Agree? — Mongrel

No - why would you think so?

Furthermore I'm curious according to what grounds did you draw the "materialistic" vs "non-materialistic" distinction? It seems to me that the one morality isn't anymore materialistic or non-materialistic than the other.

Resentment values are basically sour grapes. We tell ourselves that we don't want the things that we can't have anyway, and imagine some virtue in this refraining, and some vice in its possession.

Attractive people are dumb, rich people are wicked, etc.

It teaches that the proper mode is to be poor, helpless, and full of self-loathing. Agree? — mongrel

It's essentially the condition of Job (Biblical figure) where instead there is a lack of faith in God (or the standard morality) coupled with misfortune.

Why not exercise the power of revenge upon those who are just as undeserving for their fortune, out of spite? If life is worthless for the fringe, marginal, dispossessed, why not perpetuate the chaos of their own hell?

Some nihilists (driven mad by resentment) are wrecked beyond saving.

I'm becoming more and more conservative as I get older, I keep getting used, manipulated, and then mocked and derided behind my back for it.

Was talking to a good buddy of mine yesterday, right into politics, and I said that I didn't want to get involved in his discussion, and I'm basically liberal anyway to which he replied "oh yeah, how's that been working out for you?"

So do you guys think it's true that the meek are not blessed.. because they're "just a bunch of meeks"? Can't remember who said that.

Maybe the meek inherit the earth when they get jaded enough.

There is a brand of morality that simply rejects anyone who has power. It reviles anyone who has self-love. It teaches that the proper mode is to be poor, helpless, and full of self-loathing. Agree? — Mongrel

What brand of morality decrees this?

"just a bunch of meeks

Possibly Bill Maher joke:' Who cares...they're just a bunch of meeks...we'll just take it back from them.Ba dum dum'

What brand of morality decrees this? — m-theory

It's partly expressed in the message of Jesus. More broadly in the ethic of progress. The rich are fat and satisfied, so they have to reason to be on the move.. to be progressing. Where progress is a virtue, satisfaction is evil.

Where I see it in the world around me is in my liberal friends and family. One displays one's angst as a badge of goodness. I find myself falling into it as well. And it's true, it's partly just straight envy.

Sounds right.

There is a brand of morality that simply rejects anyone who has power. — Mongrel

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.

So it's not that one denies the value of riches in this case, but that one is upset at the injustice present, and this upset manifests by a rationalisation of the situation.

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.

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

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.

The slave has a very keen sense of justice. N says it's a reactive and requires external stimulus. 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.

N says it's a reactive and requires external stimulus — Mongrel

Can a sense of justice ever not be reactive? Doesn't justice always react to the way things are?

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

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?

What is justice?

What is justice? — Mongrel

What Plato said it is: to each as they deserve.

How do you know what a person deserves?

How do you know what a person deserves? — Mongrel

By using your judgement and judging objectively while doing that? There's obviously not way to get this right with certainty if that's what you're asking for. These are tentative judgements.

A person who has a lot of power was probably willing to do a lot of evil things. Maybe not all powerful people are evil, but generally, they're ruthless, greedy, and careless about the well-being of others.

Does this sound like proper judgment to you?

I 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."

Many liberals are wealthy and or in positions of power themselves for one.

I think the liberal resentment of the wealthy has to do with the percentage of their income that they spend on taxes.
Compared to middle and lower classes they pay significantly less.
The wealthy often earns money from capital gains for example, and the rate at which capital gains are tax compared to wage earners is significantly less.
So yeah there is resentment there.
There is also resentment concerning environmental issues.
That large corporations can have a much larger impact on the environment than individuals but then argue that they should not also have a much larger legal obligation because of that capacity.

A person who has a lot of power was probably willing to do a lot of evil things. — 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.

Maybe not all powerful people are evil, but generally, they're ruthless, greedy, and careless about the well-being of others. — 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.

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

I agree with that. Some folks just naturally root for the underdog. Those people are more likely to end up being liberal (in my neck of the woods, anyway.)

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.

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

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.

Some folks just naturally root for the underdog. Those people are more likely to end up being liberal — 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.

So I guess you're saying that Nietzsche misunderstands the world. There is no "resentment morality." Mmmm... yes there is. Maybe it doesn't quite have the range and potency N thought it did. It does exist, though.

According to the eminent philosopher, Alan Jay Lerner, "It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt." Camelot

Perhaps this would be a contrary answer to N.

If there is some underdog morality which has attempted to establish itself via democracy, revenge isn't the goal. The impetus is to manifest a shared vision of a world where opportunity is available to all. Where little black girls and little white girls will join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual...

God I'm jaded.

:)