Nietzsche and Nature: Imagery Explaining the Arguments

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?

Self-Proclamation of Goodness

            In the preface and first nine sections of On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche presents the origin of the definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and the opposition between them. In the beginning of the preface, Nietzsche poses the question, “Under what conditions did man invent the value-judgments good and evil?” (5). In this question, Nietzsche automatically assumes humankind did invent the value-judgments, for he does not question the origins of the concepts themselves. The question he wishes to answer is the how or why the lasting definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ came to be. Nietzsche claims that “all human concepts from earlier times were…initially understood in a crude,…unsymbolic way,” meaning that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ did not represent any person or object, but rather defined one’s actions (17). The transformation from the definition of one’s actions into the definition of the person him-/herself begins with subjective embodiment of that definition.

            Human concepts such as humility, for example, “were simply felt to be good, because they were habitually always praised as such—as if they were in themselves something good” (12). One who practices humility, therefore, will always be praised as ‘good’ because the orthodox understanding of humility is that it is something good. When one begins to embody a ‘good’ concept, they themselves become ‘good’ due to subjective evaluation. The use of passive voice was intentionally used by me for “to be praised,” because Nietzsche claims “The judgment ‘good’ does not derive from those to whom ‘goodness’ is shown! Rather, the ‘good’ themselves…were the ones who felt themselves and their actions to be good…and posited them as such” (12). The actors on the verb ‘to praise’ are the ones praising themselves through the subjective self-proclamation that habitual, orthodox understanding of human concepts supports. The most notable culprit of this boasting is the aristocrats, as Nietzsche posits.

Though examination of the etymology of ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ Nietzsche proposes that the aristocrats exploit this self-proclamation, mutating the concept of ‘good’ to reflect whatever unique traits the aristocrats possess rather than ‘good’ actually reflecting habitually ‘good’ qualities. In the Gaelic language, “the word characterizing the nobility…ultimately meant the good, the noble, the pure, but originally [meant] the blond-headed, in contrast to the swarthy, dark-haired original inhabitants” (16). Here, the aristocrats transform whatever unique trait that sets them apart, blond hair, into something ‘noble’ that reflects nobility. The blond-headed aristocrats may never have been ‘noble’ by possessing any ‘noble’ quality, but their exploitation of subjective self-proclamation made them ‘noble’ regardless. But where does ‘bad’ fit in? The key element in the Gaelic word for nobility is its separation and distinction from a lower class. Nietzsche calls this separation the “pathos of nobility and distance, which is “the fundamental overall feeling of a higher ruling kind in relation to a lower kind, to a ‘below’—that is the origin of the opposition between ‘good’ and ‘bad’” (13). In order to posit themselves as ‘good,’ the blond aristocrats separated themselves from a lower class by physical trait. Therefore, those outside the trait do not fall under ‘noble’ definition, whether his or her actions warrant noble praise or not, and assume the antithesis of ‘noble.’ Those with brown or red or black hair are automatically ignoble. Through this paradigm, whoever does not possess whatever trait the aristocrats use to dignify themselves as a positive quality becomes the antithesis of that quality. Conflict ensues.

Discussion questions: How and why do aristocrats have so much influence over the definitions of human qualities? Why is separation between types or classes of people necessary to define opposing human qualities?

Nietzsche's Moral Power

In the First Essay of On The Genealogy Of Morals, Nietzsche questions the intrinsic value of everything “good”. Nothing starts with any value in his view. Based on his tone, attidude towards other respected thinkers, and society, Nietzsche thinks himself better than most other people. He does not care about insulting others for what he sees as wrong. Therefore, he feels free to attack all he pleases, and truths preached by other groups have less standing than he does, especially religion.

            In sections five and six of the preface he addresses his big subject: “the value of morality” (7) and in his first essay focuses on the origin of good. When patronizing psychologists Nietzsche reminds them of the existence of “unChristian, immoral truth… For such truths do exist” (12). Nietzsche is not willing to limit himself to what other people preach, and he scoffs at anyone who does. Since religion as he experiences it tells people what to think without logically explaining why to Nietzsche’s satisfaction. He sees religious emphasis on “’good’ and ‘unegoistic’ actions” (13) pushing Europe towards “Buddhism? towards—nihilism?” (7). As someone who thinks very highly of himself in comparison to others, the idea of acting selfless to the point of no longer prioritizing personal wants for the sake of religion seems undesirable. He specifically names the synonymous nature of “moral” and “unegoistic” as a “mental illness” (13).

However, Nietzsche’s dislike of religion stretches beyond wanting to live with personal comforts. He thinks religious practices are ridiculous and  “unhealthy” because they “combine brooding with emotional volatility”(18). Ironically, the volatile Nietzsche (at least in voice) writes this as he broods over the origin of good.  In his incredible zeal to bash religion Nietzsche fails to provide reasons why those practices are so unhealthy, but it is understandable how a free mind like Nietzsche would feel restricted by people he sees as lesser telling him how to live. 

Having already informed his reader about his hatred of religion, Nietzsche then makes unsupported and inappropriate (in the modern moral sense) attacks specifically against Judaism and Christianity. Not only is he incredibly derogatory, describing Jews as “the people of the most downtrodden priestly vindictiveness” but readers must also take his word on this matter, because he provides no evidence (19). To him, society values politeness and the values of society should be doubted, and therefore Nietzsche has no need to be polite. In addition to being nasty and belittling, he also makes another claim against religion: because religion does not have direct control, it must justify itself by turning the rules of goodness against those with direct power, the nobility, reversing them to support religious life (19). Nietzsche would say my negative opinions of his behavior are in fact the result of successful religious mutation of good. Religious emphasis on protecting the weak has made me instinctively respect others.

What Nietzsche does not express is the value of a moral system that helps people live together in peace (we have achieved this with limited/debatable success). If everyone acted like Nietzsche, society would not function. Perhaps he will decide there is moral truth, or a reason to act morally he can support. However, after the first segment we read, Nietzsche claimed for himself unlimited power to determine moral truth by seeing himself as better than everyone else.

Questions: Does religion have as strong a claim as Nietzsche to knowing “good” because it sees itself as truth?
Can the historical sense of good be scaled? If in his view, Nietzsche is better than everyone else, and good value is derived from power, is everything he does good, because he is in his own position of power?

Power from Bourgeois Private Property In Marx's Communist Manifesto

In Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, he introduces the movement of communism to eliminate the oppression of the leading class, the bourgeoisie, upon the proletariats. Marx states, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.” (172) In his statement, he recognizes that this movement eliminates the power of any class to oppress another class due to their labor and its products. By eliminating this power, communism allows for the elimination of the cycle, where one class overthrows the leading class, but they inevitably become the oppressors and cause another overthrow by the oppressed class.

For the elimination of their power, the Communist movement seeks to abolish private property, but specifically the bourgeois private property. Marx declares “modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few” (170). In his statement, he explains that private property is really the bourgeois’ private property as they benefit from the products of industry only. Therefore, since they are the sole benefiters, their private property exploits the working class due to their labor and products. Marx explains, “those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work” (172). Since there is an imbalance of work and benefit of the products from its labor, this causes an exploitation of the working class. From this exploitation, the leading class inhibits them from the benefits of their own production. Due to this oppression from its exploitation, the working class lives by the bourgeoisie’s rules. The result of this oppression allows for the antagonism of these classes. The opposition of the classes creates an imbalance of products of industry and the workers’ labor. Marx states, “Property, it its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labor” (170). In his statement, he recognizes that property becomes solely for the leading class, which creates an inequality and opposition of the working class not benefiting from their labor’s products. The relationship of property and power comes from the leading class solely benefiting, but doing none of the producing. Communism eliminates this property and therefore, destroys the leading class’ power to oppress the working class.

In the communist movement, Marx relates that abolishing the property of the leading class takes away their power. Their power exists solely because they oppress the working class in that they cannot benefit from their own products, but need the work in order to sustain their living. If they take away that property, then the leading class no longer obtain any power to oppress and exploit the working class. Without their power, then the oppression ceases. The goal of Communism is eliminate the cycle of the oppressed and oppressors by destroying the oppressors’ power that comes from their private property exploited from other classes.

Discussion Questions: In his statement, Marx argues, "in bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality" (171). Once Communism comes into effect, what would this society ensue?  Does this mean people become independent even though there is no private property and necessarily depend on others, but still retain their individuality?