And so the Psalm concludes: In this aspect Foucault was heavily influenced by Nietzsche. To see this, one only needs to notice the immense pleasure that Christians take from the idea of watching the strong suffer for all eternity.
We may not like suffering, but we feel compelled to give it sense. Unable to free itself from these instincts, it attempts to subdue and tame itself as much as possible. Nietzsche decided that "a critique of moral values" was needed, that "the value of these values themselves must be called into question".
People are wrong when they link the traces of a basically dark-haired population, which are noticeable on the carefully prepared ethnographic maps of Germany, with any Celtic origin and mixing of blood, as Virchow does. On the other hand, it is, of course, just as necessary to attract the participation of physiologists and doctors in this problem of the value of all methods of evaluating up to now.
Similarly, it is a mistake to resent the strong for their actions, because, according to Nietzsche, there is no metaphysical subject. Hiding beneath he finds force and will.
N hated both socialism and modern democracy, seeing them as the expressions of the herd instinct. And in fact they finally ripped open fissures between man and man, over which even an Achilles or a free spirit could not cross without shivering.
What is it exactly than I find so totally unbearable? He is rather saying our ethics is misleading. In my view, Dante was grossly in error when, with an ingenuity meant to inspire terror, he set that inscription over the gateway into his hell: To the noble life, justice is immediate, real, and good, necessarily requiring enemies.
Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of Genealogy of Morals and what it means. There is no escaping this world, no "true" world behind it. From the very beginning there is something unhealthy about such priestly aristocracies and about the customary attitudes which govern in them, which turn away from action, sometimes brooding, sometimes exploding with emotion, as a result of which in the priests of almost all ages there have appeared debilitating intestinal illness and neurasthenia.
And N is making this very point -- although he is not concerned to defend or take this as part of evolutionary theory.
When the priests have conflicts with the noble warrior class the priests obviously cannot win relying on physical strength alone. Their position of power included the power over words, the power to decide what would be called "good" and what "bad. We ourselves could say that in the intervening time the battle has been constantly drawn to greater heights and greater depths and has become continuously more spiritual, so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a "higher nature," a more spiritual nature, than that it is split in this sense and is truly a battleground for these opposites.
Its action is basically reaction.
Something to match the enticing, intoxicating, narcotizing, corrupting power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "god on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable and ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of god for the salvation of mankind?
Those who have been the greatest haters in world history and the most spiritually rich haters have always been the priests—in comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge all the remaining spirits are hardly worth considering.
Collectively they all think essentially unhistorically, in the traditional manner of philosophers. Thanks to the redemption, very different joys are ours to command; in place of the athletes, we have our martyrs.
But he suggests also that a civilized society has then a history of pain and punishment. But the judgment "good", according to Nietzsche, originates not with the beneficiaries of altruistic actions.
Indeed, he has no enemy other than one who has nothing to despise and a great deal to respect! In the beginning, so he says, there was nothing much wrong with the notion of God. Nothing is sacred, nothing is absolute, nothing, we might even say, is true. So all respect to the good spirits that may govern in these historians of morality!
Posted by christophermwhalin on March 7, The following entry is a summary that was given by Mary Salvaggio during a graduate pro-seminar session at Columbia University on March 5, The strict answer to that is this:Study Guide for On the Genealogy of Morals.
On the Genealogy of Morals study guide contains a biography of Friedrich Nietzsche, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis. Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, published late in his career, demonstrates the philosopher’s academic roots in nineteenth century classical philology.
Divided into three. On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic (German: Zur Genealogie der Moral: Eine Streitschrift) is an book by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It consists of a preface and three interrelated essays that expand and follow through on concepts Nietzsche. Mar 07, · “First Essay: ‘Good and Bad,’ ‘Good and Evil'” in On the Genealogy of Morals.
Posted by christophermwhalin on March 7, The following entry is a summary that was given by Mary Salvaggio during a graduate pro-seminar session at Columbia University on March 5, First Essay, Sections Summary Nietzsche opens by expressing dissatisfaction with the English psychologists who have tried to explain the origin of morality.
Watch video · On the Genealogy of Morality A Polemic is an book by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. A difficult but. by cheri block sabraw Nietzsches First Essay in his On the Genealogy of Morality traces the origins of our Western values.Download