The will to power and "decadence"

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Just offering a thought.
Slave morality is a myth. Nietzsche “found” it emerging from slaves and lifted over “master” morality by Jews and Christians. I say however that this narrative is hard to explain. Why would the master act as the slave’s slave? The desire for power explains the actions of the slave but not of the master. I believe that the supplantation of master morality was not an imposition upon the strong but an exercise in power by the strong.
The Christian morality was given shape by men who could read and write, arts usually reserved among the aristocrats. Christianity, through Paul, spread quick among the wealthy. It was apt to do so because power, health, strenght, are not inherent to any primate, master or slave. Belief in gods, in genies, in magic, in omens were common not because one was a slave but because one wasn’t. Slavery, as slavery, is actually a deterrence to the creation of morality, value. Pity, turning the other cheek, what Nietzsche would have attributed to slaves was never practiced by them. That was the point. The morality created was not decadent but ascendent. It was another attempt to feel in control even if by submission, self-imposed slavery.

Christianity therefore never was the imposition of the values of the lowest upon the higher caste. It was the interpretation of the highest caste about what was high, what found favor with the gods or even just god.

2

the master acts the slave to control the slave.

3

The slave requires that “those who want to rule shall serve”. It is obviously about serving the servant who becomes a ruler in an indirect way.

If you look at the politicians you will see that they all pretend to serve the people and on the other side the debts grow.

A human soul can only survive through truth and not through slyness. Slyness leads to animals.

4

Rather one “pays” for the “right” to be a master by being first of all the “slave”, the servant of the Lord. The servant of the Lord is the lord of kings.
I got in my mind this picture of the knights templar, whom I see not as an aberration, but as a norm that goes back, if we believe Ortega y Gasset, to the inception of religion. Religion is prominent not among the slaves but among the masters. The religious leader in primitive society is part of a horde, not a slave camp. His duties are to a king, not to a slave group. Religious Temples are built using slaves, but by already religious masters. The morality that so offends Nietzsche is in the end a compilation of more ancient systems. Caste systems were evident (from the Chosen people of Israel, to Paul’s Remnant) even in what he would have considered “slave moralities”.

When “slave morals” appear, in the sense that Nietzsche categorizes, it is not as a subjugation of a healthier morality. The strenght of a community is expressed through it’s morals, I think, in all expressions. When you have Manu dictate “laws” we find repugnant, it is by the strenght of his society. When Paul offers his, same can be said, because it is in the obedience, in both cases, to something trancendent that has been revealed to them, that they have known and have knowledge of. This possession of a higher truth is a narrative of power. These are the prism through which moralities are expressed and they stand as an espression of power.

5

The slave gains nothing from the piety of the master if he remains a slave. The master is the one who receives the clear conscience, the justification of his power. It is not the law of the jungle where the physically strong prevails. The Master adds an invisible realm in which there are those twice born, some three times, thus their status as lords is less of a natural accident. Religion was not the weapon of the slaves against the masters but the other way around.

6

Now everybody has his weapon there.

7

An interesting interpretation, but I am not it is true to the text.
The masters were a physical, warring caste, whereas the slave type was meek. The masters found solace in their courage and strength on the battlefield, whereas the slave (the Jewish aristocrats) were “impotent” in actual physical deeds and therefore their solace was in the transcendent realm. The imposition of values on the master, then, comes to fruition when we see that he no longer has faith in his own abilities, but finds them in ‘god’ and the transcendent.

The second essay in On the Genealogy of Morals explicates how the master was introjected with a bad conscience by the priest. The master was to feel guilt over his aggressive impulses because, according to the priest, they transgressed divine law. Under this process, the master (who is by nature an aggressive being) can never atone for his aggression, therefore he lives his life in constant ‘sin’ and guilt.

Here we have the two defining features that separates the master and slave castes: Their physicality and their conscience.
The masters were always the physical, war-like caste with a healthy, or clean, conscience on their strength and aggression. The slave, on the other hand, is a meekly, theocratic type who is quite pessimistic about life and desires others must be made accountable for their behaviour (hence their obsession with guilt and sin).

I am not sure the masters adopting slavery as a form of feeling in control is right. The master isn’t a “clever” (Nietzsche’s own word) being. He doesn’t have the intelligence to scheme projects. The slave, however, does. The slave is a thinker, a schemer; and it was his scheme to bring the masters down through the introjection of guilt. The master could only reflect on his behaviour when the slave made him.

8

Hello Fent.

— An interesting interpretation, but I am not it is true to the text.
O- I think, from reading your post that we are not far apart in our reading. I’ll specify again that I disagree with some of Nietzsche’s opinions.

— The masters were a physical, warring caste, whereas the slave type was meek.
O- I believe that before being master or slave they are human, all too human, to use his phrase. In all of us there is physicality, aggression, as well as meekness. It is a myth that either constitutes a “type”. The historical record also debunks such narration. The creation of laws is necessary precisely because there is no type. Of course I am not referring to democratic laws but even laws that differentiate between types. If the other type is meek then why have laws to punish their aggression? And if there is a law to punish their aggression then isn’t their meekness mere good sense? The type then is not a characteristic but a reaction to the distribution of power. Thereby each is as aggressive as their power allows them or as meek as their power inhibits them.

— The masters found solace in their courage and strength on the battlefield, whereas the slave (the Jewish aristocrats) were “impotent” in actual physical deeds and therefore their solace was in the transcendent realm.
O- when addressing Jewish history you have significant changes in their power. When there was an aristocracy they behaved in much the same way as any aristocrat. The Jews where enriched by the encounter with the Greeks because their self image was not that different. The psalms contain passages where their author finds frustration, not solace. Solace came with the intervention of god in the battlefield. This is of course literature from before the exile, their defeat. But even later the machabees were not looking for solace in an afterlife. It is ill advise to define the jew in Christian garb.
What about the Christian? Certainly they are meek and seek solace in the afterlife? Sure. Their lack of power was seen as intended by good however. It was complete disbelief in their capacity to alter the world because god had been expanded to such an absolute that man was an expectator. But did Christians remain true to this decadent view once they began to absorb power and means? When they were no longer being tossed to the beasts but burning others at the stake? The victorious Christian aristocrat (for it wasn’t a slave that wore purple) retains the behavior of even a pagan aristocrat. Caesars were demi-gods while Christian emperors were merely chosen by god, true, but they headed an entity, the empire, favoured by their own interpretation of the divine. The aristocrats of each believed in something more, in divine retribution. The Romans were Christian-like before they became Christian because they share fundamental ideas.
So, I think, the distribution of power was more of a predictor of behavior and belief than a mythical type.

— The imposition of values on the master, then, comes to fruition when we see that he no longer has faith in his own abilities, but finds them in ‘god’ and the transcendent.
O- man has little faith in his own abilities and has always sought what he lacks in the transcendent. Delphi was a destination for aristocrats, not their slaves. The king preoccupied always with pleasing gods and securing their favor. Atheist were a danger to the well being of the empire, their success in battle. This we see from Homer to the Old Testament. So again I don’t see different types but men dealing with their similar conditions.

— The second essay in On the Genealogy of Morals explicates how the master was introjected with a bad conscience by the priest.
O- however doesn’t explain how that was even possible under the assumed typology. Here it is the master who comes across as meek.

— The master was to feel guilt over his aggressive impulses because, according to the priest, they transgressed divine law.
O- Who felt guilt or something similar to it…maybe shame.

— Under this process, the master (who is by nature an aggressive being) can never atone for his aggression, therefore he lives his life in constant ‘sin’ and guilt.
O- Even the slave lives like this. Scores grow under the Christian narrative with guilt because aggression is present in all, not confined to a “type”.

— Here we have the two defining features that separates the master and slave castes: Their physicality and their conscience.
O- without a conscience, how would they ever feel guilt?

— The masters were always the physical, war-like caste with a healthy, or clean, conscience on their strength and aggression.
O- Which again would fail to explain the success of the priest.

— I am not sure the masters adopting slavery as a form of feeling in control is right. The master isn’t a “clever” (Nietzsche’s own word) being. He doesn’t have the intelligence to scheme projects.
O- that intelligence, cleverness is what makes us human.

— The slave, however, does. The slave is a thinker, a schemer; and it was his scheme to bring the masters down through the introjection of guilt.
O- So the master is jock and the slave a professor? This picture is unreal. They more you insist in the division and the harder it becomes to recognize the “master” as even a man. The slave is the only realistic character in this narrative.

— The master could only reflect on his behaviour when the slave made him.
O- How? Remember, no conscience.

9

Hi Omar.

I’ll only address the points from Nietzsche’s texts. I am not sure of actual historical interpretations of Jews and Romans, so that is best left to historians.

Whatever it was that made the masters succumb to guilt so easily is not necessarily explained by Nietzsche beyond that they were simply not “clever”. They were good at war, but thinking and scheming projects in the form of ‘mind-games’ was not their forte.

Yes, guilt for the Christians was applied to all, but, guilt was the tool used by the slave to bring down the master.

Yes, but Nietzsche specifically states in GM 1, 10 that the intelligence or “cleverness” of the slave is greater than the master. The master caste was a barbarian caste. Think of the equivalent today. Those in military circles and “gangs” are not known for their intelligence; they are, rather, known for their brute force in employing their rules. But think of the intellectual classes today; they are cooped up in offices behind books and desks. They think and write all day. Who in the end is going to be the “cleverer” of the two castes? Brute force will only take them so far.

This may be so, but mine is simply an interpretation from the text. Historically it may not be accurate at all.
We should remember, though, we are talking about a time before the modern world where violence was considered normal and part of every day life. The “don’t hurt or offend anyone” mantra is a modern phenomenon.

There was a conscience in both types. The slave’s however, was obsessed by guilt. The master’s was not as acute, though. If we recall GM 1, the masters could rape and murder and believe it was little more than a “school yard prank”. The slave would see this as a transgression of divine law.

What the actual turning point that made the master succumb to slave guilt is not made clear. There is a passage in GM III somewhere that states the priest put on wolves clothing for a while and moved about with the masters as one of them, only later when they were unsuspecting it did the priest reveal his intentions.

10

The concept of guilt is what caused Christianity in the first place.
Guilt was being used everywhere so as to extort people into compliance.
So Jesus replied with “judge not lest ye be judged” and “forgive even your enemies”.

That took the bite out of the extortion.

11

Hey Fent.

— I’ll only address the points from Nietzsche’s texts. I am not sure of actual historical interpretations of Jews and Romans, so that is best left to historians.
O- this severely hinders the discussion. I am not debating for one interpretation of the text instead of another, in which case, like theologians, we would need to cite from the text to support our position. Rather this is a disagreement with the fundamental positions the philosopher in question assumes. This disagreement comes from a historical perspective, which is what was also pretended by Nietzsche. Knowledge is not essential but at least familiarity is, and not just with biographies but with ones autobiography.

— Whatever it was that made the masters succumb to guilt so easily is not necessarily explained by Nietzsche beyond that they were simply not “clever”. They were good at war, but thinking and scheming projects in the form of ‘mind-games’ was not their forte.
O- you cannot be good at war if you are bad at thinking and scheming.

— Yes, guilt for the Christians was applied to all, but, guilt was the tool used by the slave to bring down the master.
O- Again, how is that possible, even assuming that Nietzsche was correct? In fact, if he was, we have no possible explanation. I cannot understand guilt if I suppose the typology of Nietzsche to be correct. Hence my disagreement.

— Yes, but Nietzsche specifically states in GM 1, 10 that the intelligence or “cleverness” of the slave is greater than the master. The master caste was a barbarian caste. Think of the equivalent today. Those in military circles and “gangs” are not known for their intelligence; they are, rather, known for their brute force in employing their rules. But think of the intellectual classes today; they are cooped up in offices behind books and desks. They think and write all day. Who in the end is going to be the “cleverer” of the two castes? Brute force will only take them so far.
O- that characterization is a bit cartoonish. No need to address it because, as I said, I disagree with it. It is what Nietzsche said? Fine. But it is wrong because it fails to explain, instead raises more questions and because it does not find support in history.
A different theory, which I propose, is that religion was never absent in the military caste. In fact the oldest conception of god or gods are worldly. They are war-gods. The success of the horde is not seen as the outcome of their strength but of their piety. We see always a preoccupation with the correct interpretation of omens, the erection of temples, the observance of rites. It is not slaves performing human sacrifice but masters. It is masters who are preoccupied with their own afterlife. It is masters who codify rites into a religion. The slave more often than not leaves no record, either because he lacked the materials, the time (leisure), or education.
For very few exceptions, religion is the tool of the masters, not the slave. From the institution of guilt to the deprecation of the world, what remains intact is the status quo that preserves unchallenged the master. A healthy relation to power is also established by religion. That aggression is elevated and justified.

— This may be so, but mine is simply an interpretation from the text. Historically it may not be accurate at all.
We should remember, though, we are talking about a time before the modern world where violence was considered normal and part of every day life. The “don’t hurt or offend anyone” mantra is a modern phenomenon.
O- Such mantra is humanistic, not religious.

— There was a conscience in both types. The slave’s however, was obsessed by guilt. The master’s was not as acute, though. If we recall GM 1, the masters could rape and murder and believe it was little more than a “school yard prank”. The slave would see this as a transgression of divine law.
O- this is again questionable history. Murder is perhaps the only universally condemned act. There is in us the ability to distinguish between “us” and “them”, and thus rape and murder are crimes if done to ones group but somehow justified if done to someone outside the group. Religion was a way to sanctify the often arbitrary distinctions. Sure, Christianity abolished the apparent distinction of chosen people and barbarian but only to implement other distinctions, still arbitrary, still divine, still permitting violence of “us” upon “them”.

— What the actual turning point that made the master succumb to slave guilt is not made clear.
O- And cannot be made clear.

12

I wonder if there is somebody to make a good comparison of the quran in relation to a master race.