In particular, this Wikipedia article gives the incorrect impression that Nietzsche is especially cynical about divine command and deontological ethics and implies that the MS divide is in some ways constructive. Neither is the case: Nietzsche's moral cynicism is universal and the MS divide is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive or constructive.
Thus, what unifies Nietzsche's seemingly disparate critical remarks — about altruism, happiness, pity, equality, Kantian respect for persons, utilitarianism, etc. — is that he thinks a culture in which such norms prevail as morality will be a culture which eliminates the conditions for the realization of human excellence — the latter requiring, on Nietzsche's view, concern with the self, suffering, a certain stoic indifference, a sense of hierarchy and difference, and the like.
That goes a lot further than just being descriptive, there's a clear value judgement in there.
Could you elaborate? Nietzsche's usage of slave morality seems pejorative to me, and I wouldn't characterise Nietzsche's stance as an universal moral cynicism; his method does not aim at an universal conclusion.
Funny enough, this illustrates well why it is difficult to find good reads on Nietzsche, it is not easy to summarise his positions briefly and without equivocation.
It should also be said that he doesn’t use these terms in a scientific or extremely specific way (“this is how it was, factually”) but rather as a sort of myth-like pattern. They are broad repeating trends, so to speak, not scientific observations.
The overman (Übermensch) should transcend both moral systems and create a new life-affirming one. Unfortunately some reactionaries seem to think that he was advocating for a return to master morality.
"It has always seemed strange to me, the things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second."
However, after doing my anecdotal reading, I came away with the belief they are just as, if not more, selfish than Americans, but Swedes for example, are able to support programs because they understand they might need them at some point.
That took me back to another common quote, that Americans see themselves not as poor but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Again, all anecdotal.
That's exactly how it is. Those with a slave morality are controlled, guided, and protected by those with a master morality to keep society running.
A society of masters moralities will eventually develop a pecking order and will recalibrate itself.
So they end up being adventure movies essentially where main character shows smarts.
Edit: Added /s just to be clear.
Jerk: this looks like shit, do it again.
Not Jerk: almost there. let's do another iteration.
(kind of wondering if that use of Master-Slave is so old that I really needed to cite it...)
What an absolute humanitarian travesty that era was.
Playground morality: the behaviors that make a kid popular and respected by the other children.
This Nietzsche is interesting and it hit me like a slap in the face when I first encountered it, but the most fleshed out and vivid form of this type of thinking is Ribbonfarm Gervaise Principle articles.
But behind the scenes, it seems like a state needs to rule with master morality, but for peaceableness, promote the adoption of slave morality among the slaves.
Controversial view: Christianity is a perfect ruling tool because it incentivizes slave morality which keeps people peaceful.
Caveat: I'm not saying Christ wasn't real nor an amazing person. Just noting how the religion could be co-opted for ruling purpose.
It's frankly a disgusting argument.
Gender/racial equality, language games over gender, rights to be called one name or another, the elusive one percent, supposed rights to privacy and free speech, the right not to incriminate oneself, the pornification/glorification of work, the hustle, start-up culture, premium mediocrity etc.
And behold, the mods seem to have agreed to remove this from the front page. So at least we are being consistent.
> language games over gender
Don't think I didn't catch this, lil NRx buddy.
Is the fact that Nietzsche is still studied and cited in a positive light, that books are written on his works by academics at leading universities including Oxford still not sufficient for you, or is it only Frankfurt types you'll openly associate with?
I suppose really though that this isn't important enough for you to look into; rather you'd prefer to run the party line and maintain your job at Googsoft.
You're right in one respect. I wouldn't expect any different from the mods.
I'm not sure who's literary critique in particular hurt you, but it's irrelevant.
> Is the fact that Nietzsche is still studied and cited in a positive light, that books are written on his works by academics at leading universities including Oxford still not sufficient for you, or is it only Frankfurt types you'll openly associate with?
Ah yes. Yes. The Frankfurt School. Allegiance to that group is always at the root of these problems, isnt it? You are not a "social marxism" conspiracy theorist at all.
> I suppose really though that this isn't important enough for you to look into; rather you'd prefer to run the party line and maintain your job at Googsoft
If you were trying to pretend you weren't in the NRx family of thought, you did a bad job here slipping a Damore reference in.
> You're right in one respect. I wouldn't expect any different from the mods.
Maybe post things that are meaningful about technology and science rather than the crackpot edge of Nietzche's widely rebutted social economics? Next you're going to tell me Burke was right. If you need someone to tell you it's all right, no fear! You've got a lot of other options. Maybe, go to a site like SSC.
The commonality is that these cheap jibes really add no information, they are aimed at derailing a discussion someone doesn't like. You know that, though.
Yes, I am not a social marxism conspiracy theorist at all. Right and left, it's all the same. You've missed the whole point I have tried to make.
I will rephrase in a more literal way for you to understand, in a way more difficult to avoid: Without resorting to claims of crackpotness, conspiracy theory, sympathising with vocal minorities and Nietzsche's ideas' supposed negative consequences on society, what exactly do you disagree with about using Nietzsche to understand our moral psychology, and specifically about the sources I have given in this post and in my other submissions?
I envy you like I envy god-believers. It must be nice to believe and fit in.
Yeah it must be really difficult being so smart. This is a compelling and powerful argument that is not only relevant, but also persuasive.
> Right and left, it's all the same. You've missed the whole point I have tried to make.
You've not made one, nor will you. I hope you have a happy evening.
McCarthy and the pinkos then, your lot and the alt-right now. Same shit, different bucket. Enjoy it while it serves you.