Nietzsche's On The Genealogy Of Morals Theoretical Analysis

1455 Words 6 Pages

Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals is a theoretical book that branches into the field of philosophy. Adler writes, “Theoretical books teach you that something is the case. Practical books teach you how to do something you want to do or think you should do” (66). In the case of Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche teaches the readers that the priestly sets of morals has reversed the morals of the previous knightly set of morals, and that mankind should revert back to the knightly set of morals. An example of how Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals is theoretical is demonstrated through the quote, “It was the Jews who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good
…show more content…
In Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche lacks the knowledge, but works under the assumption that the aristocracy set up what is “good” in the first place. Nietzsche writes, “I found that they all led back to the same conceptual transformation—that everywhere ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the social sense, is the basic concept from which ‘good’… which always runs parallel with that other is which ‘common’” (pg 27-28). Through this quote, Nietzsche is claiming that he knows that the idea of “good” started with the aristocrats, who defined what “good” is. Nietzsche claims to know this through finding words in various languages, such as German, that agree with his argument. Yet this might not be the case. No one knows whether aristocrats first coined the term “good” or not. And there is little proof from either side to conclude whether the lower or aristocratic classes first defined what was “good”. This would change Nietzsche’s argument in that it would invalidate his argument on “good/ bad vs good/ evil”. The latter is based on the priestly caste, who according to Nietzsche, are the common, tame man. If the good is defined by the common, then there is no distinction between the good/bad and the good/evil because the common class would have set up both, so there would be no distinction between the two

Related Documents