While
reading Nietzsche this week, I found myself floundering, and truly struggling
to even argue against his ideas since the structure of our language itself
means that I am falling into his trap when attempting to argue. I, did,
however, notice an interesting fact about the slaves Nietzsche describes –
they’re the ones on top now. To me, that is a hugely significant aspect of the
history of morality as Nietzsche describes it. In spite of all of his rather
negative comments regarding the slaves (they were sick, they were weak, they
are liars, etc.), it would seem that, judging the course of history laid down
by Nietzsche, the slaves have one key strength – their intelligence.
First off,
if the slaves were as low as it seems Nietzsche argues, constantly bullied by
the nobles, unable to get what they want, then it was not only useful, but
arguably necessary for their own success to radically alter the status quo.
According to Nietzsche, however, the slaves would have been unable to do so, as
they were largely incapable of exerting their will on the world around them.
And yet they did. By so drastically altering the framework for moral evaluation
of basically the entire world, they very clearly exerted their will and put
themselves on top in a brilliant manner. They realized that the noble were
obviously stronger than them, and so they somehow managed to introdutce a
system of morality that cast themselves as the people that the world should
admire.
Once again,
there is no other word to describe this course of action other than absolutely brilliant.
To me, that pokes somewhat of a whole in Nietzsche’s distinction between the
noble and the slavish populations. If the noble really were the only ones
capable of exerting their strength and will on the world, wouldn’t the original
system of good vs. bad still exist? If they were so weak, how exactly did the
slaves manage to convince what essentially amounts to the entire world that
they were the ones worthy of exaltation and blessings? My feeling is that,
while much of what Nietzsche says about the nobles may be true, he missed the
point that there is clearly more than one way to exert your will. So maybe it
is slavish of me not to just take what I want, when I want, how I want. But how
could the slaves be expected to do that against the nobles? By reducing the
nobles to a level below themselves so that their own stuff (for lack of a
better word) was no longer threatened by the nobles. It seems that, according
to this story, brain beat out brawn in the course of history. What are your
thoughts? Am I oversimplifying? Giving the slaves too much credit?
I don't think that Nietzsche is necessarily arguing for one mode of evaluation over another. He is simply presenting the historical account, and while there are definitely some words that give the impression of bias, I think it is only because he is comparing it with the noble mode and must use those terms. I think he may disagree with the logic behind the slavish morality, but he also credits the slaves with being clever masters of language. I am intrigued by your point about brain over brawn - obviously the noble mode of evaluation (or at least their perception of their own strength) was flawed if the slaves were able to exert their will over that of the master's.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I believe that the weak have won, in a sense, because there is coexistance in the world. Just because doers/the masters can does not necessarily mean that they always will exert themselves over others (indication of free will!), and even if they do the fact that the slaves are able to separate the meanings of their exertions (as good or as evil) enables them to objectively and rationally determine their own places and potentials in the world. The slaves are clever, and continuing with your "brain over brawn" idea, I believe they certainly have the potential to reorder themselves into higher rank in society.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the slaves seem to be inferior to the masters yet still have qualities that make them seem superior in some ways. Slave morality has many principles that seem more realistic than some of the masters’ principles. Yet I find that neither the masters nor the slave morality to be moralities to live by. Each has faults and each have benefits. Our modern morality system is a mixture of slave morality of master morality and hence full of many contradictions. In reality there will be a mix of master and salve in every individual. It is not possible to be truly independent and it is not possible to completely follow the salves, when the salves themselves have various viewpoints. Nietzsche’s concept of slave master morality is a better generalization than an actual truth.
ReplyDeleteYou raised some interesting points but it is important not to forget that the slaves did not suddenly rise up one day and shift the entire mode of evaluation for everyone. They were aided by the so-called Priests who had to struggle with ressentiment just as the slaves did -- though they were similar to the masters. This is not just a dialogue of the weak winning over the strong but an account of how the aspects that make up goodness in the modern day (e.g. humility, sympathy, compassion) are directly in opposition of what goodness originally denoted (e.g. strength, power, advantage). Even though it makes it easier to conceptualize by making it a story of "brain over brawn" you have to be careful that you do not belittle the deeper implications of Nietzsche's descirption/critique of moral philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the arguments Nietzsche brings forth are somewhat muddled by people's prior notions about the words he uses, 'Slaves' and 'Nobles' being the foremost example. However, these could be replaced with words like 'prey' and 'predators', respectively, and the whole thing takes on something of a new air. Being a noble sounds great because of the implied 'noble' qualities, but the same people marked as 'predators' sound distinctly 'not noble.' If Nietzsche's works could be read without ascribing any particular name to any one group, but simply referring to them as 'group 1' and 'group 2' or something similarly arbitrary, then his works would probably be misunderstood less.
ReplyDelete