Comments on: Nietzsche on Master and Slave Morality

By: PhillyChief

PhillyChief — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:48:07 +0000

You can say it, but you’d be incorrect since Nietzsche identified himself as a moralist and morality was at the core of all of his writing.

Perhaps what you meant to say was that the prevailing morality of his age was nonsense. That would be closer to his intent, but really his core message goes back to the revaluation of all values, where it is for each individual to examine everything of value, especially moral values, and decide for themselves what is good or bad.

Btw, I hope when writing your thesis you spell check and use capitalization where applicable.

By: Rob Farrow

Rob Farrow — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:04:19 +0000

Is it true that Nietzsche is against all morality? After all, he does think that some ways of life are better than others… doesn’t he?

By: Rose

Rose — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:24:46 +0000

Can i just say that i think Nietzsche is trying to say that morality is nonsense and we should learn to deal with that. he is saying that christian morality is life denying and and it only came from the hatred in Judaism. I am writing a thesis on Nietzsche and would love to no ur opinions

By: Max Hydrogen

Max Hydrogen — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:02:37 +0000

Antony, soy absolomente en acuerdo con tu. Entiendes bien la filosofia de Nietzsche. Nietzsche no iguala Social Darwinism (ni Darwin!) Nietzsche no dijo de mate los infermos. Leyeste bien sos obros.

Max

By: Catherine

Catherine — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:36:40 +0000

I am the less capable person to talk about philosophy without bias opinion, because I live in it. A Chinese saying: The person soaks into the situation, won’t be able to see the situation clearly.

It is interesting to see different people talking about the same thing, and yet, the facet is many. I prefer Anthony and his interpretation of Nietzsche’s concept of power……”it’s about feeling life, affirming it, feeling the power of life, the contruction of a world, feeling you dominate the world (understanding it with ones truth), that you expand, that’s will to power, not the survival of the fittest, but expantion of life.”

However, I would like to emphasize that, the “world” has different interpretation too. When we are in the realm of philosophy, i believe the world we are talking about is our inner-self world, which we need to dominate, not the physical world that will be War!

By: PhillyChief

PhillyChief — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:52:53 +0000

the naturally strong ought rule society, and even if they choose to do so oppress the weak, or exploit them to meet their own goals.

No sir, that’s what Nietzsche would call a perversion of the will. Imposing your will, especially to the point of oppression or exploitation of others is contrary to the will to power.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:34:13 +0000

Matthew and Michael, I think both have a wrong interpertation of Nietzsches morality. First I apologize for my english, I’m mexican.
Matthew, Nietzsche and Mill have very few things in common, the only thing that is the same is there valuation of the individual over the masses. The difrence is in that Mill is a utilitarist, a philosophy Nietzsche disspised, you say “if we take an individual to be in a position to pursue their aspirations as long as they do not ‘harm’ anyone else in the process they should have no restrictions upon them”, Nietzsche would agree, in the individual part, except that he doesn’t care if society resticts o doesn’t restrict an action, nor if one get’s in the way, one should dance over any law or slave morality, second, Mill would see an individuals aspiration as pleasure, while Nietzsche would go along and say “only the englishman seeks happiness”, that is to say, an individual doesn’t always seek pleasure or utility.

Michael, Nietzsche would laugh at the simple mention of an OBJECTIVE self intrest, it doesn’t make any sense. Nietzscheanism isn’t the same as social darwinism, while the latter justifies that “strong” individuals take power in institutions, business, political parties, etc, Nieztsches concept of power is more complex and vital, it’s about feeling life, affirming it, feeling the power of life, the contruction of a world, feeling you dominate the world (understanding it with ones truth), that you expand, that’s will to power, not the survival of the fittest, but expantion of life.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 24 May 2008 03:44:42 +0000

Matthew I think you are mistaken in one area. While John Stuart Mill at times exemplifies the individual as superior to the society in much the same way that Ayn Rand valued the individual Nietzsche differed on quite a major note. In the case of Rand she said that the best society is one where the individual follows their own objective self interest so long as it does not directly harm others, the liberal Mill as you stated had a similar value. Nietzsche on the other hand does not have this caveat. He says the individual ought pursue their own self interest, goals, and ambitions without consideration for others. That people ought not be considered equals, and that the naturally strong ought rule society, and even if they choose to do so oppress the weak, or exploit them to meet their own goals. There is none of this do as you wish so long as it doesn’t harm anyone, Nietzsche for all intents and purposes said do as you wish, be human, peruse your own will to power in whatever form it manifests, and do not hold back for only then can one reach their full potential. A comparable philosophy would be social Darwinism. For Nietzsche superiority is not about birthright, it is about ones own will to succeed, and their end results. Thus those who are strong, deserve power while those who are weak also deserve their station.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 21 May 2008 13:52:37 +0000

I have little faith in my ability at philosophy and so what I write may be completely wrong but I’ll go for it anyway. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche seem to be very similar in what they are generally saying, the ‘power of the will’ and where religion stands. I fear I am greatly simplifying things but this fits in very nicely with Aristotle. This in turn fits in very nicely with John Stuart Mills’ ‘On Liberty’ for if we take an individual to be in a position to pursue their aspirations as long as they do not ‘harm’ anyone else in the process they should have no restrictions upon them. This seems to me to be a very optimistic position to hold. Is there anything wrong with it?