Meaning Good and Bad According to Nietzsche - Essay Example

Insert Nietzsche starts his narrative of how the expressions ‘good’ and ‘bad’ acquired their meaning. Initially there were two types of groups “the noble, the influential, the superior, also the high-minded” plus the “low, low-mind, and working-class.” The former had the obedient grasp over the second. They had a sentiment of ruling and dominance that was warranted by the truth that they were ruling and that they had power, the feeling of being higher over the lesser the misery of distance. His thought is that it is by the misery of space that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ originally got their significance. That is, ‘good’ was linked with the superior, privileged and noble, whereas ‘bad’ was linked with the common low and working-class (Guay, 96). Nevertheless, the offspring of the low class started resenting being inferior; they started resenting being ‘bad.’ Their hatred towards the upper-class led to a “radical changing of their ideals. Meaning ‘good’ and ‘bad’ started to reverse in meaning so that now ‘good’ defined the common, poor low, and inferior, whereas ‘bad’ now was for the powerful, rich, privileged and superior. In this manner, the deprived, sick, helpless and poor became virtuous, whereas the superior, noble and wealthy became wicked (Guay, 96). This transformation of values is likely when the hatred of the lesser classes for the powerful turns out to be so huge that they get reparation just in imagining or building a diverse moral system. It is this building of a contrasting moral system that is referred by Nietzsche as the slave morality. Thus, so that the powerless can have a better feeling of the circumstances that they are in, they build a morality for themselves, which is a slave morality, where the lesser are ‘good’ while the dominant are ‘evil.’ Nietzsche expresses his dissatisfaction with the psychologists who have attempted to give the origin of morality. They say that they are historians of morality; however they do not have a historical spirit. Their theories propose that originally individuals gain from altruism actions of others would applaud the actions and refer to them as ‘good.’ That means, what was initially ‘good’ and useful were taken as one and the same. With time, the genealogists propose, that the original association be forgotten, and the habit of referring to altruism actions ‘good’ resulted to the conclusion that they were somehow good of and in themselves (Guay, 97). Nietzsche does not agree with this account. He proposes that those who were shown “goodness” did not define ‘good’. Instead, it was the ‘good’ themselves who are the noble and the powerful who defined the ‘good.’ They came to view themselves as good when they became aware of the contrast between themselves and those that they control. That is the poor, weak and common people. Their position in power comprised of the power over words, the power of deciding what would be referred to as ‘good’ and what ‘bad’ (Guay, 98). This means that the power of morality is a changing one. It is not fixed and absolute. Each group exercises the power of their words to define ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ All this change comes form each group defining morality wanting to be termed as good. However, a group can only call it self ‘good’ and the other ‘bad’. There is no side that can refer to the other as ‘good.’ Nietzsche proposes that individual knowledge is dependent on the generalization of the reality that makes it possible to expresses it in language and can be understood by all. Thus, he means that people’s will to information is made upon, and it is even a sophistication of their will to ignorance. Philosophers ought not then to pose as defenders of knowledge or truth. For their truths are just but their prejudices and there is no philosopher who has yet been proven right. When questioning themselves and setting their spirits free from their bigotries philosophers are at their finest (Guay, 98). The free spirits that are among people thrive in isolation and independence, even though it is a hard and risky life to follow. One on his own he encounters unknown dangers that cannot be understood by anyone else. One cannot share his success or failures for they are owned individually. The views of these free spirits are likely to be misinterpreted and understood dangerously by the lesser individuals. Also, free spirits dedicated to knowledge will have a commitment of forgoing their independence and blending with others. Considering knowledge, the rule is more attractive than the exclusion (Guay, 99). Nietzsche’s criticism of truth and knowledge is mostly on the allegations that everything that is made comprehensible to most individuals has to be distorted and made simple. Thus, truth and knowledge are artificial certainties that individuals can fall back upon. He proposes that truths are based on the bedrock of prejudice. Since most people stay tied to supposition and prejudices, they appear not to understand truly deep ideas. Individuals can only comprehend things on a level that their intellect is able to handle, and they tend to simplify and distort ideas that are above them. Therefore, Nietzsche proposes that the free spirit has to appear covered to the public. He argues that individuals cannot comprehend such freedom of spirit and thus deduce it as something else (Guay, 99). This idea is specifically appropriate for Nietzsche, whose ideas have been misunderstood plus misinterpreted. Nietzsche targets to re-evaluate so much of the people’s assumptions that he is likely to be misunderstood. Nietzsche thoughts are dangerous as he is far from exact or careful in whatever he refers in all this. However, his conversation of the will power is just supposed to demonstrate how his “experimental technique” could be conducted; it is not supposed to be a case of it. Of course he finds himself in a trying habit of majority of philosophers of proposing that details can be worked out but not bothering to engage in detailing work. Instead, he dwells in a level of generalities, which is more prone to mistakes. Whereas Nietzsche experiment may be upon a bold and resourceful exercise of originality, it does not have the rigor and the detail of the experimental science needed (Guay, 100). Work Cited Guay, Robert. "Nietzsches "on the Genealogy of Morals": a Readers Guide (review)." The Journal of Nietzsche Studies. 40.1 (2010): 96-100. Print. Read More