Talk:Master–slave morality

message: 1) If anyone knows the citations for the last sentence, which tells us that Nietzsche considered Cartesian proofs for God as only possible from the perspective of a Master morality, could they please place them in the text. 81.78.93.55 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q) 

message: The best indication I can find in Nietzsche's English translations is the second paragraph of the first chapter of Beyond Good and Evil. It attempts to demonstrate the primacy of the ability to think hypothetically ('perhaps...') to the ability to evaluate truth. Here Nietzsche cites "The concealed God", most likely alluding to the search for God, as an example of the kind of thinking requiring the embrace of 'perhaps...'. This approach is credited to and personified by "Philosophers" as Nietzsche defines in following paragraphs. Finally, at the end of the Ninth paragraph ' philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima. '
I am not the author of the disputed claim about Nietzsche, nor do I favor its specific language, but I do agree with the gist that Nietzsche required master morality as a necessary condition for anything he would consider to be a source of critical analysis. I doubt the specific use of "Cartesian proof" in this sense because Nietzsche is bitterly critical of the leap in Cogito ergo sum, and I wonder whether Nietzsche would attribute master morality to Rene Decartes. After all "I mistrust and avoid all systematizers. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." (Twilight) seems to question whether Nietzsche would consider Decartes one of the philosophers driven by "the will to the causa prima." Nietzsche seems to be disappointed in "Cogito ergo sum" as a cop out (Beyond Good and Evil).
--Jeremy McMillan
171.161.160.10 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In modern parlance..."???  Seems like a lot more is being done in the comment above than a change in "manner or mode of speech".  Is there text of Neitszche in which genetic, individual, and cultural evolution are linked to master-slave morality?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radimast (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: "Might makes right" is a cultural idea, not a "direct application" of genetic evolution, which is amoral, contingent, provisional and often very unmighty. It is Social Darwinism, not actual Darwinism (or post-Darwinism.) This is biting off way more than the article can possibly chew. It needs citations, not still more personal commentary. 76.23.157.102 (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A) 

message: You need to provide proof or reference that Nietzsche implied or even postulated this.  This is not true.  I mean the part about him applying the concept of slave or master morality to specific races or cultures (i.e., individual persons).  This is the genesis of racism in Nietzschean philosophy - and quite a subjective observation, at best.
* 67.168.125.175 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.230.9 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial and cultural bias (Moved from article) 

message: On the Genealogy of Morals. Trans. Douglas Smith. Oxford University Press, 1998. , p. 49:
"By way of consolation to the more delicate, perhaps in those does pain did not hurt as much as it does today. At least, that might be the conclusion of a physician who has treated Negroes* (these taken as representatives of prehistoric man--) for serious cases of internal inflammation; such inflammation would bring even the best-organized European to the brink of despair--but this is not the case with Negroes. (The curve of human capacity for pain seems in fact to fall off extraordinarily abruptly, once past the upper ten thousand or ten million of the higher culture; and I personally have no doubt that in comparison with a single painful night undergone by one hysterical little bluestocking, the total suffering of all the animals put to the knife in the interests of scientific research simply does not enter into consideration.)"
-Why don't you quote the whole thing? I think that by quoting only the part that serves your interests you are taking Nietzsche out of context. The paragraph starts like this: "Today, when suffering is always brought forward as the principle argument against existence, as the worst question mark, one does well to recall the ages in which the opposite opinion prevailed because men were unwilling to refrain from making suffer and saw in it an enchantment of the first order, a genuine seduction to life." On the Genealogy of Morals. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. Vintage Books, Random House, New York, 1969. , p. 67
Now that we have the whole idea Nietzsche is dealing with I think we can have a clearer interpretation of what he was trying to say. If you have read a bit of Nietzsche you would have had noticed that he tends to be a rather ironic, sarcastic, and even funny writer. I believe that in this case he is mocking pessimists who tend to devalue existence because of the pain and suffering we are bound to find in it. In other words, he appears to be mockingly asking them: so, what was it about past ages where pain was considered the opposite, that is, a seduction to life, something appealing rather than something repulsive? Was it the fact that pain did not hurt as much as it does today? Maybe prehistoric men felt less pain than you do now, delicate ones? He seems to be making fun of the feeble excuse his delicate contemporaries made in order to justify their weakness, to the point that they even got to make scientific claims about the resistance to pain people of different skin colour have.
I hope this helps, if someone thinks differently please respond to this and let's get a discussion going.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardoPo (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Nietzsche's AntiBlack White Racism

message: Is there a reason there's no historical context for Nietzsche's ideas about master-slave morality? I think they might have, you know, maybe been a little bit influenced by Hegel. Just a hunch. I'm really not an expert, and I don't feel qualified to write this up, but it seems like a glaring omission. --Mrnorwood (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is rubbish.  Poorly written, it would confuse anyone but someone who already knows plenty about Nietzsche.  I am also unqualified to improve it, but reccomend someone does.  I may even get round to doing some reading to try to make such changes myself...  82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know of any writings of Hegel about this topic, or any other notable experts' ideas on the topic, feel free to add them to the article.  At the very least, you could post some sources in discussion.  If you want the articles here improved, then you should help us!  We're not machines, ya know! ;) -70.119.126.195 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Context (Hegel, etc.) 

message: "Nietzsche claimed that the nascent democratic movement of his time was essentially slavish and weak[citation needed]. Weakness conquered strength, slave conquered master, re-sentiment conquered sentiment."
So Nietzsche was confused or is it me? If something conquers something else, maybe it was not weak at all? Can he pick and choose how to apply the value "weak"? Is it just the wording in the article that is bad?
To me, after reading this article, it seems Nietzsche disliked "slave morality" and had his ideas influenced by his own feelings, not by logic. If slave morality is so weak, then how did it come to dominate master morality, if indeed it did?
Confusing :P
213.141.89.53 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To address your confusion...  Nietzsche was not stating that slave-morality is a weak concept.  He was saying that it was devised by those who are weak to serve the will of those who are weak.  Basically someone who has adopted a slave-morality will no longer attempt to regard human strengths as valuable.  He or she instead re-evaluates and regards human strengths as evil.  Thus, it can be said that slave-morality is a morality OF weakness, but not that it is a weak morality.  Ya get it?  :) -70.119.126.195 (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: I've removed the following text from the article.  My reasons are below the text. 
“Nietzsche, however, did not believe that humans should adopt master morality as the be-all-end-all code of behavior - he believed that the revaluation of morals would correct the inconsistencies in both master and slave morality - but simply that master morality was preferable to slave morality, although this is debatable. Walter Kaufmann, for one, disagrees that Nietzsche actually preferred master morality to slave morality. He certainly is more critical of slave morality, but this is partly because he believes that slave morality is modern society's more imminent danger.”
First, who can say with certainty that ANYONE believes ANYTHING without giving proof.  That's basically slander.
Second, it's all very POV, in favor of slave morality.  To say that Nietzsche was against master-morality is insane.  Was he also against the concept of Ubermensch, and the will to power?
Third, even if Nietzsche was against it, that information probably doesn't belong in this article.
If anyone reverts, please add sources, and also let me know in this discussion page, how it's not POV, and why the info is relevant.
Thanks, -70.119.126.195 (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it doesn't seem to be in favor of anything whatsoever as far as I can see. In fact, it's almost POV anti-everything. Zazaban (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche's Supposed Beliefs 

message: This article has no outside citations and is obviously someone's personal essay. Why is it still here? 76.23.157.102 (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basics 

message: As far as I can see, there is no Master-slave morality. The text describes two presumably incompatible moralities by simple association of subjective colorations, pessimistic/optimistic, master/slave, will/reaction, etc.. Shouldn't the article name be Master and slave moralities? It is actually a dichotomy, not a concept per se. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 08:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonexistent (?)

message: While i know ayn rand gets hated on by many on the interwebs, in her second novel, "The Fountainhead," there is excellent discussion about this master-slave morality. Such discussion that i believe she almost finishes nietzche's work on the topic by coming to certain conclusions regarding the disavowment of BOTH slave AND master morality. At one point one of the characters asserts, "The master-slave relationship is a noose tied on both ends." Implying that masters are just as dependent on slaves as slaves are on their master. Seeing as how i am merely an amatear and hobbist philosopher, i feel underqualified to write in this section if it would at all be even appropriate here, but certainly i feel like there should be discussion of other philosophic dissertations on this idea, as i feel like it is one of nietzche's most important if not most important, as what you can do in an existentialist sense is incredible with these ideas. --DanteMX (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ayn Rand is not a significant philosopher, and certainly not a significant scholar on Nietzsche.  We certainly do need to use secondary sources to develop this article, but why not start with Gille Deleuze's book on Nietszche - he is an actual philosopher of note, and the book is a notable work on Nietzsche.  I am sure there are other good works on Nietzsche that put him in his context. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential for discussion of master-slave morailty from other sources

message: It is clearly possible to compare certain aspects of the master-slave morality with Aquinas. For instance, Nietzsche holds being a master as the universal good for humans, whereas Aquinas emphasises human happiness as man's universal earthly goal, to abstain from temporal goods in favour of longer-term goods as vital in this pursuit, and the absence of humility (i.e. pride) as the number one reason for short-term, self-destructive actions. Is it possible to compare backwards in time without it becoming original research? Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison with Aquinas is original research unless Aquinas actually writes about Master-slave morality in those terms (which is not asserted). I'm deleting this material as OR and irrelevant. We could just as easily compare Nietzsche with Hume or many other philosophers who have written about similar things. Metamagician3000 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Master-slave morality v. Aquinas

message: Why did someone tag the following:
"In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things.[citation needed]"
...in need of a citation? I did not write this line nor the one before it, but if you read the one right before it, the meaning (i.e., the "sense") of this claim is clear. I am of the opinion that no citation is required here. If anything, the problem is with the use of the word 'recognition'. Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialog.groupie (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Man as measure of all things"