Zur Genealogie der Moral Eine Streitschrift Epub á

Zur Genealogie der Moral Eine Streitschrift Epub á

Zur Genealogie der Moral Eine Streitschrift ❮PDF / Epub❯ ★ Zur Genealogie der Moral Eine Streitschrift Author Friedrich Nietzsche – Larringtonlifecoaching.co.uk Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the most influential thinkers of the past 150 years and On the Genealogy of Morality 1887 is his most important work on ethics and politics A polemical contribution to mo Friedrich Nietzsche is der Moral PDF/EPUB Â one of the most influential thinkers of the past years and On the Genealogy of Morality is his most important work on ethics and politics A polemical contribution to moral and political theory it offers a critiue of moral values and traces the historical evolution of concepts such as guilt conscience responsibility law and justice This is a revised and updated edition of one of the most successful volumes to appear in Zur Genealogie Epub / Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought Keith Ansell Pearson has modified his introduction to Nietzsche's classic text and Carol Diethe has incorporated a number of changes to the translation itself reflecting the considerable advances in our understanding of Nietzsche in the twelve years since this edition first appeared In this new guise the Cambridge Texts edition of Nietzsche's Genealogy should continue to enjoy widespread adoption at both undergraduate and graduate level.

10 thoughts on “Zur Genealogie der Moral Eine Streitschrift

  1. Rowland Pasaribu Rowland Pasaribu says:

    On The Genealogy of Morals is made up of three essays all of which uestion and critiue the value of our moral judgments based on a genealogical method whereby Nietzsche examines the origins and meanings of our different moral conceptsThe first essay ' Good and Evil' 'Good and Bad' contrasts what Nietzsche calls master morality and slave morality Master morality was developed by the strong healthy and free who saw their own happiness as good and named it thus By contrast they saw those who were weak unhealthy and enslaved as bad since their weakness was undesirable By contrast the slaves feeling oppressed by these wealthy and happy masters called the masters evil and called themselves good by contrastThe second essay ' Guilt' 'Bad Conscience' and the like deals with surprise surprise guilt bad conscience and the like Nietzsche traces the origins of concepts such as guilt and punishment showing that originally they were not based on any sense of moral transgression Rather guilt simply meant that a debt was owed and punishment was simply a form of securing repayment Only with the rise of slave morality did these moral concepts gain their present meanings Nietzsche identifies bad conscience as our tendency to see ourselves as sinners and locates its origins in the need that came with the development of society to inhibit our animal instincts for aggression and cruelty and to turn them inward upon ourselvesThe third essay What is the meaning of ascetic ideals? confronts asceticism the powerful and paradoxical force that dominates contemporary life Nietzsche sees it as the expression of a weak sick will Unable to cope with its struggle against itself the sick will sees its animal instincts its earthly nature as vile sinful and horrible Unable to free itself from these instincts it attempts to subdue and tame itself as much as possible Nietzsche concludes that man would rather will nothingness than not willNietzsche is difficult to read because he demands that we overturn or suspend many of the assumptions that our very reasoning relies upon He is one of the Western tradition's deepest thinkers precisely because he calls so much into uestion If we can come to understand Nietzsche's genealogical method his doctrine of the will to power and his perspectivism as all linked his arguments will become much easier to followIn Nietzsche's distinction between a thing and its meaning we find the initial doubt with which Nietzsche unravels so many of our assumptions We are generally tempted to see things as having inherent meanings For instance punishment is at once the act of punishing and the reason behind the punishment However Nietzsche argues these things have had different meanings at different times For instance the act of punishment has been at times a celebration of one's power at times an act of cruelty at times a simple tit for tat We cannot understand a thing and we certainly cannot understand its origin if we assume that it has always held the same meaningCentral to Nietzsche's critiue then is an attempt at genealogy that will show the winding and undirected route our different moral concepts have taken to arrive in their present shape Morality is generally treated as sacred because we assume that there is some transcendental ground for our morals be it God reason tradition or something else Yet contrary to our assumption that good bad or evil have always had the same meanings Nietzsche's genealogical method shows how these terms have evolved shattering any illusion as to the continuity or absolute truth of our present moral conceptsBecause they can have different even contradictory meanings over the course of their long life spans Nietzsche does not believe that concepts or things are the fundamental stuff that makes up reality Instead he looks beneath these things to see what drives the different meanings that they adopt over time Hiding beneath he finds force and will All of existence Nietzsche asserts is a struggle between different wills for the feeling of power This will to power is most evident on a human level where we see people constantly competing with one another often for no other purpose than to feel superior to those that they overcomeThat a thing has a meaning at all means that there is some will dominating it bending it toward a certain interpretation That a thing may have different meanings over time suggests that different wills have come to dominate it For instance the concept of good was once dominated by the will of healthy strong barbarians and had the opposite meaning that it does now that it is dominated by the will of weak sick asceticsAccording to Nietzsche then a belief in an absolute truth or an absolute anything is to give in to one particular meaning one particular interpretation of a thing It is essentially to allow oneself to be dominated by a particular will A will that wishes to remain free will shun absolutes of all kinds and try to look at a matter from as many different perspectives as possible in order to gain its own This doctrine that has deeply influenced postmodern thought is called perspectivismNietzsche's inuiries are thus conducted in a very irreverent spirit Nothing is sacred nothing is absolute nothing we might even say is true Our morality is not a set of duties passed down from God but an arbitrary code that has evolved as randomly as the human species itself The only constant is that we and everything else are constantly striving for power and the only constant virtue is a will that is powerful and free from bad conscience hatred and ressentimentNietzsche's main project in the Genealogy is to uestion the value of our morality Ultimately he argues that our present morality is born out of a resentment and hatred that was felt toward anything that was powerful strong or healthy As such he sees our present morality as harmful to the future health and prosperity of our species While the blonde beasts and barbarians of primitive master morality are animalistic brutes at least they are strong and healthy On the other hand our present ascetic morality has deepened us by turning our aggressive instincts inward and seeing ourselves as a new wilderness to struggle against Nietzsche's ideal is to maintain this depth and yet not be ashamed of our animal instincts or of the life that glows within us

  2. Brad Lyerla Brad Lyerla says:

    When I was an undergraduate I tried some Nietzsche I read BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL THE GAY SCIENCE and THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY This was reading that I did on my own and not as part of a class I don’t remember how I chose those books but I can report now with no embarassment that my reading was superficial and that I did not genuinely understand much if any of it More surprisingly I did not like Nietzsche He is too much work He uses words in idiosyncratic ways that are confusing and force multiple re readings He relies on clever aphorisms and allegories that seem calculated to appear profound but always remain at least partly unexplained He is not expositive He rarely asserts a proposition and then defends it with evidence and reason in the conventional way Instead he asserts something and generally cannot be bothered to defend it He would rather discuss the conseuences of his assertions than examine their accuracy as the threshold uestion This irritates me now and I can remember being irritated by it all those decades ago too I lost interest in NietzscheSeveral years ago I read Curtis Cates’ biography of Nietzsche Ugh I do not remember why I picked that biography I have a vague recollection of seeing it in the sale bin at a used book store Whatever drove me to pick it up it was not a good choice Nietzsche’s life was boring and Cates’ intellectual history was not insightful I lost interest in Nietzsche againThen in a random conversation with a friend whose opinion I value he mentioned that he had given a talk on ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS at a local college and thought it was worthwhile I did not run out and buy a copy but I also did not forget his comment I made a mental note to read it when I had time Some years passed This past spring I had the time and inclination to finally read THE GENEALOGY Before I began I was encouraged to learn that many regard THE GENEALOGY to be Nietzsche’s most conventional book and uite a few consider it his best book That seemed promising I thought that a conventional presentation of his ideas might make him understandable to someone like me I began to look forward to digging in and gaining enlightenment I had to admit that I would love to understand why Professor Nietzsche is held in such high regardTHE GENEALOGY is written as three distinct essays and I will discuss them as such though I am going to touch on highlights only If you want the full down and dirty you will have to read THE GENEALOGY yourself It’s short and at times insightful and fun At others it is very frustratingIn a brief introduction Nietzsche explains that he intends to investigate the origin and value of morality He seems to want to understand the degree to which compassion self denial and self sacrifice promote and benefit humankindThe first essay is Nietzsche’s explanation of the difference between the “good vs bad” dichotomy in comparison to the “good vs evil” dichotomy He seems to see these distinctions as a refutation of ‘utilitarianism’ which he disdains At this point I was already confused In the introduction Nietzsche talks of the value of morality in terms of its benefits to humanity This is utilitarianism talk Yet he starts out almost immediately by disparaging utilitarianism This annoyed me and seemed a sort of classic Nietzschean maneuverIn the case of good and bad Nietzsche asserts that ‘good’ is associated with the aristocracy and ‘bad’ is associated with the peasantry He offers as proof for this the fact that the German word for bad ‘schlecht’ has a common root with the German word for peasant like ‘schlicht’ He notes that Greeks referred to nobles applying the Greek word for ‘true’ And the Romans used a word that also meant ‘warrior’ to refer to the noble class There Now are you convinced? Per Nietzsche the words 'good' and 'bad' in some languages at a distant time in the hoary past were terms for different social classes and some of that meaning lingers Next Nietzsche considers what happens when the ruling class is made up of priests instead of warriors Priests value purity whereas warrior aristocrats value health strength beauty and power These are the things that are ‘good’ Priests stand the warrior values on their head To priests the weak poor suffering and ugly are the truly ‘good’ people Nietzsche calls this morality “slave morality” and in a passage that does nothing to endear Nietzsche to me he attributes slave morality to Jews Though it was the martyrdom of Christ that “baited” the world into accepting slave morality assuring the dominance of a priestly value system In the priestly value system God is defined as good and the opposite of evil Evil is identified with the strong the noble and the beautiful Therefore in slave morality the world becomes ugly and banal because the beautiful is evil Nietzsche does not oppose kindness humility and forgiveness per se He does want us to understand that they are transformations of the impotence submission and cowardice of the slave classNietzsche believes that the conflict between “good and bad” vs “good and evil” reflects two value systems The latter has been predominant in recent times The second essay is mostly a discussion of conscience justice and punishment According to Nietzsche humans are uniue in that they can make promises This presupposes a continuity of purpose that animals lack In humans that purpose is opposed by a tendency to forget This is healthy Memory loss prevents a lingering sense of failure and disappointment in humans It makes it possible to be hopeful about the futureConscience is an instinct to carry out responsibilities Societies have invented means to instill the habit of keeping promises But Nietzsche insists that a bad conscience is not a fear of punishment In fact originally punishment had no connection with what we now call conscience Rather punishment originated as a form of repaying a debt The debtor would repay his creditor by suffering The creditor was repaid in the form of the pleasure that comes from enjoying the suffering of another This pleasure is connected to the human experience of power Are you rolling your eyes at this? At least a little?Nietzsche goes on at length about punishment and suffering Among other conclusions he draws he offers the theory that God was invented to make human suffering meaningful Relatedly he wonders if free will was invented to make the world interesting to God Nietzsche then returns to the subject of justice and offers a definition that justice is payment by a transgressor of what he owes to the community Nietzsche thinks that societies move through stages of justice including a stage where a legal system will be devised to impose justice Such a system will include elements of mercy a luxury of the strongNietzsche concludes the second essay by acknowledging that he has been harsh in his criticisms of Christianity But he feels that the “disease” of “bad conscience” warrants a harsh response Christianity has associated guilt with feelings that are fundamental and unavoidable as a part of our nature This creates a desire for other worldliness or purity that Nietzsche considers nihilistic He argues that humanity reuires an upheaval of values so that moral condemnation no longer attaches to things that are a natural part of earthly human life He sees Zarathustra of his earlier writings as the embodiment of the upheaval that humanity needs The third essay addresses asceticism Nietzsche discusses the attraction asceticism holds for women the psychologically ill and priests among others Women find it enhances their charms says Nietzsche He must have been a fun date Psychotic people find asceticism attractive because they wish to withdraw from the world Priest are drawn to it because it gives them power These differences suggest a shared fear of nothingness and a corresponding urge to find meaning Nietzsche believes And folks isn’t that a weird inference to draw? Or is it just me? Nietzsche then considers the case of Richard Wagner and his opera Parsifal which praises chastity Why would Wagner a master of sensuality praise asceticism? He may have felt a need to embrace and associate with respectability To this end Wagner accepted Schopenhauer and his special metaphysical category of music—as an expression of the basic nature of the universeNietzsche then offers a discussion of Schopenhauer’s personal psychology and his need for enemies Sort of like a guy elaborating on an old girlfriend “she could never get along “Nietzsche thinks that philosophers generally like asceticism for the independence it brings Poverty humility and chastity free one from desire At one time irrationality cruelty and violent emotions were considered virtues But now the opposite is true resulting in the ascetic ideal becoming associated with priests something Nietzsche seems mildly unhappy about The essay then discusses how asceticism is both a symptom and a cure of poor psychological health Little of this discussion seems plausibleFinally Nietzsche concludes the third essay with the observation that asceticism is a “will to nothingness” and ‘nothingness’ is a purpose for humans to cling to The alternative is to live with no purpose at all and that provides no meaning to one’s will Humans would rather have nothingness for a purpose than have no purpose at allSo wow That’s a lot of stuff to wrap your head around But for me it was filled with unsubstantiated and unlikely speculation Much of his speculation could have been checked via old fashioned scholarship but Nietzsche makes no effort to do that For example Nietzsche claims punishment started as way of repaying debts? Really? Or women gravitate to asceticism because it makes them seem attractive? Where is the support for this? And so forth I just don’t get it For me he lacks credibility Often his argument amounts to nothing than “because I say so Plus he is stubbornly cryptic for my tastes Are these points of his meant to be accurate descriptions of reality? Or are they thought experiments meant to challenge us without necessarily resembling the real world? Unraveling Nietzsche is exhausting It is possible of course that I am not reading Nietzsche in the right way It might be that I am holding him to a standard that should not be applied to him For example when Plato or Aristotle or Augustine offer strange theories or recite tall tales I ignore it and look for the larger meaning Perhaps that is how to read Nietzsche too His prose displays no sense of accountability for the accuracy of details historical or otherwise So maybe I should not expect accuracy in the details with Nietzsche Perhaps I should focus on the big pictureIf I were to do that I might conclude that Nietzsche does not like the bourgeois spirit of Europe in the latter half of the 19th Century He does not like the mediocrity and egalitarianism of the rising middle class He does not like the comfortable and smug thing that Christianity had become He longs for greater creativity beauty and freedom He thinks that the creators of beauty should be treated as special and that they should be encouraged to think courageously to act vigorously and to take risks The creators of beauty should be free to pursue their vision and not be held back by the passive careful and mundane attitudes that are the hallmark of the middle class Nietzsche may be saying that provocative projects in art literature and even morality should be valued by the rest of us even when they challenge or frighten usA friend reminded me the other day of a handy formulation to remind us of where Nietzche fits in to the history of western philosophy Socrates wanted to know nature Descartes wanted to control nature Nietzsche wanted to liberate nature and the post moderns want to cancel nature In the GENEALOGY Nietzsche argues for restoring to ethics a natural order that has been lost He wants to return to an ethic that encourages and rewards human characteristics that he regards as natural than the priestly values These include strength vigor power and the like This is at the heart of his rejection of slave moralityMost of us can accept Nietzche’s thesis that ethics should conform to nature But the abiding uestion after reading his GENEALOGY is whether Nietzche has accurately characterized human nature At best his characterization seems incompleteBe that as it may it is Nietzche’s desire to craft an ethics that frees human nature that distinguishes him from the moderns who want ethics to control nature And that is Nietzche’s greatest contribution to western thought Even if we are not persuaded by Nietzche we cannot deny that he changed the conversation and is rightly regarded as the end of the modern andor the beginning of the post modern period

  3. E. G. E. G. says:

    ChronologyIntroduction NotesNote on the Text and TranslationFurther Reading Preface First Essay 'Good and Evil' 'Good and Bad' Second Essay 'Guilt' 'Bad Conscience' and Related Matters Third Essay What Do Ascetic Ideals Mean? Notes

  4. Roy Lotz Roy Lotz says:

    For all his brilliance Nietzsche was not one for exposition or systematic investigation He writes in impassioned bursts rather than extended thoughts—a style in keeping with his abhorrence for all things stale academic and ‘English’ This uality is evident right from the preface which is divided into several shorter prefaces These freuent breaks are maintained throughout the book each essay being divided into chunks too short for subchapters but too long for aphorisms On one level this is a mere trifle of formatting But on another as I alluded to above these freuent bursts hint at Nietzsche’s thought as a whole Nietzsche in his characteristic way flipped the traditional Western preoccupation for truth on its head—explaining it as a weakness rather than a strength To be sure this is a fascinating idea But this also helps to explain why Nietzsche wrote the way he did Instead of a scholarly treatment which would be a manifestation of the traditional ‘will to truth’ which he so detested Nietzsche’s mind skips along the inuiry like a flat rock on the surface of a pond He dips in uickly just enough to get his fingertips wet and then recoils To pick another analogy he is somewhat like a fencer he searches for a problem’s weakest point makes a stab at it and then draws back This style works well for some subjects and poorly for others In The Genealogy of Morality Nietzsche is tackling a genuinely academic problem which is probably why academics tend to think this book is his masterpiece the origins of morality This brings Nietzsche dangerously close to dreaded methodical argument—an awkwardness he tries to counteract by maintaining his gnomic and forceful style But if Nietzsche is not trying to get at the “truth” of the origins of Western morality if he does not thinking that knowing the historical origins of good and evil is better than being ignorant of them what is he doing? For me these are serious contradictions and Nietzsche was probably aware of them As a result this book is suggestive not conclusive The fun comes from reading Nietzsche’s prose than from any revelations about the nature of morality But there are some solid insights nonetheless Nietzsche connects Christian meekness with the low status of the people who originated it And isn’t that exactly the kind of idea you would expect from a powerless people—to turn the other cheek? Nietzsche points out that Christian morality effectively turns weakness into strength—the perfect moral system for a religion of the lower classes But is this the true root of Christian morality? I have no idea Such a uestion seems impossible to answer with any degree of certainty For this and all of the other arguments in this book you’ll just have to take Nietzsche at his word

  5. Kyle van Oosterum Kyle van Oosterum says:

    This treatise stands as the most sustained criticism of Judaeo Christian values or rather the origin of said values Nietzsche redefines them as the products of the brutal conditioning of our animal instincts over the centuries The failure to retaliate became goodness fear into humility submission to those who one hates obedience and cowardice into patience Discarding the methods of his contemporaries Nietzsche comes up with a theory which delineates how morals come to evolve within cultures; the transvaluation of values Nietzsche tells us to imagine two sets of creatures; birds of prey and lambs Birds of prey are necessarily noble strong and proud creatures and lambs in contrast are weak timid and cowardly Lambs possess what we call a slave morality and birds of prey a master morality Thus it is natural for the lambs to get pissed at being carried off by the birds of prey they succumb to ressentiment of these superior beings So in order to make themselves feel better they manufacture morals based off of the weaker parts of their character These morals then spread through society and culture like an infection when weaker natures reevaluate their character and transform it into something is it notLater on Nietzsche inuires as to why these behaviors went unchecked centuries ago Pain is the answer Free will can be a burden to slave moralities and so guilt and bad conscience may have arisen as a way to repay debts to our animal vitalities Nietzsche thinks that Christians and other slave moralities crave cruelty and breed martyrs the most famous example of which would be Jesus Christ of course There are innumerable reasons to punish to render harmless to prevent bad behavior to repay a debt to isolate to instill fear for festivity etc Punishment than anything does not deter us from wrong doing it makes us become prudent Beyond that we internalize our instincts and bottle them up and thus this bad conscience is a subtle sickness in our society This leads to Nietzsche to conclude 'how much horror there is at the bottom of all good things'The last chapter is a real departure The other two chapters were a rather lengthy indictment hehe Confederacy of Dunces reference against the Christian faith and how they suppress our instinct of freedom This last chapter rather prophetically endorses human ambition and claims that all life has a will to power We affirm our own existence through our will and we become the authors of our morals and our fates Then in a similar way that atheists attack religion Nietzsche scathingly bludgeons science's credibility Science looks for absolute truth as if it were a picture on a wall but truth to Nietzsche is a sculpture; you walk around it observing many faces and many perspectives This represents Nietzsche's doctrine of perspectivism which goes as far as to say that we can approach truth by looking at various perspective but we may never actually obtain it This leads to one of the many bold declarations that Nietzsche is known for making There are no facts only interpretations Nietzsche rarely stays on topic and that is not necessarily a bad thing In a book which was meant to sketch the evolution of morals over the centuries we also looked at how science and religion have no claim to truth and also how we can make the most of our lives The versatility of topics makes the Genealogy the most forcible ambitious and amazingly accessible work of Nietzsche's

  6. Victor Finn Victor Finn says:

    A truly delightful intellectual romp that is both entertaining and disturbing It is entertaining because Nietzsche is an outrageously brilliant writer who expresses his complex philosophical ideas in a creative way and who makes even the most cynical ideas sound beautiful Nietzsche is truly blessed for having the analytical brain of a philosopher as well as masterful skill in sculpting beautiful phrases like a poet It is disturbing because of Nietzsche's tremendous cynicism which can often make one uncomfortable depending on how attached you are to a certain belief There is no way around it this book will probably offend you If you are a Christian it will offend you If you are a leftist of any kind whatsoever it will offend you If you are an atheist someone who believes in the power of science or an agnostic it will offend you If you believe in eastern philosophies it will offend you That is the real beauty of Nietzsche he challenges your beliefs and offers a compelling alternative The Genealogy of Morals is full of Nietzsche's criticisms of ideas than his attempts to supplant them though I cannot stress how well written this book is Nietzsche's words will annihilate your beliefs at the same time that they caress your mind It isn't uite up to par as Nietzsche's masterpiece Thus Spoke Zarathustra which is one of my favourite books But it is still excellent The only major flaw in this otherwise near perfect book is that I find his argument is really scattered Thus Spoke Zarathustra was scattered as well but it didn't hurt that work because Nietzsche was deliberately trying to be esoteric and hard to understand and that worked really well since Those Spoke Zarathustra is written as a kind of satire of religious scripture But Genealogy of Morals is his most structured work and it doesn't seem that Nietzsche is trying to be overly hard to understand here so I can't forgive him on that oneOther than that small nit picky detail this is a truly excellent work of philosophy Highly recommended to anyone who likes to read philosophy It's very short too

  7. Gary Beauregard Bottomley Gary Beauregard Bottomley says:

    Three essays each coherent This is Nietzsche's best work Almost all of his major ideas lurk within this book I would recommend the audio version There's just something about Nietzsche that when he's read aloud you just feel the contempt and frustration you know he has for mankind and even the reader of his book He'll say the world needs artist and poets He feels his truths and the reader feels them too There's good and there's bad with Nietzsche He has special dislike for women and feminism which even transcends the time period he's writing in I could probably identify 10 statements through out the book that even a modern day misogynist would blush at I hope that doesn't stop modern readers from reading this short masterpiece of a workEverything we know is tinted by our current context its history and our expectations Nietzsche does say in the book that most of philosophy is ahistorical but in order to understand the proper context history must first be understood One of my favorite statements made by modern day homophobes often in the guise of religion is marriage is between a man and a woman and it was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden not Adam and Steve They always forget to mention the talking snake and they were right when they made it a tautology but unfortunately for them the world has moved and now it's 'marriage is between consenting adults' and there is a new tautology in playThe theme that really ties all three essays together is that 'man prefers the will to nihilism than the will to nothing' The Christian and Nietzsche seems to focus mostly on the most popular religion in Western Europe at that time is the most nihilistic person of all for they have outsourced their morality to somebody else Who truly acts for the good? The person who is promised an eternal life for performing according to scripture or the person who does the good for its own sake Nietzsche is not a nihilist He has a system and he defends them within these three essaysThere are no truths there are only perspectives leading to the 'free spirit' as he said in the third essay and in the first essay or maybe the second? he says what free spirit would actually do wrong because he has no God keeping him from acting wrongly? Almost none The inclusive set of beliefs that include the other inferior systems a recursive process of sorts give his rank order of being leading to his 'perspectivism' of truth and keeping out of a nihilistic trap He's really clued into the 'pernicious teleological' way for thinking that permeates society today He illustrates by saying the hand was made to grasp after all that's what we do with it The world gives but it also takes Idle chatter distracts He does obliuely mention his solution of 'modified poverty' my words for the fulfillment of a philosopher artist poet or even a regular human like me The philosopher should only have the bare minimum necessary to survive and the rest is too much this will be another spot where he makes a gratuitous misogynistic statement which adds nothing to the point and ends up taking than giving except for the gratuitous statement against women I have hearitly endorsed this advice for my life He has hints of his 'eternal return' within the second essay But he only takes it as far as the absolute determination of the world He knows man is an animal but uotes Spencer 'survival of the fittest' than Darwin or Huxely Darwin's bulldog He's definitely got a book that Nazis could embraced if they ignore the parts they don't like He is not anti Semite he goes out of his way to attack the anti Semites but he does state the last great man was Napoleon and Germans after 1930 could put Hitler within Nietsche's context of greatness This book surprised me by how much what the Nazis thought could fit into this book with a little bit of editing Will to Power is a term people love to throw out when discussing Nietzsche Nobody gets it right I suspect even Nietzsche doesn't always know what he means by it But in the context of some of the book he will say man's instinct to freedom or what I call 'will to power' Nietzsche doesn't believe in 'free will' as originally defined by St Augustine because St Augustine uses it for man analogously to God creating the universe The 'will' is in line with that which contain all of our feelings passions and emotions the Dionysian man our rational intuitions of sorts The power is our drive or driving because Nietzsche would say we are always becoming we never are Our drive comes about because everything that is must maintain itself and strives to conuer what is beyond it That's why Nietzsche calls out Napoleon as he does That's why the Nazis would have embraced this book because Hitler would be their ideal man Their aesthetic priest Man is an animal and thus has the instincts of an animal Debt and Guilt apparently practically the same word in German are the onus society puts on us Historically cutting off someone's arm would compensate for my loss As if their suffering would make me better That's how religion gets started The ultimate Christian sacrifice is of course Jesus on the Cross as payment Of course Nietzsche calls all of this bunk Everything up til know has been designed in such a way to take away our 'instinct of freedom' or our 'will to power' The masters have been enslaved by the slaves the Roman Nobels by the Jews according to Nietzsche Our system of values have been turned upside down where the pitifiul the needy and the vulgar has been made the nobel the good and the hoped for Nietzsche is clear Man took a wrong turn after Homer Truth or the best perspective is disclosed to man by appearance It's not necessarily to have a Copernican Revolution of the Mind he uotes Kant surprisingly often and actually in flattering ways or to think that Plato's Cave with ideal forms is helpful Truth is not correctness There are clear links to existentialism running throughout this book Man is absolutely responsible for his own actions because of his freedom that he is given according to him Man first historically has created someone to blame this is another one of the 10 times he'll single out women in a misogynistic way thus leading to religion and probably psychiatrists The hermeneutics of suspicion used by Nietzsche are clearly borrowed by the early 20th century psychoanalysts and this book shows why It's not what we see when we look at the great piece of art but it's what the artist thinks That forms the basis of his aesthetic ideal They are going to lead us out of the wildernessI don't like most of what Nietzsche says but I love his thought process I'm glad that Republicans don't like him because they falsely see him as a Nihilist but he surely is an Atheist and they would be able to argue their viewpoints from a stronger perspective if they would take the time to read a masterpiece like this Nietzsche knows how to 'feel' his way to the best perspective and in no uncertain terms he like the Republicans put the onus on the individual and they would discount time and chance and say that government or society is the problem not the solution and most of all would never think there but for the grace of the universe go I since they both think the absolute freedom trumps euality almost always I suspect Nietzsche never wrote anything coherent than this book of essays but he's always worth reading and I would recommend this book because of the depth and cohesion within the book

  8. Ryan Ryan says:

    Whenever I want to give someone a metaphor for what being actively engaged in close reading might look like I often ask them to imagine a floating sphere I suggest they view it from every possible vantage point up down around below above—etcetera And then they go deeper “Of what material is it constructed?” “How old is it?” “What might it symbolize by itself or in relation to X?” and The answers are arbitrary of course but the results are not This exercise is to first examine presumptions and then get beyond them through uestioning literally as much as possible Every time its conducted something new is discovered and it is a fresh experience each time And it is within this spirit I always find myself when close reading Nietzsche and trying to grasp as much as possible about what he is saying
From what I view as perhaps the most essential vantage point in his three essays he is trying to grapple with morality he himself examining and critiuing every conceivable angle as well as the difficulty of suffering itself And while he has powerfully incisive and highly controversial critiues of Christian based morality it is absolutely worth noting—while decidedly off topic—that Nietzsche was absolutely as an objective fact not a Nazi and he had a pronounced hatred of the German nationalists of his timeWhat is the most vital thing to take away I think is that Nietzsche believes in higher humans and that humans do not have eual worth Goethe Beethoven and other creative types and those who seize the day or his anointed champions The joy of achieving even a ‘slight superiority’ is the greatest thing to strive for EtceteraA wonderfully vigorous book that contains so much electricity so much passion that it is hard not to forgive Nietzsche for not being a bit systematic a bit formal in his argumentation They are so seductive—there is always at least one person in every philosophy class who has read or wills themself to read every Nietzsche book as though they discovered the secret of life itself But honestly who cares? Nietzsche is so punk rock so much fun to read and hear him disparage so much and uestion so much that that is reward enough Like the Sphere Exercise these are just perhaps the most import lens to dig through Nietzsche’s work with On a second or third reading there is no doubt much to learn In summation this is frankly an essential book if one is a philosophy buff and something of a completionist

  9. Luís Luís says:

    In Genealogy Nietzsche re evaluates moral values ​​by raising not only their origins which found in the feelings and actions of Judeo Christianity but also by criticizing them by the reconstruction of the historical psychological and genesis Anthropological analysis of these values ​​and attitudes to better unmask them namely to make them appear as so many illusions and liesIn this book he distinguishes between the morality of masters and that of slaves There is therefore on the one hand the category of dominants and on the other that of dominated But the former divide themselves into warriors and priestsAnd Nietzsche vigorously denounces the Jewish people of priestly character which made the distinction between the mind and the body by mobilizing the weak for its benefit against the warriorsIt is such an analysis which led the accusation of the philosopher of being a Hitler's precursor a racist before the letterHowever this is a uestionable assessment because his life proves that he was in no way anti Semitic far from itLikewise and by extension the notion of will to power should not be simplified More than a desire for domination it is uite simply the manifestation of active forces We need a critiue of moral values and the value of these values ​​must first uestion Establishing their origins therefore makes it possible to make their diagnosis and it is through this act this way that evaluation and re evaluation are in short possibleThat if moral values ​​can be explained psychologically this is also one of the main theses of the bookAnd if these same values which based on self denial and self hatred prevent humanity from asserting itselfIf so like Nietzsche we should support the idea that criticism of morality is necessary it allows man to freed from his nihilism; Because honesty is still oursWhat is interesting about this philosopher is his style this book presented as an extended dissertation argued by rhetorical figures who also make Nietzsche a great stylist and his expression which is marked by contrasts therefore far to be monolithicHe is at the same time a great apologist The Genealogy of Morality is in itself a polemical work Superiorly brilliant and a penetrating analyst who knows how to escape the starvation of any speculation

  10. Grace Grace says:

    Very readable once I got into it I would recommend to anyone wanted to make a start with Nietzsche and it's really short too He was obviously a very troubled man as well as a bit of a psychologist I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give a second thought to my opinion though I'm definitely one of the sick From a history of ideas point of view his take up of ideas about degeneration and freuent health and illness related metaphors are particularly useful And good to read in conjunction with Foucault who he clearly influenced a great deal mobile power relations geneaologies exploring our valuescategories rather than what is categorised etc Similar style too historical detail illustrative rather than accurateSome great uotes 'Who would not a hundred times prefer fear accompanied by the possibility of admiration to freedom from fear accompanied by the disgusting sight of the failed atrophied and poisoned' I'd go for the latter definitely'Every instinct which does not vent itself externally turns inwards this is what I call the internalization of man it is at this point that what is later called the 'soul' first develops in man The whole inner world originally stretched thinly as between two membranes has been extended and expanded has acuired depth breadth and height in proportion as the external venting of human instinct has been inhibited''Once they the sick succeeded in forcing their own misery the whole of misery as such into the conscience of the fortunate so that these latter would one day begin to feel ashamed of their good fortune and perhaps say to one another it is a disgrace to be fortunate there is too much misery'

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *