Master Vs. Slave Morality

Something I found interesting that that brought up was.

“Can one be a master… Be a ruler… Do ruler things…and have slaves… and have a “Slave morality”?

I would say No. For Nietzsche action is proof. In Nietzsche’s eyes if one is truly a master, and believe himself to be above others and to look down on slaves in despise then they cannot have slave morality. For they are the noble men, the ones who have their own free will, those who are not made for pity, and are the heroes.

But then he contradicts this with saying:

“I add immediately that in all the higher and more mixed cultures there also appear attempts at mediation between these two moralities, and yet more often the interpenetration and mutual misunderstanding of both and at times the occur directly alongside each other---even in the same human being, within a single soul” (pg. 76).  

The way Nietzsche makes it appear as if no way could someone who is a slave, ruler, someone who owns slaves and does the things of a true ruler have the morality of that in which he rises above. But then he goes to say, “Oh but by the way guys these two moralities can exist in one person, the same soul.

I also found it interesting to learn the differences between “good” and “bad versus “good” and “evil”.

For in the master morality “good” is considered to be “noble” or the desired outcome, and “bad” is considered to be shameful, even disgraceful.   According to slave morality, those who embrace the idea of “evil” thus inspire fear. They allow others to determine how things will be for them out of fear of rising up and taking control of their own life and their own morals. They show pity, patience, humility, and friendliness. They do not have free will, and they fear to seek out what they could be for themselves. “Wherever slave morality becomes preponderant, language tends to bring the words “good and “stupid” close together” (pg 78). This is because even they cannot see that they are being suppressed, that they do not have free will. They are blind. Such a morality is not honored by those of the master morality.

“Slave morality needs an opposite and external world; it needs, psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to be able to act at all, --- its action is, from the ground up, reaction” (pg 82.)

“The reverse is the case with the noble manner of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks out its opposite only in order to say “yes” to itself still more gratefully and more jubilantly---its negative concept “low” “common” “bad” is only an after-birth, a pale contrast image in relation to its positive basic concept” (pg 87).

What this tells me is the only time that a person who holds true to master morality will only seek out opposition in order to prove they are right and above the one who they feel is wrong. Whereas with the person who holds slave morality close they seek out opposition as a source to base their own interpretations off of. A slave morality individual will look outward for interpretations, looking for reason to justify their claims and the way they feel.  A master morality character will already have their minds set and they will merely only be trying to convince other of their interpretations because for them, they are right and everyone else is wrong.

“If you had to repeat every action forevermore, what would you change?”

If I felt that everything I did now would continue to happen to me forevermore, I would not change anything. If I change one thing, it will affect another. I can make good, or I could make bad choices. If I make choices that will lead me in the right direction, there will always be a tempting choice later on to lead me in the wrong direction. It is a never ending battle, and I would just choose to not do anything differently. One way or another, nothing lasts forever, and if it repeated forevermore then so be it. 

Reason and Will

Finally!!! A class where I felt that I learned something. Sometimes I feel like as if I just go into class and just listen to people debate how they interpreted the stories and the material but rarely do I ever get the “that’s exactly what the author was going for” sort of thing. I really didn't learn anything from the first group, but the second group! Wow! Great job guys! I honestly found Nietzsche’s works to be rather confusing to me and I am glad I was given the information I needed to clarify the way I interpreted it.

From the discussion of how Nietzsche and Socrates differed I think it had to do with Socrates believed in reason and rationality completely whereas Nietzsche believed that will to power was the essence of life itself.  You need will to survive in Nietzsche’s eyes, but you need reason to survive in the eyes of Socrates. I also think that that is a reason on its own that Nietzsche did not completely agree with Socrates because when Socrates died he surrendered his will for the sake of reason. He choose to not escape from his death or plea for forgiveness all so he did not look like he was going back on everything he ever said. He felt as if everything he said was completely true and he gave his will up to prove a point to the people. And for Nietzsche a person who gives up their will is practically dead anyways.

I believe this also goes against Nietzsche’s views on truth because he philosophizes that there is a realm of truth and being but reason is excluded from it.

“Let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as “pure reason,” “absolute spirituality,” “knowledge in itself”: these always demand that we should think in an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our “concept” of this thing, our “objectivity,” be.”

This is yet another thing that I could see the two philosophers viewing differently on. Nietzsche is proposing that truth comes with only the perspective eye. The more view and perspectives we have about a certain thing then the more truth that we will gain about the thing. But reason would argue that there is only one way of seeing something. It either is or it isn’t. There is no other way of looking at the objective truths. But for Nietzsche the more you know about it the more true it can become (in my opinion).

In conclusion I would like to share what I felt about the quote that group two brought up at the very end of class and asked us to reflect on.

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

Other than it meaning clearly what it says, that everyone has a different way of doing things and there is no right way to do something, I believe that this has something to do with the whole finding truth through different perspectives. In a sense I think it is telling the readers who are reading about Nietzsche’s philosophy that what he is saying is merely only a perspective in our quests to find our inner truth. That his way is only one way. We can either take what he says to heart or believe it to be true or merely use it for our overall knowledge. There is no right way to viewing, interpreting, and carrying on about our lives. As one day we will find our own truth through our own will perspectives and with our own will to lead us the way. 

Truth

I just want to take a moment to thank my group for these last few weeks. I know we had a rough time wrestling with this content and we lost two group members in the process, but man it feels good to have our presentation over with. It definitely did not help with the wordiness of the text. I swear I will probably have dreams about some of this stuff in the future from reading it so much. That was the hardest seven pages of reading in my life hands down. Overall I am extremely happy with the way our presentation turned out. Hopefully the rest of the class felt the same way about our presentation.

After dissecting Kierkegaard’s material I see things a little differently. Especially with the way I feel about things. It actually helped me to clarify some of my religious feelings. In a sense I can relate to Kierkegaard seeing as he too was born into a religious family, but he believed in science and objective facts. But at one point he became re awakened and up took his religious faith once again. In a sense that’s where I stand with my religious view. I have many doubts in my religion and I do not really want to be a part of it until I accept the objective uncertainty and take faith in God fully and passionately. It may not be at the age of 25 for me, but perhaps one day it will happen for me. I do not want to go into the House of God and pray if I do not completely believe. I want to go for me, not for everyone who thinks I should be involved in church.

In highlight I decided to share a few quote that I felt kind of wrap up what Kierkegaard was trying to emphasize in this section.

“Inwardness in an existing subject is at its highest in passion; truth as a paradox corresponds to passion, and that truth becomes a paradox is grounded precisely in its relation to an existing subject. Thus the one corresponds to the other. By forgetting that one is an existing subject, passion is lost, and in truth does not become a paradox; but the knowing subject becomes something fantastic rather than an existing human being, and truth becomes a fantastic object for its knowing.”

This all comes back to finding meaning to our life and finding truth within ourselves. Taking a step back and realizing that for us to exist and not just be an existing subject we have to be THE existing subject. It is our choice how we choose to carry on and feel about life. Seeing as Kierkegaard took strong emphasis in the individual this is important for us to know.

 “Objectivity emphasizes: what is said; subjectivity: how it is said.” 

This distinction is important as most of his existential work revolves around this philosophy.

As Kierkegaard explains, there are some things that are rooted in subjectivity and others in objectivity. In subjectivity, the concepts of immortality and religion are directly rooted here. According to Kierkegaard they serve no purpose in the realm of objectivity as they are something that cannot be proved. He makes it distinct that those who chose to seek out the truth in the uncertain being in fact truth get further away from the truth. He uses God and Immortality as his examples seeing as they are both something that cannot be achieved through hard core proof.

I also found it interesting the differences that occur in the absurdity aspect with Kierkegaard versus Camus. Whereas Camus said that the absurdity occurs with the individual struggling against the world, Kierkegaard indicates that the absurdity takes place within the existing being, which the struggle the individual has internally. In a sense I side with both of them, as I believe that it is important to understand that absurdity can take place you against the world and I think that an internal absurdity does in fact occur. I mean, I have internal debates within my mind and the way I feel, but of course absurd things occur in the actual world. So I choose to take a stance in the middle of both philosophers as I find both of their contribution equally important. 

To Believe or Not to Believe?

Just quickly I wanted to share this thought in class but I never got the chance to about the picture of the “Just Judges.” I figured the reason he hid the real copy in his cabinet that this means that even if the people judged the fake picture it would not mean anything to him because they were judging something fake. Now if the people were judging the real copy of the picture then it would mean something as if they were really judging Jean himself. I do not really agree with the whole authenticity and exclusivity thing that someone else had said. I do not think it had anything to do with him having the almighty authentic copy in his hands to do as he wanted with it, but he just did not want the wrong people to judge the real copy.

Now switching over to Kierkegaard!

“Suppose, however, that subjectivity is truth, and that subjectivity is the existing subjectivity, then, to put it this way, Christianity is paradox, paradox and passion fit one another exactly, and paradox exactly fits one whose situation is in the extremity of existence” (pg27).

We as humans cannot prove that God exists….We can merely only believe. If one is to be a Christian there needs to be a relationship with God himself. We cannot just try to grasp his existence but embrace it.

Being raised in a family that is predominantly Christian, I too have accepted the objective facts of my religion. Having gone to church every Sunday when I was very little, and pretty much up until I was 17, Christianity is all I have really known. But for some reason, to me, it just does not fit with me. I do not have the passion for it that my family has. I do believe that there is an all mighty entity out there that is watching over us, and I do believe in a heaven. I believe that if I do good things, and live by a good way, I will one day have the benefit of walking through the gates of heaven into an afterlife that no one can prove exists.

There are so many contradictory things that go against religion. Science and supernatural instances, like ghosts for instance. Evolution and science sway my feelings towards my religion. However I feel as if I do have faith, but maybe faith in the wrong thing.

“Faith is the objective uncertainty along with the repulsion of the absurd seized in the passion of inwardness, which is just inwardness potentiated to the highest degree”. (pg27). Only the true believer can have faith. So for this I am lost and a non believer :/

One of the most interesting quotes I read was, “It is easier to become a Christian when I am not a Christian than to become a Christian when I am one…”

That is truly absurd! I have a hard time wrapping my mind around what that could mean. Is it really easier for someone who knows nothing of Christianity to accept it before I can accept it myself? Is it because I have doubt of religion itself due to the objective facts that science has laid out on the table?

For those who were never seriously religious who have had a near to death experience was and meet this “God”, that they never really took for existed or fully believed in, they started to after the incident. For now they had the passion that is required for faith.

“What it is to be a Christian is not determined by the what of Christianity but by the how of the Christian.” ----if someone could clarify this for me a little further I would be appreciative of it.

The Little Prince Chapter 1

Now for a happy twist! I was able to get my all time favorite book in yesterday! I want to share this with all of you who have not read or ever heard of this book. It is titled The Little Prince by Antoine De Saint-Exupéry. Each blog I will post a section of this book as I find it is completely relevant to this class and finding meaning to life. 

Finding True Meaning

I found this class, and its readings, to be particularly influential to me. The purpose of me taking this class to begin with was because of the content of this one class; to discuss finding meaning to life.  

One of the most interesting things I read:

“Likewise and during every day of an unillustrious life, time carries us. But a moment always comes when we have to carry it, we live on the future: “tomorrow”, “later on”, “when you have made your way”, “you will understand you are old enough.” Such irrelevances are wonderful, for, after all, it’s a matter of dieing. Yet a day comes when a man notices or says that he is thirty. Thus he asserts his youth. But simultaneously he situates himself in relation to time. He takes his place in it. He admits that he stands at a certain point on a curve that he acknowledges having to travel to its end. He belongs to time, and by the honor that seizes him, he recognizes his worst enemy. Tomorrow, he was longing for tomorrow, whereas everything in him ought to reject it. That revolt of the flesh is the absurd.” (pg. 192)

There will come a day where I will look back on my life and find that the meaning that I aspired to achieve by that given moment in my life will more than likely not be achieved. Everyday things happen that hinder my goals and dreams, temporarily offset my aspirations. Some of these things I have no control over, and some I do. I have to look inward upon myself and pull from why is it that I continue to live as I do knowing that one day everything I have ever accomplished will mean nothing to anyone. Knowing that one day I will cease to exist and time will erase my existence. That in itself is truly absurd in my eyes. I cannot change it, nor can I get back the days of my life that have passed.

This is why I find that passage so influential. One day I will realize that I was living for tomorrow when in reality I should be living in the today, not merely trying to pass time, but to enjoy the time that I have. I must live in the moment and treasure what I have now because for all I know tomorrow I could cease to exist.

When faced with the subject of suicide, I found it rather interesting to hear everyone’s’ thinking behind it. Some were saying how people can recover from those emotions, and that they found a new meaning to life. Whereas some students pointed out that those same people could have merely put their emotions aside and continued to live on as if life truly had no meaning. I believe that those who have taken their lives literally found that they had NOTHING left to live for. They no longer found meaning to life… I honestly believe that this sense of “recovery” does not quite exist. Once a person gets to this point in their life where they find they have nothing left to live for and cannot find that meaning from within, they are already in a sense dead. I think almost 90 percent of people who consider suicide snap out of it rather quickly and find a new meaning to life, that it was never a serious deal to them. They were merely lost in their own thoughts, and felt alone and out of place in an indifferent world. But to the other 10 percent who literally contemplated for a great deal of time trying to find their meaning to life, that those people are never going to quite recover from those emotions. In one way or another that dark place will always be in the back of their mind.

Often times I have wondered why it is that we have to live in such a cruel world of struggle and perseverance. Life never seems to be easy, and even when it does it is so cruelly short lived. I was not blessed with the happiest life and everything I could ever want out of it. I have had to work my way up, experience life’s cruelties all on my own, and move forward from it. I admire those who have had it harder than me; those who have lost everything and know what it is to have to world turns its back on you. I admire those people who learned to keep fighting and moving through life feeling completely alone. I question how some people can throw their lives away by jumping off a building, overdosing on some kind of drug, or shooting themselves fatally. How is it that those who continue to live were able to continue living feeling as if they had nothing left, while others just give up and stop trying to live? That is truly something absurd. Where do we draw the line between life and death?

I still have so many questions, and hopefully through further reflection I will find some answers to these concepts.

The Stranger

After a heated debate from Monday night’s class I think I have a better understanding of The Stranger. I found it rather interesting to see other people interpret the story differently than I. Though I may not have agreed with what other people’s interpretations of the story were, or their justification behind it, it was admirable to see people take sides and defend what they interpreted. It allowed for the class to be much more enjoyable, and for me to think into my own interpretations further and question myself internally. As a matter of fact, I even swayed with some of my understandings because of other students bringing up examples of why they sided the way they did. So thank you to the class for teaching me some new things!

I can remember reading excerpts from this book back in high school in my AP English class. I never really thought much of it; much less even understand its meaning. I do admit however, that something about the excerpts did perplex me, and had me thinking about things in a different light (Not like life instances).I was however confused as to what it really meant and what I was supposed to get from it. Half of what I read in that class did that to me. It was the excerpt of the shooting of the Arab that had me thinking the most. After re-reading the entire story again it finally allowed me to tie up some loose ends. You see, when I read the excerpt I thought that it was just an instance of cold blooded murder with remorse. After reading the entire story, I see the situation from a different light. Honestly, I feel as if sun and heat is symbolic for adrenaline. I heard throughout discussion that it could be metaphoric way to describe him feeling anger, but I honestly think it was merely adrenaline. He lived in the moment, and adrenaline only exists in present time instances. You cannot feel adrenaline for no given reason. Anger you can feel for many reasons, but he had no motives behind the killing. Merely him being agitated by the sun and the heat were what drove him to the murder. I honestly think you cannot assume that he was in fact angry because he never did explicitly state that he was anywhere in the book.

 I also found interest in one student who clarified, that in French, the book was really meant to say the foreigner. I should have done more research into the book itself; but after hearing that it completely changed my view towards the book. At first I figured the “stranger” in the book was an internal thing. I figured Meursault was a stranger from himself; that he could not come to terms with his own rational thinking and feelings. As I read further, I was wrong. He knew exactly what he wanted to feel, and what he wanted out of life. He was completely fine with the way he was going through life. He knew himself, and he merely accepted it for who he was. When you take the translation as “the foreigner” you see that it is he who is separated from the society. A foreigner is known as someone that is unlike the rest of the population who surrounds them. They have different expectations, views on life, and justifications for what they do. It makes complete sense that Meursault is the foreigner because he separated himself from the typical thought processes of those around him.

I look forward to learning more about some of Camus’s writings. 

I have not read the stories to be covered in the next class, but it will be interesting to see if these stories are similar to The Stranger.