There are quite a few points that Nietzsche argues with which I must admit leave me utterly bewildered. Neither the slave nor master classifications are intrinsically superior – despite their syntax – (though it has already been argued that he has a bias to the “strong,” “noble” class) but is it not the weak class that provided for the creation and reassessment of values? Yes, there was rationalism and thinking that alludes to the enlightened philosophers within the content of the essay – which from this context Nietzsche disapproves; however, is it not the slave revolt – the reaction to the “good” – that opens up the dialogue to existential examinations?
Though the slave revolt is described as a simple inverse of the previous principles, it still changed those values – technically to the other extreme. Does that not also mean that it allows for a grey area for which philosophical thought and questions can maneuver freely?
It seems that Nietzsche is criticizing the whole affair as pointless because the good are those who really “live” within the moment – saying “yes” to life – as opposed to the slaves who deny themselves. However, that seems to say no to the very concept of exploring and relationships within one’s own existence – a reference back to Kierkegaard, yes, but still a major part of existentialist thought.
I feel as if I simply have the wrong interpretation, but what would seem to help define the truly existential would be the one who lives in both the master and slave mentalities – having the two battling inside of them in an ever changing hierarchy. Caught in that anxious, undefined no-man’s-land a single individual would find it possible to contemplate the extent of his being to an almost limitless end.
Feel free to correct me, if I am in error. Thanks.
I actually don't have a answer to this in general only that that may be true, but maybe they only need to live in the master state and understand that of the slave without actually being in that mind set. I can't think of a middle ground quite for this I mean you either are strong or weak. The only time it really switches is when the mind sets intertwine like the strong choosing to be weak and the weak out manuvering the strong and thereforee being strong.
ReplyDeleteI think that you bring up a very good point. First off, I really want to question the two principle forces, the master morality and the slave morality, before my response might make sense. Assuming that in the end I will make a decision, I want to call upon what these two forces are. Do they really exist? And can we think of an individual that really embodies one of these polar opposites completely? That is right guys (and gals). I, again, am questioning Nietzche. Jeez, I hope that that is allowed. But back to my point. Let me bring up an example to help try and explain my point. Insecurities - it is our individual nature to have them. Does the strong or master mindset exempt them from these characteristics? I do not think so? If insecurities do not define weak and strong, it surely does to me. Because we define the master mentality and morality as strong, powerful, someone who does just not even care about what is beyond themselves, having insecurities contradicts being strong and powerful and good-looking. And since it is human nature (at least to me) to have some insecurities, I do not see how anybody can fully be morally a master.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing with the weak with a different example.
The way that I view it is that even if there is a way to overcome the mindsets of being weak or strong - one overcoming the other - how does that happen? Isn't it just natural that we switch between this mind set all the time (even the strong). So when can we say that one person is master and the other is slave?
Sorry for the rant, but I have this question too, Jonathan. I do think that there is something of a middle ground. I hope that I somehow stayed on topic.
Phong, questioning Nietzsche is encouraged as far as I'm concerned, however I feel compelled to defend him. First of all, Nietzsche would argue that 'human nature' as you seem to be talking about it doesn't really exist. The idea that essentially we must have insecurities is just another example of slave morality poisoning your mind. A strong person would never even think about these issues because he (or possibly she) would be too busy discharging his/her will.
ReplyDeleteJonathan, you make a good point, however I'd just like to say that the term 'existentialism' is only used to describe Nietzsche in retrospect. Nietzsche himself did not use the term to describe his own writing or anyone else's. This means that we shouldn't judge his writings on how well they conform to a concept that wasn't even defined yet.