... it acts and grows spontaneously, it merely seeks its antithesis in order to pronounce a more grateful and exultant "yes" to its own self; — Nietsche, Geneology of Morals
"Who is really evil according to the meaning of the morality of resentment?" In all sternness let it be answered thus: - just the good man of the other morality, just the aristocrat, the powerful one, the one who rules, but who is distorted by the venomous eye of resentfulness, into a new color, a new signification, a new appearance. — Nietzsche, Geneology of Morals
It teaches that the proper mode is to be poor, helpless, and full of self-loathing. Agree? — mongrel
What brand of morality decrees this? — m-theory
I don't think this is too honest. The morality in question is formed of misjudgements about justice. When I complain that the dumb guy next door is rich and I'm poor, I'm really saying that he doesn't deserve to be rich (because he's dumb and I'm much smarter than him!). The injustice is that he gets what he doesn't deserve, and I don't get what I deserve. Most often though, these are misjudgements - meaning that my judgement that he's dumber than me or that because he's dumber than me he deserves to have less money than I do, or whatever is false.There is a brand of morality that simply rejects anyone who has power. — Mongrel
Maybe but what does this have to do with the point I was making? The so called slave is upset at an injustice. This underlies that he has a sense of justice, which actually is functioning.It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. — Mongrel
Can a sense of justice ever not be reactive? Doesn't justice always react to the way things are?N says it's a reactive and requires external stimulus — Mongrel
Well I think it's a natural part of the functioning of a rational being. If I am working for a guy who is my boss, and he's more stupid than I am (and this is the objective fact now, not just a misjudgement on my part), shouldn't I feel upset that I'm working for such a person? Shouldn't I wish to replace him if possible, and become the boss in his place?I wonder if what N is calling slave morality is self-loathing one takes up on behalf of a world that seems to always proceed forward without ever feeling the weight of condemnation. — Mongrel
It depends on his character, but it is possible. However, even if he had little power, he would be willing to do a lot of evil things, only that he wouldn't have the means to do them.A person who has a lot of power was probably willing to do a lot of evil things. — Mongrel
Depends - people who climb up the ladder of power generally have to bear humiliation after humiliation, and after a lifetime of being humiliated left and right by X and Y, then finally get to the top. Wouldn't you be ruthless, greedy, and careless by that point? So that is a natural evolution of things - they pay those who pulled them down with exactly what they paid them on their way up. Things are only different if they have character, and if they don't humiliate themselves on the road to power - if they have dignity and character, then they won't be vengeful.Maybe not all powerful people are evil, but generally, they're ruthless, greedy, and careless about the well-being of others. — Mongrel
would not say it is the liberal view to "revile anyone who has self-love and to teach that the proper mode is to be poor, helpless, and full of self-loathing." — m-theory
Every rich/powerful family has a founder - a person who got them rich. In the case of, say, Donald Trump, it's his father. The founder is the one that bears the humiliations. I love reading Chinese history, Chinese history is replete of such examples in politics. Then they grow their sons and daughters in a strict and rigid environment because they know how harsh the world was to them. Then their sons and daughters become ruthless and expand the empire. Sooner or later, future generations will be like "WTF our parents were so harsh with us, we couldn't properly enjoy... let's let our kids enjoy!" and they will revert back to the baseline, become lazy, lose the virtues taught to them, and the family will fall, only to be replaced by another.Humiliation? Real power is accumulated over generations. So though aristocracy doesn't really exist anymore, rich families do. I don't know if they subject their offspring to humiliation. I doubt it. — Mongrel
Quite honestly, I almost always root for the underdog. If Trump had never been the underdog, probably I would never have rooted for him. And I'm the farthest you can get from a liberal. Just saying.Some folks just naturally root for the underdog. Those people are more likely to end up being liberal — Mongrel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.