Nietzsche makes the effort to very clearly define the three categories of people in life: the masters, priests, and slaves. The masters reign superior over the remaining two categories because whatever they will becomes true. Whatever they say must be followed by everyone because they make the rules due to their strength and refusal to ever be submissive. The masters undoubtedly seem ultra-powerful from the way that Nietzsche describes them, but is this really even a good thing? Our guest professor on Thursday kept on referring to them as the lions on this food chain because of their powerful nature. I believe this to be an accurate comparison, but it also made me see the masters in a very animalistic sight. If anything they will becomes set in stone due to their dominant ways, couldn't they give in to a series of impulsive and thoughtless decisions, making them weaker in the end? If their actions are always just, it seems as though humanity would regress based off of this macho, take what you want and not feel bad about it world Nietzsche is building up.
I also had pretty big beef with the fact that Nietzsche dismisses the slaves' action of flipping humanity's standards of morality. In going along with what he claimed the slaves brought with Christianity (weakness now equating to good/going to heaven and strength equating to bad/going to hell), that still took a certain strength to convince pretty much everyone that this is how morality should be. You can chalk up the slaves to be sneaky and weak for having to use their mind to trump the masters, but at the end of the day, the slaves still won the fight. I would also argue that utilizing the brain and mind is a much higher "good" than simply using brute force to be a dominant species. If we all aimed to be masters, would we turn into nothing more than a bunch of animals fighting in an urban jungle? What's the deal?
I'm going to start with your conclusion: according to Nietzsche's analysis, there is no going back to the original good/bad signification. To consider what it would be like if everyone were to strive to be part of the master species is not consistent with his analysis. One does not strive to be a master. His genealogy specifically states that you are born into these categories. The master cannot, by definition, think of herself as a master, she simply is so. These terms predate, as you said, the separation of the subject from the act. Her actions then represent what is noble because she does them and she is noble. She creates meaning through a positive interaction with the world. What makes the slave worthy of opprobrium is that he reacts to the world negatively. He looks upon the world with fear and ambivalence. Due to this ambivalence, he has no choice but to withdrawal, to posit a doer behind the act, which creates a separation between identity and action. Also, the second terms are not good/bad but good/evil. Bad is simply a qualitative judgment, evil is a moral judgment. There are no morals before the slave revolt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tim when he says "the master simply is so." Harrison, you were concerned that since a noble's will becomes law, it would be possible for a noble to make a bad decision which would lead to alot of suffering for the others. However, I don't think nobles can make poor decisions. They are nobles because they are good; they are good because they are nobles. The noble cannot be separated from the good. Those who make bad decisions are bad - they are the slaves. As Dr. J said, you cannot do a bad act and then say, "Well, I'm just not the kind of person who does that bad act." Actually, you are that kind of person. A noble cannot do wrong, because then he wouldn't have been a noble in the first place - he would have been a slave.
ReplyDeleteI think you make an interesting point Harrison. But I do agree with Tim in his discussion of Nietzsche's masters. For Nietzsche, society is not made up of slaves striving to be masters. People are simply born either a slave or a master (or a priest). I think often with our American mindset, it is hard for us to imagine a society that is not focused on social mobility. In America, it is ingrained in our minds that if one works hard, then you can climb the social and economic ladder. But Nietzsche does not see it this way. He is similar to Plato in believing that people are either born masters or slaves. Plato's myth of the medals reflects the same idea. So in Nietzsche's theory, there would be no competition between everyone to be masters because the masters are already determined by dispositional factors upon birth. Now competition between masters is a different story. This is something that would be worth looking in to.
ReplyDeleteI am going to take the fun opportunity to defend Nietzsche's master class, since no one else is stepping up to the bat on that point. Nietzsche's argument that there exist superior beings whose wills promote a natural sense of order over the priests and slaves, though perhaps unfair to the lesser classes is at least effective. If equality abounded, wouldn't there be a huge degree of strife amongst the populace? And, if this were the case, would society as a whole be dominated by bickering and unproductive attempts at organized government? I believe Neitzsche would agree that it would be so. In thinking about my own government and the recent (and absolutely ridiculous) government shutdown, maybe Nietzsche's system is more realistic about society's greatest potential for effective governmental order.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the above commentary. It was my understanding that although the slaves recognized there was a power difference between the masters and themselves they did not look to become to masters but rather to change the system. The slaves simply resent them and choose to revenge; however, they choose not to conform. I also think that most people don’t consider the salves to be “sneaky and weak” because slave morality has brought a number of benefits. The slaves are dunning and have acquired the characteristics that distinguish us from animals and are able to successfully gain fearsome power.
ReplyDelete