There is a lot more to the first essay, but basically (without going much into ressentiment): - Master morality: Good/BAD. The "masters" value that which gives them power - strength, beauty, pride, ambition, etc. "Bad" is what does not: weakness, cowardice, timidity, pity, etc. Master morality is based on good or bad consequences, not intentions. It's affirmative and active, not reactive. The masters don't really regard the slaves at all. They just see them as losers. - Slave morality: Good/EVIL. Being unable to act on their own will to power because of the masters, the slaves "revolt", forming a new morality that is a reaction to and the inverse of master morality. They make virtues of things they were already forced to endure (while pretending it was voluntary.) Good is now humility, chastity, charity, equality, etc. Evil is that which the masters value and that which oppresses the the slaves (strength, pride, etc.) This inversion allows the slave to consider himself superior to the master. The slaves universalize their values (something that master morality does not do). It doesn't free anyone, but instead makes slaves of the masters as well. - The priestly class is sort of an emergent group of relatively weak but clever masters that subversively uses slave morality to both control the slaves and subjugate the more naturally powerful master aristocracy. - Judaism, and by extension Christianity, are (Nietzsche thinks) the origination of our slave morality, and they have been wildly successful in crushing and consuming civilizations that valued master morality (Romans, Greeks). Who does Rome bow to today? The lion or the lamb? - Some argue that Nietzsche didn't value master morality over slave morality, but that's a hard argument to make IMO. He was very clearly disgusted by slave morality, which is subversive, pessimistic and reactionary, but he did admire it as a creative act, thus proving that new moral systems could be created. In any case, he didn't argue for a return to master morality, but a reevaluation of both. He also said the morality of the herd should rule the herd, but not presume to be the morality for those outside of it.
So, while Nietzsche's Views in Women are horrible, the accusation of gendered language, always emphasing "Man, Man, Man" is just wrong, since refferring to Humans as "Man" or "Mankind" is an English thing. In German (that Nietzsche wrote in) you'd (also back then) refer to "Man" as "Mensch" which means just "Human", only being poorly translated as "Man" or maybe because the word "Human" isn't used in the same way in English. Menscheit means Humankind and Mensch means Human, but was translated here as "Man". So while I agree that Nietzsche was a sexist, but that criticism is just not correct
Good one. You nearly covered it all. The tone of this book is polemical but Nietzsche has some ‘mic dropping’ ideas. I would want to add a little more to your deliberation on the Jewish ressentiment and his ideas about Science . Nietzsche sees the Jesus of Nazareth as to have born out of hatred. The redeemer (of debt) of the suffering, the sick, the ugly, the ‘every ideal that opposed the aristocratic ideal of good’. The Jesus of Nazareth was Israel’s pinnacle of supreme revenge which employed the ideal of love and ultimately it was Israel who offered this God to the Cross for the world (her enemies) as a bait to nibble on, God annihilated himself for the love for his debtor. Thus, Nietzsche sees the creative potential in ressentiment and says that this creativity is born as a reaction (born out of a ‘No’ to an authority ) while the good of the aristocratic was always spontaneous. N.also sees the foreclosure in science , its servility to a a value creating power and thus he sees a striking resemblance of it with the Ascetic Ideal. On a lighter note, Nietzsche appears to be a misogynist (he is mostly misunderstood for his way of overthrowing the established hegemonies of language), and despite being a woman, I kind of absolve him of all that. Nietzsche is turbulence, incomprehensible, and he just cannot be put in a straitjacket.He has embodied an excess of thinking, feeling and writing.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Second only to mine! :D ahah keep it up mate. would love to see you analyse Sam Harris' Waking Up book. I did not like his other books, but that book hit me hard.
You’re doing great stuff. Been a fan for a while.. when you covered Virilio, I thought; might has well go all the way (after Baudrillard) - suggestion 📦 Cybernetic Culture Research Unit and acolytes (I know you will find the angles left out...
Hey just want to let you know you came and been helping me a ton creating this sample paper for grad school. Watching your videos than reading the material has really been helpful!
Hi I really enjoy your videos and commented once on a different video. Wondering if you have any thoughts on the first essay. Personally I found the first essay so overtly proto-facist I have a difficult time reading subsequent chapters in an non-facist way. This is a book I would like to enjoy but find myself fighting against as I read it.
Ya I think that that is valid. It's difficult not to read in Nietzsche a simple submission to the dictum that might makes right. What is more, the way that he presents animal relationships to highlight what humans could/should be like appears to veer dangerously close to fascist worldview of domination and subordination. With that being said, I think he gives us some interesting insights into what philosophy can do when it isn't burdened by the rose-colored naivete of some philosophers that preceded him. Really good point, thanks for sharing!
To me Nietzsche as primarily psychological and individualistic, though I would try to avoid being quick to label and instead be specific about what I disagree with him about. We know he was critical the proto-fascists in Germany and dismissive of the socialists. Nietzsche (to his credit) wasn't one to offer much in the way of social solutions, he only tried to see things as they really are, and question how we got here.
Nicholas and Mac brought two point of views, or i should rather say, two approaches/paradigms we can use when reading Nietzsche ; and both of these approaches are equally valid. Nietzsche is dead, and its not possible to ask him which paradigm we should get rid of.
Also, he doesn’t favour polytheism per say. I think he mentions the gods of the Greek who were human like both in shape and nature and he sees a cunningness on the part of Greeks (which I think he kind of admires) as a way to keep the “bad conscience” at bay so that they could carry on enjoying the freedom of the soul because their Gods also made the same ‘sins’ etc that the humans did. Christendom particularly made a God opposite to that ideal.
The crucifixion is complex. The religious rulers wanted Jesus dead. Judas wanted Jesus to overthrow the Romans. Pilot's wife had a dream and warned Pilot. Have nothing to do with this just man. Pilot gave the crowd a choice, they picked Barabbas instead of Jesus, saying let his blood be upon us and our children. There is a lot more to this. This is answered in Revelation. Jesus will return as messiah when they accept him as a nation.
Nietzsche confuses meekness with weakness. Meekness is a powerful and spirited horse under the influence of the bridle. Guilt is also an obsession with law. Debt and redemption.
@@MacSmithVideo Exactly as you write. But I didn't find that out until I started reading Nietzsche myself. Until then, I had only seen the views of a "sanitized" Nietzsche, stripped of his edge, presented to me by liberals or Nietzsche from Wikipedia.
I think you've completely misinterpreted Nietzsche with your positive appraisal of 'safe spaces' bro. Suffering is a necessary component of inurement, that which is required to overcome in order to flourish. Safe spaces are a (illusory) shield from suffering. Also, 'feminism' is a manifestation of slave morality, and herd-like. As is Foucault (communism/socialism).
Nietzsche seems to hold the idea of Akhenaten/Moses being the father of all evil on our plane of existence. I couldn't agree more! He hasn't gone as far into the actual history as I would like, but it's not my book. I'm only half way through his book. I'm hoping for more to be revealed, but ya know what they say about hope? =D
