Nietzsche - Geneology of Morality - Essay Example

In this way, Nietzsche claims that rather trying to persuade, argue with, or grapple to explain the fallacy of certain ways of thinking, it is necessary for the philosopher to look at such notions with disdain, resentment, disgust, and superiority. It is through such a response mechanism that Nietzsche believes that it is possible for the superiority of ideas to triumph over another by means of the contempt that they are shown. Accordingly, this essay will attempt to focus upon the idea of “ressentiment” as presented by Nietzsche and quantify it with regards to whether it is a beneficial and/or useful practice that should be engaged with or whether it is fundamentally harmful to the free flow of information and expression and disagreement that has been indicative of the intellectual community since time immemorial (Clark 21).

As such, key aspects and competing realities of Nietzsche’s point of view will be considered, weighed, and analyzed. In effect, this ressentiment is a form of intellectual disdain and disgust for those aspects of different types of worldviews that the individual does not respect. Nietzsche further described that the reason that many individuals place themselves in subjugation to the morality and laws of his era was the fact that they felt more comfortable in a master and slave-type relationship (in which they were invariably playing the part of the mental slaves).

As a means to jar these individuals from their complacency and acquaint them with the folly of such a worldview, Nietzsche advocates levying a degree of contempt on such belief systems as a means of encouraging those that hold these to re-access them and come to a more complete understanding of the inherent inadequacies and lack of logic presented within them. With respect to the extent to which this particular author agrees or disagrees with the concept of “ressentiment” as described by Nietzsche, the answer to this cannot be simply stated.

Firstly, there are a multitude of instances in which world views, ideas regarding morality, and other such philosophical constructions cannot and should not be considered due to the sheer preposterous nature of their claims. However, the clear and overriding elements of intellectual hubris also come together to raise key questions in the mind of one who reviews such a tactic and response. By not only refusing to engage but showing contempt for a given belief system or worldview, the philosopher is unable to transmit the necessary knowledge which could be key in convincing the practitioner to abandon an otherwise untenable stance.

Such an approach, although advocated by Nietzsche has little if any effect in bringing about a greater understanding as such, for purposes of intellectual and academic advancement, stifles the expression of thought and the transmission of ideas. Accordingly, it is the belief of this author that such an approach is more or less fruitless due to the fact that neither participants is able to differentiate or expand upon the argument due to the fact that employing ressentiment will necessarily close down the participant’s ability and/or desire to reason together with the opposition.

This understanding of intellectual supremacy helps the individual to understand further nuances of the way in which Nietzsche engages the reader with his understanding of the master and slave paradox. Whereas no one wants to consider themselves the intellectual slave of another, Nietzsche effectively argues that those who