Week 7 - Assigned Reading - On the Genealogy of Morals (Prologue & Chap. 1)

Friedrich Nietzsche is a fascinating and intelligent man. His work “On the Genealogy of Morals” makes many wonderful observations about humanity and life. The first thing that I noticed, which doesn't necessarily have to do with the rest of the article as a whole, was his metaphor for philosophy. He describes philosophers and the their ideas as that of a tree bearing fruit. Philosophers are intertwined in the same way that the branches of a tree are, sharing ideas and growing as one. The ideas that they come up with are like the fruit that a tree must inevitably bear. These ideas, like the fruit of a tree, do not need to be liked by the people who experience them, that is not the point of philosophy and is not the concern of philosophers. I found this metaphor to be extremely insightful and the one point that I appreciated the most was that philosophers do not need to concern themselves with whether or not people like what they come up with. Philosophy is not a discipline whose sole purpose is to please people, its purpose is to ponder the meaning of the universe and everything in it (amongst other things).

Nietzsche's prologue as a whole is just as essential as any of the other chapters of this work as it argues why morals must be examined. Just examining the concept of morality arbitrarily has merit, but to understand that morality is a thing not unlike any other part of our universe and should be critically examined as such allows you to see the necessity behind it. Nietzsche devotes just enough time and examination on this simple premise as it is not exactly difficult to understand. Morals have long been taken for granted, as if they are somehow universal truths, but to assume as such is foolhardy. There may be some universal truth to them or they may be faulty human creations, one cannot possibly know except with examination. Nietzsche states it plainly, if this does not make sense to you then it is no fault of his, the blame rests entirely on yourself.

I do believe I have found a new favorite philosopher.

The first chapter of Nietzsche's work begins to break down the genealogy of “good” and “bad.” Nietzsche rejects the answers given by traditional English psychologists and instead looks to those who posses the power. The ruling class of the day were the ones who held influence, and to Nietzsche this meant they were the ones who could determine right from wrong. It would appear, from a sociological point of view, that this correlates well with a conflict theorists perspective. The theory that power relations are the key to society with each group in society striving to maximize its benefits. I must say, this makes more logical and practical sense then the ideas passed by the English philosophers of the day, that actions were praised as good for the group with which they were the most useful. This would make sense given a level playing field, but the skewed importance of groups in society at the time suggests otherwise.

As to the emergence of “evil” (not just “bad,” but “evil”) Nietzsche points to the priestly class, the ones who hold no real power, save for their connection to a “higher” power (and in effect have ultimate power). They were responsible for fundamentally altering the values of society, claiming that the repressed, the lower class, were actually “good” and that those who held influence, the aristocracy, are “evil.” While this might seem like a more sensible view on “good” and “bad/evil” as those who are being repressed must deal with hardships that the ruling class either created or can ignore, the effect is the same as before. Those who hold some form of influence are creating a value judgment to benefit themselves and to disadvantage others.