Discussion Qs–Nietzsche 5/15

In his first treatise in On The Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche is chiefly concerned with the evolutionary progression and valuation of morality.  He begins his discourse by distinguishing between two competing sets of morality.  The first being that of the “noble, powerful, higher ranking, and high minded who felt and ranked themselves and their doing as good,” (i.e. aristocratic/knightly morality), (p 908).  Opposed to this system of goodness, Nietzsche elaborates and heaps much criticism against the so called priest-slave morality.  This morality has its origins in the hate and powerlessness of a down trodden priestly caste, who being socially and politically weak, finds its sole recourse in perverting the noble system, by revaluing that which is good and bad.  Instead of power, vigour, and vitality being the order of the day, Nietzsche argues that modern moral objectivity and pre-eminence is given to the weak, who label all noble things as evil and revalue the world so that “the miserable alone are good; the poor, powerless, lowly alone are good,” (p.912).  Through subjugating the will to power to a higher imposed spiritual authority (God), men become enslaved to a passive, un-egoist paradigm which has its germination in “unfathomable hate” (p.912).

It follows, that from this inversion of the noble system there arises in the modern world a torpid state of being, in which mankind has become dull in most aspects.  The weak being fearful of the powerful, and having inverted moral value to preach the “goodness” of equality have succeeded in reducing the human experience to something which is, “thinner, more good-natured, more prudent, more comfortable, more mediocre, and more apathetic,” (918).  Nietzsche saw this phenomenon as the downward spiral of human degeneration.  Having levelled the proverbial playing field and making all men equal, the slave mindset has succeeded in eliminating all of the nobility of mankind.  In  the modern world the consequences of this trend in mediocrity have manifested in having   “forfeited the love of him [man], the reverence toward him, the hope for him, indeed the will to him” (918).  It is from this that Nietzsche, a long time opponent to nihilism defines that philosophy simply as that “we are tired of man…” (918).   Having thus established the philosophic outcome of slave morality on society (nihilism), Nietzsche turns to allegory to clarify “good” as defined by ressentiment.

Using anthropomorphic licence, Nietzsche brings home his argument by giving the reader the example of the lambs and the birds of prey (Section 13).  In this, Nietzsche presents two opposing parties: 1) the birds of prey, who represent strength and nobility and 2) the lambs, who illustrate the herd.  The lambs, being weak and dominated by their fear and hatred, naturally label the birds of prey as “evil.”  Nietzsche does not argue this point, and sees it as a rational reaction.  His criticism comes in when the lambs use this argument to reproach the predators.  It is absurd in the Nietzschean argument for the lambs to “hold the birds of prey accountable for being birds of prey” (919).  He further uses language as a medium for this argument.   In this tangent, he states that the common people have placed meaning by separating subjects from their actions.  He uses lightning as an example: “for just as common people separate lightning from its flash, the latter as a doing, as an effect of a subject of lightning, so does modern morality separate strength from the expression of strength.” (919). For Nietzsche the action of killing the lambs by the birds of prey, is their “expression of strength,” and by separating the action from the subject, common morality has led us to the conclusion that the predators are free to choose.  In essence, the lambs have shaped language and morality in such a way as to make the bird immoral and evil by simple virtue of their existence.

Throughout the rest of the first treatise, the Nietzschean dialogue continues along this vein, illustrating the pervading consequences of slave morality.  For example in the 14th section, he illustrates the advent of justice as a fabrication of the slaves in which the weak do not avenge themselves, but seek to have patience, “which is called virtue itself, not being able to avenge oneself perhaps even forgiveness,” (920).  Instead, the slave moralists all but abandon Earthly justice and look to a fictional “Last Judgment,” in which God will restore justice by punishing evil (nobility).  In the closing of this part of treatise one, Nietzsche compels us to seek the resurgence of the master morality.

The second treatise “Guilt, Bad Conscience, and Related Matters,” is an exploration on the social ramifications that morality has been used to bind humanity.  Nietzsche opens with stating that in order for society to function, men must enter into competent promises, the terms of which they can deliver. A keen memory and intellect, able to remember the promise is essential, and that one must be on guard for “forgetfulness is no mere vis inertiae as the superficial believe; rather it is an active and in the strictest sense positive faculty of suppression,” (925).  To keep a promise, Nietzsche argues men require a powerful memory and a confidence that the terms of their promises will be carried out.

In the following sections of the text, Nietzsche, elaborates on the concepts and origins of guilt and the bad conscience.   Through questions aimed at the reader and his own suppositions, Nietzsche begins by stating that punishment in the barbaric cultures consisted of retribution meted out in anger over an injury suffered (i.e. broken promises or debts owed) (928), and that guilt in the modern moral sense was not at the base. Indeed, the torturous penalties levied by older cultures served as the “most powerful aid of mnemonics” (927), in short, pain forces men to remember their promises.  Guilt and the bad conscious arose when men began to consider their natural inclinations as sinful and the notion of free will appeared.  Men choose to be guilty and are therefore punished, not because they owe a debt, but because they should have acted in a way which makes them differ from the herd.  Nietzsche goes on to say that the ancient world was much more but that at the same time it was far more “cheerful” because “seeing-suffer feels good, making-suffer even more so” (930).  In such a world, there could be no debt between creditor and debtor that did not go unpaid, the latter was punished by the former and the rest was settled.  People therefore didn’t spend the majority of their time as modern men do, constantly feeling as if they are being judged and watched. Bad conscious is thus a modern-slave ideal welded to the concept of conformity to the prevailing morality.

Sections 7-15 (pp.930-939), are dedicated to further explaining the evolution of punishment and justice.  Nietzsche begins by stating that the more powerful a community becomes, the less likely it is to severely punish offenders as the offence given is not as dangerous to the collective whole as before.  Over time however, “the evil doer is no longer made an outlaw and cast out; the general anger is no longer allowed to vent itself” (933).    The creditors to whom retribution is owed become more and more lenient and ever richer, until they reach a stage in which point they overcome the need for strict punishment.  The result is a “cancellation of justice” and this suspension of harsh retribution is prettily called “mercy” (933).  In the Nietzschean evolution, justice is discovered last by the “reactive” slave society.  This is due to ressentiment’s holding the avenging impulses of the wronged party at bay and demanding the protection of the rights of the accused.  Nietzsche states that people of ressentiment are self delusional in believing that they can treat those who wronged them justly.  The noble, freer person,  “the active attacking , encroaching human is located 100 paces closer to justice for he has no need to appraise his object falsely as the reactive person does.” (934).  Nietzsche covers the following sections with ample historical and textual evidence to support his claims (i.e. a long list in Section 13 detailing various reasons of punishments used throughout history etc.).

The final sections of the second treatise deal with rehashing his main ideas and bringing them to fruition.   Nietzsche again dismisses punishment as the origin of the bad conscious and insists that it came about when man moved from living in the wild into civilization “under the sway of society and peace” (939).  He elaborates by saying that in the wild men were happily adapted to “wilderness, war, roaming about, adventure”  however when they entered into society, all of their instincts were “devalued and disconnected” (939).  As men are animals, these instincts did not disappear, but according to Nietzsche were turned inward upon ourselves.  Men created new wildernesses, new challenges to be overcome and now we wage a struggle between our natural impulses and adhering to the slave morality.  The origin of bad conscious thus arises from this internalization all of the “hostility, cruelty, pleasure in persecution, in assault, in change, in destruction” (940).   In section 17, Nietzsche postulates that this internalization was not voluntary, that the best interest and desire of the majority lay in the freedom of the wilderness, and settlement was not voluntary but forced by slave moralists.  These agents of ressentiment he postulates acted with violent force and that the formed state “accordingly made its appearance as a terrible tyranny, as a crushing and ruthless machinery” (941).  The notion of a social contract is therefore absurd in the Nietzschean model.

Having thus identified the hypothesized source of bad conscious, Nietzsche begins to chart its development through human society beginning in Section 19.  In the earliest of days, tribes venerated their ancestors and held conviction that they owed a debt to them, eventually coming to see them as gods who must be appeased.  However, the need to appease this debt is “continually growing, since these ancestors, in their continued existence as powerful spirits do no cease to use their strength to bestow new benefits on the clan,” (942).  However as new religions sprang to life, it was the christian god that has inflicted the “maximum feelings of guilt” (943) upon mankind.  Since the christian god holds us all in a debt we cannot possibly repay, Nietzsche argues that we invented the concepts of original sin and punishment for all. There is a very convenient escape from eternal punishment however, and Nietzsche calls this “christianity’s stroke of genius: God sacrificing himself for the guilt of man, God himself exacting payment of himself.” (944). He closes this line of thought by asking us to question the veracity of a creditor sacrificing himself for love of a debtor.

Nietzche ends his treatise by urging us to move ever forward.  Despite his obvious preference for the noble past, he dismisses a return to such due to the loss of substance that would occur.  He looks to the advent and evolution of a human who is vital and creative, loving and capable of contempt.  Such a person would restore “the earth to its goal and man to his hope,” (946).  Such a person would cast down the curses of nihilism and the need for religion.

Of all the philosophers we’ve studied, I’ve found Nietzsche to be at once the most frustrating, and rewarding to read.  I hold much of what he says of the origins and evolutionary development of morality, justice, guilt, and consciousness to be highly relevant to any study of political thought.  The creative forces which compel us to be better, the instinct to dominate and be vital are closer to the human experience than anything the other political commentators wrote.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER:
1).  How would the “will to power” operate in a society in which the slave morality would held sway?
2). A sick man his entire life, Nietzsche is prone to assigning the label of good/noble/interesting to peoples and concepts which are active, vigorous, and aggressive. Can you find evidence of this in the text?
3).  What is ressentiment?  How does the hate of ressentiment differ from the contempt of the nobility?
4).  What role(s) do deities play in the unfolding evolution of “bad conscious”?

5). What is the most primal of the human relationships?  How has this shaped the “modern” conceptualization of punishment and justice?

Discussion Qs for 5/15

In the treatises that make up On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche claims that cruelty and the struggle for power play an important role in the non-moral relationships that make up contemporary morality. “Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals is thus an attempt to give a naturalistic explanation of how and why humans might have invented morality” (897). Pages 916-946 include the end of Nietzsche’s First Treatise and his Second Treatise. At the end of his First Treatise, “Good and Evil” “Good and Bad”, Nietzsche continues to discuss this idea of ressentiment. The weak members of society feel this ressentiment as a result of the stronger members of society. This idea of ressentiment is referring to the weaker members of society who blame the stronger members of society for their own inferiority and view them as the enemy as a result. “In any society in which inequality is prevalent and justice is denied, resentment will (quite properly) flourish” (899). At the end of his First Treatise, Nietzsche also discusses his concern with the two opposing valuations “good/bad” and “good/evil”, which “have fought a terrible millennia-long battle on earth; and as certainly as the second value has had the upper hand for a long time” (922).

In his Second Treatise, “Guilt,” “Bad Conscience,” and Related Matters, Nietzsche discusses a “morality of custom”, a pre-moral society, in which man’s right to inflict harm on other men emerges from man’s capacity to make promises. Nietzsche also discusses the importance of forgetfulness and its close link to making promises. According to Nietzsche, forgetfulness allows man to not become consumed with the past, which enables him to make good decisions for his future. When these promises are broken, there is a justification to inflict pain on the men who did so. Nietzsche asks the question of how did “the consciousness of guilt, the entire “bad conscience” come into the world?” (927) and goes on to answer it by implying that “bad conscience” arose as a result of men viewing themselves as sinners by turning an evil eye towards their natural inclinations. Nietzsche also goes on to explore the origins of guilt and punishment, both of which were not originally based on any sense of moral transgression or accountability. Originally, guilt simply meant that debt was owed and punishment was simply a form of ensuring repayment. Therefore, the concept of guilt is derived from the concept of debt. Nietzsche describes guilt and punishment as they occurred between the creditor and the debtor. The creditor was compensated for the harm done (failure to fulfill a promise or pay off a loan) by the debtor by the pleasure he would get from punishing or inflicting harm, pain, torture, or cruelty on the debtor, as a substitute for getting his money back. Nietzsche explains that “punishment is overladen with utilities of all kinds” (938) and in section 13 on pages 937-938, goes on to list 11 forms of punishment.

Section 13 on pages 918-919 is crucial to understanding Nietzsche and his arguments about “good” and “ressentiment”. Nietzsche uses an example of the contrast of the roles of lambs and birds of prey to further explore the idea of “good/evil”. Since birds of prey snatch up, kill, and carry off lambs, it is natural that lambs feel anger towards birds of prey and consider them to be “evil”. And from this, it is also natural, that lambs then come to consider themselves to be “good”, as opposed to birds of prey. However, as Nietzsche states, it would be ludicrous to ask a bird of prey to not kill, or for that matter, a lamb to kill. Birds of prey kill and eat lambs in order to survive, so to ask the birds of prey to not kill would essentially be prohibiting them from existing. Nietzsche holds that one ought to not consider birds of prey to be “evil” for merely utilizing their own strength and that there is no right “to hold the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey” (919). This examples ties into the idea of “good/bad” with the nobles and slaves. Nietzsche would say that one should not hold the nobles accountable for their own strength.

Nietzsche’s example contrasting birds of prey and lambs is demonstrative of how Nietzsche quite often uses exaggeration in an effort to explain himself. Furthermore, this passage in section 13 also demonstrates Nietzsche’s sense of humor, when he says “nothing is more tasty than a tender lamb” (918). Nietzsche’s exaggerations and humor continued to be carried on throughout his essay. Another particular example that is indicative of his writing style is in section 6 where Nietzsche discusses how making others suffer was a great joy and actually goes on to describe it as a “festival”! Therefore, it is clear that Nietzsche does in fact incorporate humor into his writing and that not everything should be read as literal, as opposed to what David Wootton claims.

I found it to be very interesting how Nietzsche tied in the relationship between memory, forgetting, promises, and responsibility in sections 1, 2, and 3 of his Second Treatise. Nietzsche begins his Second Treatise by asking the question of “to breed an animal that is permitted to promise—isn’t this precisely the paradoxical task nature has set for itself with regard to man? Isn’t this the true problem of man?” (924). Nietzsche goes on to claim that holding a promise requires the forgetfulness (a powerful memory) and a confidence about the future and one’s ability to hold the promise in the future, which forgetfulness allows one to do. Making decisions that affect one’s future is a major responsibility, which Nietzsche describes as “conscience”, which in turn leads to his discussion of “bad conscience”.

In sections 12 through 15 of his Second Treatise, Nietzsche goes into an in-depth discussion of punishment. Nietzsche claims that “today it is impossible to say for sure why we actually punish” (937). I found myself unable to agree with this claim for in my mind, it is actually very clear why we punish. I believe we punish for two reasons: one, to “get back” at the party being punished and two, to deter further actions that would need to result in punishment. Nietzsche goes on to make another claim about punishment that I strongly disagree with. Nietzsche claims that punishment does not arouse a sense of guilt, but rather the feeling of “something has unexpectedly gone wrong here” (939) and not “I should not have done that” (939). Based on my experience of being punished as a child, my response was always “I should not have done that”, or that I was in sorry, so I am in somewhat of a disagreement with Nietzsche’s theory of the effects and responses of punishment. Nietzsche’s perspective of punishment is what allows him to dismiss it as the origin of “bad conscience”.

Study Questions

1) Do you agree with Nietzsche’s claim that punishment does not elicit a response of regret? Think of specific instances in which you were punished and how you felt, would your feelings be indicative of Nietzsche’s claim or would they go against it?

2) Nietzsche dismisses punishment as the origin of “bad conscience”. What dos Nietzsche describe as the origin of “bad conscience”? (Although I did not go into it in detail in my essay, I believe this is an important part of the Second Treatise that should be considered.)

3) Throughout Nietzsche’s First and Second Treatises, there are numerous examples of his humorous and exaggerative writing style. In my essay, I have given two specific examples that are indicative of Nietzsche’s writing style, what other ones did you notice? Why do you think Nietzsche used these specific examples or exaggerations?

4) Why is it that “good/evil” has had the upper hand over “good/bad” for quite some time now?

5) How does Nietzsche derive the concept of guilt from the concept of debt? What example does he use?

Reading Qs for 5/15

1.    Nietzsche begins part two with a contrast between humans and other animals.  What is the distinction?
2.    What is the relationship between memory, forgetting, promises and responsibility?
3.    Why might Nietzsche argue that morality actually makes us less responsible?
4.    How does Nietzsche think we have developed our sense of responsibility/promises?
5.    How does Nietzsche describe reason?  (926-7)
6.    What, according to Nietzsche, is a “bad conscience”? (927)
7.    What is the logic of debt, according to Nietzsche?  Why does he describe it as cruel?
8.    Nietzsche describes humans variously as the interesting animal, the calculating animal, the valuing animal.  How do these characteristics of human beings relate to power?
9.    How does Nietzsche explain the rise of punishment and the penal system?  How does it relate to ressentiment?
10.    What is the relationship between punishment and a turn inward?  (939)
11.    What does Nietzsche have to say about the moral value of the “unegoistic” inidividual?  (941)
12.    What does Nietzsche mean when he says that bad conscience is an illness “but an illness as pregnancy is an illness”? (941)
13.     On 945 Nietzsche addresses the relationship between creation and destruction.  Do you see any parallels with the passage from Thus Spake Zarathustra (distributed in class)?

Handout for 5/15

The Three Metamorpheses

Of the three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.
What is difficult? Asks the spirit that would bear much, and kneels down like a camel wanting to be well loaded.  O heroes, asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon myself and exult in my strength.  Is it not humbling oneself to wound one’s haughtiness?  Letting one’s folly shine to mock one’s wisdom?
Or is it this: parting from our cause when it triumphs?  Climbing high mountains to tempt the tempter?
Or is it this?  Feeding on the acorns and grass of knowledge and, for the sake of truth, suffering hunger in one’s soul?
Or is it this:  being sick and sending home the comforters and making friends with the deaf, who never hear what you want?
Or is it this:  stepping into filthy waters when they are the waters of truth, and not repulsing cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this:  loving those who despise us and offering a hand to the ghost that would frighten us?
All these most difficult things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel that, burdened, speeds into the desert, thus the spirit speeds into its desert.
In the loneliest desert, however, the second metamorphosis occurs:  here the spirit becomes a lion who would conquer his freedom and be master in his own desert.  Here he seeks out his last master: he wants to fight him and his last god; for ultimate victory he wants to fight with the great dragon.
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god?  ‘Thou shalt’ is the name of the great dragon.  But the spirit of the lion says, “I will.”  “Thou shalt” lies in his way, sparkling like god, an animal covered with scales; and on every scale shines a golden “though shalt.”
Values, thousands of years old, shine on these scales; and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons:  “All value of all things shines on me.  All value has long been created and I am all created value.  Verily, there shall be no more ‘I will.’  Thus speaks the dragon.
My brothers why is there a need in the spirit for the lion?  Why is not the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, enough?
To create new values—that even the lion cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself for new creation—that is within the power of the lion.  The creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred “No” even to duty—for that, my brothers, the lion is needed.  To assume the right to new values—that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much.  Verily to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey.  He once loved “though shalt” as most sacred: now he must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.
But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do?  Why must the preying lion still become a child?  The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred “Yes.”  For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred “Yes” is needed: the spirit now wills its own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers his own world.
from Thus Spake Zarathustra (1995).  trans. Walter Kaufman.   New York: Modern Library.  pp.  25-7.

Brazil Discussion 5/13

Brazil Discussion- The Visualization of Nietzsche
Andrew D. Whitacre
May 13, 2008
The film “Brazil” features the portrayal of a dystopic, autocratic regime seemingly concentrated in the fictional “Ministry of Information.” The action of the film, and the interaction of the main characters, stems from a botched execution of the criminal law. Instead of arresting and violently interrogating the “terrorist” Archibald Tuttle, the innocent working class Archibald Buttle is subjected to the implicitly coercive tactics of the Department of Information Retrieval (this leads to Buttle’s death).  This sparks the entry of Department of Records employee Sam Lowry, who is madly in love with a “terrorist” woman living in the building of the deceased Buttle. The film permits the viewer to be placed in the perspective of Sam as he discovers the inner workings of the government in which he is employed, and comes to recognize the decaying and absurd nature of the society in which he resides. The film “Brazil” illustrates many of Nietzsche’s concerns over modernity, primarily through the eyes of the protagonist Sam Lowry.
The Nietzschian idea that modernity represents an “age of nihilism, [occurring] when the beliefs which had seemed to give meaning to existence had been irrevocably undermined, and human beings were left only with a series of shallow practices…which no longer made sense.”(p. 897) Sam Lowry’s world is filled with practices and customs that lack meaning, including the absurd pervasiveness of tubes and constantly malfunctioning machines, the excessive societal obsession with bureaucratic paperwork without accomplishing a conceivable end, the comical length to which persons will go in order to improve their physical appearance, and the focus on trivial aspects of life (at one point Sam is told that he should plead guilty and take punishment from the government because if he does not, his credit score will be damaged). Sam Lowry’s lack of ambition, as well as his colleagues lack of ambition illustrated through their preference to watch television than work, further demonstrates the lack of meaning in their world. The dystopic society represented in Brazil is indicative of this nihilistic modern state described by Nietzsche, the film through its style of black comedy and satire, continually portrays a society lacking any underlying purpose that provides human existence with any meaning.
Instead of escaping this nihilistic state of affairs, Nietzsche argues that nihilism should be embraced. In the embrace of nihilism, of the mortality of mankind, Nietzsche envisions two appropriate responses to this realization, comedy and tragedy.  Sam embraces this ability to “laugh at disaster… [the practice of facing] despair and transform[ing] it into a thing of beauty,”(p. 898) by escaping reality and transforming it into a dream sequence.  The end scene in which he envisions his rescue by Tuttle and his escape to a utopian existence clearly represents a Nietzschian embrace of nihilism, by evading the meaningless state of existence by “transform[ing] it into a thing of beauty.”(Id.) Sam Lowry’s transition into a state of insanity is a characterization of moving beyond morality and producing a pseudo art, consisting in beauty and the prevalence of aesthetically valuable surroundings. The insanity of Sam Lowry is an extreme illustration of Nietzsche’s belief that art gives meaning to human existence, and that “the greatest work of art is not a statue or a play, but a human life itself.” (p. 898)
“Brazil” is an illustration, taken to an absurd level, of Nietzschian modernity. The film’s protagonist grapples with the nihilism that is inevitable in his society, this realization eventually accounts for his insanity. The style of the film mirrors much of the darkly comedic tones utilized in Nietzsche’s writings, often incorporating sarcasm and extreme examples in order to convey their arguments.  Instead of representing a portrayal of a futuristic totalitarian government, the film instead is a portrayal of both the current and previous generations, the one in which Nietzsche was highly critical of and the filmmaker shares that criticism towards the generation in which the film was made.

Discussion Questions:
1.)  Does Jill lend meaning to Sam’s life, or does she represent a Nietzschian visualization of artistic beauty? What is the filmmaker attempting to portray by the inclusion of her character, is the character a visualized or actual person?
2.)  There seems to be a lack of morality in “Brazil”, does this contribute to the state of nihilism, or is there another explanation?
3.) Is the society a state in which Nietzschian ideas would embrace or is it a state that Nietzsche would be critical of?
4.) Would Nietzsche be equally critical to modern society as he was to the society in which he lived?

Nietzsche Discussion 5/13

riedrick Nietzsche (1844-1900) is introduced in chapter 7, ‘Nietzsche For and against’.  He is described as a postmodernist but also of someone that portrays views identical to a deconstructionist on the topics of knowledge and interpretation.  The author in this chapter asks the reader to be aware of the two misconceptions of Nietzsche. One is that he was admired by Nazi and thus must be an anti-Semite.  The other misconception is that even thought he has some views that are deconstructionist views he is in fact not a deconstructionist.
Chapter 7, ‘Nietzsche For and against’ describes several characteristics of Nietzsche.  One view is that he believes people enjoy inflicting pain and take pleasure in cruelty.  He also is described as believing that the only explanation of human behavior as the will to power that consists of pleasure and pain.  On the topic of morality, Nietzsche believes that humans are not naturally moral but that the discovery of guilt is what makes human beings.
After the brief summary of Nietzsche, his text ‘On the Genealogy of Morals’ than begins with the preface.  In the preface Nietzsche explains several of his views and relations with different books and people.  Nietzsche claims that one thing all humans care about from the heart is bringing something home.  This is interesting because I believe it means that the task of a person’s life is to provide for their home or bring something to their home that shows their power or worth.  He continues with saying that “we are all strangers to ourselves’.  This is interesting because here Nietzsche is claiming that not even humans understand what their actions or other peoples actions actually mean.    In the preface, he also brings up the idea of the origin of moral prejudices from his examination of the book ‘Human, All-Too-Human, A Book for Free Spirits’ and than continues by claiming he separates theological prejudice from moral prejudice.
His text becomes very interesting when Nietzsche says he began to realize the great danger of mankind.  He says there is a problem with other philosophers and that is that they have a low estimation of pity.  He sees a problem with the value of pity and of the morality of pity.  This thus opens up his ideas of finding a critique of moral values and putting everything into question.  Than the interesting part comes when Nietzsche says that he has a project which is to examine different aspects of humans with new and open eyes, more importantly he searches for a hidden morality.  I believe this is implying for the reader to also do the same while reading his text.  He puts out a warning in the preface stating that the reader must read this text critically in order to understand it.  Is he than claiming that we are not all capable of understanding his text?
The first essay, “Good and Evil,” “Good and Bad” begins with criticizing English psychologists as historians of morality. Nietzsche says there is no historical spirit in them though, it is lacking.  Nietzsche than introduces the task of investigating the origin of the concept and judgment ‘good’.  He says that the source of the concept ‘good’ had been established in the wrong place.  This idea is very interesting because it claims that those who originally decided that certain actions were good were only using them to make them themselves better and thus those actions are not really good actions.  The noble, powerful, high-stationed and high minded are the ones that determined what was good and that was that they were the good ones compared to everyone else.  These ideas are very interesting because Nietzsche is here claiming that all values and names of values were thus wrongly determined because it was the noble and powerful people that came up with what these values are.  They came up with a setting that revolved around themselves and thus made everyone else (the low, low-minded, common and plebeian) seen as inferior.  In contrast, Nietzsche than explains that the common, plebian, and low people are than coined as being ‘bad’.  One interesting point Nietzsche makes on this topic is that the origin of language itself is an expression of power on the part of the rulers.
In part 5 of the first essay, Nietzsche explains that the prejudice between good and bad goes further by explaining that the good or the truthful ones.  This than places the noblemen being the ones that all others are suppose to trust in comparison to the bad which are the lying common man.  Than the most interesting part of Nietzsche text begins when he distinguishes the common man as those who are dark-colored and/or black-haired men.  Nietzsche claims that “the distinguishing word for nobility, finally for the good, noble, pure, originally meant the blond-haired, in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginal inhabitants”.
Nietzsche continues his examination of language by discussing pure and impure.  He relates pure to good and the impure to the bad.  Nietzsche states “the pure one is from the beginning merely a man who washes himself, who forbids himself certain foods that produce skin ailments, who does not sleep with dirty women of the lower strata, who has an aversion to blood—no more!”’.  Another interesting part of Nietzsche’s first essay is his discussion of the noble and the Jews.  He is trying to explain here that the Jews took an act of the most spiritual revenge toward the Nobles by flipping the moral values to good as being the poor and bad as being the noble and powerful ones.  Nietzsche claims that the Jews began the slave revolt in morality that has been victorious. Nietzsche examination of this revolt and the Jews is very interesting because he is agreeing that they won and that their views are what all people view now.  However, Nietzsche completely disagrees with their views and is not happy about their accomplishment.  He believes that the ‘redemption of the human race is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized, Christianized, mob-ized’.
An important part of Nietzsche’s text is his discussion of this slave revolt in morality.  He claims that all the readers are blind or misguided when it comes to understanding what he is saying.  Nietzsche says the war of the slave revolt has been going on for over 200 years but no one would know that because we as humans have been led on by the misguided-ness of the Jews. The slave revolt doesn’t look at whats outside or what is different.  Another important part of Nietzsche text is when he examines the Greek words that are used to describe the common man to be unhappy and ‘pitiable’ and the words that are used to describe the noble to be the happy ones.  Nietzsche explains that the man of ressentiment is not upright nor naïve, nor honest with himself, rather the man of resentment calls a nobleman’s good, evil.
While Nietzsche is explaining the difference between a noble mans morals compared to a man of ressentiment’s morals.  From this an odd part of Nietzsche’s text is developed when he discusses the noble man and how they are calm and respectful when they are in their own environment, however when the noble man leaves his own environment he becomes a blond beast.  I thought it was very interesting and valuable how Nietzsche compares his beliefs to philosophers and psychologists.  He strikes down their beliefs in order to show his own.  The author made me think of racism and obviously the Nazi’s in this first part of his text.  Particularly when he talks about the problem with the Jews and also when he states that the color black relates with a common man and not the noble.

Discussion Questions:
1. What exactly is Nietzsche talking about when he discusses the great danger to mankind in preface part 5 and relates it to the idea of nihilism? Why is this significant when reading Nietzsche?
2. What is Nietzsche talking about on page 907 when he discusses the old, cold, and tedious frogs?
3. On page 909, Nietzsche talks about the notorious case of buckle, what exactly is he trying to get out about Henry Thomas Buckle’s ‘plebeianism of the modern spirit’?
4. When Nietzsche is talking about the Jews, is he portraying the views of a Nazi?
5. What do you think of Nietzsche examination of the man of ressentiment?

Reading Qs for Nietzsche 5/13

1.    Describe Nietzsche’s writing style.  How is different than or similar to previous authors?  Why do you think he writes this way?
2.    On page 906 Nietzsche discusses and describes his aphoristic style.  How does he explain his preference for this style?  Note that he compares reading his work to rumination—and compares a good reader to a cow.  This is characteristic of Nietzsche; what does it tell us about his style and his approach?
3.    If Nietzsche is not entirely serious and certainly not literal when he describes his ideal reader as a cow, we should be attuned to the fact that Nietzsche employs both humor and exaggeration—and deliberate provocation—in his writing.  That said, beware of reading terms such as “master and slave,” “health”
4.    Why do you think this piece is considered political theory and not, say theology?
5.    Why does he call this a genealogy?
6.    Nietzsche describes his genealogy of morality as probing the question of whether morality is the height of himan achievement or “what if the reverse were true?  What if a symptom of regression were inherent in the ‘good’ living at the expense of the future?  Perhaps more comfortably, less dangerously, but at the same time in a meaner style, more basely—So that precisely morality would be to blame if the highest power and splendor actually possible to man was never in fact attained?  So that precisely morality was the danger of dangers?” (905)
7.    How does he propose to study morality?  What does this tell us about Nietzsche’s view of history (contrasted with that of, say, Mill or Marx?)
8.    What is the difference between good and bad vs. good and evil?
9.    What is the slave revolt in morality? (912-14)  What is ressentiment (913)?
10.    Nietzsche tells a little story about birds of prey and tasty little lambs on page 918.  What does this parable suggest about the origins and purposes of morality?
11.    On page 920, section 15 Nietzsche makes a very strong claim about religion—what is it?
12.    How is the Enlightenment tangled up in Christian morality according to Nietzsche?  (922-23)

Final Paper Assignment

Your final paper assignment is posted on the course webpage.  Please note the following dates modified from those given in class

May 15:  1st draft due in class.  You may submit earlier for earlier feedback.

May 20*:  Peer Reviews in class with second draft.

May 27:  Final essay due before 3 pm