[The Sabbaticus]

This philosopher seeks to explain the current 'progressive' left's self-destructive Tocqueville mindset by using the concept of 'resentiment'.

"Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher who teaches at Rockford University, where he also directs the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship."

[Potemkin]

This philosopher seeks to explain the current 'progressive' left's self-destructive Tocqueville mindset by using the concept of 'resentiment'.

This is hardly some startlingly original insight. I've been saying the same thing for years on PoFo. Where's my Nobel Prize?

Besides, this only applies to the centre-left. In what way did the Bolsheviks have "slave morality"? Stalin had even more of a master morality than Adolf fucking Hitler, as the events of the 1930s and 40s were to prove. No, it's the left-of-centre middle classes who have the slave morality, and it is they who are spreading the postmodernist insanity trying to take over the traditional left. Why else do you think I keep defending the reputations of Lenin and Stalin so fiercely? The working classes must become the ruling class, which means that they must possess the master morality. If they had their way, the 'progressive' centre-left would cut the working class's balls off. Any political movement which is serious about taking power cannot afford to be infected with the slave morality.

[One Degree]

Well, disregarding my personal views and any judgment of his accuracy, it is apparent he used the same technique he accused post modernist of using.

[Wellsy]

Following Potemkin's point about the mentality workers are meant to have...

The social principles of Christianity have now had eighteen hundred years to be developed, and need no further development by Prussian Consistorial Counsellors. The social principles of Christianity justified the slavery of antiquity, glorifies the serfdom of the Middle Ages and are capable, in case of need, of defending the oppression of the proletariat, even if with somewhat doleful grimaces69. The social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and for the latter all they have to offer is the pious wish that the former may be charitable. The social principles of Christianity place the Consistorial Counsellor's compensation for all infamies in heaven, and thereby justify the continuation of these infamies on earth. The social principles of Christianity declare all the vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or trials which the Lord, in his infinite wisdom, ordains for the redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, selfcontempt, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness, in short, all the qualities of the rabble, and the proletariat, which will not permit itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its selfconfidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread. The social principles of Christianity are sneaking and hypocritical, and the proletariat is revolutionary. So much for the social principles of Christianity. (The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, MECW 6:231)

It being a quite in critique of Christianity from Marx as creating such a mentality seems rather fitting considering Nietzsche characterized Christianity as well.

Spoiler: show

Now Nietzsche’s argument is rather… ah, abrasive… it’s certainly provocative, and “The Genealogy of Morals” traces the moral form of discourse – good, bad, right, wrong – back to rigidly… and again, remember this is 19th Century Germans again… back to the Greeks. Now, here Nietzsche talks about the Greeks as having… the word he uses is very important… and this will move us finally back to our account of the present. Nietzsche talks about the translation of “Virtue”. What was Virtue for the Greeks? Nietzsche was a philologist who could never get a normal job as a professor, because he was a little nuts, okay. And anyway… that wouldn’t have stopped him now, but it stopped him then.

For the Greeks, Virtue… when I said the word, I could see all of you go: “Oh, virtue…”… yeah, it wasn’t like that for the Greeks, I have already given you the Greek ideal of Odysseus, where Virtue included the ability to be a clever liar. In other words, knowing when and who to con was important. That’s not part of the Victorian idea of virtue, but its part of the Greek ideal of it. And so, ah… Virtue for them meant this “Excellence” in being well rounded. It meant to be excellent at revenge, so that – unlike the Christian ideal of Virtue – if someone strikes you, you strike them back, and the reason you do that is because if you don’t it will offend them worse. It will hurt their honour and yours. Much more virtuous to hit them back, then both your honours are intact. It will only humiliate them to turn your face, as though they were unworthy scum; no, hit them back. So Nietzsche discusses this use of virtue; and the Greek evaluation he calls “noble”.

Now, “noble” itself for Nietzsche is not a term of value, but a kind of descriptive term of the way the Greeks evaluated. And he himself is not doing ethics the way I was doing it the other day. He is giving, as it were, a genealogy; a history of the way in which we have come to use these words. For Nietzsche the key movement in the way the words “good”, “bad”, “right” and “wrong” occur, occur around the word “virtue”, and occur with the Christian transformation of virtue. From something active, based on Excellence into something filled with what Nietzsche calls “resentment“.

And I guess there is a simple way to make the argument – and I am trying to keep my remarks here at a level where they are debatable – what he means is something like this. For the Greeks, you know, someone who was strong enough to sin went ahead and sinned; which meant they did what they wanted to and enjoyed it… and for the Greeks, that was good. The Christian idea of “virtue” which includes the idea of “guilt” and “sin” meant that you wanted to do something real bad and you don’t; and they’re frustrated and filled with resentment towards those sinners who go ahead and do what they want to do. And you turn the name of your fault – cowardice – into a virtue: “virtue”. Really you just didn’t have the guts to go ahead and do what you wanted to do… trying to make it sound even slimier than it is, but this is Nietzsche’s argument. In other words you didn’t have the strength to go ahead and pursue what you really wanted. And so your name for that inability is your virtue: you didn’t do it.

Though it's not that it has to be restricted to Christians, though many liberals likely have inherited a culture of Christianity in a secularized liberal form.

[SolarCross]

Stephen Hicks nails it.

[Rugoz]

That's not philosophy, just a pathetic video of a pathetic individual.

[mikema63]

Yes it's left liberals who have the slave morality, the right wingers Crow while simultaneously being obsessed with Christianity and Christian moral values and social causes the case study of slave morality.

A lot of people at some time or another after reading a few Nietzsche quotes decided that they definitely didn't have a slave morality.

[Potemkin]

Yes it's left liberals who have the slave morality, the right wingers Crow while simultaneously being obsessed with Christianity and Christian moral values and social causes the case study of slave morality.

The centre-left have the slave morality; this is quite obvious. The centre-right have the master morality; this is also quite obvious. What complicates matters is the role of Christianity in all this, particularly in America. The centre-right usually claim adherence to Christianity, which preaches a slave morality, yet they clearly practice a master morality. They are, of course, hypocrites. There's nothing wrong with that of course, from the viewpoint of the master morality - a true master uses whatever tools are to hand to get their way and advance their own cause, regardless of how hypocritical it may be. The centre-left, on the other hand, usually reject any belief in Christianity as a religious faith while simultaneously adopting its slave morality wholesale. This is a kind of inverted hypocrisy, which is just as pathological. They adhere to Christian morality, while pretending not to. Liberalism, whether of the centre-left or the centre-right varieties, seems to have a pathological relationship with morality. It's bizarre.

[mikema63]

Your psychological analysis of American politics rings pretty hollow honestly. You think center left politicians don't follow a master morality? You think the average right wingers doesn't sincerely believe in Christianity?

Your basically saying Hillary Clinton is a true Christian and the guy passing out anti gay comic books at college campuses isn't.

[One Degree]

Your psychological analysis of American politics rings pretty hollow honestly. You think center left politicians don't follow a master morality? You think the average right wingers doesn't sincerely believe in Christianity?

Your basically saying Hillary Clinton is a true Christian and the guy passing out anti gay comic books at college campuses isn't.

I must admit my surprise that you believe these things.

[mikema63]

What things specifically? That politicians have to be cynical pragmatists to be successful or that the dude screaming about the end times actually believes it?

[One Degree]

For most in the US, morality has become a tool to be twisted and distorted into a weapon against political opponents. The moral logic on both sides is fatally flawed.

[mikema63]

For all of human history morality has been a tool of power and society. That is a feature not a bug.

Which is entirely Nietzsche's point.

[Potemkin]

What things specifically? That politicians have to be cynical pragmatists to be successful or that the dude screaming about the end times actually believes it?

Whether he believes it or not is less important than whether what he believes has any connection with Christianity as it has existed for two millennia and as it is generally understood. Most Americans seem to believe that, for example, the concept of the 'Rapture' is a fundamental part of Christian faith, present in Christian theology since its founding. In fact, it isn't; the idea was invented back in 19th century America. This is a general trend in American society - to reinvent Christianity to make it compatible with the new American 'virtues' of rugged individualism, free-market capitalism and 'manifest destiny', none of which are actually consistent with Christian morality. The Mormons have taken this to absurd lengths, even to extent of writing new 'Scriptures', but all American 'Christians' seem to do this. It seems to be motivated by the adherents of the master morality on the centre-right who don't like to feel that they are hypocrites. Their solution is therefore to simply 'correct' or 'improve' Christianity. Protestantism opened the door to that idea, and the Americans seem to have gone for it in a big way. Lol.

[mikema63]

I was being glib about the end times guy. Most Americans Christians aren't like what you describe.

I think you are letting your disdain for the center left get in the way of your analysis.

[One Degree]

For all of human history morality has been a tool of power and society. That is a feature not a bug.

Which is entirely Nietzsche's point.

Your post seemed to indicate the center left was based upon sound moral grounds while the center right were moral hypocrites.

[mikema63]

Depends on what you mean when your talking about the left or right. Politicians are almost to a person hypocrites. Your average person is almost to a person sincere in their moral beliefs. I was making a comparison between those with power on one side of the political spectrum and those who don't as opposed to potes left liberals are slave morality and right liberals have a master's morality.

And to potes point, even if you are correct about American Christianity I fail to see how the bulk acceptance of moral values that directly harm the holder would not be a slave morality.

[SolarCross]

It's not just American Christians who might be plausibly said to have a master morality. Christianity is big complex beast with a long and storied history and as much as it includes pathetic displays of passive aggressive weakness worship like St Peter's crucifixion also includes virile displays of physical prowess such as with the Crusaders shouting "Deus Vult" as they hack off a saracen's head.

The pagans worship power and prowess, whereas the abramhics worship submission to god, but Christianity actually is not a pure abrahamic religion it is a least a half-hybrid with euro-paganism.

Nietzsche had pagan sympathies and so he is primed to over emphasise Christianity's slavish abrahamic side and under play its vigorous pagan side.

[One Degree]

The right will use Christian principles in their arguments, but they do not believe 'the meek will inherit the Earth ' and they do not believe society's losers should enjoy equal quality of life. I am sure there is a better way of stating the latter, but oh well.

[mikema63]

Just because crusaders were in your mind virile because of violence doesn't make it less slave morality. What they and most Christians believed was a morally rightious cause was just basic political power play by the Vatican and European rulers.

A warrior slave is still a slave.

The right will use Christian principles in their arguments, but they do not believe 'the meek will inherit the Earth ' and they do not believe society's losers should enjoy equal quality of life. I am sure there is a better way of stating the latter, but oh well.

Right wing politicians and religious leaders will use people's Christian principles to make them do what they want even if it directly violates other Christian doctrines. This is the essence of the Masters morality. Those that blindly accept that morality as actually true are the slaves. If you talk to a random right wing Christin do you really think they will believe that we shouldn't help the poor? They've just accepted the moral belief given by their leaders that it's wrong for the taxpayer (read wealthy) to do so through government. They must do it themselves outside of government.

Which is of course entirely ineffective but the leaders of the right don't really care.