The Genesis : Common sense vs. Nietzsche

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris

IMO, it's a false question you're asking. In Nietzsche's way, you could very well be, socially, a slave, and still think and behave like a nobleman.

But the question is, does the slave morality come from actual slaves and their reaction to their situation. If the morality actually comes from rulers, from priests and aristocrats of a Jewish kingdom, developing it in response to a desire to understand the world, is it possible that its NOT really a slave morality in any meaningful sense?


[q]Nietzsche's claim of Jewish morals being a "slave morality" comes from the notion of sin, as it entails (a) belief in a transcendant and retributivist moral order
and (b) submission to the passions of regret and "salvation", i.e. messianism.

Its not clear that early Jewish messianism was anything other than an actual political program for the restoration of a legitimate royal line. This gets to distinguishing the proto-christian views found in the apochrypha (generally marginal lit to the Jews) vs the views found in early rabbinical lit. To someone like Rambam, its largely still that. Its only later and more to the mystics that it becomes a more completely "spiritual" program, and even then, theres a strong residue of "deed" that infiltrates - the notion that Jews, by following Jewish law and in other ways, actively bring the messianic age - a secularized version of which flows into Jewish leftism, Zionism, etc.

That's why he believes that Christianism is a mere "universalized" judaism, something that he calls the "ultima ratio" of lie and degenerescence.

But how is it any more of a "lie" than "herrenmoral"? Its just a different perspective. The notion that its a lie to fool the "oppressors", doesnt make much sense if the Jews werent in fact oppressed when they created it. Thats what my problem is.

But that's not where his reflexions stop. The question to be asked, then, is to know whether Christianism is a lie created by astute Jews to ensure their own protection against persecution

Hmmmm? How would that work?

, or a pure, determined consequence of their morals.

Seeing as how Jewish morals went on for a few hundred years without generating Christianity, and that most Jews reject C, that doesnt seem likely either. C was a historical contingency that happened to emerge from J.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wezil


I said delusions. If you want to make that "afflicted with some psychological disorder" then that's your call.

Anyone that believes in imaginary beings w/o evidence that said beings exist is deluded. If I started a thread in which I in all seriousness wanted to talk about the unicorn I saw last week or the conversation I had with Zeus last month I would accused of being delusional and/or a liar.

I would say that Nietzsche's criticism of Judaism is both spot-on and harsh, which may lead Jews to criticize him where he is weak : historical fact.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But the question is, does the slave morality come from actual slaves and their reaction to their situation. If the morality actually comes from rulers, from priests and aristocrats of a Jewish kingdom, developing it in response to a desire to understand the world, is it possible that its NOT really a slave morality in any meaningful sense?

As there always is subservience to an all powerful God, how much can the rulers, priests, and aristocrats really break from the slave morality? And after all, once you utilize slave morality to break out from under the yolk of oppressors, it is difficult to break away from it.

[Dracon II]

But the question is, does the slave morality come from actual slaves and their reaction to their situation. If the morality actually comes from rulers, from priests and aristocrats of a Jewish kingdom, developing it in response to a desire to understand the world, is it possible that its NOT really a slave morality in any meaningful sense?

Current consideration of the historicity of the scripture is irrelevant to the fact that for jews back then it was historical truth. It is not question of whether or not it is historically true, but a question of what values it helped to produce in those who did and do believe in its truth. And the fact is that, if we consider the text itself, we can see, as Weber and Girard noted, a progressive tendency in the Bible to favour the weak against the strong... in other words... to back the underdog. This culminates in the New Testament, when Jesus and his followers turn weakness and meekness into a kind of strength by refusing to mirror the violence of the powerful, but rather submitting to it without resistance, as martyrs. It is non-violent resistance par excellence... to coax the powerful into revealing their brutality. The power of the powerful is preserved, is not directly resisted, but is revealed by the scriptures from the perspective of the victims, and is thus delegitimized. This of course ran against the expectations of 1st century Jews, who expected in their messiah a warrior spirit who would overthrow the Romans. But considering that Isaiah prophesied a "suffering servant", rather than a "conquering hero"... it would seem that Nietzsche was on to something.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


As there always is subservience to an all powerful God, how much can the rulers, priests, and aristocrats really break from the slave morality? And after all, once you utilize slave morality to break out from under the yolk of oppressors, it is difficult to break away from it.

Subservience to God isnt the issue, as lots of folks that FN sees as having Herrenmoral also piously served their gods.

Im saying that it wasnt a slavemorality at all, it was just a different morality, one quite suited to an entire people, of free peasants, AND their rulers. The term sklavenmoral is just rhetoric for something FN doesnt like, and that, whats more, FN doesnt really understand Jewish morality, hes attacking a Christian parody of it. The misunderstanding in the OP is only one good example of that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dracon II

But considering that Isaiah prophesied a "suffering servant", rather than a "conquering hero"... it would seem that Nietzsche was on to something.

The suffering servant is Israel, who is to be redeemed, not the redeemer. At least in Judaism, that is.

[lord of the mark]

Messianism

[lord of the mark]

[Fake Boris]

Menasseh ben Israel

[LordShiva]

Tree of Life > Tree of Knowledge

"Death is teh road to awe"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Subservience to God isnt the issue, as lots of folks that FN sees as having Herrenmoral also piously served their gods.

But those Gods were a bit different . The Gods of the Ancient Greeks and Romans were not ones that required complete subservience. At least not the way I understand Greek religion.

Im saying that it wasnt a slavemorality at all, it was just a different morality, one quite suited to an entire people, of free peasants, AND their rulers. The term sklavenmoral is just rhetoric for something FN doesnt like, and that, whats more, FN doesnt really understand Jewish morality, hes attacking a Christian parody of it. The misunderstanding in the OP is only one good example of that.

A different morality that did celebrate universality and the weak over the strong. As I said, once you start a religious mythos where the weak Jews triumph over the strong Egyptians, it is hard to reverse it.

[BeBMan]

Of course, that all makes Ns separation of powerful and powerless, weak and strong, slaves and masters quite debatable.