On the Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche (Kaufmann edition)

​Second reading, still one of the most interesting books I have read in my lifetime. 

Consists of three independent but related essays (different terms and vocabulary used in each essay) investigating the origin of "moral prejudices." 

First essay invesigates the origins of good and bad, good and evil. The 'good' were the noble, the aristocratic who positively named themselves as such (which I found interesting from the perspective of structuralism), and the 'bad' were the common, the vulgar, who were the opposite of the 'good' (thus negatively defined).

The 'good' were named 'evil' by the brooding and sickly priestly class, who felt an overwhelming ressentiment for these healthy, noble, aristocratic people, they performed a reevaluation and named themselves (and their followers, the meek, the lowly, the herd) the 'good'. Basically they were haters. But here I think it is important to note that Nietzsche is not saying that what had happened is "bad," he is telling a story of the genesis of morality.

"--but it is only fair to add that it was on the soil of this essentially dangerous form of human existence, the priestly form, that man first became an interesting animal, that only here did the human soul in a higher sense acquire depth and become evil--and these are the two basic respects in which man has hitherto been superior to other beasts!" (p. 33) 

Man becomes an interesting animal at that moment--a huge complement from Nietzsche.

Second essay is about the origins of "that other 'somber thing'" or bad conscience/guilt. Nietzsche initially traces this origin in the creditor/debtor relationship using the same etymological analysis as in essay 1 [he notes the connection between 'schuld' (guilt) and 'schulden' (debts)] and then takes this idea to one of its limits to explore the relationship between the Christian God and Christians, the Absolute Debtor under whom is created the arena for the maximum feeling of guilt.

There is also another hypothesis that Nietzsche provides in Section 16, which is the result "which occurred when he found himself finally enclosed within the walls of society and peace" (p. 84). All of man's "animal instincts" (I think an interesting study can be done on Nietzsche's constant refer to this animal self) become internalized, leading to the development of the "soul" and leading to depth, breadth and bad conscience.

This shaping of man "into a firm form" (p. 86) was an act of violence (by those who were stronger) and not a result of a contract (Locke)--is this culture?--an "instinctive creation" by "involuntary, unconscious artists."

Again, is this a "bad" thing? 

"Let us add at once that, on the other hand, the existence on earth of an animal soul turned against itself, taking sides against itself, was something so new, profound, unheard of, enigmatic, contradictory, /and pregnant with a future/ that the aspect of the earth was essentially altered..." (p. 85).

I will stop here for now, I would encourage anybody and everybody to read this work by Nietzsche, you don't have to agree with him, but he will be endlessly provocative.

---