Any morality takes revenge at what it declares “immoral”, be it “humane” forms of morality, or the most radical aristocratic morality. That was the point for the title.
I do have issues with some moralists because of the hypocrisy and double standards that are shown when their projections are played out in life with other people. That’s generally because those moralists have not looked at their own shadow and integrated it healthily, but rather project it on others. This is just Jungian psychology 101. This is just as true of Nietzschean anti-moralists as it is true of Christian moralists. Both feed off the other. However, thinking and speaking from the human angle on human thought and action can take all of this into account. Certainly intelligence can be applied at some point so that heartless atrocities and abuses can be decried and ended. But first you have to examine your own potential for narrow, one-sided rightmindedness and the ability to look at others as different and less than. The minute somebody does that, I think inferiority complex projected outwards.
Nonsense, really. Zarathustra is written in mock Luther-biblical language; none of his other works are.
Which works by Nietzsche have you actually read?
You really know nothing about Nietzsche if that’s what you think. But you carry religious zealotry in your bizarre views on Nietzsche and all kinds of political myths and historical revisionism used to promote a very tight, narrow neonazi agenda.
I know for a fact that Zarathustra is the only book he wrote in mock Luther-biblical language.
Which of his books, if any, have you actually read?
Umm, Sauwelios isn’t making a particularly controversial point , linguistically… zarathustra is the only work written in old-style German, isn’t it?
I like robust discussion, really, but you seem to have dropped any attempt at such in favour of personal attack here. Please keep it civil.
Isn’t Jonquil the perfect example of someone who projects a “humane” ethics but is really quite revengeful underneath?
I see this everyday in the Humanities department. Humanities lecturers, researchers, students, in the main, project this “compassionate ethics” for all that supposedly suffer, yet, when probed, have a very strong undercurrent of anger.
He might be.
But I consider a sense of revenge to be a part of any healthy human being. Like self defense, self preservation… heck a sense of self that is capable of feeling at all.
There is a waltz in spanish that goes:
“Odiame por favor yo te lo pido,
Odiame sin medida ni clemencia,
Odio quiero mas que indiferencia,
Por que el rencor hiere menos que el olvido”
“Si tu me odias quedare you convencido,
Que me amaste mujer con insistencia,
Pero ten presente, y de auerdo a la experiencia,
Que tan solo se odia lo querido”
What it means is that the lover asks to be hated, without any measure of clemency, better that than indifference and hurts less than being forgotten. So he tells her that if she did hate him, then he would know how much she really loved him, because one only hates what one actually loved.
That is the sort of tension behind any morality- that what it condemns is closest to it’s heart. In this Paul was correct.
It is best, I think, that people accept this in themselves, embrace it as part of who and what they are, and even give thanks to it because without such propensity for anger, for hatred, and even morality, so much of what makes our species truly rare would be lost.
I have to put you on my ignore list before I get in more trouble with the mods. Goombye.
An interesting point. It’s kind of like Freud’s description of the neurotic response to a ‘rejected object-cathexes’: The love object was rejected, the object is then raged against as a form of revenge.
I believe we all have our enemies, and that this is a healthy thing for cathartic reasons, otherwise you get a damning up of repressed impulses. However, I believe that a strong sense of internalized revenge is very unhealthy and dangerous. Unless it can be sublimated into a socially acceptable form, revenge does more harm than good. For example, one can imagine what kind of havoc these “humane” ethicists would wreak on the populace if they got into power. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to claim these “humanitarians” would enact a Pol Pot type scenario, they almost always end up enacting government induced social engineering that hands out brutality of some description. Taken to its extreme, you have a “year zero” policy where all enemies are either taken back to the farm or executed. So, revenge either needs to be tempered or sublimated.