I find the Master v Slave morality discussion not very useful. Which one did the Spartans adhere to? They were selfless and self-subjugating, they did not seek personal glory, they fasted and disciplined themselves, they did not pursue personal riches, and they worked exclusively for the collective Good of Sparta. Amongst themselves they adhered to slave morality, but as a group towards others they adhered to master morality. Why did the Spartans, which the Greco-Roman world esteemed, teach their master soldiers how to be slaves? Because humans are cooperative creatures. If you train humans to be hyper-cooperate then they will dominate other groups. It didn’t matter how many fierce, Superman-y fighters the Celts had; the Romans with their intense training of obedience and selfless cooperation destroyed them.
If you have a group and you are trying to set a standard, there are actually serious problems with making the standard “being the best”. It leads to people being the best at all costs, such as in ways that harm the group; it leads to potentially extreme waste for showboating (Bezos’ yacht); it is not useful for 99% of people who need positive reinforcement yet aren’t the best; it is psychologically damaging to those who fail, depending on the stakes. The proper balance IMO is the sophisticated Christian balance: doing your best to glorify God and glorifying God in the best of others. This means positive reinforcement for all, but no cutthroat competition to be the best SBF or Elizabeth Holmes.
The recreations of the Spartans consisted of feasting, hunting, and making war: their every-day life was too hard. On the whole, however, their state is merely a caricature of the polis; a corruption of Hellas. The breeding of the complete Spartan—but what was there great about him that his breeding should have required such a brutal state!
Nietzsche on the question of obedience:
A man who wills - gives orders to something in himself which obeys or which he thinks obeys. But now observe what is the strangest thing about willing - about this multifaceted thing for which the people have only a single word: insofar as we are in a given case the one ordering and the one obeying both at the same time and as the one obeying, we know the feelings of compulsion, of pushing and pressing, resistance and movement, which habitually start right after the act of will[...]
Nietzsche is a complex and difficult theorist. A general rule for these discussions could go something like: "In cases where the discussion isn't based on an egregious misreading of Nietzsche, an answer to the objection is almost certainly already in Nietzsche." As No_one suggests, it's probably best to think of this as a discussion of a couple pop-Nietzschean terms, and how they've come to be used in ordinary language, rather than a philosophical analysis.
Nietzsche’s evasion isn’t convincing and Sparta continues to be a stumbling block for his philosophy. It was the ideal of a strong and militant people in the ancient world, including those whom Nietzsche idolized. Nietzsche saying the Spartans were too hard (lol) and essentially calling them fake (lmao) makes me lower my opinion of him even more, which I didn’t think was possible. Does he like the Supermen or not? Well, there they are, the fiercest fighters who enslaved others, with a slave morality among themselves.
Nietzsche does not uncritically endorse master morality, or military conquest as an end in itself. Neither a state entirely devoted to master morality, or to military conquest, would be Nietzschean states (to the extent that such a thing is a coherent concept, like with Plato's Republic). The Superman is not just the biggest, baddest Bronze Age warlord - there are higher worlds to conquer.
The next aphorism after the Sparta one:
The political defeat of Greece is the greatest failure of culture; for it has given rise to the atrocious theory that culture cannot be pursued unless one is at the same time armed to the teeth. The rise of Christianity was the second greatest failure: brute force on the one hand, and a dull intellect on the other, won a complete victory over the aristocratic genius among the nations. To be a Philhellenist now means to be a foe of brute force and stupid intellects. Sparta was the ruin of Athens in so far as she compelled Athens to turn her entire attention to politics and to act as a federal combination.
Cooperation is not necessarily a sign of slave morality - individuals in warrior cultures cooperate because it is in their best interest to do so, rather than being quasi-forced to co-operate (primarily through commiseration) by the innate seethe and cope one experiences by being at the bottom of the totem pole. Fasting and discipline may be vital one's greater interest of becoming fit and healthy. In contrast, the modern day's Body Positivity movement is a direct slave moralist reaction to this and to fitness and health in general - it seeks to denigrate the achievements of those who are fit and healthy, deny the effects of their lifestyle on their health and repurpose their lack of Will Save vs Food as an expression of personality.
It is also not the case that a culture (or indeed a person) is entirely one or the other - N said that people and cultures are usually a mix of both in some proportion.
It may make sense for something like fat acceptance, but it loses coherence when you look at Christians in the wild, as OliveTapenade points out above. It’s not enough to get people to cooperate based on what is in their best interest, because an individual’s best interest often conflicts with the group. Once they have riches they may act like Nero, or maybe they realize that their best interest is to defect. It is never in a Japanese Kamikaze pilot’s best interest to fly his plane into a ship rather than surrender, but (were that tactic to work) it would be in Japan’s interest. If cooperation is the ultimate Good in a civilization then it makes sense to “quasi-force” members to develop an extreme and maximal commitment to cooperation, one predicated on dogma and stories and rituals rather than self-benefit.
Christian culture accomplished this well: A loving Messiah teaches loving maxims and standards, based on identifying with your peer as identical to you in worth, and being as prosocial as possible. Because it is a figure in a story it taps into the human instinct of social reciprocation and imitation, rather than logical persuasion. This loving figure suffers a gruesome death unjustly to save you (reminiscent of Plato’s mention of the truly just man being tortured and crucified), which furthers the reciprocation. And there are then rewards of punishment based on your imitation of the figure. This is the most efficient way to turn someone cooperative if done right, because it needs to come from a place of personality and social environment rather than flimsy philosophy.
Also, modern critics like Scott see a story about a self-denying saint and forget that these are the superhero cast of Christianity, not an actual standard that is set for believers. The extreme acts of the Saints are, in practice, a way to jolt a rich person into realizing they should donate a library or fund a school. Because their conduct was so unlivably self-denying, when you remember them you feel an obligation to do your small part. It’s definitely not as simple as “Christianity tells you to sell all your possessions”, which no one does.
Nero also has an even worse reputation in the era of Gibbon that he had in the era of Suetonius because he was particularly associated with early persecution of Christians.
On the other hand, he did murder his own mother...
Honestly, so few people read Nietzsche that the popular idea of 'nietzschean' might be totally off base.
being the best”.
All the examples of being best you give are rich people. I'm pretty sure Greek and Nietzsche's ideas on excellence also accepted greatness in other domains, at the very least power, valour, bravery etc..
Collapsing human value to purely money is a modern afflici..
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
coffee_enjoyer 4mo ago
It didn’t matter how many fierce, Superman-y fighters the Celts had; the Romans with their intense training of obedience and selfless cooperation destroyed them.
Not the Caledonians, or the barbarians of the Teutoburg forest. It is unlikely that those guys were better drilled and more selfless than the Romans.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I find the Master v Slave morality discussion not very useful. Which one did the Spartans adhere to? They were selfless and self-subjugating, they did not seek personal glory, they fasted and disciplined themselves, they did not pursue personal riches, and they worked exclusively for the collective Good of Sparta. Amongst themselves they adhered to slave morality, but as a group towards others they adhered to master morality. Why did the Spartans, which the Greco-Roman world esteemed, teach their master soldiers how to be slaves? Because humans are cooperative creatures. If you train humans to be hyper-cooperate then they will dominate other groups. It didn’t matter how many fierce, Superman-y fighters the Celts had; the Romans with their intense training of obedience and selfless cooperation destroyed them.
If you have a group and you are trying to set a standard, there are actually serious problems with making the standard “being the best”. It leads to people being the best at all costs, such as in ways that harm the group; it leads to potentially extreme waste for showboating (Bezos’ yacht); it is not useful for 99% of people who need positive reinforcement yet aren’t the best; it is psychologically damaging to those who fail, depending on the stakes. The proper balance IMO is the sophisticated Christian balance: doing your best to glorify God and glorifying God in the best of others. This means positive reinforcement for all, but no cutthroat competition to be the best SBF or Elizabeth Holmes.
Nietzsche on Sparta:
Nietzsche on the question of obedience:
Nietzsche is a complex and difficult theorist. A general rule for these discussions could go something like: "In cases where the discussion isn't based on an egregious misreading of Nietzsche, an answer to the objection is almost certainly already in Nietzsche." As No_one suggests, it's probably best to think of this as a discussion of a couple pop-Nietzschean terms, and how they've come to be used in ordinary language, rather than a philosophical analysis.
Nietzsche’s evasion isn’t convincing and Sparta continues to be a stumbling block for his philosophy. It was the ideal of a strong and militant people in the ancient world, including those whom Nietzsche idolized. Nietzsche saying the Spartans were too hard (lol) and essentially calling them fake (lmao) makes me lower my opinion of him even more, which I didn’t think was possible. Does he like the Supermen or not? Well, there they are, the fiercest fighters who enslaved others, with a slave morality among themselves.
Nietzsche does not uncritically endorse master morality, or military conquest as an end in itself. Neither a state entirely devoted to master morality, or to military conquest, would be Nietzschean states (to the extent that such a thing is a coherent concept, like with Plato's Republic). The Superman is not just the biggest, baddest Bronze Age warlord - there are higher worlds to conquer.
The next aphorism after the Sparta one:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Cooperation is not necessarily a sign of slave morality - individuals in warrior cultures cooperate because it is in their best interest to do so, rather than being quasi-forced to co-operate (primarily through commiseration) by the innate seethe and cope one experiences by being at the bottom of the totem pole. Fasting and discipline may be vital one's greater interest of becoming fit and healthy. In contrast, the modern day's Body Positivity movement is a direct slave moralist reaction to this and to fitness and health in general - it seeks to denigrate the achievements of those who are fit and healthy, deny the effects of their lifestyle on their health and repurpose their lack of Will Save vs Food as an expression of personality.
It is also not the case that a culture (or indeed a person) is entirely one or the other - N said that people and cultures are usually a mix of both in some proportion.
It may make sense for something like fat acceptance, but it loses coherence when you look at Christians in the wild, as OliveTapenade points out above. It’s not enough to get people to cooperate based on what is in their best interest, because an individual’s best interest often conflicts with the group. Once they have riches they may act like Nero, or maybe they realize that their best interest is to defect. It is never in a Japanese Kamikaze pilot’s best interest to fly his plane into a ship rather than surrender, but (were that tactic to work) it would be in Japan’s interest. If cooperation is the ultimate Good in a civilization then it makes sense to “quasi-force” members to develop an extreme and maximal commitment to cooperation, one predicated on dogma and stories and rituals rather than self-benefit.
Christian culture accomplished this well: A loving Messiah teaches loving maxims and standards, based on identifying with your peer as identical to you in worth, and being as prosocial as possible. Because it is a figure in a story it taps into the human instinct of social reciprocation and imitation, rather than logical persuasion. This loving figure suffers a gruesome death unjustly to save you (reminiscent of Plato’s mention of the truly just man being tortured and crucified), which furthers the reciprocation. And there are then rewards of punishment based on your imitation of the figure. This is the most efficient way to turn someone cooperative if done right, because it needs to come from a place of personality and social environment rather than flimsy philosophy.
Also, modern critics like Scott see a story about a self-denying saint and forget that these are the superhero cast of Christianity, not an actual standard that is set for believers. The extreme acts of the Saints are, in practice, a way to jolt a rich person into realizing they should donate a library or fund a school. Because their conduct was so unlivably self-denying, when you remember them you feel an obligation to do your small part. It’s definitely not as simple as “Christianity tells you to sell all your possessions”, which no one does.
Nero was a pretty good ruler by the standards of the time. Just slandered by the winners.
Nero also has an even worse reputation in the era of Gibbon that he had in the era of Suetonius because he was particularly associated with early persecution of Christians.
On the other hand, he did murder his own mother...
By all accounts she kinda deserved it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly, so few people read Nietzsche that the popular idea of 'nietzschean' might be totally off base.
All the examples of being best you give are rich people. I'm pretty sure Greek and Nietzsche's ideas on excellence also accepted greatness in other domains, at the very least power, valour, bravery etc..
Collapsing human value to purely money is a modern afflici..
More options
Context Copy link
Not the Caledonians, or the barbarians of the Teutoburg forest. It is unlikely that those guys were better drilled and more selfless than the Romans.
IIRC Teutoburg occurred as an ambush due to longterm plan and betrayal by Germans enmeshed in Roman army.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link