Whether it is the allusions to “the predator beneath the
surface of all these noble races, the magnificent blond beast roaming
lecherously” (26) or one of the various other scenes, the use of nature imagery
is prevalent within Friedrich Nietzsche’s On
the Genealogy of Morals. In fact, he often searches for examples in nature
that hep to define his argument. For instance, in the thirteenth section of the
first essay a passage dealing with birds of prey and lambs exemplifies “the
other origin of ‘good’, of good as conceived by the man of ressentiment” (29).
In other words, the nature scene expresses the idea of “good” from what
Nietzsche views as the “slave morality” (22). Nietzsche states, “if the lambs
say among themselves: ‘These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is as little
of a bird of prey as possible, indeed, rather the opposite, a lamb—should he
not be said to be good?’” (29). By this thought, the idea of “good”, according
to the slave morality, comes from that which does not hurt or harm the subject,
in this example the lamb. This idea is in contrast to the origin in relation to
the “noble morality [wherein the idea of “good”] grows from a triumphant
affirmation of itself” (22). As the notions of “evil” and then “good” are
presented in the “slave morality,” alternatively, the idea of “good” and then
“bad” develops in the “noble morality” as the nobles define their
characteristics as good.
Nietzsche highlights his argument with the use of the nature
imagery, so I began to ask myself why he used so many of these examples. It
could be argued that nature is something we, as humans, are almost all familiar
with so we could more easily relate to and understand the argument if it is
defined by nature. I kept looking back at the preface where Nietzsche states,
“I have since… ceased looking for the origin of evil behind the world” (5).
Instead of looking to the metaphysical, he is searching for answers he can
grasp from what is right in front of him. I have the same question for you
guys, though, why do you think he utilizes so much nature imagery? Also, I
found the passage about the lamb and birds really helpful in identifying key
points to his argument, was there an example of nature imagery that you thought
helped solidify your knowledge of his ideas?
I think that Iska brings up a really good point. Nietzsche constantly compares humankind to animals. On page 27. he writes "it is the meaning of all culture to breed a tame and civilized animal, a domestic animal, from the predatory animal 'man'". In this quotation, there is a clear, concrete image that shows how society influences man and changes him from his natural state. It is much more difficult to argue with the concrete as opposed to the metaphysical.
ReplyDeleteI found Nietzsche's description of the nobleman as a “blonde beast...[that] needs to be discharged from time to time, the animal…must return to the wilderness” to be particularly helpful in understanding his ideas (26). Nietzsche seems to value action over inaction in both this example and in the metaphor of the lamb and bird. While the nobleman clearly has a "wild" streak, this is more valuable to Nietzsche than the reactionary and somewhat dull nature of the man of ressentiment. In this I found that he seems to champion the animalistic and changing aspects of the natural world. I also think Emma brings up a great point in that nature imagery gives Nietzsche's argument an added sense of concreteness because it actually exists and can be observed.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think the "sense of concreteness" which Lauren brings up is exactly why Nietzsche no longer wants to look for answers behind the world. Relating it to the previous reading, etymology is a concrete study, even though his particular conclusions aren't accurate. In response to the proposed question, the nature imagery about lightning and thunder was confusing and did not help me at all. If, as Emma brings up, Nietzsche uses nature metaphors to support his argument, aren't they as equally intangible as metaphysical arguments? In this case, nature is more to help the reader understand instead of functioning as something against which a critic can argue.
ReplyDeleteI find Iska's focus upon the use of nature imagery to be very interesting. Nietzsche uses this imagery to define the slave morality as she describes in her post. He represents the good of slave morality as a lamb. This animal depicts characteristics of a weak nature as they are in constant need of protection, which is where shepherds play their role. They define their good in relation of a weakness to be the real strength, where qualities such as humility or compassion are good things. I feel that they define their characteristics to be good as they feel that the strong characteristics of the noble class to be "evil," when they themselves find it to be good. Each group of people defines their own set of standards. In fact, Nietzsche points out that slave morality is between good and evil, not good and bad like the nobility’s morality. I think that the slave morality defines the opposite of good to be bad due to the qualities of the bad side has, which are strength and power, like the bird of prey. This group has the ability to destroy the other, as the bird of prey can kill or attack the lamb. With the different designations of what good is and the qualities it represents, it greatly defines the opposite to be good or bad.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked the quote that Emma brings up. Her analysis of that quote reminded me when Nietzsche states, "There they enjoy freedom from all social constraint, in the wilderness they make up for the tension built up over a long period of confinement and enclosure within a peaceful community, they regress to the innocence of the predator's conscience" (25-26). In the beginning of his statement, he mentions the tensions of society, which allow a pressure to build up among the people. This freedom allows them to be away from these social influences, where it forces humans to be tamed and lose its natural self or identity. The nature imagery of the humans as animals allows for some understanding of how humans taken out of our natural environment and influenced by society to create these different designations of good and bad/evil.