MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3mo ago
Christianity praises (and frequently venerates as Saints) radical ascetics (even if they don't do anything, and just hold out their asceticism as an example to others, like the Stylites), passive victims of persecution (Crusaders who die in battle are not considered martyrs, randos picked up in Roman persecutions of Christians are), and people who make great sacrifices in order to support ineffective charity (like Mother Theresa). From a vitalist perspective, all of these groups are Losers.
Christianity doesn't condemn Will to Power per se, but it tends to reserve its strongest condemnation for the vices which are correlated with it like pride, avarice, and wrath.
I think the core Nietzschean claim that Christianity embodies slave morality is obviously correct. Given the problems with societies that tell every man (or even just every aristocrat) he ought to be a master, I don't see why this is a problem. Even if we take on master morality religion at its own game, the military conflict between Christian civilisation and Islamic "civilisation" had been back-and-forth with no sign of an ultimate winner for over 1000 years by the time we invented the machine gun and settled the issue.
If the only thesis here is that Christianity has different values than pagan warrior types, this is indeed obvious and not a penetrating insight. In that case I have no idea why any of this is worth discussing at all, and the language about "master morality" and "slave morality" is nothing more than vacuous rhetorical dressing invented out of sophistry and a dislike of the Christian values. Maybe that's what it is; I don't have a very high opinion of Nietzsche or his sycophants.
On the other hand, all the talk of "slave morality" being based on resentment and cutting down tall poppies and exalting incapacity to do things seems to suggest some additional substance to the characterization; the problem is that this additional substance does not describe Christianity at all! If you read what people actually said about ascetics, you will find that they are frequently described as disciplined athletes (this is literally what the word means), or as fighting battles against demons; they are lauded not for sitting around doing nothing, but for successfully pursuing explicit, positive values; the physical deprivations of the ascetic are not ends to themselves, nor suffered because they must be, but are deliberately and with great difficulty enacted in service of spiritual goals. And similarly the martyrs are held up as examples not for their bad luck in becoming victims, but for their willingness to endure torture or death rather than give up and renounce their faith. "From a Vitalist perspective, all of these groups are Losers" is just another way of saying that they have radically different values; it's not a point in favor of the Christian values being different in the way that is being claimed.
If the only thesis here is that Christianity has different values than pagan warrior types, this is indeed obvious and not a penetrating insight. In that case I have no idea why any of this is worth discussing at all, and the language about "master morality" and "slave morality" is nothing more than vacuous rhetorical dressing invented out of sophistry and a dislike of the Christian values. Maybe that's what it is; I don't have a very high opinion of Nietzsche or his sycophants.
FWIW, I agree with you on this point - Nietzsche (like a lot of right-wing edgelords) found civilisation enervating and was trying to make an emotional appeal for barbarism by using the loaded terms "master morality" and "slave morality". But I read your previous post as arguing that Nietzsche was wrong to tie Christianity to what he calls "slave morality" and I call "civilised behaviour". Whereas I think Nietzsche was right that Jesus killed Superman (or more strictly outcompeted him memetically rendering him irrelevant), but wrong about this being a bad thing.
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 -
Christianity praises (and frequently venerates as Saints) radical ascetics (even if they don't do anything, and just hold out their asceticism as an example to others, like the Stylites), passive victims of persecution (Crusaders who die in battle are not considered martyrs, randos picked up in Roman persecutions of Christians are), and people who make great sacrifices in order to support ineffective charity (like Mother Theresa). From a vitalist perspective, all of these groups are Losers.
Christianity doesn't condemn Will to Power per se, but it tends to reserve its strongest condemnation for the vices which are correlated with it like pride, avarice, and wrath.
I think the core Nietzschean claim that Christianity embodies slave morality is obviously correct. Given the problems with societies that tell every man (or even just every aristocrat) he ought to be a master, I don't see why this is a problem. Even if we take on master morality religion at its own game, the military conflict between Christian civilisation and Islamic "civilisation" had been back-and-forth with no sign of an ultimate winner for over 1000 years by the time we invented the machine gun and settled the issue.
If the only thesis here is that Christianity has different values than pagan warrior types, this is indeed obvious and not a penetrating insight. In that case I have no idea why any of this is worth discussing at all, and the language about "master morality" and "slave morality" is nothing more than vacuous rhetorical dressing invented out of sophistry and a dislike of the Christian values. Maybe that's what it is; I don't have a very high opinion of Nietzsche or his sycophants.
On the other hand, all the talk of "slave morality" being based on resentment and cutting down tall poppies and exalting incapacity to do things seems to suggest some additional substance to the characterization; the problem is that this additional substance does not describe Christianity at all! If you read what people actually said about ascetics, you will find that they are frequently described as disciplined athletes (this is literally what the word means), or as fighting battles against demons; they are lauded not for sitting around doing nothing, but for successfully pursuing explicit, positive values; the physical deprivations of the ascetic are not ends to themselves, nor suffered because they must be, but are deliberately and with great difficulty enacted in service of spiritual goals. And similarly the martyrs are held up as examples not for their bad luck in becoming victims, but for their willingness to endure torture or death rather than give up and renounce their faith. "From a Vitalist perspective, all of these groups are Losers" is just another way of saying that they have radically different values; it's not a point in favor of the Christian values being different in the way that is being claimed.
FWIW, I agree with you on this point - Nietzsche (like a lot of right-wing edgelords) found civilisation enervating and was trying to make an emotional appeal for barbarism by using the loaded terms "master morality" and "slave morality". But I read your previous post as arguing that Nietzsche was wrong to tie Christianity to what he calls "slave morality" and I call "civilised behaviour". Whereas I think Nietzsche was right that Jesus killed Superman (or more strictly outcompeted him memetically rendering him irrelevant), but wrong about this being a bad thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link