A lightly edited quote from recent private communications about
exemplars of the morality of resentment:Oh, you would love Jenseits von Gut und Böse [‘Beyond Good and Evil’]!
Having started his preface with the question, “Vorausgesetzt, dass die Wahrheit ein Weib est —, wie?” [‘Supposing that Truth is a woman—what then?’], Nietzsche then proceeds to casually scorn his woman: “Die Falschheit eines Urtheils ist uns noch kein Einwand gegen ein Urtheil... Die Unwahrheit als Lebensbedingung zugestehn” (Aphorism 4 [intentionally untranslated as a filter to exclude casual readers of this topic, for the reason stated in the next sentence:]). It is an eminently misquotable book in the grubby hands of such Chandalas* as Vispilio!
He then proceeds to contemptuously dismiss all his woman’s other suitors: He demolishes philosophy as such! For Nietzsche was a philologist, not actually a philosopher. Thus with the ease of a warrior amongst midgets, he sends away 2500 years of suitors who pursued Truth: Plato, Kant, Spinoza, wrong—the Stoics are “fraudulent”—sensualism is for the plebes—etc... Even Schopenhauer, whom a younger Nietzsche once regarded with awe, he now dismisses as “superstition”. Fräulein Wahrheit now has no suitors left but the man who just hit on Unwahrheit right in front of her.
Thence begins a dance in which she yields to his embrace.
(* Under the Hindu caste system, the Chandalas are the lowest of the low untouchables, filthy and vile by birth—in some eras required by law to carry rattles and shake them upon the approach of “living” persons, so that those of pure caste could avoid the contamination of their presence. Historically, a type of BM/WF mixed offspring. In some of his books, Nietzsche uses “Chandala” approximately as Bitcoin Forum members use “pajeet”: To describe any creature of infinite stupidity, who combines within himself “Please Sir” servility with seething jealousy toward anybody who is capable of higher achievements.)
The foregoing is merely the application of a principle which grade-α philologist Nietzsche had laid when he wooed Truth’s virgin sister, Wisdom, in his previous book,
Also sprach Zarathustra:Muthig, unbekümmert, spöttisch, gewaltthätig — so will uns die Weisheit: sie ist ein Weib und liebt immer nur einen Kriegsmann.
[‘Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior.’]
Athena Pallas: Virgin goddess of War and WisdomNietzsche: She and her sister Truth have rejected the advances of the philosophers philosophasters.
Photo: Jürgen Howaldt The great truths of this world are oft concealed in the twisting of language. A warrior-philologist is armed with the sword to slice through this Gordian knot; and in the famous
Beyond Good and Evil aphorism that later gave the starting point for his
Zur Genealogie der Moral, Nietzsche discovered two separate moral dichotomies:
- The dichotomy between “good” and “bad” (“gut” and “schlecht”) in the sense of “noble” versus “despicable”; this, he termed the Master-Morality (Herren-Moral), which he exemplified in the self-glorifying pride of ancient aristocrats: “...it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful. ‘We truthful ones’ [‘Wir Wahrhaftigen’] the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves.” I observe that whereas the Homeric heroes may merrily invade Troy, seize its treasures and women, and burn it to the ground, they would never scam you. Scamming would be despicable, schlecht, bad. (Cf. Zur Genealogie der Moral, pp. 21–22.)
- The dichotomy between “good” and “evil” (“gut” and “böse”) in the sense of “sympathetic” versus “dangerous”, which he termed the Slave-Morality (Sklaven-Moral). It is the morality of resentment by persons of inferior quality, by which they demand that those stronger than themselves must abandon their strength for humility. In Bitcoin Forum terms, it is the morality of those who demand empathy for “please Sir give merits or my whole family will starve to death” types—or those who are so enraged about being denied “lucrative bounties” that they develop paranoid ideations about a “DT Chipmixer mafia”.
He further observes that “good” in the Master-Morality is
“evil” in the Slave-Morality, and “good” in the Slave-Morality is “bad” in the Master-Morality (
e.g., liberals and Christians). In my own words, the former is a morality of pride, and the latter is a morality of utility: A morality of ability serving needs, thus that “the meek shall inherit the earth”.
In this and other ways, Nietzsche steps
Beyond Good and Evil to reach “good and bad”. Notwithstanding his amoralism, he actually embraces “Master-Morality” values which are not only far harsher than the moralities that he rejects, but also impossible to learn. The “Master-Morality” is a morality that one
is, and a self-glorification of what one
is: It is not an externally imposed rule, and cannot be taught by moralistic instruction in the manner of a Sunday-school teacher wagging a finger.
“Wir Wahrhaftigen” need neither commandments nor laws to tell us not to lie, cheat, and steal! Either you are born with the instinct that underlies such traditions as
seppuku—or you aren’t, and you need laws, gods, moralistic teachings,
negative trust feedback, and
the deterrent effect of punishment to scare you into some approximate semblence of honest behaviour.
Thus, unlike
Bitcoin, Nietzsche is not for everybody. Indeed, Nietzsche is
for the few.
For those who may mistake Nietzsche’s amoralism as a license to commit crimes, the moralist Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov character in
Crime and Punishment is an adequate warning. Nietzsche is not for the likes of them, and neither is this topic—whereas Dostoyevsky is not for me!
Neither is Nietzsche for those may mistake his word as a revelation of prophecy; for Nietzsche was a
freethinker:I now go alone, my disciples! Ye also now go away, and alone! So will I have it.
Verily, I advise you: depart from me, and guard yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he hath deceived you.
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends.
One requiteth a teacher badly if one remain merely a scholar. And why will ye not pluck at my wreath?
Ye venerate me; but what if your veneration should some day collapse? Take heed lest a statue crush you!
Ye say, ye believe in Zarathustra? But of what account is Zarathustra! Ye are my believers: but of what account are all believers!
...thus spake Zarathustra.
Given that
I am not a Nietzschean, and I hate my friend Nietzsche in the same sense that Nietzsche hated Schopenhauer, I have no wish to now write an extended discourse on Nietzsche. At this time, I will thus retire to let others discuss, pursuant to the below-stated rules.
Friend of Catbats
Local rules: Any post that quotes the whole OP will be deleted. I may also delete posts that are stupid, including (but not limited to) those that are stupid in the sense that the philologist amongst philosophers observed, “according to the servile mode of thought, the good man must in any case be the
safe man: he is good-natured, easily deceived, perhaps a little stupid,
un bonhomme. Everywhere that slave-morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words ‘good’ and ‘stupid.’” Also, in honour of “Wir Wahrhaftigen”, I will delete lies; and
Vispilio and his cronies are prohibited from posting in this thread.Please do not reply to any post which violates the above rules.
