rhetoric

ok, this is the first draft of the first paper that I have to write in college. read it and give me your thoughts. granted ,it is very rough, but the main flow of argument is here. i'm letting it rest for a day or two, and then i'll probably add more textual references and elaboration. do not fault me for the material for I did not determine it, but critique it and the way it is presented anyway. have fun, and do sharpen those claws


Slave Morality

Friedrich Nietzsche unveils one of his more polemic ideas in chapter seven of the first essay in his book, “The Genealogy of Morals”; claiming there has been a two thousand year old slave revolt in morality, one hidden from our perception by virtue of its success. Surely such a notion is alien to us - but for Nietzsche, it would have scarcely crossed our mind. This idea is incomprehensible in itself, unless one understands Nietzsche’s concepts of “slave”, “revolt” and “morality”. With that in mind, I shall attempt to elucidate Nietzsche’s concept of slave morality and present his critique of it.

Before any revolt in morality can be discussed, the nature of the morality that was displaced must be known. This, according to Nietzsche, was not a set of morals that were by themselves inherently moral, but a set of value and characteristics singled out by the most powerful people – the aristocrats – because these were the things that set them apart from the common folk. (It is interesting to read that Nietzsche considers the nobles to be less clever and more naïve than the common folk, bringing us to believe that Nietzsche’s concept of power is an overwhelmingly physical one, which is corroborated with his diction pertaining to it.) In this earlier configuration, it is seen that morals are determined by the powerful and are put in place to emphasize the difference between the powerful and the weak. In this situation, the aristocrats first think of themselves as good, therefore the concept of bad is only an afterthought, a description of those who are unlike themselves.

Logically, Nietzsche presents the revolution and its drivers as the antitheses of their predecessors. While Nietzsche does say that it is not necessarily an exception when the aristocratic caste is the same as the priestly caste, as was probably prevalent during the initial stage when political superiority equated superiority of soul, where priest refers to those who greatly value religion (note that Nietzsche specifically charges the Jews, a deeply religious people, with starting the slave revolt in morality), he maintains that the impotence of the priests make them the greatest enemies of the existing social order. Juxtaposed with the nobles, these people are deemed slaves because they are impotent and come in last in view of existing morality. Moreover, as resentful (of their position in the lower strata of society) men, they bring into the value dichotomy the label of evil. In looking at life, they first associate evil with their oppressors and thus assume that they, who are most unlike their oppressors, are good. Hence, there is now a differentiation where “bad” and “evil” are concerned. With religion being a dominant factor, the human mind begins to transcend the temporal realm in its considerations. The now enlarged parameters for the effects of morals and deeds make palpable a new set of preferred traits. Thus, the revolt begins as influence shifts from the powerful to the powerless. According to Nietzsche, the post slave revolution good man is “wretched, poor, impotent, lowly, suffering, deprived, sick and ugly” whereas the pre slave revolution good man is “noble, powerful, beautiful and happy”. Nietzsche’s slave morality is all about the inversion of these preferred value sets, which he deems “an act of most spiritual revenge” of the Jews.

According to Nietzsche, slave morality has brought about a social order where man is no longer an animal to fear. This is because the suppression of more aggressive values and the promotion of more passive Judeo-Christian ones have created “tame” men. Nietzsche does use less favorable terms – “maggot men”. “Maggot” here is used to emphasize the disparity between mediocre modern man and the magnificent beastlike man of old. Hence, the world has become a place where aggression and the capability to arouse fear (a trait that Nietzsche greatly admires) are seen as regression. Nietzsche sees a world where man is becoming “more good natured, more prudent, more comforting, more mediocre and more indifferent.” Indeed, he associates these values with slave morality and sarcastically states that humanity is gradually becoming better by its standards. He also says that modern man is content with his current state, for modern man feels that he has reached the pinnacle with respect to all manner of man from all history.

If it is not already clear from Nietzsche’s diction that he is vehemently against slave morality, then there can be no doubt now, for Nietzsche does present quite a harsh critique of it. He writes that the strong should be strong and the weak should be weak. Therefore, the nobles should rule over the mob and not vice versa, as has been the case hitherto. Moving on, Nietzsche attacks the mechanism that enables slave morality to flourish – the promises of a higher purpose, unfulfilled in earthly space and time but redeemable in the (supposedly existing) afterlife. Nietzsche turns upon the concept of eternal love that Judeo-Christian religion rides upon. To this end, he quotes notable figures from the Christian faith, namely Tomas Aquinas who says, “the blessed in the kingdom of heaven will see the punishment of the damned, in order that their bliss be more delightful to them” and Tertullian, who says, “I shall have a better opportunity then…of beholding the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows…” Nietzsche highlights these displays of sadism, though they be displays of the mind and not of deeds; to show hatred and evil as the foundations of Christianity.

On a smaller scale, he urges us to examine the “slaves”, who when downtrodden go about their lives passively, urging one another to abstain from the evil that others inflict upon them and interpret their actions as the empty deeds of a people who are powerless to do otherwise. Nietzsche calls this “weakness being lied into something meritorious.” He also points out the aspects within the slaves relationships with their God that are contrary to conventional human reasoning, giving emphasis to the way the slaves “regard their misery as a sign of being chosen by God.” Truly, Nietzsche tries to show us that but for a lack of means and capability to seize what they desire, the slaves are no different to the nobles they have overthrown and their pretences otherwise are but a farce. He writes that they hope that “someday, their kingdom too will come.” Effectively, he has attacked the concept of slave morality at its heart – the definition of good and evil – by blurring the line between the nobles and the slaves.

Nietzsche is such a controversial character that great scholars can come to little agreement in the studying of his work as there are nuances in it only to be fully fleshed out with the understanding of Nietzsche’s diction, background and thought process; this of course is by its own virtue utterly subjective. Nevertheless, I trust that I achieved that which I have set out to do – provide a basic yet workable understanding of some of Nietzsche’s most famous, or infamous, ideas.