dzengota's review against another edition
4.0
It almost feels like a betrayal of any book (especially since this isn't my first Nietzsche) to consider so strongly its broader reception and context, but both this and Beyond Good and Evil are hilarious for how much Nietzsche loathes anti-Semites in particular.
Although there are still many of his works to read, I have a hard time seeing this as anything else but the best introduction to him. It covers many key tenants (amor fati, will to power), overtly highlights his aphorisms and justifies his position in regards to other philosophers (Plato, Kant and Schopenhauer in particular).
Although there are still many of his works to read, I have a hard time seeing this as anything else but the best introduction to him. It covers many key tenants (amor fati, will to power), overtly highlights his aphorisms and justifies his position in regards to other philosophers (Plato, Kant and Schopenhauer in particular).
xzahn's review against another edition
3.0
It's hard to rate this one.
I began reading it a while back but dropped it. Now I went through it in audible which went much better. Certainly, there are ideas here that deserve a thought, or a few. But he also rambles a lot, repeats himself and tends to go on and on with a certain metaphor until I lose the initial idea for it.
I do prefer his ideas boiled down and his book summarized as I feel that I have yet to reach a level where I could understand all that he has to say in one go. That said, I'll add this to my re-read list as I have to give it a second (or third) go. Considering he refers to Beyond Good & Evil, I might for it too.
I began reading it a while back but dropped it. Now I went through it in audible which went much better. Certainly, there are ideas here that deserve a thought, or a few. But he also rambles a lot, repeats himself and tends to go on and on with a certain metaphor until I lose the initial idea for it.
I do prefer his ideas boiled down and his book summarized as I feel that I have yet to reach a level where I could understand all that he has to say in one go. That said, I'll add this to my re-read list as I have to give it a second (or third) go. Considering he refers to Beyond Good & Evil, I might for it too.
cinaedussinister's review against another edition
4.0
The core of Nietzsche’s argument here is excellent, and truly original. I don’t think I’ve seen a more accurate analysis of the fundamental difference between the (unfortunately named) systems of master and slave morality, and the effects both have on their adherents. However, in many places his execution of these very insightful arguments is uncomfortable to read at best and damning at worst: his failure to distinguish between more generally Abrahamic morality and specific Jewish morality leads him to go on disconcerting tirades against the “Jewish poisoning of culture”, and we all know what this led to. Obviously Nietzsche can’t be held entirely to blame for the Holocaust, and I find it very likely that a fair portion of these outwardly antisemitic tirades were posthumous additions made by Nietzsche’s ethnonationalist sister who edited much of his work, I still feel that this specific incident plays into a larger pattern of Nietzsche going on angry tangents against marginalised people, even if his intentions are not rooted in a specific hatred of these people but more broadly a critique of systems of thinking which these groups happen to follow (despite his anti-Jewish rhetoric, Nietzsche also condemns the antisemites of his time). Overall, though this book is a very uncomfortable read in our day and age, and although I think that Nietzsche’s arguments here could sometimes feel tangential, the core of the philosophy which is expressed in this book is so prescient that it must be commended.
rhei's review against another edition
5.0
Okay I still have to read the third treatise but I'll come back to that one when my exams will be over. For now! Five stars my dude.
freddiebennet's review against another edition
4.0
The Genealogy of Morals is an original and highly provocative critique of the "value of values", particularly so with regard to the values of "good" and "evil", which Nietzsche considers to be fluid, socially constructed concepts which are now in discordance with human nature.
Interpreting the events of one's own life is an inevitable part of existence. Again and again, we extract meaning from the events which happen to us, and we slowly weave a coherent narrative which we draw upon to make sense of and justify parts of our own life. This is particularly pronounced with suffering, misfortune and unpleasant events, for which it is especially important that we find some kind of meaning, as it helps us cope with and overcome our adversities.
Now imagine the case of late ancient societies, in which there were often rigid and oppressive dichotomies between the few in power (masters) and the many who served them (slaves). Around this time, Judaism and Christianity were coming into the foreground, and their value systems, according to Nietzsche, had a serious appeal to the oppressed masses, particularly by making virtues out of concepts like suffering, abstinence and poverty i.e. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24). Accordingly, the oppressed were offered an almost perfect means of justifying their undesirable positions, being able to conceptualise themselves as "good" with the promise of heaven and the rich masters as "evil" with the assurance of hell.
In Nietzsche's reckoning, these value systems contributed to the denaturalisation of nature, in which concepts like ambition, sex-drive, pride, acquisitiveness, indulgence, pleasure became sinful, the human body (nakedness), was considered with disgust, and life in the present was neglected in favour of the promise of eternal reward in heaven, as compensation for one's situation on earth. In this capacity, humans became the first ever animal to be repulsed by its own nature, though Nietzsche argued this internal strife was also the feature which made humans the first interesting animal.
Nietzsche's moral ideology then, is that our notion of good, which is currently characterised by charity, abstinence, chastity, ascetism, pity, modesty, and our notion of bad, which is characterised by ambition, pride and desire, should be flipped, returning humans to a state which is congruent with our own nature. This perspective is completely unique amongst the moral philosophers like Aristotle, Kant, Mill and Bentham, who, despite having differing ideologies on how to best achieve what is traditionally considered as "good", mostly agree roughly on what constitutes "good", namely the suppression of one's instincts and desires to achieve states of selflessness, charity, pity, abstinence and ascetism etc.
I think ultimately Nietzsche, as well as the other, more traditional ideologies go too far. Is there not a reasonable degree of truth on both sides of the fence? Take the seven deadly sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. Are they not all somewhat good in moderation, but bad in excess? Where would we be in life if we had no pride, with no will to stand up for ourselves and our own beliefs? Where would we be without a modicum of greed, which motivates us to gain more for ourselves and our families, forging a better quality of life? Where would we be if we had zero laziness (sloth), the ability to relax from time to time and not work ourselves into an early grave? What about no lust, no attraction and no desire for other people, condemned to live a solitary and lonely life without love and intimacy? Both Nietzsche and the traditional view seem to err by embracing only solutions at the polar ends of the spectrum, without producing a balanced perspective.
Furthermore, it's not fully convincing that what is "moral", "good" and "bad", is purely socially constructed, given evidence from the growing field of evolutionary game theory. Game theory is an extension of the traditional cost-benefit analysis in decision theory, expanded to include multiple decision makers who compete against each other to try and achieve for themselves the best possible outcome or payoff. It is the field which analyses how rational people will make decisions when factoring in other rational people who are also striving for an optimal outcome. The prisoner's dilemma is the classic example of game theory, and entails two would-be prisoners who are suspected of committing a crime, but without enough evidence for a full conviction. The prisoners are separately presented with two options: expose the other person or keep silent. If both prisoners keep silent, they will both end up with a minor sentence, if both prisoners expose the other person, they both get a full sentence, while if one exposes the other while the other remains silent, one goes free while the other gets the full sentence. In a single round of the prisoner's dilemma, players rarely keep silent because the risk of the other individual exposing them (without being able to communicate with one another) is too high. However, when the prisoner's dilemma, or similar scenarios are repeated many times, cooperation becomes much more expedient and logical.
Political scientist Robert Axelrod famously invited dozens of game theorists, mathematicians, scientists and economists to submit strategies for a prisoner's dilemma tournament (where the game was repeated 200 times via computer simulation), and each strategy was put against each other strategy, 200 times. Strategies may include "always remain silent", "always expose", "expose at first, then copy whatever strategy the other uses" or "expose once, then remain silent, then alternate" etc. Mathematically, the strategy which was the strongest was simply "remain silent at first, then copy whatever strategy the other uses" also known as "TIT FOR TAT".
Consider that there is a certain mathematical logic to natural selection, where evolutionary strategies which are ill-suited to their environment are penalised and gradually made extinct, while those well-suited are rewarded and end up propagating. Consider also that game theory is, to an extent, analagous to situations in natural, ecological settings, where members of a species/pack may have to compete with other members over resources, knowing that the scenario may repeat itself numerous times. It does not take too large a step forward to think that game theory may be occuring in nature, where purely selfish strategies could be disfavoured by evolution because they cause the organism to make enemies and isolate itself from a herd/pack, and similarly organisms which are purely giving and altruistic are likely to be disfavoured because they give up resources too easily. Thus natural selection would favour organisms that tend toward strategies of cooperation like TIT FOR TAT.
Considering this fact, ethologists looked to see if such strategies were occurring in nature, and sure enough they were. Vampire bats, as a prime example were found to hunt each night for blood, stocking up as much as possible, then returning to the nest to feed their young. It was found that they formed cooperative partnerships, where if one bat failed to find any blood one night, the other would give some of their blood to feed them and their young. The unspoken agreement was that, should the providing bat fail to retrieve any blood in any future instance, the other bat would then reciprocate the gesture and provide them and their young with some of their blood. It was found that the bats largely reciprocated in this manner, but in the rare instances where a bat failed to reciprocate (i.e. employed a selfish strategy), the original bat would break the partnership and no longer provide for them again, just as with the classic TIT FOR TAT strategy from game theory.
No doubt this form of reciprocity, and awareness of wrongdoing is an important feature for an organism's survival, ensuring it doesn't get taken advantage of but can still benefit from cooperation with others. This to me is something of a contradiction to Nietzsche's idea of good and bad being complete social constructions. Through the logic of natural selection, it seems that organisms are imbued with, at the very least, a basic sense of right, wrong and justice, and this same logic is almost definitely also responsible for the mechanisms like ambition, pride or desire, which Nietzsche advocated as part of our nature. Perhaps all components of morality, whether considered good or bad by traditional or Nietzschean morality, can then be situated within biological origins. Maybe, from this standpoint, a complete and balanced theory of morality could be reached which combines both our selfish instincts and our altruistic instincts, rather than positioning the two as mutually exclusive.
Interpreting the events of one's own life is an inevitable part of existence. Again and again, we extract meaning from the events which happen to us, and we slowly weave a coherent narrative which we draw upon to make sense of and justify parts of our own life. This is particularly pronounced with suffering, misfortune and unpleasant events, for which it is especially important that we find some kind of meaning, as it helps us cope with and overcome our adversities.
Now imagine the case of late ancient societies, in which there were often rigid and oppressive dichotomies between the few in power (masters) and the many who served them (slaves). Around this time, Judaism and Christianity were coming into the foreground, and their value systems, according to Nietzsche, had a serious appeal to the oppressed masses, particularly by making virtues out of concepts like suffering, abstinence and poverty i.e. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24). Accordingly, the oppressed were offered an almost perfect means of justifying their undesirable positions, being able to conceptualise themselves as "good" with the promise of heaven and the rich masters as "evil" with the assurance of hell.
In Nietzsche's reckoning, these value systems contributed to the denaturalisation of nature, in which concepts like ambition, sex-drive, pride, acquisitiveness, indulgence, pleasure became sinful, the human body (nakedness), was considered with disgust, and life in the present was neglected in favour of the promise of eternal reward in heaven, as compensation for one's situation on earth. In this capacity, humans became the first ever animal to be repulsed by its own nature, though Nietzsche argued this internal strife was also the feature which made humans the first interesting animal.
Nietzsche's moral ideology then, is that our notion of good, which is currently characterised by charity, abstinence, chastity, ascetism, pity, modesty, and our notion of bad, which is characterised by ambition, pride and desire, should be flipped, returning humans to a state which is congruent with our own nature. This perspective is completely unique amongst the moral philosophers like Aristotle, Kant, Mill and Bentham, who, despite having differing ideologies on how to best achieve what is traditionally considered as "good", mostly agree roughly on what constitutes "good", namely the suppression of one's instincts and desires to achieve states of selflessness, charity, pity, abstinence and ascetism etc.
I think ultimately Nietzsche, as well as the other, more traditional ideologies go too far. Is there not a reasonable degree of truth on both sides of the fence? Take the seven deadly sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. Are they not all somewhat good in moderation, but bad in excess? Where would we be in life if we had no pride, with no will to stand up for ourselves and our own beliefs? Where would we be without a modicum of greed, which motivates us to gain more for ourselves and our families, forging a better quality of life? Where would we be if we had zero laziness (sloth), the ability to relax from time to time and not work ourselves into an early grave? What about no lust, no attraction and no desire for other people, condemned to live a solitary and lonely life without love and intimacy? Both Nietzsche and the traditional view seem to err by embracing only solutions at the polar ends of the spectrum, without producing a balanced perspective.
Furthermore, it's not fully convincing that what is "moral", "good" and "bad", is purely socially constructed, given evidence from the growing field of evolutionary game theory. Game theory is an extension of the traditional cost-benefit analysis in decision theory, expanded to include multiple decision makers who compete against each other to try and achieve for themselves the best possible outcome or payoff. It is the field which analyses how rational people will make decisions when factoring in other rational people who are also striving for an optimal outcome. The prisoner's dilemma is the classic example of game theory, and entails two would-be prisoners who are suspected of committing a crime, but without enough evidence for a full conviction. The prisoners are separately presented with two options: expose the other person or keep silent. If both prisoners keep silent, they will both end up with a minor sentence, if both prisoners expose the other person, they both get a full sentence, while if one exposes the other while the other remains silent, one goes free while the other gets the full sentence. In a single round of the prisoner's dilemma, players rarely keep silent because the risk of the other individual exposing them (without being able to communicate with one another) is too high. However, when the prisoner's dilemma, or similar scenarios are repeated many times, cooperation becomes much more expedient and logical.
Political scientist Robert Axelrod famously invited dozens of game theorists, mathematicians, scientists and economists to submit strategies for a prisoner's dilemma tournament (where the game was repeated 200 times via computer simulation), and each strategy was put against each other strategy, 200 times. Strategies may include "always remain silent", "always expose", "expose at first, then copy whatever strategy the other uses" or "expose once, then remain silent, then alternate" etc. Mathematically, the strategy which was the strongest was simply "remain silent at first, then copy whatever strategy the other uses" also known as "TIT FOR TAT".
Consider that there is a certain mathematical logic to natural selection, where evolutionary strategies which are ill-suited to their environment are penalised and gradually made extinct, while those well-suited are rewarded and end up propagating. Consider also that game theory is, to an extent, analagous to situations in natural, ecological settings, where members of a species/pack may have to compete with other members over resources, knowing that the scenario may repeat itself numerous times. It does not take too large a step forward to think that game theory may be occuring in nature, where purely selfish strategies could be disfavoured by evolution because they cause the organism to make enemies and isolate itself from a herd/pack, and similarly organisms which are purely giving and altruistic are likely to be disfavoured because they give up resources too easily. Thus natural selection would favour organisms that tend toward strategies of cooperation like TIT FOR TAT.
Considering this fact, ethologists looked to see if such strategies were occurring in nature, and sure enough they were. Vampire bats, as a prime example were found to hunt each night for blood, stocking up as much as possible, then returning to the nest to feed their young. It was found that they formed cooperative partnerships, where if one bat failed to find any blood one night, the other would give some of their blood to feed them and their young. The unspoken agreement was that, should the providing bat fail to retrieve any blood in any future instance, the other bat would then reciprocate the gesture and provide them and their young with some of their blood. It was found that the bats largely reciprocated in this manner, but in the rare instances where a bat failed to reciprocate (i.e. employed a selfish strategy), the original bat would break the partnership and no longer provide for them again, just as with the classic TIT FOR TAT strategy from game theory.
No doubt this form of reciprocity, and awareness of wrongdoing is an important feature for an organism's survival, ensuring it doesn't get taken advantage of but can still benefit from cooperation with others. This to me is something of a contradiction to Nietzsche's idea of good and bad being complete social constructions. Through the logic of natural selection, it seems that organisms are imbued with, at the very least, a basic sense of right, wrong and justice, and this same logic is almost definitely also responsible for the mechanisms like ambition, pride or desire, which Nietzsche advocated as part of our nature. Perhaps all components of morality, whether considered good or bad by traditional or Nietzschean morality, can then be situated within biological origins. Maybe, from this standpoint, a complete and balanced theory of morality could be reached which combines both our selfish instincts and our altruistic instincts, rather than positioning the two as mutually exclusive.
colls's review
3.0
I read this for an evening class I'm taking at JHU. While part of me thinks the man was a loon, he's got some interesting ways of trying to take apart the Judeo-Christian morality and expose its flaws.
tombomp's review against another edition
2.0
Divided into 3 essays. The first is reasonably clear but pretty objectionable and not too well argued, the second is a little less clear but a lot more interesting and more convincing, the third is the longest and meandering, not cohesive, sometimes contradictory and generally confusing. If it was just the first two or with a much edited third I'd probably consider it a 3 star thing. The first essay seems to be focused around a claim that the weak and downtrodden almost forced Christian ideas along the lines of "the meek will inherit the earth" onto the strong, ruining their more noble morality - this is bizarre in the sense that there's no reason to assume this, especially compared to the opposite. He refers to this negative morality as "Jewish" which is gross - he regularly talks about each "race" or "people" as a whole, as if the poor can poison a huge race of people, and his ideas about health in this sense are complete racist nonsense. The third essay is devoted to the "ascetic ideal", which he defines and then seemingly blames for all the world's evil, attributing things to it which make no sense and don't fit with his definition. In general I found that his ideas didn't fit together or make a coherent set - he often contradicts himself in short asides and seems to be addressing himself to things I don't really get.
On the plus side it's written pretty well - even when it doesn't form a coherent whole, his use of language means you can be pretty clear on what each sentence is saying without needing to read it many times over. He has quite a lot of interesting ideas, but scattered as they are, they're not really pleasant to try and extract from the rest of the text. I am absolutely sure my reading of the text was poor and I realise my review is gonna sound ignorant. I realise his importance and that a lot of people hold this in high regard and I'm sure if I read better and had more grounding in his other texts I'd get more out of it. Take this as one beginner at philosophy's attempt to understand and problems doing so.
Also dude really needs to learn about a lil thing called MATERIAL CONDITIONS
On the plus side it's written pretty well - even when it doesn't form a coherent whole, his use of language means you can be pretty clear on what each sentence is saying without needing to read it many times over. He has quite a lot of interesting ideas, but scattered as they are, they're not really pleasant to try and extract from the rest of the text. I am absolutely sure my reading of the text was poor and I realise my review is gonna sound ignorant. I realise his importance and that a lot of people hold this in high regard and I'm sure if I read better and had more grounding in his other texts I'd get more out of it. Take this as one beginner at philosophy's attempt to understand and problems doing so.
Also dude really needs to learn about a lil thing called MATERIAL CONDITIONS