Welcome to the newest episode
of the Emigre Humanist, we will
discuss the Genealogy of Morals today
the Genealogy of Morals
is made up of three books
we shall be discussing the first book today
and
by way of introduction, I generally encourage
everyone to watch the previous
episode on the subject of Nietzsche
where we discuss one
aphorism from the introduction to the Genealogy
below you will find a link to
the episode to which I refer
and in that episode
I often commit
linguistic errors
in my use of Polish
and we discussed
Halcyon elements and
please forgive me
for my horrible pronunciation
because I mispronounced the word
and made it sound completely different
and we discussed
cows
flowers
fruits
Nietzsche quite often
made reference to
the natural world and in the case of
halcyon elements
this is likewise a reference to nature
given that a halcyon is of course
a bird
and
this bird
in Greek mythology
was favoured by the gods
because
at the moment when
it required it
to promulgate the species
of
its species
the gods calmed the waves on the seas
so that these birds could
multiply correctly
so to speak, and from this
in the English language, but also
in German
speaking of Halcyon
elements
one speaks in a sense of this kind of
thing of which we spoke in the previous episode, this
idyllic state, peace
happy and creative time
and I mention this
not only so as to
add one last
note to the previous episode
but also and above all
because
in the first book of the Genealogy of Morals it seems
the greatest misunderstanding
concerning Nietzsche's thought
concerns
animals
I speak here of course of
the blond beast which
in the view of hoi polloi is associated with
fascism unfortunately
and with Hitler, just like
indeed most of the first book of the Genealogy
of Morals
I will not take this up here
I will not attempt to prove this is false
I invite all who are interested to
read the works of Kaufmann
who
about 70 years ago
has already taken up
proving this in a manner
which can be said to be the best
of all possible
I also invite anyone to find on the internet
if one is not fully convinced
indeed there is
an 8 hour lecture by Leo Strauss on the subject of
Nietzsche
I will not repeat the arguments of the lecture, but
I mention it only in order to
make sure there is no impression
or misunderstanding
that perhaps I am unaware of the controversy
alright, so much for the introduction
so
towards the beginning of the first book
of the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche
preoccupies himself with making fun of the English
and in making fun of the English
one finds the essence which
in fact makes Nietzsche
misunderstood in the world of
the West
for one must keep in mind that all of these
defenses claiming that Nietzsche
is not the precursor of Nazism and fascism
arose in the West because the West
and more specifically
the anglosaxon mind and the philosophy of
anglosaxons - it is all so foreign
relative to
German thought
and Continental thought in general
that very often
it is all but impossible to avoid misunderstandings
Nietzsche makes fun of the English
of English psychologists for the manner
in which they seek out the source of morality
in human societies
he uses a metaphor here
speaking of other animals, namely frogs
Nietzsche claims that
English psychologists are akin to frogs
circling round the human person
as if Man were a swamp
that is very beautiful
and they attempt to explain this swamp
one can summarise
by saying that what disgusts
Nietzsche in the behaviour of
English psychology, but also
more broadly, as we mentioned,
the English psychologist of Nietzsche's time
is somewhat similar to what in our time is
referred to as "American scientists" who
have just made an amazing discovery - what disgusts
Nietzsche in their behaviour towards
humanity is that this is degrading of mankind
this assumption that
behind our
choices and behind the whole structure of our
morality
one finds reasons
which are solely biochemical or
solely sociological
or solely psychological
in the sense of behavioural psychology
behaviorism
all of this is treating
human beings
as if they were
guinea pigs, that is something
inhuman
and this approach is disgusting
as to the matter of
we took up this matter of
the blond beast
which is to some extent
a sort of slogan which is thrown
to introduce the subject of
racism or fascism
the presumption that Nietzsche is the father of
fascism and racism
indeed if one reads
his writing on ethnography
one could walk away with this impression, but
here I would have two points to make
which one ought to keep in mind
first of all
I remind you that when we
discussed Hegel
there was a moment when we discussed phrenology
I remind you that phrenology was that
pseudo-science, completely discredited
now and since a long time ago
which attempted to explain
the human personality through
examining the skull
the shape of the skull, and indeed
in the 19th century this was practiced
Nietzsche
in referencing ethnography, references
knowledge
which today we would say is pseudo-scientific
but at the time considered scientific
and it is very easy for us to
rush to
judgement here and say that therefore
all of this is wrong
well, we do not claim that St. Thomas
or Aristotle are worthless
because they considered the Earth flat
when in fact it is not
that is we do not judge
the value of a work
of a given philosopher or thinker
exclusively on the basis
of errors in perception
in biology, physics or chemistry
made not out of ignorance
but rather because
they reflected the state of science
although of course
I exaggerated a bit with this flat Earth
because
there was a famed Greek mathematician who proved
that the Earth was round and he did so without
access to satellites, the internet
but rather only with good geometry
and what I am getting at here is
not only that we should have
a bit of consideration for writers
from earlier epochs in this regard
but all the more that we remain conscious of
our own guilt in this regard
it is a sure thing that in 500 years or 200 years
or in 50 years
future generations will laugh at us
because
look what things went through their heads
now we know better - let me give a simple
modern example; recently
I listened as someone told me about a book;
I recall the title, but not the author
and amongst other things in this book
one found the thesis that
is apparently nowadays
in philosophy and
to some extent in the sciences
urgent, concerning
the rise of a separate
super-race beyond the human race
because of
genetics, because
humans are
better able to manipulate
the genotype
and one day, for example
the rich will be racially different
from the rest of us
and I
will not go into whether or not I agree, this is not my end
I have not desire to develop this subject here
I simply bring up this example because
this type or sort of subject
where we enter a certain degree of
science fiction
have always come up
in philosophy and will always come up
and just because someone brings them up does not
mean someone is therefore a racist
let alone
it certainly does not mean that someone who wrote
in the late 19th century
is directly responsible for
what the Nazis did
so much for this subject
Nietzsche has
a wealth of important and more important
things to tell us in this book
but it is almost impossible
not to be forced to
mention these subjects
mentioned just now so that they can be
extinguished - fine. So where according to Nietzsche
do good and evil come from?
if they do not arise from the causes discussed by
English psychologists?
Nietzsche claims that
the good arises as a self-
identification of themselves
by noble people
this means that simply put someone who is
good identifies himself as being good
and this being good
and here we find this comparison amongst other things
to the blonde beast
this blond beast
nothing but the lion in the jungle
the lion is the king of the jungle
but if we were to ask him
then he shall not answer us
with a political philosophy or
theology to justify his kingship
he will not justify his kingship
he simply is the king of the jungle
it is somewhat the same
in Nietzsche's mind with the human race
a person who is noble
who is good
identifies themselves as being thus
in contradistinction to the popular rabble
who are evil, and what
and here Nietzsche
gives an example from the German language
that in German
the word Schlecht
means evil
Schlicht means simple
Schlechtweg means
clear
so it seems that etymologically
evil is tied to
a description
of something vulgar and popular
and above all, something not complex
that is to say, nobility
contains within it a certain complexity
and
that which Nietzsche notes
in Europe at the time
in Polish this would be the difference between simplicity and simpletons
yes
simplicity can indeed be noble, but simpletons are not
indeed
I do not know German so I cannot
make a comparison here
to say if there is a similarity in the language which
Nietzsche wrote in
however
from what Nietzsche has written
it certainly comes to light that
he does not consider that to be evil which
is simple
but rather the stuff of simpletons
and
it is more a case of
from a human point of view one ought to think of it
in the following manner: Man is
psychologically speaking
something amazingly complex
extremely complicated
and there is something beautiful about this
and anyone who does not develop
their diverse characteristics
someone who does not
it's a bit like the peacock
with his tail flailing out
and someone who does not expand their
peacock tail, but rather
remains merely
a person who is not so much straightforward as
tending towards being a simpleton
is a bad person
for here the whole human potential within him
which he possess at least in theory
is wasted, but if we are talking about
Europe, Nietzsche notes that in Europe for 2000 years
a lasting process of degeneration
of human beings
and in a moment, insofar as
this is the genealogy of morality
but in fact we might say that what Nietzsche
presents us with is the genealogy of degradation
he notes of course that
that indicators of this degeneration
are democracy, communism and anarchy
and he quite beautifully labels
because this is
Nietzsche claims one can understand
modern degeneration
as the emergence of European Buddhism
and European Buddhism is Nihilism
because according to Nietzsche
if
we enter the world of Buddhism
we shall discover that
the whole purpose of Buddhism
is nothing
we have an episode about Buddhism, we also have
an episode about Schopenhauer
we invite you to
our discussion on Buddhism and Schopenhauer there
however for Nietzsche
Buddhism is nothing
ergo Nihilism
but so as to avoid errors
of course Nietzsche
argues that monotheism is likewise
Nihilism
that is the desire for unity
with a monotheistic God
is a desire for nothing
according to Nietzsche
yet an extreme desire for nothing
is Buddhism and
well, here I will get ahead of myself a bit
Nietzsche sees
positive and negative aspects of
the Catholic Church, but it appears
that at least in the first book
of the Genealogy of Morals it appears that
he unreservedly condemns Buddhism
as simply being Nihilism, so
insofar as monotheism might
lead to Nihilism, but not necessarily,
then
the Buddhist impulse which Nietzsche likewise
because here Nietzsche
labels it as a kind of impulse
which is feminine
in the sense that
European Man ceases to use his
reason and begins to
abide his instinct and emotions in life
a herd instinct to be sure
ergo communism, democracy and anarchy
and it is beginning to move towards
nothing
but what is the genealogy of this
morality of nihilism which
Nietzsche noted in his own times
and which we might boldly say continues
to this day; that is Nietzsche diagnosed
one can of course disagree, but
if one accepts
as true that which Nietzsche tells us then he has
diagnosed the sickness of our civilisation which
continues into the present day. What is its origin?
Nietzsche of course
historically
the historical source of this sickness is
located in Judaism by Nietzsche
which, as we mentioned in
earlier episodes on the subject of Nietzsche
he described as slave morality
Judaism is a slave rebellion
the morality of the slave
one should understand this as
being
because we very often see
see Israel or Judaism
as something radically
distinguishing
itself from the remainder of mankind
ergo we say the chosen people
but within this chosen people
one finds an almost
perfect equality governing them
relative to God
that is; Moses
when he brings forth the Ten Commandments
in the original language
he does not speak to the plural you
to the nation, but
to the singular you, to each individual
it is as if God is
a democratic god
all men, independent of their status
or at least every Jew
independent of social status
within the nation
of Israel is
a child of God
so
in this Nietzsche sees
the beginning of slave morality
but
in what way, according to Nietzsche
does slave morality become universal?
and this is very interesting and very revolutionary!
that is we already, I think, see in what way
that Nietzsche interprets Judaism that
he is a very revolutionary thinker, but when we
arrive at Christ, then
this revolutionary nature becomes
even more radical
because
in the traditional
theology,
Christ
according to His own words did not come to
change or break the law,
but to fulfil it
and there exists
a certain controversy or
a certain tension
in
that which is called Judeo-Christianity
sometimes this tension or controversy
is creative, but sometimes it is not
its essence is
the question of to what extent Christ is
in rebellion
against Judaism
and to what extent he is the
fulfilment of the promise of
the Old Testament
and
and therefore a kind of passage
into
a higher state which in effect
Judaism or monotheism
in the Jewish sense becomes
universal monotheism
for Nietzsche
Christ is
a means
through which European civilisation is made Jewish
Christ is
the means by which the morality of
of the slave which
hitherto governed one nation
could now migrate
to all nations
and Nietzsche even - here
puts down this bold thesis that
paradoxically
anti-Semitism
which
one finds in other nations
towards Israel
is in a real sense a clever
foil exploited by Israel
in order to
expand the values
of Judaism throughout
the entire world - because you see
the anti-Israeli instinct
is what drives the world to accept Christ
but Christ
is
the vessel which carries Jewish values into the world
according to Nietzsche
which means
we find ourselves in this paradox wherein
by accepting a universal Christ
we actually accept, according to Nietzsche
the slave morality
and
the Church
for Nietzsche the Catholic Church
is somewhat of a different entity than
the person of Christ
so in the Church itself as
in all religious institutions
Nietzsche sees traces of
nobility and of that which is less noble
he gives an example of these noble traces as
for instance the Renaissance
and that it was during the Renaissance that
within the Catholic Church
one found a rebirth of
a certain beauty and
nobility of the human person within Catholicism
but Nietzsche quickly
informs us that unfortunately
this entire positive tendency
was terminated by the Protestant reformation
and Nietzsche calls the Protestant Reformation
the final victory of
vulgarity within the Christian religion
because insofar as the Church
prior to the Reformation began to
exhibit sound instincts
in which
a distinction was made between better and worse
types of man and in which
there was honor given and an effort made
to raise
the more noble types of men
the Protestant Reformation
destroyed
the nascent Church aristocracy
of virtue
and
by force
compelled Christianity to
take up the path of
the final
and full
democracy, ergo demoralisation
for Nietzsche the last
moment
in this genealogy of morality
in which it was not yet clear
which tendency; noble or democratic
would be victorious in Europe
this last moment was the French Revolution
and
the victory of the French Revolution
was, for Nietzsche
the last defeat
of nobility and virtue
in European civilisation
and from this moment it is in fact
a complete collapse
towards nothing
let us now return for a moment, because this is very
much a consolidation of his historical
analysis the genealogy of our morality
let us return for a moment to
to this question of the good which does not seek
an explanation for its self
the noble man who is like a lion
in his jungle
he is simply, relative to other animals,
superior
a noble man, relative to other people
is simply superior, and here Nietzsche
he gives an example, but I will not delve into
the person
in this example, because it is more an anecdote
and not so much (correction of Polish)
a serious example
however
I shall trace in general terms Nietzsche's teaching
in this regard, for he says an interesting thing
that is he says that a noble person
when faced with
the vulgar hoi polloi
does not demonstrate towards them
any hatred of popular vulgarity
it is not so that the noble man hates
the vulgar hoi polloi
he ignores them
he ignores them completely that is
it is important to understand this
that here
nobility in Nietzsche's view is not
necessarily the conquest
of lower classes or forms
of humans by their superiors
because the superiority of the noble class
lies in the fact that they ignore
it's a bit like a man who
I think - I hope all men agree
that no one would like to
use their life to step on
every single ant in the world
sometimes it happens when we walk somewhere
that we step on an ant
not even aware that we have done so
but nobody
I think has decided
to make the choice of sacrificing
their whole life to travel
around the world and step on all the ants in the world
it is the same with the noble man relative to
the hot polo
according to Nietzsche
he is not preoccupied by
the work of destruction, he simply
accepts that the vulgar exist
just as there are differences in nature
different phenomenon; so one of them
is human vulgarity and so far as it
does not enter upon the path of conquest against
the nobles
then the nobles are not preoccupied by it
wait, hold on, something doesn't fit here
the nobles? there is a difference between
the nobles and noble people
and Nietzsche of course allows for this distinction
it is just that this distinction arises at the moment when
according to Nietzsche the distinction between
the nobility as such and a noble man
arises at a moment when the nobility
begins to rot from the inside
due to the moral corruption of the nobility
of course this phenomenon takes place
for here indeed
it would be a great error
to suppose that Nietzsche, when writing
about nobles or
noble types or the
master race has in mind, well
for example: what does he write about Germans?
in the Geneology of Morals? Nietzsche writes
he laughs at the Germans for having
this feeling that their morality is
so well ordered, and Nietzsche
looks to German history
and indicates how much
of the most cruel tortures possible
how much blood has been spilled
how much evil
the Germans have had to commit in order to
consider themselves moral today
that is to say, Nietzsche
paints a picture of the Germans according to which
the German sense of moral superiority
is coequal with a sense that
indeed last week
I murdered
30 people and ate them
but today I understand that what I did
was very bad and because I
have understood, then today I am therefore good
and so Nietzsche
here gives us
an example of his own nation
as a
an example of hypocrisy
in modern morality; that all of our
modern morality, our entire sense
of superiority
because when we immediately hear what Nietzsche
describes as genealogy
think that what he describes is also a bit
brutal
but we are no longer so very brutal, and Nietzsche
reminds us at every step that yes,
we are
our civilisation is a civilisation
of brutality
and our sense of morality
is solely possible
because - he says this of the Germans
but one can easily expand this
in my view to each nation
that it is only possible because
in the history of a given nation
we shall find instances of
such grand cruelty
that morality arises as though
an answer or a reaction
as an impulse, and Nietzsche leaves us
this distasteful question: are we
therefore really good?
or are we simply
coincidentally those who
are lucky enough to live
when no necessity forces us
to commit crimes?
and
we parade around with a sense of moral superiority
only because we were never in a situation where
in which
our humanity would be put to the test
and here indeed, apropos
the comportment of the nobles towards
the vulgar
that is a comportment of indifference
Nietzsche contrasts this comportment
with that of the vulgar man
towards the noble man
the vulgar man is not indifferent
towards the noble man, but
hates him
and this hatred originates in this:
that
vulgarity hates nobility
for raising itself above vulgarity
that is to say: resentment
and Nietzsche gives two examples
of this hatred
and here
of course he refers here to Christianity in a manner
typical of Nietzsche, namely
Nietzsche teaches that indifference
of the noble man towards
the hoi polo is
an authentic example of loving thy enemy
what this means is that loving
your enemy is defined as
a feeling of indifference towards my enemy
while hatred of the enemy
is an evil thing because it signifies
that I am a petty man
and this is
rather very much in accord with Christian teachings
with regard to reconciliation
why are we to reconcile with our enemy?
in Christian theology
it is not a matter of justice, but rather
if someone has done harm to me
then of course this harm is on his conscience
so why does it fall to me to reconcile with him?
well it is because
there is something quite unhealthy
and not good, immoral even
in this feeling of
being an eternal victim
in the feeling of hatred towards another human being
who, perhaps did indeed
commit some injustice, fine, yes,
towards me - but by hating him
I multiply this injustice
and Nietzsche contrasts this comportment
of the noble man
and we might say truly Christian
with St. Thomas
who, according to Nietzsche
displays the vulgar comportment and not
the Christian one
and Nietzsche
goes into quite some detail
in his quotes
of St. Thomas' most famed work
Suma Teologia
and we can summarise these quotes thus:
Nietzsche reminds us
that St. Thomas taught that when
the saved find themselves in Heaven
then
they will experience joy
and this joy will be multiplied by
God allowing them to
look upon Hell and enjoy
the suffering of their enemies
thus the imagination of Heaven which
St. Thomas paints for us
is one of vulgar resentment
wherein here on Earth perhaps
I experienced injustice, but
you'll see!
you'll get what's coming to you!
and I will watch for eternity
as you burn! - this is St. Thomas' view
in Nietzsche's view this is indeed
the
vulgar resentment
which
lay in Christianity
and which
became, especially after the Protestant Reformation
the motive force of Christianity
but we see it already in St. Thomas and
Nietzsche quotes yet another
rather famous
theologian
of Christianity, namely Tertulian
and Tertulian writes directly about the joy
with which the saved will look upon
the agony of the following people burning in Hell:
poets, philosophers and artists
and other people
who Christians categorise as immoral
or evil people
Godless people who
unfortunately during their lifetime
were not burned by anyone, so
justice will be melted out to them
after death
I think of course that if one is seeking
some sort of
historical example then perhaps
when I read Nietzsche's argument I immediately thought
of the infamous example of when
Christians burned the library
in Alexandria and murdered the learned scholars there
this is an imagine of a Christian which
for any person of faith is in stark contrast
with the authentic faith
I think
which each
let us say reasonable, or
authentically right reasoning
Christian would recognise
nevertheless the fact is that this type of
Christianity
also exists in history
and Nietzsche
attacks it without remorse
but
one ought not, on this account
regard Nietzsche as, for example,
despite the fact that he himself wrote a book
the Anti-Christ
and despite Kaufman
called Nietzsche the anti-Christ
then in my view
my interpretation is such as
to warn against
regarding Nietzsche as
anti-anything
which just happens to be dear to you
because it is very easy
on the basis of
those things that we have discussed here to say he is
an anti-Semite, but then it turns out
he's an anti-Christian, but then
when you actually read Nietzsche
then you see he seems to be anti-everything. Nietzsche
takes metaphorical aim at everyone
and I am sure he will aim at you as well
he will try to hurt you as well, but that's no reason
that is, in a sense he does this
on purpose
what do you mean in a sense?
I think in every sense he does this on purpose
I don't feel Nietzsche does anything by accident
this is true, but here I am
well, let us say what it is that he does because
in a sense
as soon as Nietzsche hits a soft spot in you
then the vulgar reader
or I think that in Nietzsche's view
then
the vulgar reader
will run away
and he scares them off by
let us saying shooting from the hip
he hopes to hit your weak spot as well
and then you will stop reading him and label him
I won't read Nietzsche because he is a nihilist!
even though he is not a nihilist, but rather
someone who takes issue with nihilism
I won't read
I hate Nietzsche the anti-Semite Nazi the anti-
Christian, anti-this, anti-that
and from Nietzsche's point of view:
very good! I needn't worry
that someone incapable of understanding me
is going to read me
this basically sums up the first book
and so likewise
I will not
come to any conclusions, whether my own
or those of others
given that this is only the first of three books
so with regard to conclusions
let's wait until we've discussed all
three books
that said
there is one thing which surely
I consider to be
important here
namely
Nietzsche
wants us to investigate ourselves through and through
in the beginning he poses the question
to those who know
do they possess
knowledge of themselves?
and whether we are talking about
the aforementioned psychologists or
Christians
or Jews
he puts this question to
us in a brutal way
and we are left with
what question?
are you very sure that
you know yourself?
are you sure you know yourself?
he compares - he constantly, this is very
what is beautiful in Nietzsche is this constant
reference to the world of nature
for he compares people who
possess knowledge
and these
they could be scientists, they could be
psychologists or priests
it could be a person of faith who
knows that he stands on the ground of faith
he compares all of these people to bees
the aim of a bee is
to carry from the flower to the hive
polen
and that
the bee
does not reflect upon
itself
because the bee regards
itself as a known category
it is quite clear that first to the flower and then
to the hive
only
of necessity
just as a person is not a swamp
through which
English frog-psychologists can swim
man is likewise not a bee
but he might become a bee
and Nietzsche
in other aphorisms writes of
philosophising with a hammer
and the first book of
the genealogy of morals is
an example of philosophising with a hammer
if you are a person of faith who
Nietzsche has hit with his hammer
then
if your instinct is to
disgard Nietzsche, then Nietzsche will say you are not
a person of faith, you are but a bee!
because in fact there is no hammer which
could shake
true faith
at the very least
one need not even refer to Nietzsche here
please recall Job
yes? that is
Nietzsche
believes that a man must
shake himself
lest he become a bee
and
the aim of philosophy
religion
authentic
a noble comportment in life is not
being a bee, but being human
and perhaps even movement
over
being human?
we shall see
right, that's all for now
we shall certainly return
as with Hegel
the second and third books
of the genealogy of morals will be next and
I think certain themes will become clearer
from the first book
I encourage you to read the entire work
the book
and to read Nietzsche in general
and that's it
thank you
see you later
in the next episode
please like us
we encourage you to subscribe
thank you to all subscribers
we now have 17 subscribers
I rather enjoy
when watching old episodes, from time to time
I remark, I think there was an episode where
I boasted that we have 5
and this is an increase of 20% because we had 4
I thought it was 7
something like that, but in any event
I am quite happy
that now we have 17
I encourage you to subscribe
if you like our channel then
maybe you have friends
to whom you can send a link and encourage them
to watch
and of course we encourage you to write comments
thank you
for listening and we invite you
to the next episode
