But the sort of mischief this prejudice can cause, once it has become unleashed and turned into hatred, particularly where morality and history are concerned, is revealed in the well-known case of Buckle: the of the modern spirit, which originated in England, broke out once again on its home turf, as violently as a muddy volcano and with that salty, over-loud, and common eloquence with which all previous volcanoes have spoken up to now.problem and which addresses in a refined manner only a few ears—there is no little interest in establishing the point that often in those words and roots which designate “good” there still shines through the main nuance of what made the nobility feel they were men of higher rank.Tags: Critical Thinking Tools And TechniquesWrite Dissertations Research ProjectsEssay On MemorySkills In Critical ThinkingCell Phone Should Be Banned In School EssayI Believe Essay Rubric
Nietzsche questions moral certainties by showing that religion and science have no claim to absolute truth, before turning on his own arguments in order to call their very presuppositions into question.
The Genealogy is the most sustained of Nietzsche's later works and offers one of the fullest expressions of his characteristic concerns.
They may also freely edit the text to suit their purposes. Now, first of all, it’s obvious to me that from this theory the essential source for the origin of the idea “good” has been sought for and established in the wrong place: the judgment “good” does originate from those to whom “goodness” was shown!
However, no commercial publication of this text or any part of it is permitted without permission of the translator. Note that in the following text, the words within square brackets have been added by the translator. On the contrary, it was the “good people” themselves, that is, the noble, powerful, higher-ranking, and higher-thinking people who felt and set themselves and their actions up as good, that is to say, of the first rank, in opposition to everything low, low-minded, common, and vulgar.
The preface begins 'This book belongs to the most rare of men.
[Students, teachers, artists, and members of the general public may download and distribute this text free of charge and without permission.
The numbers in curved brackets indicate links to explanatory endnotes provided by the translator.]—These English psychologists, whom we have to thank for the only attempts up to this point to produce a history of the origins of morality—in themselves they serve up to us no small riddle. — unhistorically, in what is now the traditional manner of philosophers. The incompetence of their genealogies of morals reveals itself at the very beginning, where the issue is to determine the origin of the idea and of the judgment “good.” “People,” so they proclaim, “originally praised unegoistic actions and called them good from the perspective of those for whom they were done, that is, those for whom such actions were , always been praised as good, people also felt them as good—as if they were something inherently good.” We perceive right away that this initial derivation already contains all the typical characteristics idiosyncrasies of English psychologists—we have “usefulness,” “forgetting,” “habit,” and finally “error,” all as the foundation for an evaluation in which the higher man up to this time has taken pride, as if it were a sort of privilege of men generally. From this they first arrogated to themselves the right to create values, to stamp out the names for values. Particularly in relation to such a hot pouring out of the highest rank-ordering, rank-setting judgments of value, the point of view which considers utility is as foreign and inappropriate as possible.
By way of a living riddle, they even offer, I confess, something substantially more than their books— of habit or in forgetfulness or in a blind, contingent, mechanical joining of ideas or in something purely passive, automatic, reflex, molecular, and fundamentally stupid)—what is it that really drives these psychologists always in particular direction? This pride humbled, this evaluation of worth emptied of value. Here the feeling has reached the very opposite of the low level of warmth which is a condition for that calculating shrewdness, that reckoning by utility—and not just for a moment, not for one exceptional hour, but permanently.
Or a small underground hostility and towards Christianity (and Plato), which perhaps has never once managed to cross the threshold of consciousness? But I’m told that these men are simply old, cold, boring frogs, who creep and hop around and into people, as if they were in their own proper element, that is, in a . The utility of the unegoistic action is supposed to be the origin of the praise it receives, and this origin has allegedly been ?
Or even a lecherous taste for what is odd or painfully paradoxical, for what in existence is questionable and ridiculous? Could the usefulness of such actions at some time or other perhaps just have stopped?