Nietzsche's Feministic Analysis

954 Words 4 Pages
1) In Nietzsche’s first treatise, he elaborates on the notions of slave and master morality. He opens his argument for these concepts by observing that his take on morality will be passed on the history of morality to provide a better insight unlike the English psychologists. (I:1) Nietzsche mentions a very powerful thought that permeates history that the strong and the winners are who writes history. In this sense, he states that it was the nobles; the ones in charge were the ones to associate themselves with the word “good”. Through linguistic analysis, Nietzsche shows how “good” was initially associated with “master” and thus “bad” was the absence of “good”. (I:5) This was the original way of the world, a “good and bad”, where the nobles …show more content…
Nietzsche states that the nobles see themselves as naturally happy, while the slaves, feeling oppressed, distort reality to see the nobles as “evil”. The ideas mentioned lead to a shift in mindset from “good and bad” to “good and evil” as the slave morality became more powerful. This is due to the fact that the “ressentiment” festering in the slaves leads to the notion of “evil” which they associate with the nobles. With these definitions in place the word “good” falls as an afterthought to describe the slaves when looking at the “evil” nobles as the slaves value weakness as power and devaluing everything the nobles stand for. (I:16) Lastly, Nietzsche brings up the notion that grammar has led us to think of things as independent subject and actions when in reality subjects are nothing but actions. (I:17) With this emphasis of separation, Nietzsche sees how the slave morality, or the weak, can conceive that to be “good” is to not have strength by not killing or enduring hardship, ultimately seeing their weakness as freedom, which he notes is …show more content…
He notes that both concepts exist in slave and master morality and have two drastically different meanings. Also, the two concepts have shaped much of today’s world based on a change from master to slave morality. He opens with the idea of a promise, how its existence means man must be predictable enough to ensure future events. (II:1) This predictability comes from man being a master of his own free will and thus having a conscience. He then muses over the idea of guilt, mentioning how the word guilt and debt are very similar in the German language. (II:8) This leads to the idea that guilt was originally separate from accountability. He furthers this point with the idea of punishment in older societies. He states that punishment was originally not in the form of guilt, but instead in a physical retribution. He admires this method as it eliminates the mental turmoil of modern day guilt. If a promise couldn’t be fulfilled, the creditor, or one owed the promise, would still be able to get retribution in the form of seeing his debtor in pain. (II:10) This lead to a greater satisfaction to society when a debt couldn’t be paid. Also, this ensures the unfaithful debtor will have this transgression burned into their mind making them more accountable in the future. Furthermore, this brings up the notion of debtor and creditor. Where in the past, after punishment, there was no guilt and no feeling

Related Documents