsche believe that "master morality" was superior to "slave morality?" If so, what's the difference between Nietzsche's proposed moral philosophy and fascism and how is he such a well-respected philosopher?

>> No.5037149

Neechee believed God was dead and Jesus was the last Christian.

>> No.5037155

>>5037146
>Did Nietzsche believe that "master morality" was superior to "slave morality?"
no

>> No.5037161

>>5037155
lol

>> No.5037181

>>5037161
There's nothing to laugh about. >>5037155
is correct.

>> No.5037191

>>5037146
It would suggest you to read his Genealogy of Morality.

His point goes more into the direction of saying that "master morality" (a term he rarely uses to intensify a point) is the natural, dionysian state of humans; it's the state that is not yet spoiled by (slave) morality (christianity in particular).

I don't know how one could make a connection between his thought and fascism. He hated German nationalism and anti-semitism.

>> No.5037199
File: 206 KB, 762x730, alpha2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5037199

Fascism is the herd, for fuck's sake. It's not a master morality. They are brainless traditionalists, not creators. And he definitely preferred master morality, maybe he thought that slave morality is sometimes necessary for survival. Like the Jews in Egypt where it all started with oyvey.

>> No.5037217

Nietzsche was extremely critical of all nationalist thought, especially German nationalism. He was especially disgusted by the growing anti-semitism within Germany at the time.

>Now it has gone so far that I have to defend myself hand and foot against people who confuse me with these anti-Semitic canaille; after my own sister, my former sister, and after Widemann more recently have given the impetus to this most dire of all confusions. After I read the name Zarathustra in the anti-Semitic Correspondence my forbearance came to an end. I am now in a position of emergency defense against your spouse's Party. These accursed anti-Semite deformities shall not sully my ideal!


>>what's the difference between Nietzsche's proposed moral philosophy and fascism

The difference is that Nietzsche's master morality was nobility, not strength, and he railed against German culture for conflating the two. Fascism was slave morality, as were all nationalist movements in Nietzsche's mind. Master mentality was the courage and nobility to rise above corrupt and stifling institutions.

>> No.5037225

>>5037146
You're basically saying that because his reasoning brought forward sometning that you don't like, he is wrong.

>There is no pre-established harmony between the furtherance of truth and the well being of mankind.

>> No.5037235

>>5037199
>"Like the Jews in Egypt where it all started with oyvey."

Nietzsche liked the Old Testament. He didn't think it was espousing 'slave morality"

>“In the Jewish ‘Old Testament,’ the book of divine justice, there are human beings, things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare with it”

>> No.5037255

Wasn't the genealogy of morality about how master morality is the natural one, but the slaves actually managed to create their own morality and finally how this "slave morality" managed to beat the master morality? Christianity conquered the world after all.
I.e. Slave morality > Master morality
Slaves managed to create their own moral system, while the master were just mindless hedonistic brutes, so in a way, slaves > masters.

>> No.5037274

Nietzsche thought master morality had been ruined and sullied by slave morality, but he didn't want us to simply copy-paste master morality back. He wanted the aristocrat-class to transcend all moralities and become ubermenschen. Being a ubermensche means not being beholden to any standard, master or slave.

Fascism has some of the spirit of Nietzsche in it, but it fundamentally fails to meet Nietzsche's dreams because of its emphasis on nationalism. Nationalism is a tradition-based construct, not a physical reality, so it should be rejected according to Nietzsche.

I think Nietzsche's ideal political society would be a militarist anarchist world, with different armies and lords vying for control like in the post-Roman world, but he would want it to be non-Christian and also he would want it to allow for the merit-based advancement of people into the army's upper ranks. Finally he would want an artist-philosopher class to be patronized by the different militaries.

>> No.5037287

>>5037274
Also forgot to add:

While Nietzsche would probably not be in support of National Socialism, he would definitely like Hitler. Hitler was basically the embodiment of sheer will to power, rejecting everything else, including reason. Nietzsche would admire Hitler for the same reasons he admired Napoleon: the will of a single man coming to dominate the lives of millions, with the power to give and take life.

>> No.5037290
File: 1.17 MB, 1280x960, alpha4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5037290

>>5037235
Nietzsche considered the bible as a source of slave morality and the slavery in Egypt the reason it was such a fad. He didn't blame the jews he said it was unhealthy.

>> No.5037295

>>5037274
I think Nietzsche übermensch is something much more harmless. Übermensch is just an early version of an existentialist. A person that creates his own values and meaning. A person that enjoys the things he enjoys, not what society deemed enjoyable for him.

>> No.5037296
File: 132 KB, 450x645, alpha7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5037296

>>5037235
He only excepted the older books where JHWE was still a tribal war-god which he considered a healthy thing.

>> No.5037301
File: 82 KB, 383x550, alpha3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5037301

>>5037295
Unless you're using genetic design and a breeding program to really do it.

>> No.5037355

>>5037290
>Nietzsche considered the bible as a source of slave morality and the slavery in Egypt the reason it was such a fad.

He thought the Babylonian exile and the rise of the Priestly caste was the cause.

>"Under the hand of the Jewish priesthood the great age of Israelbecame an age of decline; the Exile, with its long series of misfortunes, was transformed into a punishment for that great age– during which priests had not yet come into existence. Out of thepowerful and wholly free heroes of Israel’s history they fashioned,according to their changing needs, either wretched bigots andhypocrites or men entirely ‘godless.’ They reduced every greatevent to the idiotic formula: ‘obedient or disobedient to God. –They went a step further: the ‘will of God’ (in other words somemeans necessary for preserving the power of the priests) had to bedetermined – and to this end they had to have a ‘revelation.’ Inplain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be perpetrated, and‘holy scriptures’ had to be concocted"

The Book of Exodus was written during the Exile.

>> No.5037387

>>5037199
>They are brainless traditionalists
They were very radical, promoting some traditional institutions but against right wing 'backwardness' and left wing 'destructiveness'.

>> No.5037421

>>5037146
It's more of a psychological argument. He said that everyone would prefer to make the world around them perfect, that if you could be God then you would. Essentially, this means that thrasymachus was right. He knew, though, that this was impossible and impractical for most everyone! It's important to remember that Nietzsche was pulling a Machiavelli, his works are read by everyone but the intended audience is definitely supposed to be a "prince", if you will.

The largest mistake people make when they read Nietzsche is they cling to morality when he explicitly denies it. He is not arguing for a system that all "should" follow.

>> No.5037428

>>5037161
Yeah, you're kind of a dummy. If you infer from Nietzsche that being a master is better, then that's your own internal feelings. Nietzsche never said either was how people "should" live, he just recognized that people who aren't masters surrender to resentment and slave morality

>> No.5037433

>>5037191
It's not clear that slave morality is bad for the whole though, even Plato recognize that. Masters surrendering to parts of slave morality (imagine the pope) was the perversion.

>> No.5037437

>>5037199
Nah, please don't make it a habit to say Nietzsche would have despised the nazis.

>> No.5037442

>>5037217
>Nietzsche was extremely critical of all nationalist thought, especially German nationalism. He was especially disgusted by the growing anti-semitism within Germany at the time.

What you think of as nationalism was NOT what Nietzsche thought of nationalism.

>> No.5037450

>>5037217
Do not listen to this poster. He has no clue what the fuck he is saying

Think of what Irish republicanism means, then think of what American republicans are like. Same names, but they are entirely different. Nietzsche absolutely believed in the qualities of the German race, which was a basis for the nazi party

>> No.5037454

>>5037235
>Nietzsche liked the Old Testament.

Fuck off. He did not like the Old Testament. He liked CERTAIN PARTS of it. He hated the book of Job, for instance.

>> No.5037460

>>5037146

Nietzsche's ideas are perfectly in tune with Fascism, a fact all leftwing scholars have tried to hide for decades, passing his words as "metaphors"when, honestly, there's no other way to understand it.

Nietzsche was a pussy, but had he had any spine and balls, he would have been a Nazi. I have more respect for Hitler than for Nietzsche.

>> No.5037462

>>5037255
Slave morality is just the consequence of oppression; it in itself isn't a perversion. The perversion is the result of people who believe slave morality is the "superior" moral position

>> No.5037468

>>5037295
Goethe is a prototypical übermensch, for the curious

>> No.5037473

tl;dr
>Why I am so alpha

>> No.5037474

>>5037387
Yeah, the Nazis were extremely radical. Never listen to people who try to defend Nietzsche from nazism, he would have criticized certain aspects, but would have appreciated its qualities

>> No.5037475

>>5037460
No. That was not at all what he meant. You're an idiot.

>> No.5037486

>>5037460
This poster is basically correct.

>> No.5037490

>>5037475
No, you are. Left-wing half steppers always pervert Nietzsches views

>> No.5037498

How do people say nietzsche wasn't right wing when he fully supported Napoleon's conquest? Napoleon was basically the French hitler

>> No.5037523

>>5037490
Are you literally retarded? Did you miss the direct quotes in this thread where he shat all over racism and nationalism?

>> No.5037531

>>5037498
Except Napoleon genocided no one, but created equal rights for all. It was he who gave Jew the same rights as any other man.

>> No.5037539

>>5037498
>Napoleon was basically the French hitler

Implementing equality before the law, gave religious freedom to non-Catholics, prohibited merchants from overpricing bread and flour, encouraged educational reforms, and preached liberty. Truly, he was history's greatest monster.

>> No.5037545

>>5037498
Because Napoleon was a dictator directly sprung out of the "enlightenmet" of the French Revolution. He was just as "right-wing" as Stalin.

>> No.5037548

>>5037146
Master moralities closest political analogue would be anarchism, the opposite of fascism.

>> No.5037554

>>5037523
Listen: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when Nietzsche says "nationalism". He speaks SPECIFICALLY about the sort of nationalism that DIVIDES nations! NOT about pride in your heritage, which was the Nazi goal! Hitler wanted to UNITE all of Europe under German master rule. Your misinterpretation of his quote isn't proof of anything other than you not putting effort into semantics

>> No.5037557

>>5037531
The antisemitism is the ONLY merit in the argument against Nietzsche being nazi! And it's not even a clear one at that

>> No.5037562

>>5037539
Surely you're not this stupid

>> No.5037567

>>5037548
No..

>> No.5037572

>>5037387
Generally said, Nazis were traditionalists as have most post-WW2 fascist movements been.

However there have been futurist Fascist movements especially early on: the Italian kind was closely linked with the petty-bourgeoise will to break out of aged and restrictive traditional morality and weak leftism, meanwhile KMTs fascist faction wanted to resign from the past and embrace the future and so on. Fascisms energetic and revitalizing power gained a lot of support from intellectuals in the 20s.

>> No.5037575

>>5037554
>He speaks SPECIFICALLY about the sort of nationalism that DIVIDES nations! NOT about pride in your heritage, which was the Nazi goal! Hitler wanted to UNITE all of Europe under German master rule.

Nietzsche hated Germans and claimed that all of his German heritage was actually Polish-Prussian.

>> No.5037576

Honestly, the only thing truly important in Neechee is the fact that he sure had some balls to say what he did

>> No.5037579

>>5037557
I was just refuting that Napoleon = French Hitler
If anything, Napoleon was the Anti-Hitler.

>> No.5037583

>>5037575
He talks about that in Ecce Homo.
He considered the french to have a far superior culture

>> No.5037587

>>5037575
Right, he said the Germans should have integrated the Jews, not cast them out. That's the only thing the Nazis did wrong, Nietzsche would have absolutely supported an antidemicratic conquest to unite Europe under one leader

Read: http://m.sparknotes.com/philosophy/beyondgood/section10.rhtml

>> No.5037594

>>5037579
>both were strictly right-wing leaders who tried to conquer Europe

Yes, both of them shared their most important and serious goal

It's a complete idiocy to claim the nazi movement was only about antisemitism, it's primary goal was the establishment of a 3rd reich, or a new Roman Empire

Jesus, it's so obvious that Nietzsche would have danced with glee at this idea

>> No.5037607

Ah, the master/slave false dichotomy.

*thumbs chin, puffs on pipe*

Yes.

>> No.5037623

Hitler conquering so much of Europe was because of the war, not because it was his plan. Originally the Nazis wanted to take over ethnic German territories and some Slav lands while working against the communist menace. Fighting communists internally and externally were one of the main objectives of the nazis and one of the main reasons people supported them. Western Europe turning against him was what made it necessary for Hitler to invade almost all of Western Europe. World domination was never Hitler's plan.

>> No.5037645

>>5037594
I'd say its primary goal was the glorification of what they saw as the German race, which Nietzsche would have hated. He probably would have had mixed feelings on the Nazis, and ultimately considered them evil for their genocide.

>> No.5037690

>>5037607
aren't all dichotomies false

>> No.5037715

>>5037690
like youre life loser

>> No.5037739

>>5037623
Maybe, but taking the "rightful" German lands was helpful in defeating the nationalism that was a plague was still a good goal in Nietzsches view

>> No.5037745

>>5037645
Well, it's not that simple. The German pride was hurt and shamed after WWI, so ruling up the population through pride was useful in stealing power, but I don't think it's clear at all that this was hitlers "primary" intention. Hitler was simply a master doing what masters do to take power

>> No.5037841

>>5037146
Read 'The Will to Power'
Quit posting on /lit/
????????????
Go fuck yourself

>> No.5038240

>>5037841
'The Will to Power' is BS

>> No.5038348

>>5037146

>Did Nietzsche believe that "master morality" was superior to "slave morality?"

The question wouldn't really make sense for Nietzsche. Slave morality may be necessary for the survival of the weak. Master morality is better seen as having two aspects. First, as another anon mentioned, it refers to human valuation before things got polluted upstream by slave morals. Master morality also refers to what would benefit those in contemporary society who are undermined by slave morals. Nietzsche thinks that there just weren't really ideals in the old master morality in the way that slave morality creates ideals and we can't go back to not thinking in terms of ideals. This is why geniuses today need to create their own ideals. So, it's hard to say that he thinks one morality is inherently superior to the other since they benefit different types of people. However, he's very clear about the importance of nascent geniuses not taking slave morals seriously and this point is arguably what's central to all of his work.

As you can probably already see, this is already quite different from fascism which makes universal value claims. Fascism has just as much, if not more, potential to undermine the talents of nascent geniuses than Christianity does.

He's well respected in Europe for a variety of reasons and many European philosophers read him in varied and incompatible ways. So, a little harder to give a specific answer there but "continental" philosophers were exposed to and thought through Nietzsche a lot earlier than Anglo-American philosophers. Anglo-Americans have been taking him more and more seriously the past few decades, especially people into virtue ethics (Philippa Foot, Bernard Williams, and Alisdair Macintyre come to mind) and neopragmatists like Rorty. This, along with a growing interest in history and certain "continental" figures has led to Anglo-Americans taking him more seriously (works by people like Brian Leiter and Maudemarie Clark, for example).

Anyways, I don't want to respond to all the little quibbles in this thread but Nietzsche was unequivocally not a fascist and openly ridiculed the people and movements that some people in this thread are pretending he liked.

>> No.5038468

Master morality is the idea that "good" is achieved through action and "bad" is inertia. Slave morality is the idea that "good" achieved through inertia and "evil" is achieved through action.

That's the basis premise. But there's several other important elements. Slave morality is reactive: instead of starting by affirming oneself as good, it starts by positing those it resents as bad; so if a neighbor has a nice car, you resent it (whether or not your neighbor ripped you off to get the car or got it it honestly is irrelevant here), and then you take everything about the neighbor and say it's evil: what beer your neighbor drinks, what your neighbor laughs at, what sports your neighbor watches, how your neighbor dresses, everything. Then you say "what is not these things, is good". Master morality, you affirm your goodness through action that is good; bad is affirmed through inertia ("bad" here is not the same as "evil", it is closer to feeling sorry for someone--I'd say "pity", but in translations that word is used for a German word, I forget what it is, which Nietzsche associates with condescension, whereas the sorry feeling of master morality is a genuine pang).

Master morality can be either destructive or constructive or whatever; you can be a serial killer with master morality, you can be a humanitarian with master morality. You can be pauper with slave morality, you can be a CEO with slave morality.

>> No.5038473

>>5038468
An important note: with slave morality, you end up positing the car itself as "evil"; then you feel that you are consequently "good" for not having one.

>> No.5038494

>>5038468

I'm a little confused by your use of "inertia."

I think the German word for pity was Mitleid which Nietzsche thinks is generally useless for masters. I think good and bad for the original masters is more along the lines of a young child's egoistic understanding of good and bad. Maybe this is what you're saying but I'm not sure. It's important to keep separate the master/slave dichotomy that Nietzsche points to as the roots of the genealogy and the master/slave dichotomy that Nietzsche points to as the psychological state which is the product of the history of those strands of valuation.

>> No.5038525

>>5038494
By inertia I mean doing nothing except what is demanded of you.

Yes indeed, that was the word. Although Nietzsche also says, in Genealogy of Morality, all about how the Greek words for "bad" (he examines several) related to someone who has it bad, someone who suffers, someone who is sad.

Master morality and slave morality are the fountains of values, yes, not the values themselves.

As for the child's understanding: would you say that master morality is synonymous with the child, then? I always thought he posited it is as the lion's morality, and that is what he meant by "blond beast" (which he uses to refer to Arabian and Japanese masters as well as Aryans). The way I understood it is the slave was the camel, master was the lion, and the child was beyond both. Nietzsche, for instance, says in Homer's Contest (granted, that's a far earlier work) that the sadism of the Greeks was a way of affirming their own safety and mastery, yet also a reminder of the threat they faced of becoming a slave. In other words, I think lion morality is partially based on fear of being a slave. And now I'm going to go out on a limb here (because it is an early work, it well might be argued that he went in another direction), but I feel that child morality is the aesthetic morality posited in The Birth of Tragedy, but much less self-conscious.

>> No.5038551

>>5038525

I substituted every instance of "inertia" with "doing nothing except what is demanded of you" and I'm still having trouble making sense of what you're saying. Good is achieved through action and bad though doing what is demanded of you could mean countless things and apply to either master or slave. Apply it to the slave: "I'm good because I acted benevolently and selflessly toward that person in need. It was bad when I had to do that thing my master demanded of me." And do a switcheroo and we can apply your definition of slave morality to masters: "It was good that I was moved by the demands of situation in battle so that I could more effectively kill the enemy but it been when I acted in a way which undermined my abilities by losing my focus." So, I'm still not sure your clarification really helps.

>related to someone who has it bad, someone who suffers, someone who is sad.

Right but that isn't a matter of pity so much as recognition that I wouldn't want such a life. Think about kids on the playground. A kid could recognize that he wouldn't want to be in the situation that a bullied kid is in but he could do without feeling any pity for that bullied kid (he could even be the one bullying the kid).

I haven't done much with Zarathustra so I hesitate to give any kind of interpretation there. The child is clearly beyond the camel and lion in some sense but in his less novel-y books he's more clear about the need to create new values, new ideals, and that this is definitely a part of master morality (keeping in mind the point about slave morality introducing ideals into our psyche). I could see the child symbolizing the kind of innocence associated with that. Other than that I'm not sure what to say. I think the point about Greek sadism is good but Nietzsche openly disavows what is central in Birth of Tragedy as an error of his youth and so I still think my interpretation is more appropriate (although I'm admittedly speculating about Zarathustra).

>> No.5038571

A lot of the posters here are missing a crucial point: Nietzsche didn't think anyone "should" follow master morality, even masters. He thought that even masters should transcend the master morality. Sure, it's better to be a slave than a master, but it's better to be an ubermensche than either. The ubermensche is Nietzsche's version of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith.

>>5038551
I think Feminister is trying to generalize slave morality in one word and you're taking her too seriously. Let's look at the Christian virtues and relate them to inertia:

Humility--inertia. De-emphasizes yourself, keeps you stationary.
Chastity--inertia. Keeps you from fulfilling sexual desires.
Patience--inertia. Thinking things will change by just sitting around.
Temperance--inertia. Denying yourself the wonders of life for an abstract value.

Some of the other Christian virtues like fortitude are more master style and they were borrowed from Aristotle's virtues, but you get the idea. Slave morality is the belief that the world will come along and fix things up for you. Master morality is the belief that you must go out and fix the world to suit yourself.

"While animals survive by adjusting themselves to their background, man survives by adjusting his background to himself."--Ayn Rand (hurr durr *tips fedora* Ayn Rand herp a derp)

>> No.5038622

>>5038571

This, though. Whereas we can't go back and ask Nietzsche exactly what he meant, his philosophy lends itself best to a, "life happens so sink your roots in deep and see what happens" approach. We accept teachings as a "camel," reject teachings as a "lion," and teach as a "child." The whole business reveals that we all subscribe to slave morality and master morality almost in equal measure. Since, according to Nietzsche, nobody can be right all the time and nobody can be wrong all the time, we must do our best to forge an independent "way" of sorts in an era and correct the past as best as the present can. The future takes it upon itself to correct the times and ideas we identify as "now." To be the "be all, end all" is the way for gods. Men just correct the roads that have been paved, the masters of an era rather than eternity.

>> No.5038631

>>5038571

The only crucial point about the ubermensche is that he's part of contemporary society and therefore, necessarily, has to create his own ideals which allow him to realize his full potential (whatever that may be). This contrasts with the originating form of master morality in that they didn't have ideals. This just means that master morality is modernized, not that there's some new and mysterious category Nietzsche says we should be in. Keep in mind that Zarathustra was meant as a more literary version of Beyond Good and Evil in which he explicitly says that this doesn't mean beyond good and bad. There's no justification for your position other than an idiosyncratic reading of Zarathustra.

>trying to generalize slave morality in one word and you're taking her too seriously

I know but I'm not understanding the use of that word, that's why I need it explained more clearly or with alternative words.

>Humility--inertia etc.

Okay, that makes more sense to me now. I kept thinking inertia in terms of things continuing to move so that's what threw me off.

>Slave morality is the belief that the world will come along and fix things up for you.

Definitely not always the case. The emphasis seems to be more on giving meaning to suffering than about how we expect things to be fixed up.

>>5038622

>we can't go back and ask Nietzsche exactly what he meant

No, but we can go back and look at exactly what Nietzsche wrote and I think we can say what he means with significantly more precision than you apparently do.

>> No.5038674

surprised at how decent this thread is

>> No.5038681

>>5038674
it must be samefaggotry

>> No.5038688

>>5038674
You ruined it.

>> No.5038713

he meant its better to be the master of yourself

>> No.5038738

>>5038713

OP here. Thanks for your thoughtful post. It contributed a lot and was so much better and accurate than those posts that elaborated and emphasized points that Nietzsche actually made. Thanks to your awesome post, I can happily say that I'm now satisfied with this thread.

>> No.5038765

>>5038688
you know i made it better

everyone should know that nietzsche loved the master morality. this is an elementary fact. look at how he sucks the dick of his hypothetical ubermensche in genealogy. while nietzsche was a pussy faggot himself, he was not a fan of pussies by any means. in fact, most of his philosophizing just looks like his attempt to create the perfect father figure that he never had; his own personal god if you will

what people itt are conveniently ignoring is what constitutes a 'master' in the first place. please understand, a nietzschean ubermensche is nothing less than a beautiful adonis radiance-exuding godlord bossking, with a master-morality of course. he is clearly intelligent, confident, and powerful. by extension, he cant be ugly either. one with *true* master-morality is in full control of everything around him, a coronated lord or humanity simply supervising his dominion. for evidence of this, look at he continuously uses the word 'noble' and contrasts it with 'plebeian', something that most of you are

who do you think nietzsche respects more: the men he literally defines as masters, or the men he literally defines as slaves?

the fact that this basic tenet of nietzsche is constantly overlooked is disappointing, but whatever

>> No.5038777

>>5038765
Please capitalize. You are really rustling my jimmies here.

>> No.5038786

>>5038777

How can you get trips and not recognize the entire post was a troll post? Do trips even mean anything anymore!?

>> No.5039261

>>5038786
bitch
im not trolling, take notes or shut the fuck up

>> No.5039284

>>5037433
Yes, I think it is e.g. especially the enlightenment writers that annoy him by regressing to 'slave morality'; his point is surely not intented to make a case against the peasant mass, to put it that way.

>> No.5039389

Difference being in master morality you don't need slaves, of other humans to rule over,but you also aren't ruled by anyone. You're master of yourself. And if someone decides to follow you, that's a different case. In slave mentality you make others your slaves with force and without their consent

>> No.5039849

>>5037433
It is perfectly clear. He was deeply against ressentiment which he regarded as the main problem of the world, and a direct result of slave morality.

Anyone trying to argue that he didn't think master was preferable over slave morality clearly did not read Nietzsche enough. To even try to argue that "slave" (i.e. submissive) is somehow NOT inferior to "master" (i.e. dominant) is ridiculous in itself. Did he advocate the complete abolishment of slave morality? No, because there is a very fragile balance between the two concepts; they are dependent. But he did not think they were equally preferable.

>> No.5040115

>>5039261
So when you actually make an effort your post turns out to be shit? Good show man!

>> No.5040182

>>5037191
>doesn't want any social reforms
>hates Christianity
>preaches that those with power should use it over those without
>preaches that humans should strive to become the superior superman, implying that the weaker aspects of humanity must be pruned in the process

I think it's pretty clear how the connection between him and Nazi's would be assumed by someone who didn't read a lot Niet.

>> No.5040209

>>5040115
if by shit you mean glorious then yes