Master And Slave Existentialism: Nietzsche Vs. Sartre

1613 Words 7 Pages
Philosophy is plagued by problem of split of theoretical and practical ideas. Just because it makes sense and works with variables held constant, or simplified models Ceterus Paribus. This truly manifests in the transition to the real world where things are not so simply, application of theoreticals never work the way they are intended. Both Nietzsche and Sartre suffer in these regards, existentialism is not designed to be fully adopted. What, if any ideas can even survive the conversion from hypothetical into singular humanity and eventually society as a whole. The entire existential movement is a rejection of the world to embrace the self. That may in fact be the largest problem, the rejection of the world and society. Can existential ideologies …show more content…
“All truly noble morality grows out of triumphant self-affirmation. Slave ethics, on the other hand, begins by saying no to an outside, and other, a non self, and that no is it 's creative act,” (The Genealogy of Morals, 170). With Nietzsche’s Master and slave ideology, whole crux is upon the fact that there are both masters and slaves. The slave is a description of the weak that Nietzsche so often condemns, and to him it represents most of society. Those swayed by religion, those sways by others even. To Nietzsche slaves accept society, and therefore reject the self that existentialism is centered around. This all stems from the the reversal of virtues and values. “To this and we need to know if the conditions from which those values have sprung and how they have developed and changed,” (The Genealogy of Morals, 155). But, if western culture was never swayed or inversed by the slavish values, would Nietzsche still reject society? A society full of masters would look quite different than the one we have now, it would be significantly closer to nature than it currently. …show more content…
Both Nietzsche and Sartre have similar definitions for the self, being the master or the pour-soi, but the difference lies within the interactions they have with others. A master with another master, can either be enemies to compete, or agons to compete. Lovers are a source of carnal pleasure, and do not need to be more for Nietzsche, he simplifies the needs of man to that of animals and the wants of man to succeed. For Sartre relationships theoretically cannot work, for the freedoms of man cannot coexist in the same space, they begin to compete and cannot survive an extended period of time. Inherently the pour-soi cannot be bound by temporal feelings, eventually the freedom will break the ties that were made if they are inconvenient. Oddly enough, for Sartre relationships are not theoretically possible but in practice, are somewhat successful, but that is due to the submission as a

Related Documents