THE POLEMICAL CURMUDGEON: A NIETZSCHE NICHE

Hello possums. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you but the other Curmudgeons have been hogging the spaces available and our readers don't have enough wit to juggle more than one argument at a time THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH - that's a little polemical joke there, ha ha.

You might have noticed that Robert (the apathetic sanctimonious sinner and toilet cleaner) has been banging on about morality, ethics and god and stuff and he actually quoted old Nietzsche at one point without actually acknowledging the reference. That's what copying and pasting is all about I suppose but, with Nietzsche you have to be careful because, after his death his crazy sister edited much of his writing to fit in with her own racist and reactionary views. These found favour among fascists and Nazis during the 1920s and 1930s and, I guess the Catholic church which is not surprising and explains his popularity amongst modern day Republicans in the USA, conspiracy theorists, right wing reactionaries and, of course Robert (the ASSTC).

Well all this leads me into a little polemical review of Nietzsche's On The Genealogy of Morals which is made up of three essays, all questioning and critiquing the value of our moral judgments based on a genealogical method examining the origins and meanings of our different moral concepts. I believe that Nietzsche's sister didn't get her mitts on this treatise so Robert (the ASSTC) should find it interesting to compare with the other things that he has read and quoted.

The first essay, "'Good and Evil,' 'Good and Bad'" contrasts what Nietzsche calls "master morality" and "slave morality." Master morality was developed by the strong, healthy, and free, who saw their own happiness as good and named it thus. By contrast, they saw those who were weak, unhealthy, and enslaved as "bad," since their weakness was undesirable. By contrast, the slaves, feeling oppressed by these wealthy and happy masters, called the masters "evil," and called themselves "good" by contrast.

The second essay, "'Guilt,' 'Bad Conscience,' and the like" deals with guilt, bad conscience, and the like. Nietzsche traces the origins of concepts such as guilt and punishment, showing that originally they were not based on any sense of moral transgression. Rather, guilt simply meant that a debt was owed and punishment was simply a form of securing repayment. Only with the rise of slave morality did these moral concepts gain their present meanings. Nietzsche identifies bad conscience as our tendency to see ourselves as sinners and locates its origins in the need that came with the development of society to inhibit our animal instincts for aggression and cruelty and to turn them inward upon ourselves.

The third essay, "What is the meaning of ascetic ideals?" confronts asceticism, the powerful and paradoxical force that dominates contemporary life. Nietzsche sees it as the expression of a weak, sick will. Unable to cope with its struggle against itself, the sick will sees its animal instincts, its earthly nature, as vile, sinful, and horrible. Unable to free itself from these instincts, it attempts to subdue and tame itself as much as possible. Nietzsche concludes that "man would rather will nothingness than not will."

Nietzsche demands that we overturn or suspend many of the assumptions that our very reasoning relies upon. If we can come to understand Nietzsche's genealogical method, his doctrine of the will to power, and his perspectivism as all linked, his arguments will become much easier to follow.

In his distinction between a thing and its meaning, we find the initial doubt with which he unravels so many of our assumptions. We are generally tempted to see things as having inherent meanings. For instance, punishment is at once the act of punishing and the reason behind the punishment. However, Nietzsche argues, these things have had different meanings at different times. For instance, the act of punishment has been at times a celebration of one's power, at times an act of cruelty, at times a simple tit-for-tat. We cannot understand a thing, and we certainly cannot understand its origin, if we assume that it has always held the same meaning.

Morality is generally treated as sacred because we assume that there is some transcendental ground for our morals, be it God, reason, tradition, or something else. Yet contrary to our assumption that "good," "bad," or "evil" have always had the same meanings, Nietzsche's genealogical method shows how these terms have evolved, shattering any illusion as to the continuity or absolute truth of our present moral concepts, for instance, the concept of "good" was once dominated by the will of healthy, strong barbarians, and had the opposite meaning that it does now that it is dominated by the will of weak, "sick" ascetics.

According to Nietzsche, then, a belief in an absolute truth or an absolute anything is to give in to one particular meaning, one particular interpretation of a thing. It is essentially to allow oneself to be dominated by a particular will. A will that wishes to remain free will shun absolutes of all kinds and try to look at a matter from as many different perspectives as possible in order to gain its own. This doctrine that has deeply influenced postmodern thought is called "perspectivism."

Nietzsche's inquiries are thus conducted in a very irreverent spirit. Nothing is sacred, nothing is absolute, nothing is true. Our morality is not a set of duties passed down from God but an arbitrary code that has evolved as randomly as the human species itself. The only constant is that we, and everything else, are constantly striving for more power, and the only constant virtue is a will that is powerful, and free from bad conscience and hatred.