Master Morality Research Articles

Relasi Nietzsche dengan Paulus

Nietzsche’s relation with Christianity, on the the surface, easily defined as antipodal, full of animosity. It is not a simple task to specify which Christianity that can represent a stable concept of Christianity. Numerous branches as well as different school of thoughts in the body of Christianity. Nietzsche had his own view on certain Christianity (coloured by his Lutheran Protestant), he was not seldom launched attack after attack to Christianity and blame it as caused of Nihilism in Europe. Christianity according to his view has become one of the obstacles that hindered the arrival of the Overman, therefore he anointed himself to wage war with the aim to dig deep the foundation of Christianity. He did not merely assault Christianity and belief in God as some concepts that is no longer hold, but he wished to make changes and transvalue all the values which had deeply rooted in the soul of Europe. In order to pull down, to root out, change and inspire Europe, he wrote a seminal book called “Antichrist.” Nietzsche in his war strategy, he always picked a real person as Socrates, Richard Wagner, or even Schopenhauer. For Christianity, he picked Paul and Paulinism which he regarded as promoting the concept of Cross, Resurrection and promise of Hinterwelt which according to him is a great move as well as cunning. He tried to uproot Christainity with his method, which later on he called it as Genealogy. In doing so, he discovered that Paul was a true revaluator, who reevaluated the master morality into slave morality. Nietzsche has his own notion of an ideal man, who has the spirit of Dionysos, in short, he wanted to transvalue the slave morality back to master morality. In suggesting this option to Europe, a better choice, Spirit of Dionysos, he then conducted transvaluation. In that regard, Nietzsche did a similar and kinship “Hegelian Dialectic” with Paul. Therefore, Nietzsche relation with Paul is no longer can be categorized as merely antipodal, since he showed some kind of disguised adoration, an ambiguity.

Nietzsche’s Ubermensch and Crime: An Analysis of Arvind Adiga’s Novel The White Tiger

This paper analyzes the act of crime and its artistic rationalization through the character of Balram Halwai in Arvind Adiga’s novel The White Tiger under the theoretical prism of Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Ubermensch. Ubermensch is a hypothetical character proposed by Nietzsche in his masterpiece Thus Spoke Zarathustra who is expected to appear in the future and will possess some unique features like ‘transcendence over society’, ‘creation of new values and master morality’, ‘will to power and achievement’. The character of Balram is analyzed as a fictional Ubermensch under the lens of these features using Content Analysis Technique of Qualitative Research Methodology’ which is considered suitable for the specific descriptive nature and scope of this study. This analysis concludes that the embodiment of such features by Balram justifies his rise as a perfect potential Ubermensch of 21st century who rejects the traditional moral system and builds his own system of morality where crime also seems to be rationalized.

Corporate Nietzsche: Assessing Prospects of Success for Managers with Master and Slave Moralities

Purpose. Nietzschean proponents classify people into seemingly two distinct groups: those possessing 'Master' moralities and those with 'Slave' moralities. Each type of person is characterized to have certain qualities, traits, ideologies, and methods of dealing with everyday situations. This paper attributes these moralities to the personnel working in the corporate sector of Pakistan to observe their prospects of success. Originality. A specialized survey instrument was designed to gauge different Morality Types of the study subjects by calculating a Morality Quotient. The respondents were then categorized into three categories possessing, Slave, Master and Neutral or Mixed traits. These traits are then contrasted to the position(s) held by the subjects to see which morality type was more prevalent in higher management levels and whether the association was significant. Conclusions. Our results prove to be contradictory to common wisdom and shows that despite the leadership-like qualities of those with Master moralities, the proportion of those with Slave moralities was significantly higher at senior management levels of the corporate sector in Pakistan. Moreover, a trend of declining Master morality traits is observed with the rise in managerial level. In addition, an association between work experience and Morality type was also observed indicating adaptability of cross morality traits with increasing job experience. These findings are in line with the increasing focus on democratic and adaptable leadership instead of autocratic leadership styles in contemporary organizations.

Nietzsche’s Praise of Master Morality: The Question of Fascism Revisited

One of the most disquieting facts about the totalitarian movements of communism and fascism which threatened the European political order in the interwar period is the support both these movements appear to derive from the writings of two of the most important European philosophers of the 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche. The destruction of Western civilization seems to have been engendered by Western civilization itself. It is commonplace to charge that Bolshevism represented a travesty of Marx’s ideas, just as Nazism represented a travesty of Nietzsche’s ideas. But while it is impossible to describe Nietzsche as a fascist avant la lettre, it is no less untenable to maintain that there is no connection whatsoever between his ideas and the ideological turmoil which brought Europe to the brink of destruction in the first half of the 20th century. My paper examines the locus classicus of proto-fascist elements in Nietzsche’s writings – his praise of “master morality” in the First Treatise of the Genealogy of Morality. I argue that when Nietzsche’s praise of master morality is approached with a proper appreciation of the distinction Nietzsche himself makes between “the exoteric and the esoteric,” the proto-fascist elements in his rhetoric reveal themselves to be playful, ironic and intentionally self-undermining, and subservient to Nietzsche’s goals of philosophical pedagogy. Yet, at the same time, this insight does not absolve Nietzsche of the charge of fatal irresponsibility in the rhetoric he chose to employ.

Nietzsche on Jewry, Degeneration, and Related Topics: Response to Ken Gemes

Abstract Ken Gemes's “The Biology of Evil” makes significant advances over previous discussions in its recognition of the centrality of the Jews in Nietzsche's account of the rise of slave morality, and in its differentiation between Nietzsche's virulent opposition to the anti-Semitic movements of his era and his embrace of prejudice regarding Jews and Jewry. There are three areas in which his claims are deficient, however. He does not realize Nietzsche's lifelong interest in the contemporary Jewish Question in Germany. He disregards Nietzsche's avid interest in eugenics and eugenic solutions in the discussion of degeneration; Nietzsche knew the works of Francis Galton and others, and he himself wrote explicitly about positive and negative eugenics. Finally, Gemes believes Nietzsche advocated a mixture of slave and master morality, while it is clear from his rhetoric and his substantive remarks that he envisions no harmony of these two antagonistic value systems.

Violence, Morality, and Religion

Violence, Morality, and Religion

F. Nietzsche’s Master Morality and Slave Morality

독일어 ‘마흐트(Macht)’는 니체의 사고체계를 구성하는 핵심 개념 중의 하나로서, 우리말의 ‘권력’ 또는 ‘힘’으로 번역된다. 니체의 이 개념은 주인도덕-노예도덕의 구분과 관련지을 때 구체적으로 파악될 수 있다. 마흐트는 ‘거리의 파토스’에서 발생하는 힘을 가리키며, 주인도덕과 노예도덕은 그 힘이 표출되는 방향의 차이로 규정될 수 있다. 즉, 주인도덕은 거리의 파토스에서 발생하는 힘이 자기극복의 방향으로 표출되었을 때 드러나는 행위의 방식이며, 노예도덕은 그 힘이 차이를 없애는 방향으로 표출되었을 때 드러나는 행위의 방식을 가리킨다. 니체가 보기에, 학교교육은 주인도덕을 회복하고 유지하는 데 목적을 두어야 하며, 그 일은 교사와 학생의 정신적 거리와 긴장이 팽팽하게 유지될 때 올바르게 수행될 수 있다.The German word ‘Macht’ is one of the key concepts of Nietzsche’s system of thought and is translated into ‘power’ in English. This concept of Nietzsche can be understood more concretely when it relates to the distinction master morality and slave morality. ‘Macht’ refers to the forces that occur in the ‘pathos of distance’; master morality and slave morality can be defined as the difference in the direction in which the force is expressed. In other words, master morality is a way of acting revealed when the power generated in the ‘pathos of distance’ is expressed in the direction of self-overcoming, and slave morality indicates the way of acting revealed when the power is expressed in the direction of eliminating the difference. In Nietzsche’s view, schooling must aim at restoring and maintaining master morality, which can be performed correctly when the mental distances and tensions between teachers and students is remained intensely.

Nietzsche Apostle

Nietzsche Apostle

Die Vertiefung der Seele. Überlegungen zu einer These in Nietzsches Zur Genealogie der Moral

Abstract. In On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche asserts, first, that the transvaluation of values of an original master morality by the slave morality is accompanied by an increasing deepening and differentiation of the human soul and, secondly, that this has led to mental instability and poor self-esteem by maximizing the sense of guilt and bad conscience. This paper argues on the basis of an analysis of the Homeric epics as a paradigm of a master morality, the teaching of church father Augustine of Hippo, and the Platonic psychology and ethics as an intermediate position for the accuracy of the first thesis and critically reflects the pros and cons of the second thesis.

Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality: A Critical Guide

Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality: A Critical Guide

Between Athens and Jerusalem: King Lear and the Morality of Tragedy

Is classical tragedy contingent upon a Greco-Roman sense of morality? Or can tragedy exist within a Judeo-Christian universe as well? Literary critic Northrop Frye’s theory of high-mimetic tragedy inherits distinctions that Aristotle draws between tragedy and comedy in the Poetics. As a brief philological excursion will demonstrate, the binary distinctions upon which Aristotle builds his tragic structure are inherently entangled with notions of a noble aristocracy, what Friedrich Nietzsche would call a master morality. With the introduction of Judeo-Christian morality— a framework that inverts the master morality latent in Aristotle’s system— the tragic structure breaks down. As demonstrated in King Lear, when these two antithetical notions of morality are present within the same text, the binary oppositions that underlie the tragic structure collapse, undermining the genre distinctions that separate tragedy from comedy. Northrop Frye, in his Anatomy of Criticism, introduces his theory of modes by recalling a passage in the Poetics in which Aristotle uses a character’s elevation relative to the audience as criteria for distinguishing between types of poetry. The passage Frye seems to be recalling is as follows: ...since those who imitate choose as objects of imitation men in action and since those in action must be either good [spoudaios] or bad [phaulos] characters (inasmuch as character almost always falls into one of these two categories owing to the fact that distinctions in human character are all derived from the distinction between badness and goodness), they portray them as either better, or worse, or such as we are. 2

Refleksi Pandangan Nietzsche terhadap Moralitas dan Kepentingan Diri

This research is a reflection, a result from author’s contemplative process, in reading one of the texts written by one of the western philosopher at the end of modernity, Friedrich Nietzsche. The reading itself, mainly, was initially started from Nietzsche’s own writing in a form of excerpts collected in an anthology entitled Self-Interest. This research wishes to show how Nietzsche responds to existing understanding on traditional morality, which to him is no more than a kind of slave morality. Nietzsche, with his own view on morality is basically orbiting to one of his main theses, Will to Power (der Wille zur Macht); other morality related concerns like self and self-interest are also undetachable to this Will to Power. Within the context of traditional morality, thing like self-interest is considered taboo in contrast with altruistic behaviour (self-less behaviour by emphasizing concerns to others). For Nietzsche, this kind of morality is prevailed necessarily because we’re discourageous in facing the arrival of nihilism. From Nietzsche’s perspective, an immoralist, a person with self-interest (within the context of traditional morality) is a ‘moralist’ him/herself. The one who affirms to nihilism, the one who possesses master morality. At the end of this research, the author gives his own response regarding to his reading on Nietzsche and to aim pragmatic value from this research might be impossible. What might be possible is one can aim at achieving different perspectives on morality and self-interest through Nietzsche’s perspective.

Nietzsche’s Aesthetic World View and the Problem of Master Morality in the Perspective of Mental Health

Nietzsche’s Aesthetic World View and the Problem of Master Morality in the Perspective of Mental Health

Hegel and Nietzsche: Recognition and Master/Slave

One of Hegel's main contributions to critical theory is his concept of recognition and the related concepts of master and slave. For these have become central to any account of oppression, marginal ization, and communicative freedom or liberation. Hegel's analysis of desire, the need to raise parochial self-- certainty to public, intersubjective truth, the life and death struggle for recognition, the constitution of the slave as the one who fears death and who works off his fear, and the final self-subversion of mastery are important themes for critical theory from Marx through Habermas and Honneth.1 However to take up the themes of recognition and master/slave is to find oneself confronted with an alternative, possibly incompatible interpretation of master and slave, namely Nietzsche's. But is Nietzsche's account of master morality and slave morality opposed to Hegel? After all, both see master and slave as posing fundamental obstacles and problems for the realization of autonomous freedom. Moreover, both Hegel and Nietzsche agree that the slave is successful in rebelling against the master, although they interpret this success quite differently. For Hegel it constitutes a potential, if not actual, liberation, whereas for Nietzsche it is an historical and cultural catastrophe that has produced the herd morality. Recently Gilles Deleuze has claimed that Nietzsche's genealogy of morals undermines Hegel's account and provides the true critical theory of domination.2 Thanks to Deleuze we are thus plunged into the middle of what Daniel Breazeale has aptly called "The Hegel-Nietzsche Problem."3 The "Hegel-Nietzsche problem" was identified long ago by Karl Joel, who wrote: "Hegel and Nietzsche! Here lies a problem yet to be solved."4 Joel's "problem" has received some attention, but the relation between Hegel's thought and Nietzsche's has never been adequately sorted out, much less resolved. The question is whether Hegel and Nietzsche are mutually exclusive, or whether, in spite of obvious and important differences, there are also significant convergences.5 According to the conventional "wisdom" of much contemporary philosophy, Nietzsche and Hegel are opposites. For example, critical theorists like Habermas and deconstructionists like Derrida, who otherwise disagree, both affirm that Hegel and Nietzsche are opposites. Deleuze also belongs to this camp. On the other hand, Walter Kaufmann represents what Breazeale has called the rapprochement thesis. Kaufmann claims that between Hegel and Nietzsche there is "a truly amazing parallel."6 According to Kaufmann, both are dialectical monists who conceive of free self realization as a process developing through opposition and the overcoming of opposition. Both share a common term for self-overcoming, namely, aufheben, sublimieren. Although not everyone agrees with Kaufmann's interpretation, several philosophers accept the rapprochement thesis, including Daniel Breazeale, Judith Butler, Stephen Houlgate, Eliot Jurist, Philip J. Kain, Richard Rorty, Stanley Rosen, Robert Solomon, and Alan White.7 Rosen's acerbic comment sums up this unorganized camp: "those who insist on a sharp juxtaposition between Hegel and Nietzsche have understood neither one nor the other."8 But of this group, only two-Houlgate and Jurist-have produced book length studies, the former on Hegel and Nietzsche as critics of metaphysics, and the latter on their theories of agency and culture. Meanwhile, Philosopher's Index shows fewer than five journal articles on Hegel's and Nietzsche's accounts of master and slave. Deleuze's study of master/slave remains the most extensive to date; it presents a Nietzschean critique of Hegel that has shaped the current consensus. I shall examine Deleuze's account, which contends that recognition is inherently servile, and that Hegel's master, who depends on the slave's recognition, is for this reason likewise a slave. I shall offer criticisms of Deleuze's reading of Hegel's dialectic, recognition and master/slave. …

Nietzschean Genealogy and Hegelian History in The Genealogy of Morals

I would like to offer an interpretation of the Genealogy of Morals, of the relationship of master morality to slave morality, and of Nietzsche's philosophy of history that is different from the interpretation that is normally offered by Nietzsche scholars. Contrary to Nehamas, Deleuze, Danto, and many others, I wish to argue that Nietzsche does not simply embrace master morality and spurn slave morality. I also wish to reject the view, considered simply obvious by most scholars, that the Übermensch develops out of, or on the model of, the master, not the slave. And to make the case for all of this, I want to explore the relationship between Hegel's master-slave dialectic and the conflict Nietzsche sees between master morality and slave morality. That Nietzsche does not intend us to recall the famous master-slave dialectic of Hegel's Phenomenology as we read the Genealogy of Morals, I find difficult to believe. Yet very few commentators ever notice, let alone explore, this connection.

Nietzsche's critique of modernity: some implications for the study of communication

SUMMARY This article explores Nietzsche's critique of modernity by examining his treatment of the problem of truth and his attack on Christian morality. The relevance of these topics for an understanding of some issues of concern to communication scholars, inter alia within the context of apartheid, is also considered. In dealing with truth Nietzsche argues that the guiding belief that the (Christian) God is truth and truth therefore divine manifests itself in the ascetic ideal which informs philosophy and science as much as it informs religion. Nietzsche's genealogical analysis of the roots of Christian morality shows how the triumph of slave over master morality changed the entire Western form of life and gave substance to what is known as ‘modernity’. He highlights, in particular, the negative consequences for human life of the unegoistic morality of pity characterising slave morality. In the application of some of Nietzsche's ideas to communication special attention is paid to unquestioned assumptions concerning communication and to stereotyping. Nietzsche's interpretation of levelling is also discussed and it is shown, with reference to a few examples, how communication study in apartheid South Africa reflects the ascetic ideal.