Blonde Beast, Resentful Priests, and the Sovereign Individual Nietzsche studies the etymological origins of the good and the bad, and how the dichotomy evolved into one between the good and the evil. Through the close study of the roots of the words and the meanings they take, he proposes that the good and evil as we know of now emerged from the struggles of the will to power of the ‘Nobility class’ who possess the master morality, and the will to power of the ‘Priestly class’ who are driven by the slave morality; however, Nietzsche thinks that both classes are limited, and we have to hope that the sovereign individuals will spring up in the future, who are superior to the two, and worthy of becoming alike. Nietzsche explains that the term good and bad are associated with totally different ideas in their origin: good does not mean selflessness, and bad does not mean selfishness (Nietzsche, 461). Nietzsche believes that such use of the term derived from the Jewish and Christian traditions, which he resents. …show more content…
Bad” dichotomy to the “Good vs. Evil” one, because the former society, which celebrated the excellence of human capacity, is replaced by a society that constantly pressures one to be modest. Because the noble savage, the Blonde Beasts, could rule over the lower strata of the people, they embodied what Nietzsche calls “creativity”. Creativity avails one to be innovative and to achieve more than what one already has. It works as the catalyst and the motivation of the social progress, in a sense. However, with the transformation of the society into a democracy under God [sic], no longer was creativity able to be entirely fulfilled, since democracy limits one’s ability to be superior to the others. It became, as Nietzsche suggests, a dull society, because there is no more brutality and action, but everything boring, like tolerance, acceptance, and others that foster coexistence, occupied the empty space and made the space as a
Nietzsche begins his discussion of good and moral with an etymological assessment of the designations of “good” coined in various languages. He “found they all led back to the same conceptual transformation—that everywhere ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the social sense, is the basic concept from which ‘good’ in the sense of ‘with aristocratic soul,’… developed…” (Nietzsche 909). Instead of looking forward at the achievement for morality, Nietzsche looks backward, trying to find origins and causes of progression. He ultimately comes to the conclusion that strength implies morality, that superiority implies the good man. The powerful nobles, through pathos of difference, construed plebeians and slaves as bad, because of their inferiority in every sense of the word. From this concept of the pathos of difference was born the priestly morality, wherein the nobles were construed in an altogether different and less favorable light.
Nietzsche thought nobility was to see one’s self as the center and origin of value. He believed that people in power force common people into bidding their will, and those in charge are separated based on good or bad measures of their value. The rulers, or people in charge have master morality, the people who do their bidding have slave morality. Slave morality is how common people make their lives more bearable by using Christian ethics such as kindness and sympathy.
In Beyond Good and Evil 21 Nietzsche argues that an autonomous agent requires being causa sui. The problem with this requirement is that nothing can be causa sui, Nietzsche says that, “the concept of a causa sui is something fundamentally absurd” (BGE 15) and because of this no one can be an autonomous agent. In the following line, Nietzsche asks, “Consequently, the external world is not the work of our organs?” If this is true, that causa sui is absurd and the external world is of our organs, then is it possible that we are autonomous agents or have any sense of agency and responsibility? Nietzsche would say so it seems.
On Evil, Guilt, and Power by Friedrich Nietzsche is one mind blowing story!! I have to say every sentence within the story has multiple meanings. I am extremely excited and terrified to analyze this story. First, because I like to go in depth in the meaning of the sentence and as I stated in my previous journal; I like to look at the back story, character mind set, and different points of view. In this story my opinions are endless. (I am going to have to walk away from this story multiple times before I go insane.) When reading the story in truth is not like a story; but more like the rambling of a politician, religious leader, or anyone trying to be an authority figure. I came across a few meanings for “master morality” and “slave morality”.
Shakespeare is at it again, this time stealing from the only source more read than him; the Bible. Macbeth and Genesis 3 are both alike by greed, temptation, and forbidden fruit. We all know stealing is a crime. In both novels, the protagonist’s both committed sins pushed by their partners. The parallels are visible in the resemblances of the characters and justified by Shakespeare possessive, creation or characters, conflict, and theme.
"The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces"~Philip Zimbardo. It is hard to not cross the line between good and evil because if someone is getting you mad, you might want to harm them in some way. But you have keep your cool and let it go. Being good or evil is your own choice. Even if you are good, you always have an evil side. This quote fits perfectly because it talks about how evil is really only in people under certain situations. People are essentially good, but under certain circumstances, turn evil.
The first morality Nietzsche writes about is the master morality. Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. The people that fall under the category of master morality typically think of themselves as "the good,"which is defined as
While critical of the attitude found in the ressentiment of slave morality, Nietzsche’s includes it as an important factor contributing to the bad conscience of man. Even though Nietzsche dislikes the negative results of bad conscience – man’s suppression of his instincts, hate for himself, and stagnation of his will -- Nietzsche does value it for the promise it holds. Nietzsche foresees a time coming when man conquers his inner battle and regains his “instinct of freedom.” In anticipation of that day’s eventual arrival, Nietzsche views the development of bad conscience as a necessary step in man’s transformation into the “sovereign individual.”
Friedrich Nietzsche was a critic and a German Philosopher from the 18th century. Nietzsche was the father of psychoanalysis and he formulated several philosophical concepts that have greatly contributed to the understanding of human nature. Nietzsche ideas had been misinterpreted by many people over time specifically, due to his style of writing. Nietzsche style of writing was adopted to strengthen his arguments on various controversial topics. In this paper, I will discuss Nietzsche’s idea of naturalistic morality, master morality, self-mastery morality, and how they connect with the affirmation of nature and strength.
Good and evil can be summed up as a difference between rational and irrational thoughts, with the former being related to “good” and the ladder to “evil”. This is a view shared by Immanuel Kant and his Categorical Imperative. In the movie Schindler’s List, we are presented with two individuals, Oskar Schindler, who by the end of the movie displays characteristics of a man following rational thoughts, doing acts that he would want to become universal maxims. On the other end of the spectrum, we have Amon Goeth. Goeth follows his irrational thoughts, using the Jewish people as a means for his own ends.
Through the analysis of characters and their actions, the novel Grendel suggests society has adopted good and evil’s unequal relationship for meaningfulness in life. The modern society is built on the opposite forces of nature and that evil must be challenged although good prevails it. However, evil and good is subjective which makes the true struggle between good and evil. Moreover, our every day actions are differentiated between good and evil acts. Unfortunately, while this occurs, good and evil will never be a black and white concept.
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being.
The system of justice that Nietzsche employs although somewhat cynical has a substantial amount of merit as a form of justice, which is present in our society. This is demonstrated through the depiction of the creditor/debtor relationship that exists in our democratic societies, and the equalization process that occurs, and furthermore that Nietzsche is correct to assess justice as such a principle. The issue is most obvious in the penal system; however it is also prevalent in personal day-to-day relationships as well as political structures.
When anyone thinks of the word “evil” they do not think it is within themselves. In reality, without a structured and well-followed society, people are apt to follow their own corrupt desires and neglect the thought of consequence. In the allegory, Lord of the Flies, William Golding reveals that man’s selfishness and sinful nature will be unmasked when the structure of a society deteriorates.
Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals can be assessed in regards to the three essays that it is broken up into. Each essay derives the significance of our moral concepts by observing