Nietzsche – The Genealogy of Morals – Flashcards

Nietzsche pokes fun at Kant for his explanations of the origins of good and evil on pg. 16-17. Nietzsche praises Kant for his categorical imperative.

He was able to separate true morality from the Christian "morality" and this allowed him to explore "under what conditions did man devise these value judgments good and evil? and what value do they themselves possess" (17).

Nietzsche's method and views on morality are similar to those of Dr. Paul Ree in The Origin of the Moral Sensations. In particular, "the twofold prehistory of good and evil (namely, in the sphere of the noble and in that of the slaves)", "the value and origin of the morality of asceticism", "the 'morality of mores'", "on the origin of justice...punishment" (18).

"Pity, self-abnegation, self-sacrifice": Society/human nature do not value these "instincts"--have been developed by Christianity.

The aphoristic form is not taken seriously enough. One has to not only read, but decipher as well. Reading in this style should be performed as an "art". We do not currently read this way because, according to Nietzsche, many people still disagree with him because they are unable to truly "read" his work.

They look at the inner workings of man to determine its faults, assuming that these faults are not innate in every being. He refutes this by acknowledging and praising the "English psychologists" for "a little vulgarity, a little gloominess, a little anti-Christianity, a little itching and need for spice" (24).

Originally, the word "good" was used to describe qualities of the noble and of the nobility. "Bad" did not have as negatively a connotation originally, it was simply used to describe the other that was not "good." The meanings changed after the implementation of Christianity and the shift in power from the "good" to the "bad."

Truth also originally was reserved for the "noble", and it degenerated to designate nobility of the soul.

The priestly mode is dangerous for humanity--more things are condemned and outlawed. The priestly mode is condescending and this mode shows mankind to have more "wholesome" virtues as compared to animals.

The inversion of the true meanings of "good" and "bad"--the Jews and the Christians wage it. We know it has been successful because we accept and many people believe this inversion.

Jesus exemplified the slave revolt in morality, promoting a seductive and destructive way of thinking and acting. The church shouldn't be necessary today, and it alienates rather than seduces at this point in time.

"Resentment", the need to direct one's view outward instead of inward. This differs from the noble mode of valuation because the noble mode seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly--its negative concept is only a subsequently-invented pale.

"Bad" is of noble origin and "evil" comes from unsatisfied hatred.

Our love for the European man--"the sight of man now makes us weary" (44).

The example shows an analogy for the Romans and the Christians. The "lamb" views the "eagle" as evil, but the eagle's behavior is just nature. This view is also just from the lamb's point-of-view, not the entirety of nature.

We learn how formerly bad qualities are transformed into "virtues."

"The blessed in the kingdom of heaven will see the punishments of the damned, in order that their bliss be more delightful for them."(Aquinas) They show how we take pleasure in the suffering of others, and how it is sanctioned by Christianity through the disguise of "Hell."

Rome: Strong and "noble" Judea: "Ressentiment par excellence" Vatican: Judea Renaissance: Rome Reformation: Judea French Revolution: Judea Napoleon: Rome

They have not been totally eclipsed. For example, while we promote a "Christian" way of life in the US, we are still an extremely pro-military society, which is a "noble" value. We MUST will and promote these noble values.

"Every table of values, every 'thou shalt' known to histology or ethnology, requires first a physiological investigation and interpretation, rather than a psychological one" (55).

A "tabula rasa" of the consciousness is indicative of robust health (physically and mentally).

Consciousness is result of habit and routine. By "mnemotechnics" Nietzsche means that the memories which remain are ones that do not hurt the carrier.

Guilt comes originally from the debt in the debtor-creditor relationship.

We enjoy cruel spectacles, even more so when we are the perpetrators.

We try to make suffering as painful as possible, and those with lower status enjoy making others suffer more than someone with a higher status.

The relationship extends to the community--if the debtor does not pay their debt, not only will they be subject to suffering from the creditor, but they will be shunned by their community.

No--they have the ability to subdue individuals more easily and prevent rebellion. Weaker communities tend to punish more severely. Eg., the French Revolution.

This causes more severe punishment/more pleasure in doling out punishment, as the one who enacts the punishment involves their personal feelings or attitudes in the situation.

They are often not the same thing. Eg., punishment--origin was to change behavior, currently utilized to produce cruelty. "The eye being made for seeing, the hand being made for grasping" (77).

Punishment is supposed to awaken a feeling of guilt in the guilty person's conscious, which it fails at.

It is in place because of the restrictions on man--just like if a marine animal was placed on land and expected to live fully, in the same manner.

We enjoy cruel acts, but since Christianity "rejects" cruelty, we turn it inwards on ourselves. Law=cage=Christianity. Christian "virtues", self-mutilation, aesthetic practices, etc.

When they make themselves suffer in order to feel the pleasure of making someone suffer.

The origin of Gods comes from fear. Greek gods retain the "noble" qualities of the people who conceived them, while the Christian God is "accompanied by the maximum feeling of guilty indebtedness on earth" (90).

"You will already have guessed what really went on with all this and under all this: that will to self-torment, that repressed cruelty of animal man pushed inward and forced back into himself, imprisoned in the "state" to make him tame, who invented bad conscience in order to lacerate himself, after the more natural discharge of this will to inflict pain had been blocked—this man of bad conscience seized upon religious assumptions to drive his self-torment to its most horrifying hardship and ferocity. Guilt towards God: this idea becomes his instrument of torture. In "God" he seizes on the ultimate contrast he is capable of discovering to his real and indissoluble animal instincts. He interprets these animal instincts themselves as a crime against God (as enmity, rebellion, revolt against the "master," the "father," the original ancestor and beginning of the world). He grows tense with the contradiction of "God" and "devil." He hurls from himself every "No" which he says to himself, to nature, naturalness, the factual reality [Tatsächlichkeit] of his being as a "Yes," as something existing, as living, as real, as God, as the blessedness of God, as God the Judge, as God the Hangman, as something beyond him, as eternity, as perpetual torment, as hell, as punishment and guilt beyond measure."