Comparing Nietzsche's Beyond Good And Evil
The doctrine of eternal recurrence, the concept that all things will return—in precise detail—an infinite number of times, forms the fundamental idea behind the book. Eternal recurrence asks a question: what kind of person would find the thought of repeating one’s life without variation an infinite number of times exhilarating, perhaps even fervently craving it, as opposed to finding such a thought horrifying? The person who could honestly consent to it would be an übermensch, a superman whose separation from the average man surpasses the gulf between man and ape. This superman would be a zealous individual who acquires restraint over his or her passions and exercises them in a creative fashion. He or she channels instinctual drives into loftier,
…show more content…
In Beyond Good and Evil (1886) and The Genealogy of Morals (1887), he claimed that it was the warriors who had subjugated past cultures who identified their own power as “good” and the frailty of the masses they conquered as “bad.” He referred to this as “master morality” since it embodied the ideals of the masters, and political rule ought to belong only to them. Afterwards the priests and commoners, who wished to seize power, identified their own feebleness and timidity as “good,” and termed the aggressive strength of the warriors “evil.” Nietzsche classified these values, which he named “slave morality,” with the Judeo-Christian tenets that govern Western culture. He disparaged them as being manifestations of the anxiety and antipathy of the weak against the strong. By analyzing the etymology of three German words, gut (“good”), schlecht (“bad”), and böse (“evil”), Nietzsche argued that the difference concerning good and bad was initially descriptive, i.e. a non-moral reference of those who were the advantaged masters versus those who were the lowly slaves. If the privileged, the “good,” were dominant, then the meek would inherit the earth. Modesty, submission, and generosity supplanted rivalry, pride (which became a sin), and independence. Vital to the victory of slave morality was the assertion of it being the only true morality. Persistence on absoluteness is as indispensable to philosophical as
In Beyond Good and Evil (1886) and The Genealogy of Morals (1887), he claimed that it was the warriors who had subjugated past cultures who identified their own power as “good” and the frailty of the masses they conquered as “bad.” He referred to this as “master morality” since it embodied the ideals of the masters, and political rule ought to belong only to them. Afterwards the priests and commoners, who wished to seize power, identified their own feebleness and timidity as “good,” and termed the aggressive strength of the warriors “evil.” Nietzsche classified these values, which he named “slave morality,” with the Judeo-Christian tenets that govern Western culture. He disparaged them as being manifestations of the anxiety and antipathy of the weak against the strong. By analyzing the etymology of three German words, gut (“good”), schlecht (“bad”), and böse (“evil”), Nietzsche argued that the difference concerning good and bad was initially descriptive, i.e. a non-moral reference of those who were the advantaged masters versus those who were the lowly slaves. If the privileged, the “good,” were dominant, then the meek would inherit the earth. Modesty, submission, and generosity supplanted rivalry, pride (which became a sin), and independence. Vital to the victory of slave morality was the assertion of it being the only true morality. Persistence on absoluteness is as indispensable to philosophical as