Nietzsche

[socrates_039]

Hi,

I am currently being enlightened by all of the glorious idiocy that runs throughout Nietzche’s On the Geneaology of Morality.

Could someone tell me…who are the slaves of the Jews who came about with this new love he proclaims is ressentiment from their oppression and hatred? I can’t figure it out yet. Thanks.

[concordant]

I could be wrong but I think he means Christ. I’ve never read the geneology but from the others I have read and what I know of Herr Neitzche my guess would be Jesus Christ.

[socrates_039]

nah, thats not it. Thanks for the attempt thou

To him atleast, Christ is the emobdiment of the hatred of mankind.

There is a group of people, which he proposes is the salves of the Jews, and from these slaves grew a new love, a being, which could be higher than any other race - that is ressentiment.

IT just makes no sense to me - i mean, the whole thing.

[hermes_the_thrice_gr (hermes the thrice great)]

glorious idiocy? The Geneaology Of Morals is wonderful, especially where N. talks about the anthropology Of power and where he biologizes man in the Second Essay.

[hermes_the_thrice_gr (hermes the thrice great)]

damn double post. Sorry

[concordant]

what chapter is this part in? On what page? Now you’ve piqued my curiosity, and unfortunately your description does not lead me closer to the actual context. In other words I’d like to know what you’re talking about.

[socrates_039]

In regards to the page I have the book which was edited by Keith Ansell-Pearson (not sure if the texts differ) but this in this book my question relates to pages 20 and 21.

Particularly this quote:

         -10-

“The beginning of the slaves revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment itself turns creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of those beings who, being denied the porper response of action, compensate for it only with imaginary revenge.”

Previously he talked about the Jews and the slaves of the Jews bore this revolt - this ressentiment - now, my question: who are the slaves of the Jews?

hermes: to each his own. Personally, the condemnation of such a man, who regarded by most as a person of peace and joy, without any validation of such a bold claim as his - IS glorious idicoy.

In any rate, I am not debating. Just a question

[socrates_039]

I wanted to clarify something.

When I said “Previously he was talking about the Jews”

It is here on page 20

“Israel with its revenge and revaluation of all former values, had triumphed repeatedly over all other ideals, all nobler ideals.”

Which he goes on to state the Jews and Christians poison the minds of other with their noble ideas, mainly in regards to salvation, and thus ressentiment is born where he mentions it is the slaves revolt.

So I interperted this in the context of a group of people whom relates to or is the slaves and these people must have a name.

Unless of course, it is just a claim of his which he lacks to support.

[sub-sis-t_er]

I have just, myself, decided to investigate more on Nietzsche and listened to audio books narrated by Charlton Heston (if that matters). On the very first of the 5 part series, it (to me) was made quite clear that N. believed that the christians were the slaves of the Jews, I still do not know why N. believed this and hope I will be enlightened as to his reasoning soon, but I think it is because Jesus christ is a Jew, christians follow Jesus Christ therefore they are slaves to a Jew, the Jews.

[sub-sis-t_er]

I have just, myself, decided to investigate more on Nietzsche and listened to audio books narrated by Charlton Heston (if that matters). On the very first of the 5 part series, it was made quite clear that N. believed that the christians were the slaves of the Jews, I still do not know why N. believed this and hope I will be enlightened as to his reasoning soon, but I think it is because Jesus christ is a Jew, christians follow Jesus Christ therefore they are slaves to a Jew, the Jews.

[socrates_039]

That would make sense to a certain extent and I do appreciate your analysis.

However when it comes to ressentiment as a defintion, that could not work. This is due to the fact that those who possess ressentiment are cleaverer than any other race (in his own words) which of course, we all know could not be true in accordance with his view point of the Christians.

Perhaps he was speaking in general. Of those who took hold Jewish ideals and broke away from them but it would make more sense at least if he named one person who possess resentiment whereby they are in a higher class in and of themselves as he so proclaims.

Right?

[Impenitent]

@socrates_039

I wanted to clarify something.

When I said “Previously he was talking about the Jews”

It is here on page 20

“Israel with its revenge and revaluation of all former values, had triumphed repeatedly over all other ideals, all nobler ideals.”

Which he goes on to state the Jews and Christians poison the minds of other with their noble ideas, mainly in regards to salvation, and thus ressentiment is born where he mentions it is the slaves revolt.

So I interperted this in the context of a group of people whom relates to or is the slaves and these people must have a name.

Unless of course, it is just a claim of his which he lacks to support.

if you are going to read and understand Nietzsche, start at the beginning… read the birth of tragedy first…

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@sub-sis-t'er

I have just, myself, decided to investigate more on Nietzsche and listened to audio books narrated by Charlton Heston (if that matters). On the very first of the 5 part series, it was made quite clear that N. believed that the christians were the slaves of the Jews, I still do not know why N. believed this and hope I will be enlightened as to his reasoning soon, but I think it is because Jesus christ is a Jew, christians follow Jesus Christ therefore they are slaves to a Jew, the Jews.

which misinterpretation is that? Nietzsche never argued that christians are slaves of the jews… he argued that the christian church was an abomination and that the herd mentality of christians was deplorable, but he never argued that christians were slaves to anyone… Nietzsche argued that christians and jews both preach a slave morality as opposed to a master morality, but that was the extent of that… if you (everyone) is going to pick apart Nietzsche, one needs to understand all of his works, not just a passage here or there in a particular tome or another…

-Imp

[sub-sis-t_er]

Not picking apart, trying to understand and learn. If you understand N. then please answer socrates_039 original question, for his benefit and mine and help to enlighten us. who are those referred to as the slaves of the Jews. Thanks

[Impenitent]

any and all who would submit themselves to that morality are slaves to it…

"Jesus said to his Jews: `The law was made for servants ‑ love God as I love him, as his son! What have we sons of God to do with morality!’ " -Nietzsche BGE 164

-Imp

[socrates_039]

Whitelotus - makes a lot of sense - You analyzed me with a singular question and as such have made yourself look like a moron - I never portrayed I was angry. I asked a question in regards to who are the slaves of the Jews

I did not ask for you to analyze me I however am only trying to learn

But thanks for portraying your ignorance about a person who asks one question

[socrates_039]

There is not a “claim” to be found anywhere in the work of Nietzsche. He doesn’t make claims, that you read claims everywhere and then don’t understand what he is saying and get angry because it is unsupported is of course obvious and very predictable because you read the text in a way that is impossible.

Lets look at the definition of claim:

To state to be true

He takes this as truth thus this is a CLAIM

I don’t, nor does anyone else need to take this as truth.

Secondly,

And perhaps you could try and refrain from intepreting Nietzsche and instead read what it says. When you interpret Nietzsche you immediately lose everything he says.

If one doesnt understand they try to see it in a way so they CAN understand. Not everyone takes everything at face value and accepts it as such. If one did they are making themselves subject to no options other than the one they PERCIEVE

Take Nietsches phiolosphy as your religion for all I care but you need not belittle me

That is all

[socrates_039]

There is not a “claim” to be found anywhere in the work of Nietzsche. He doesn’t make claims, that you read claims everywhere and then don’t understand what he is saying and get angry because it is unsupported is of course obvious and very predictable because you read the text in a way that is impossible.

Lets look at the definition of claim:

To state to be true

He takes this as truth thus this is a CLAIM

I don’t, nor does anyone else need to take this as truth.

Secondly,

And perhaps you could try and refrain from intepreting Nietzsche and instead read what it says. When you interpret Nietzsche you immediately lose everything he says.

If one doesnt understand they try to see it in a way so they CAN understand. Not everyone takes everything at face value and accepts it as such. If one did they are making themselves subject to no options other than the one they PERCIEVE

Take Nietzsches phiolosphy as your religion for all I care but you need not belittle me

That is all

[ch_sitting_full_of_b (ch sitting full of bull)]

I will try to answer this question very simply and straight forwarded I certainly don’t claim to catch every nuance of Nietzsche with it.

The Slaves are the Jews and Christians. They are resentful because they are god’s chosen people and they have to submit to the Pagans (Greeks and Romans etc.) They, therefore, in order to survive adopt humility as a value. This is a slave or herd mentality. This is opposed the classical value of pride (See Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, or Cicero’s Offices.) a master’s value.

[Klingsor]

You are talking about this quote:
“with the Jews there began the slave revolt in morality: that revolt which has a history of two thousand years behind it and which we no longer see because it—has been victorious.”

It is in Chapter 7 of the “Genealogy of Morals”.