Nietzsche

[de_budding]

I just finished reading (I printed and savoured rather than rushing on screen) and immediately found your interpretation (or explanation) of the master/slave morality struck a chord with me. I will perhaps chase this up later on paper (If I write by hand it means I'm really enthusiastic about it ) and try to explain why I think I struggle to chose which moral structure to use, often switching erratically between a elitist master style stance to an empathetic and forgive-all slave stance. Often the same social situation/dilemma will prompt a different moral response on different days- one day I will be in my ‘to know all is to forgive all mood’ and the next I will be in my ‘please don’t soil our society and stunt our growth’ mood, I think an interesting insight into the human psyche lies in this area.

The point was embellished further because, recently after reading some of the earlier chapters of Aristotle's 'Politics' I found myself more forgiving of the slave system and embracing the partnership Aristotle promoted between master and slave. Like Aristotle, this whole slave/master trip has a very natural and correct feel for me and I think the answer lies in the morality implied by either half.

Thanks again for the post I found it a very interesting read and wish I had the time and talent to articulate myself better

Dan.

[Mephistopheles]

Originally Posted by de_budding

I just finished reading (I printed and savoured rather than rushing on screen) and immediately found your interpretation (or explanation) of the master/slave morality struck a chord with me. I will perhaps chase this up later on paper (If I write by hand it means I'm really enthusiastic about it ) and try to explain why I think I struggle to chose which moral structure to use, often switching erratically between a elitist master style stance to an empathetic and forgive-all slave stance. Often the same social situation/dilemma will prompt a different moral response on different days- one day I will be in my ‘to know all is to forgive all mood’ and the next I will be in my ‘please don’t soil our society and stunt our growth’ mood, I think an interesting insight into the human psyche lies in this area.

I appreciate that Dan! I'm greatly honored man.

Obviously my interpretation of Nietzsche is my own, but I think you might have misinterpreted my interpretation about master/slave morality. It's not about elitism or "emphatic and forgive-all" stances. It's between levels of morality. Let me explain.

Master Morality
Good <-------> Bad

When "good" is used that simply means things which do not harm the individual, and sometimes society if one wishes to apply it. But there is no absolute concept of objective goodness; good is simply a master moral word to describe actions which bring order, stability, happiness, freedom, etc.

When "bad" is used that simply means things which harm the individual and society. Like goodness, there is no absolute objective badness in master morality. Bad simply refers to actions which bring chaos, instability, sadness/riotious anger, and unfreedoms.

The obvious stand-out of master morality is the fact it simply does not have objective morality at all.

Slave Morality
Good <---------> Evil

When good is used in the slave morality context, it means things which are good in a very objective sense, like giving to charity, sacrifice, worship, etc. Often, good is a state of mind where someone does not think but submits to a doctrine, religion, ideology, scripture, etc.

When evil is used it means absolute wrong. Clearly slave morality posits there is objective evil in the universe, and that some actions are simply bad all the time, no exceptions. And like goodness, evil is often a state of mind in opposite of goodness.

I believe it's clear that the common denominator of slave morality is a belief in objective morality.

Originally Posted by de_budding

The point was embellished further because, recently after reading some of the earlier chapters of Aristotle's 'Politics' I found myself more forgiving of the slave system and embracing the partnership Aristotle promoted between master and slave. Like Aristotle, this whole slave/master trip has a very natural and correct feel for me and I think the answer lies in the morality implied by either half.

Originally Posted by de_budding

Thanks again for the post I found it a very interesting read and wish I had the time and talent to articulate myself better

Dan.

Thank you for responding.

[de_budding]

This started out with a purpose but I digressed, so now it is a grand description of slave/master morality and how slave morality = religion and how master morality = law. Enjoy

There are no truely objective morals but, within our own particular culture, empathy can render one structure applicaple as if objective and that is the master morality spectrum or [fig 1]. This can realy be the only basis for morals and it is, but slave morality applies values of virtue and forgivness to excuse personal issues which can't be resolved with the standard aster morality spectrum... one of these issues is that the [fig 1] moral structure is the one used by their master and maybe some others will be notable as I dribble on. Any way to start...

When looking at master morality, is it accurate to describe the positive end of the spectrum (The Good) as that which does not harm the individual? I would put this, along with, that which does not benefit the individual in the middle of the spectrum; that which harms the individual [and society] is housed at the negative end of the spectrum which I think implies that, that which benefits the individual [and society] should be the positive end…

[Fig 1]

Good That which benefits the individual

Mid That which does not harm/benefit the individual

That which harms the individual Bad

The above moral structure is the only structure which can be applied objectivly because it is existential and we all exist.

On to slave morality which seems harder to define; When good is used it means giving to charity, sacrifice, worship, etc. Often, good is a state of mind where someone does not think but submits to a doctrine, religion, ideology, scripture, etc.

When evil is used it means absolute wrong. Clearly slave morality posits there is objective evil in the universe, and that some actions are simply bad all the time, no exceptions. And like goodness, evil is often a state of mind in opposite of goodness. Seems irrational and very different from the sensibly applicable mastar morality.

But the above description of slave morality actually prescribes no difference between the two (slave/master). Master’s doctrine, religion, ideology, scripture, etc. Is based on concepts of practicality and economy, it is existentially centered in its concerns. Then, slave morality simply uses a different doctrine which dictates a different moral structure than that from the master? That surely highlights that if slave morality is based on an objective set of morals from a doctrine, religion, ideology, scripture etc. Then the ‘master morality’ spectrum is just another objective moral doctrine which dictates that good is that which helps your existence and bad is that which doesn’t. This is no different from slave morality if we consider that, sure the master spectrum is based on a subjects judgment of a situation- what is good for the subject and what is bad (making it a subjective moral structure rather than objective), but we all (well most of us) have an immense capacity for empathy and understanding of one another which allows us to promote what would be a personal and subjective experience of choosing if something is Good-Mid-Bad, to something objective by applying it to all the subjects using our skills of empathy and understanding. In the same way a Christian can predict another Christians actions in a dilemma because he knows he will follow doctrine, a master can predict another masters actions in a dilemma because he knows he will choose according to existence and that which does/doesn’t harm it, another doctrine.
This is where I think we can improve our definition of master/slave morality by switching the subjective/objective divide to show that master morality is the most objective and that slave morality uses the same structure but digests it to suit their personal situation making it more subjective- even thought it may seem otehrwise because the slave will need to appeal to a higher power or doctrine to give himself clarity and purpose in his structure which realy is perhaps a manifestation of his personal situation.

As it is tough to describe the slave morality I will try applying it to hypathetical practice to see what can be found out about it and what actions and conclusion a slave might reach which are different from the master, even though they could be based on the same objective structre [fig 1].

I think when applied to everyday social practice that master morality reveals itself as unforgiving of those which could be potentially harmful, this is the nature of a master, to protect, so it follows that his moral structure be based on what does/doesn’t harm and that this spills over, or projects onto objects or situations of potential harm… for example, a dangerous driver will not be tolerated because he poses such a threat. A situation pushed to extremes might even reveal the essentially dominant and aggressive nature of the master as he begins to use threats and violence to deter the dangerous driver- perhaps sounding his horn, displaying a rude gesture, shouting and in extreme case trying to stop the ‘unapproved-of’ driver physically, not uncommon in sufferers of road rage, in fact even my brother thinks he is smart for knowing where a crow bar is in the boot of his car, as if it demonstrates this dominant protective side *roles eyes*.

The morality here is clearly surpassed by something other than personal awareness and worry over whether one may be harmed on not; master is by definition master, he has subjects or slaves and his morality is in part driven by protection of them and this, I think, is an extension of the master morlaity and surpasses it in some situations. master includes potential threats in the negative spectrum and is unforgiving of those who impose a personal threat. Where as slave, when confronted with a dangerous driver on the roads will first and foremost avoid the danger and escape, it is afterwards- when the danger has gone, that the morals may be projected, perhaps as a delusionary defense against the slave admitting his weakness. I think this manifests itself mostly as ‘forgiveness’. Forgiveness is a virtue applied after any situation of personal threat, harm or worry by the slave to dilute his cowardly self into an understanding, peaceful and forgiving self. In the same respect the master applies the virtue of passion and protection to dilute his aggressive behavior when dealing with potential threats and situations of personal threat, harm or worry.

From this perspective master/slave morality morphs into dominant/recessive morality or ruler/subject morality, perhaps implying that slave morality does not follow a doctrine, religion, ideology or scripture but creates them while master morality rises above the excuses and operates on the levels of generalization, ruling, protection, organizing etc. It follows that a nobleman and master who has had it easy all his life deals only with the evil of situations and works to diffuse, destroy or fix these situations, where as the slave, who has the evil of situations dealt with for him by master deals with a different set of issues including oppression and getting by without getting hurt, a more selfish self preservation than that of the master. This kind of slave rationale needs to be listed and thought about in depth because it is so much more subjective than master’s rationale; the slave’s discretion, tolerance and experience deal with how upsetting he judges a situation and I think this is where religious doctrines of morality must need creating to serve as a crutch to the downtrodden.

In conclusion, slavery made religion while mastery (ruling) made law and legislation. The former is a set of subjective moral values promoted to objectivity via selfish thinking, the other a set of subjective values promoted to objective via empathy, generalization and reason.

Dan.

[Mephistopheles]

I really liked that Dan. You totally get it and I see no reason to comment other than to say it was written pretty well, man. I mean, there's nothing I disagree with in relations to your mini-essay, and it was a good one at that.

Nietzsche is fun huh?!

[PursuitOfReality]

I would like to talk about my interpretations of Nietzsche. I do think he deserves a spot in your sub-forum "19th Century Philosophy!"

[Arjen]

I am only replying because I feel it should be said that de_buddings post above is not what Nietzsche ment. It would be a shame if an inquisitive mind would read it and take it as truth.

I am going to make this short because I do not have the time to respond in fitting matter. It seems to me that in the conclusion the major mistakes are visible:

Originally Posted by de_budding

In conclusion, slavery made religion while mastery (ruling) made law and legislation. The former is a set of subjective moral values promoted to objectivity via selfish thinking, the other a set of subjective values promoted to objective via empathy, generalization and reason.

1) According to Nietsche both religion and law as master morality.
2) Nietzsche argues in 'Der Antichrist' that in times long past the Jews were repressed by the Egyptians, thus having no political leaders and therefore turning to their religious leaders for guidance, thus creating a ressentiment which turned the weak (enslaved) into the 'good' and the strong (enslavers) into the 'evil'. This has had serious repercussions in Jewish later history and thereby in Christianity because it breeds a seperation of 'good' and 'evil', while both are merely judgements. This creates an easthetical ideal which excludes those things that are deemed 'evil': strength.
3) Nietzsche argues in his 'Jenseits von Gut und Böse' that both law and religion are means by which people get an aesthetical ideal forced upon them concerning how to behave. According to Nietzsche such ideals are always false because of the fact that at the very least humans cannot judge what is 'good' or 'evil', and at its extreme 'good' and 'evil' do not exist in reality.

I hope anybody trying to form a judgement on Nietzsche's work will follow the links to the gutenberg project to read the works in question.

[jgweed]

Given the immense influence of Nietzsche upon modern continental philosophy, I am surprised that a forum has not been added. Certainly also his works are generally available, and there is no dearth of possible interpretations.
Regards,
John

[Martin]

I have a lot of conflicting feelings about Nietzsche. I don't read him for inspiration. I cannot read him for long without feeling quite depressed. This I know is because he was throughout his life a deeply lonely person. He was never really able to connect with anybody. Thus, despite his prodigous intellect, emotionally he never advanced much beyond adolescence. Instead he lived entirely for the mind; thought was his very lifeblood, his soul, his essence. I guess I flinch from him because he is the sort of person I could easily have become myself. He is a kind of tragic hero, a Hamlet, immensely courageous in his solitary quest to batter down the fortresses of illusion that had passed till then for human knowledge. Because of that amazing tenacity he was hugely influential in the twentieth century not just in philosophy, but in art, literature, and a myriad of other disciplines. He was a brilliant writer, one of the few genuine philopsophers - St Augustine and Sartre being two others - to bridge the gap between philosophy and literature. He was definitely on the 'art' side of philosophy rather than the 'science.' But even great artists, like Richard Wagner, only partially understood him. And all his achievements were created in extreme isolation, outside of either the academic or artistic establishments, both of which he dabbled in early in his life, but then abandoned, doubtlessly believing that it was they who had abandoned him.
He stated 'God is dead' because for him it was so. Unlike many he was never able to recover from the religious trauma of his early life. He was never able to discover within the Spirit that is beyond religion. For me this makes him not someone I can look to for wisdom, such as I can, for example, with Kierkegaard. As a deconstructionist, though, he is almost beyond peer, and one can see why Heidegger and Derrida, for example, almost worship him.
It goes without saying that the infame of his association with Nazism does a horrible injustice to his memory. Nevertheless some of his later writings and ideas do skirt dangerously close to lending themselves to such misinterpretations. I believe his whole concept of the ubermensch and the master/slave mentality ultimately spring from his deep sense of personal inferiority, which, without God, has nothing to fall back upon except its polar opposite, extreme aggrandisement. In such meadows are nurtured the seedlings of human extremism.

[de_budding]

Thanks Martin,
That was an illuminating post, I enjoyed reading it.
Dan.

[Martin]

Isn't it interesting that the first four letters of his name should mean 'no' in Russian!

Martin