Master vs Slave morality

So apparently there's a big difference between master and slave morality (slave morality victimise themselves, everyone are equal, etc).

But when you come to think about it, it doesn't matter. Both of the moralities are just used by people to support their own interests. I don't want to go full /pol/, but for example, feminism tends to be a slave morality, but that's only because it's serves their interests. And it's the reason why white heterosexual fascist movements are master moralities because it serves their own interest.


TL;DR: there's not a big difference, it's basically just acting in your own self interest

Other urls found in this thread:

assumptionaz.org/studies_in_orthodoxy/studies_orthodoxy/on_the_soul
deathtotheworld.com/about/
biblehub.com/greek/1093.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Of course all morality is to promote their own interests dumb-ass. That's Nietzsche's point. Everything is Will to Power.

The Master has real power so he follows the Master Morality which gives him the maximum potential to use his power for his own benefit: that which harms him is bad and that which helps him is good. Using his immense power and pragmetic approach to life the Master gets many subjects.

The Slave has no power and is subserviant to the Master. So he follows a morality of subversion, he avoids being assimilated into the Master's power structure by inverting and doing the opposite of the Master, and he hopes to force the Master to surrender by making the Master think his power is "evil".

And understanding the Will to Power will cause one to valorize strength (master morality), rather than weakness (slave morality). Nietzsche admits that it was in the self interests of the weak to valorize themselves, but he points out that in doing so, they ignore reality--life affirms strength. It's an almost Aristotelian observation of his. OP is only focusing on the effect of morality on the individual, but Nietzsche was making a larger statement about the reality of the human condition, and nature more broadly. He could not accept the denial of nature as the basis for a moral system.

Wasn't Nietzsche's point to transcend both anyway?

I really don't see how that can be the case. Life does indeed affirm strength, but there is undeniably a strength to be had in numbers, and it isn't by shaming that slaves make masters step down.

I don't think Nietzsche would deny that anti-hierarchical values of a mob ban destroy an aristocracy, but point out that they can't build anything in its place. To do so would require the mod to reinstitute master morality, and contradict itself. Slave morality is rebellious in nature. It destroys, but does not create.

And I'll add, that's the reason he raged against the concept of equality. It's simply a lie to convince people that it's possible for slave morality to create something. All of the philosophies that say people can cooperate without hierarchies of any kind, and can unite in perfect equality to achieve greatness is a LIE according to Nietzsche. Such projects ALWAYS result in natural hierarchies forming. But when the ethos of equality and slave morality is maintained in what is actually a hierarchical system, it causes cognitive dissonance that results in misery, violence, and suffering as people try to enforce a contradiction.

Yet here we stand, in societies that have been largely dictated by slave morality.

And they are beginning to prove unsustainable as they struggle to support the weight of their internal contradictions.

Nietzsche wasn't a proto-Randian or something--he wasn't about the rugged individuals raging against authority--quite the opposite actually. He simply wanted people to come to terms with the reality of hierarchy so they wouldn't destroy themselves with nihilism as Christianity slowly declined. He was very interested in issues of meaning and purpose, and anticipated that it would be disastrous when people eventually rid themselves of the hierarchical institutions of Christianity (the pagan elements of Catholicism), but retained the moral inversions of slave morality and equality.

So, what you're saying is that Nietzsche was yet another moron who didn't understand that people having somewhat equal opportunities is not the same as them being treated as possessing the same capabilities, and that making it so that the vast majority of our population isn't wasting away in menial labour they'll never have an opportunity to escape is a good thing from every possible angle.

no

And look at how it's governed. We have a hierarchy of mega-corporations. All we did is trade the old hierarchy for a new one in which each person's rank is based on how useful they are to the capitalist system. The slaves demand for equality cannot be met, attempts such as affirmative action, 3rd wave feminism, etc. have brought only destruction. All of them deny an aspect of nature, 3rd wave feminism denies that women are born with an innate femine nature, affirmative action denies that giving jobs to the unqualified means worst performance. Liberal/Slave policies are based on assumption that genes and human nature do not exist, that humans are infinity mold-able tabula rasa and if they all have the same upbringing they all get the same outcome. They just set them-self up for disappointment when they expect equal outcomes. Nietzsche is telling them that they have to accept there will always be hierarchy.


The slaves have even been demoting them-self in the capitalistic hierarchy with their immigration bringing in cheap labor.

>And they are beginning to prove unsustainable as they struggle to support the weight of their internal contradictions.

Our societies have had troubles from the outset, and still do, but they've proven more stable than many master morality societies. We aren't wracked in constant civil-war ala Rome, for instance.

Though the impression you give there makes it sound like hierarchy in his conception should take the form of the emergent leadership anarchists are so fond of, in which people rise to positions of leadership through expertise in the field they're leaders of.

>making it so that the vast majority of our population isn't wasting away in menial labour they'll never have an opportunity to escape is a good thing from every possible angle.

To attempt to do so will create more misery than it will prevent. I did not have an equal opportunity with Michael Jordan to play in the NBA. You can do a bit, but you're born to be what you are. You can't change that with ideologies or political mechanisms without destroying Man.

The lie of slave morality is that there is something inhuman and degrading about being at the bottom of a hierarchy, and something oppressive and immoral about being at the top, when in reality natural hierarchy means everyone has a purpose. You know where you stand, and what you are in relation to what is above and below you. THAT is what gives meaning, purpose, and dignity to life, not mere material comforts. You look UPWARDS for moral examples, not downwards. When everyone has a purpose, the rhetoric of "oppression" is nonsensical. The strong exist to protect the weak, not exploit them. ALL moral archetypes of the heroic ramify this. There are not great legends of beautiful, strong, brave, and valiant heroes whose purpose was to oppress the weak. It's simply not how human beings naturally understand hierarchy, until the lie of slave morality comes along and convinces them that the masters are evil, and the world would be better if the slaves ruled everything.

This is why pity amplifies misery.

Yeah no, I'd rather not have to spend my life whiling away as a dirt farmer for my lord until I die of infection because I slipped in a pile of shit if it means I have "purpose" in life. I like the relative freedom that the supposed falsehoods of slave morality have granted me, it sure beats serfdom.

China is the ultimate master morality society. Confucianism is completely master morality, and it sustained a civilization longer than any one in the west.

Circumstance dictates more than many would like to accept. You can only dream of something better because human beings developed better agricultural technology, medicine, the combustion engine, etc. Advancements are made because the Greats make them, and those who may have been destined to be slaves, and serfs, can now have comfortable menial labor jobs instead.

When the serfs simply kill the Tsar, you get Soviet famines, and everyone dies. But at least they're not serfs anymore, right?

The current hierarchy we have is capitalist. The Masters are those that provide the products or serves that are most desired. Mega-corporations that make the things we use everyday, the CEOs that improve the corporations, entertainers and professional athletes who's performances so many people are willing to pay to see. These are the top of the caste. In the middle of the caste are jobs such as STEM, doctors, lawyers, or owners of niche small businesses given comfy salaries. The lower caste are the various workers that keep all this working, given enough wages for some petty pleasures. At the bottom are the minimum workers who are given the lowest compensation.

Our economics is our master morality. But our current ideology is a slave morality. The two are at odds with each other.

>Confucianism is completely master morality
t. westerner who read a summary of Confucius in his high school textbook.

It's all bullshit, only autists and weirdos take this shit seriously.

You're not exactly wrong though. The point of slave vs. master morality, is that it is easier to appeal to the heroic, the best moral axioms of master morality to inspire the masters to be better than it is for the serfs to improve their lot using slave morality, which simply provides emotional comfort by inverting morality and elevating the lowly.

I'm Chinese. I can't think of anything more master morality than the public servant exam system. By western standards, it was more "democratic" then anything that existed at the same time in the west, yet it didn't achieve fairness by lying about equality, and perverting the meaning of 'fair'.

It's almost as if all the different systems of morality were... spooks.

>You're not exactly wrong though. The point of slave vs. master morality, is that it is easier to appeal to the heroic, the best moral axioms of master morality to inspire the masters to be better than it is for the serfs to improve their lot using slave morality, which simply provides emotional comfort by inverting morality and elevating the lowly.

I don't get it. I have no regard for either system, I just don't see why I should support a system that would wind up fucking me in the ass. Does Nietzsche ever give the lowest a reason to want to support master morality? Because at this point, it really does sound like Randian nonsense.

The impression I get from this shit is that Nietzsche was Stirner without the consistency and some serious ideological hangups on top.

Show me a single classical example of aristocratic virtue that valorized pettiness, indifference to the weak, selfishness, and individuality without responsibility. You won't find it in the Greeks. You won't find it in the Romans, or the Norse, or the Hindus, or the Chinese, or the Japanese. Even slave morality system use the archetype of the pagan hero, and allow him to do the dirty work. It's always the Nietzschean hero who fights for the values of tolerance, meekness, equality. Even when we claim to believe in slave morality, we always base our idea of the heroic on the pagan Achilles, or even better, Hector. We never actually pretend that the fat, weak, slow-witted, but kindly farmer is going to save the day with his wooden pitch fork.

For me, the tellign difference is that master morality has never taught in any tradition to despise the farmer, or the blind beggar, but simply that they have a different purpose in life, and it's not to rule, or to be the hero. Slave morality on the other hand does teach to despise the King, the soldier, and then lies and says the blind beggar can be the hero--the rabbi crucified on the cross is actually the hero of the story. THAT is the moral inversion that we have accepted for 2000 years. I don't expect most people to break away from that mental framework. It's just too ingrained.

Again, you aren't offering an actual reason to support this inanity. They may not have espoused being petty or terrorizing the weak, but they did plenty of both (and plenty of such systems advocated brutal repression of the slaves that stepped out of line). I don't give one wooden nickel about the ideals, they ideals are worth the matter they're built upon.

The weak have been petty and terrorizing as well. The question you have to ask is how to humans actually learn to be moral. I would argue that we learn through stories of the heroic, and we try to emulate the best characteristics of that ideal. EVERYONE can exhibit the qualities of the hero in their daily life, no matter where they are within a hierarchy. I think that's how we learn magnanimity--by dreaming of the heroic. If you delegitimize the heroic, convince people that it is morally suspect, you are robbing people of their heroic spirit, and propelling them toward nihilism.

Pretty Uber stuff there

Nobody has delegitimized being heroic. The superhero fantasy remains a very common one. What has changed is the purpose the fantasy serves; it's no longer for exalting positions of power based in heredity that exist without merit.

Being a hero doesn't have to mean stepping on people lower than you.

>it's no longer for exalting positions of power based in heredity that exist without merit.
Name one hero who had power based on heredity but achieved heroism without merit. What stories did your parent read to you?

>Being a hero doesn't have to mean stepping on people lower than you.
When has it ever?

But fascism is quite outright based on resentment and obedience, traits that define Slave morality. They merely revere the image of a master.

I think of the problems with this annon is he hasn't followed understood how society works. Farmers work to produce food, miners gather the material needed for armor and weapons, craftsmen produce housing. This is how peasent caste serves All of this supports the warrior caste that expands and protects the entire society materially. It also supports the scholar caste that expands and protects the society ideologically. The ruler caste ensures harmony between all the other castes. The result is everyone is elevated.

The destruction of the hierarchy would weaken everyone and ultimately make them an easy target for conquest by more organized and ambitious societies.

What if, for whatever reason, you choose to promote the interests of those who can't promote theirs?

Nietzsche is very clear that individuality vs. collectivism is not the defining difference between master morality and slave morality respectively. That is a classically liberal conceit. Nietzsche was not a classical liberal.

A libertarian would say that revering the masters is slave morality because you're subjugating yourself, and not thinking like an individual. This has nothing to do with what Nietzsche was talking about. Nietzsche was referring to the SOURCE of morality. He said that Man looks up to the heroic, to images of strength, to form his moral intuitions. Whereas, the slave says that HE is the true source of morality, that weakness gives person moral licence, and that his strength is revenge, and he is entitled.

>weakness gives person moral licence, and that his strength is revenge, and he is entitled.

Btw, you will notice this is mentality often typifies the classical villain archetype.

You're either a slave to God or Satan.

There is no inbetween.

You're either saved or lost.

Is christposting the new shitposting?

Nobody is shitposting here but you.

You know, you are right. I'm going to go to church Sunday and give myself to Jesus. You have saved my life. Thank you user

No, christposting has been a fad on here for quite a while now. Just keep calm, when the make a truth claim, ask for evidence, or when they make a moral claim, ask whether they apply it to their own lives. That nearly always works

Both are excessively monolithic. Nietzsche, for instance, says Christianity is slave morality, because is glamorizes being oppressed, but when Christ compares the Pharisees (oppressed) to the Publican (oppressor) and Roman (oppressor), the oppressors are more highly regarded. Achilles, meanwhile, often pictured as the embodiment of a master, is driven by resentment for the whole Iliad until the very end, and in the Odyssey says to Odysseus "Glory was a mistake."

The truth is that human morality can't be so broadly divided, and these categories are clumsy and hinder our understanding of values rather than help it.

You're a slave to whatever your desires are in life.

The Bible says that mankind are sinners, we're flawed and fallen from grace, slaves to the passions and lusts of our bodies.

This is where monasticism, self-discipline, self-control and even self-denial comes in. This is why monks went out to live in solitude.

This world is under the control of the evil one, and it's just a stepping stone for our real home.

Christians are pilgrims and the light of this world, the destination is eternal life after we die.

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

Humbling yourself and knowing your place in contrast to Creator God.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Pride is the original sin. Pride is what made Lucifer turn into Satan.

>This is why monks went out to live in solitude

Christ said to go into the world and spread the Gospel.

Save as much souls as possible. Not be a hermit.

>Pride is the original sin
Is there a bigger cuckold religion?

Seems like you are making a strawman. Nietzsche outright said that both elements are at play in various societies.

You're pulling a very basic black-white straw man fallacy here. Let me ask you Constantine? Have you actually read Nietzsche or just apologetic work? Because the mistakes you make are beyond juvenile.

I've read just about all of Nietzsche's work.

Nietzsche says both forces are at play, but he definitely thinks there are paradigms.

Also your description of Master Morality in Christianity is garbage.

The Masters Morality of Christianity were the Gnostics. There is clear caste system between the wise who have a spark of the divine and the dim-witted that are just made from clay by the Demiurge. Their value system has some healthy values such as knowledge and Egoism.

>I've read just about all of Nietzsche's work.

Not that guy, but I'll buy that for a dollar, mr "Jesus is an Ubermensch."

>the master morality of the Christians were those who said the material world is evil
>the master morality of the Christians were those who said nothing you did or didn't do in life matter, just memorizing a secret password to escape from the material

He is, unless you're someone ignorant enough to think "Ubermensch" just means "someone who exemplifies master morality"

Are you gong to ignore the actual arguement I put forth. Gnostics have a heirachy, which is a basic part of Master Societies.

Fuck even in demographs the Gnostics are the Masters. Gnostic were compromised mainly of upper class while Christianity was popular with literal slaves.

I'd even argue the Gnostic version of Jesus is a more masculine guy. He is always laughing at his opponents (he even laughs at the people that try to crucify him) while the Christian Jesus never laughs once...he does go on a lot of temper tantrums though.

As for the rejection of the material both Christians and Gnostic do this crap since both are derived from Plato. You can find Paul's letters filled with disguest for his own body and it's impulses and a general rejection of all natural functions. Origin even cut off his own cock because it was giving him evil material ideas.

Likewise some factions of Gnostic were less hostile to the material world, alligning more with Neo-Platoism and seeing it as flawed (which is also the best the Christians could do).

In other words there are degrees of ugliness in both Gnostics and Christianity.

In your damn words they "can't be so broadly divided, and these categories are clumsy and hinder our understanding of values rather than help it."
> just memorizing a secret password to escape from the material
You do this same crap with your rituals.

Honestly you are completly two-faced. You go through every fucking step you can to strawman your opponent's, the Gnostic, Nietzsche and than whenever someone points out anything you dislike we must read through your 5 page to know the real truth. You are determined to make your own slave religion look good and throw mud in the eye of everything else.

Christianity was popular with wealthy people as well, long before it was legalize. Stop memeing.

Origen story is literally just a meme.

Christian conception of the Soul is drastically different from Plato's DRASTICALLY, see this (it's not long): assumptionaz.org/studies_in_orthodoxy/studies_orthodoxy/on_the_soul

Saint Nikitas Stithatos said, in On the Practice of the Virtues (it’s in the Philokalia): “If you refer the activities of the outer senses back to their inner counterparts - exposing your sight to the intellect, the beholder of the light of life, your hearing to the judgment of the soul, your taste to the discrimination of the intelligence, your sense of smell to the understanding of the intellect, and relating your sense of touch to the watchfulness of the heart - you will lead an angelic life on earth; while being and appearing as a man among men, you will also be an angel coexisting with angels and spiritually conscious in the same way as they are.” We worship with all five senses at Divine Liturgy, doctrine is expressed not just in writing, but pictorially, and to the other senses as well The material and the spiritual are complementary, they are not separate places, but different dimensions which properly intersect (“Five senses characterize the ascetic life: vigilance, meditation, prayer, self-control and stillness.
cont

Once you have linked your five outward senses to them, joining sight to vigilance, hearing to meditation, smell to prayer, taste to self-control and touch to stillness. you will swiftly purify your soul's intellect: refining it by means of them, you will make it dispassionate and visionary.” ibid.); hell and heaven are actually different terms for the same dimension (see Ephesians 6:12, which says overtly that our struggle is not against the material, but against the dark spirits who inhabit heaven, also see A6 of this FAQ for the Orthodox conception of hell and how it is the same as heaven); the fall impaired the harmony of these two dimensions, but it will be restored after the restoration of all things--in fact, the only issue is that we can’t see that we are in heaven, because hamartia clouds our ability to detect it; to quote Dostoevsky, “We don't understand that life is heaven, for we have only to understand that and it will at once be fulfilled in all its beauty, we shall embrace each other and weep.” Hamartia is a lie (the Devil is the “Father of all lies”). Christianity is not Gnosticism. “World” in Christianity is a translation of kόσμος (kosmos), which means order...as in, the order of being enslaved to carnal good and evil (see A5 of this FAQ, and: deathtotheworld.com/about/ ), which means the material rules us rather than vice versa. The material realm is γῆ (gé), generally translated as “earth”, it’s never used negatively. See the significance of the word here: biblehub.com/greek/1093.htm Notice how Plato's Socrates confronted death: he said it was no big deal, and that philosophy is all about no being concerned about it; compare that with how Christ begged to live from His Father at Gethsemane.

The entire point of Christianity is sanctify the material and make it holy as God intended, so God became flesh to bring this about. Christianity is very, very pro-material.

>Pride is the original sin.

But "original sin" is just the doctrine of the heritability of Adam's sin.

This is what I said
>You go through every fucking step you can to strawman your opponent's, the Gnostic, Nietzsche and than whenever someone points out anything you dislike we must read through your 5 page to know the real truth

You completely ignored the point I made about how Gnostics at least had a hierarchy. You still stuck to the same strawman depiction of Nietzsche and Gnostic without addressing any of my rebuttals.

...And you shit out this a giant completely unrelated essay exactly the type of crap I accused you. You really are a weasel.

>If you refer the activities of the outer senses back to their inner counterparts - exposing your sight to the intellect, the beholder of the light of life, your hearing to the judgment of the soul, your taste to the discrimination of the intelligence, your sense of smell to the understanding of the intellect, and relating your sense of touch to the watchfulness of the heart - you will lead an angelic life on earth; while being and appearing as a man among men, you will also be an angel coexisting with angels and spiritually conscious in the same way as they are.” We worship with all five senses at Divine Liturgy, doctrine is expressed not just in writing, but pictorially, and to the other senses as well The material and the spiritual are complementary, they are not separate places, but different dimensions which properly intersect (“Five senses characterize the ascetic life: vigilance, meditation, prayer, self-control and stillness.
One day religious people will learn the dhamma and samatha mediation, instead of analyzing whatever they feel and think through their deities, so that they will go beyond their fist and second jhanas. Fourth jhana is the the best pleasure that you can reach before nibanna and too many people, religious or no, stay stuck at the first two.

...

>le atheist philosopher maymay

Nobody cares what atheists say.

We care what God says.

>This world is under the control of the evil one, and it's just a stepping stone for our real home.
Gotta love it when the disgusting ideology of christendom is laid bare for all to see.

Nice try christard, this life is all I know I have for certain and I'm not wasting a single minute of it on the ridiculous horseshit that is xtianity.

Was Nietzsche really all that fond of master morality, or just more fond of it than slave morality? It seems to me that whole ubermensch thing, what with creating new values and distinguishing yourself from the herd would go against enslaving yourself to another set of standards, even if it is a "master" set.

No. An ubermensch would also have to be creating values rooted in this world, which Jesus did not. Nietzsche was quite clear on this, Jesus was an "idiot" (in the sense of Dostoevsky's idiot).

Spotted the Marxist

Most people belong in menial labor. What the hell else would they do with themselves?

Then let them file into there through their own merits, I'm not opposed to naturally occurring hierarchy brought about via merit, just artificially imposed hierarchies of heredity.

Also Marxists tend to exalt menial labour.

Merit (talent, drive, intellgence, etc) has a hereditary component, and the more evidence mounts, the large that component seems to be. It doesn't have to be enshrined into law obviously, but people throughout history didn't pull it out of their ass--they actually noticed that, gee, most people most of the time seem to have similar qualities to their parents and kin. People have only believed in the "blank slate" theory of man for no more than 150 years.

That's fine, and I don't argue against it. But hereditary systems of hierarchy allow for bullshit like Charles V of Spain becoming king. I don't think man is a blank slate, and I'm not opposed to hierarchy itself.

meritocratically sorting every person to where they should be is very inefficient though and doesn't allow for caste-type systems where all the little noblemen and peasant children are rasied to be noblemen and peasants instead of throwing everyone into some form of rat race

The gains in increased talent justify it. Just having peasants capable of reading increases their utility dramatically.

now we're talking modern era, and I don't think it's impossible to have two schools of education, one for engineer-peasants and one for humanist-noblemen

in the past 50-60 years perhaps, and it's already starting to implode

...

Disgusting.