If you are asking if because a slavish class of people revolt, does that mean that the “victors” morality is therefore a slavish one, I would say no.
I’m not sure I understand what you think needs to be explained.
You might mean that a slave morality is decadent through its resentment of a more powerful morality, that of the ruling class.
Nietzsche struggled with this simply because the interchangeability of the metaphors of “power” (Spinoza undermined these mistakes quite thoroughly) do not allow it a definitive meaning such that I could point at an example of “power” and at another example, one of “weakness,” with confidence that those lines drawn are black and white.
Nietzsche’s redundency was in his examination of slavish morals that follow his nonteleological model of existence as he declares “there is no goal” and then a moment later “…but this, this, and this is decadent.”
What I am saying here is that we cannot have a metaphysical grasp on Nietzsche’s Ethics where he denies “the other worldy” and dualism in general, and then assume that an action can be “decadent,” or “powerful,” or whatever other metaphor is used to fit the occasion.
My views of Nietzsche are controversial. I don’t even call him a philosopher, really. He’s a mutant psychologist who can write better than any man alive (except Kierkegaard) but who couldn’t keep up with someone of the likes of Wittgenstein if his life depended on it, in, dare I say, the rigors of synchronic thinking.
Again I think I might misunderstand you. I thought Nietzsche believed that this revaluation was a good thing. This historical moment when “Europe forget about its God” and had to move on…etc. I mark that moment as the beginning of the end of despotism. Nietzsche was tilling the soil for socialism/marxism…
“…if the working class ever rules, we’re finished…but if they do not, we’re really finished.”-- Fritz (notes and letters)
(I can post the entire letter at anyone’s request)
This is another dilemma Nietzsche had faced. On one hand, people are not equal, and this eliminates real altruistic approaches to solving moral problems. The herd serves only to promote its greatest exceptions; but the herd is necessary in the production of this exception. There’s a reference to the slave/master dichotomy and how it is left unsolved.
Despite what Nietzsche believes, his idea of aristocracy is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, if you will. The aristocrat, the bourgeoise, the religious caste…all parasites to economy.
Anyway, it shouldn’t matter what Fritz did or didn’t think about the slave revolt when he doesn’t assert that morals can be objective and therefore classified as “strong” and “weak”.
