Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals: A Critical Analysis of Morality’s Origins
Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals
First Treatise
English Psychologists and the Genesis of Morality
Nietzsche finds English psychologists interesting because they delve into the genesis of morality. They believe in seeking truth but lack a historical perspective. They argue that altruistic actions were initially deemed good by beneficiaries, and this assessment’s origin was later forgotten. Nietzsche criticizes this theory, asserting that only the powerful can establish names and do so from a position of strength.
The Power of Naming and the Origin of “Good”
The powerful are designated by words expressing their superiority: “lords,” “rulers,” “rich,” “owners,” or by character traits like “true,” “warriors,” “blonde,” “divine lineage.” This contrasts with the “liar,” “dark,” and “cowardly” common man. Utility was paramount to them. Nietzsche argues that the origin of what’s considered “good” wouldn’t be forgotten if it consistently benefited the powerful. Political dominance and the soul remained intertwined until the priestly caste emerged, opposing the supreme caste. They introduced “pure” and “impure” to distinguish between the estates, later evolving into “good” and “bad.”
The Priestly Caste and the Inversion of Values
Initially, “priests” were those who washed, avoided foods causing skin infections, shunned “dirty” women, and felt disgusted by blood, contrasting with the “impure.” Their unhealthy habits, detached from active life and focused on ideas, led to neurasthenia. Religion, with its fasting, abstinence, isolation, and hostility towards the sensible, material, and instinctive, became the supposed remedy—a cure more dangerous than the disease. With the priests, everything becomes dangerous and antithetical to the warrior caste’s values.
Contrasting Values: Warriors vs. Priests
Knightly-aristocratic values emphasize a strong constitution and activities like war, adventure, hunting, and fighting. The priestly caste values things differently; they see war as a sign of trouble. The confrontation between these castes leads the priests, fueled by impotence and resentment, to devise a plan of revenge through the inversion of values.
The Slave Revolt in Morality
begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth values.Prevented the reaction of the action, their resentment leads them to retaliate with an imaginary revenge. Noble morality born of self-assertion, the slaves, led resentment, denial of the alien. No acts, reacts. The noble man is honest, naive, honest, truthful, does not act against anyone or feel hatred, but a careless disregard (the unconscious heroic – think Nietzsche – was the cultural cause the end of the heroism and the heroic moral extinction and type of world that makes possible) and disregard for what is different without considering the enemy, the man of resentment is the opposite, Revere intelligence caricatures difference, conceived as an enemy and defines it as “evil” going to judge how good its antithesis . Nietzsche does not deny that men “noble” – showing each delicacy, loyalty, pride, friendship, respect – working outside their circle as predators. But the victory of the slaves is a step backwards for mankind. It is always preferable to fear and admire that fear and nausea of modern man, meek, mediocre and poisoned. We have lost the fear of man because we have also lost the respect and love for him, faith and hope in him. We are tired of man placid, gentle, wise, mediocre, Chinese, Christian … The retrenchment and the leveling of the European men are losing faith in man and leads us to nihilism. The weak plays his weakness – goodness – as an act of freedom and imposes on the stronger responsibility for not wanting to be weak. It is absurd to claim that the strong do not manifest its strength as the weak weakness. Example of birds of prey and lambs. The weak are considered better than the powerful, because they have freely chosen to be what they are and why they do better or they will do better than them having been “chosen” by God. These artists and perfidious language masters of deception does not say they hate their enemy, but evil, vengeance but do not expect the victory of justice and trying to turn their misery into happiness with the hopes of Judgement final.Pero not be fooled: the weak aspire only to be strong even if it means having to wait too long, beyond death to see rewarded with eternal hatred of the enemy the eternal pain serving faith and anticipation of happiness. The struggle between good and evil, between Rome and Judea, long ago has opted for the latter, although in some places still free. Renaissance hope of a return of the classical ideal, in a “noble” to assess, disappeared with the Reformation and the French Revolution. The latest manifestation of this another way, truly redemptive, is found in Napoleon, this synthesis of inhumanity and Superman. Is there hope for change? Should not we desire with all our strength?