In another thread a member named nickyludd has some ideas regarding Nietzsche and his support of slavery. We see this briefly mentioned above. I felt that I would respond here, in the already existing thread on N, so I hope that’s “all good.” 
So nickyludd quotes Nietzsche from Beyond Good & Evil:
'Every elevation of the type "man" has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society - and so it will always be: a society which believes in a long scale of orders of rank and differences of worth between man and man and needs slavery in some sense or other' (sect 257) …
'The essential thing in a good and healthy aristocracy is, however that is does not feel itself to be a function (of the monarchy or of the commonwealth) but as their meaning and supreme justification - that it therefore accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of innumerable men who for its sake have to be suppressed and reduced to imperfect men, to slaves and instruments. Its fundamental faith must be that society should not exist for the sake of society but only as a foundation and scaffolding upon which a select species of being is able to raise itself to its higher task and in general to a higher existence ' (sect 258)
and feels that this shows that in this instance we see how N is clearly supporting “…a caste society,…slavery,…a social order based on rule by a ruthless aristocracy.” I do not think that this is at all clear, at least with respect to the passages that have been quoted. It seems to me that in the chapter “What is Noble” (where the above two quotes occur) N is offering more of a description and much less of a prescription. This is to say that to this reader it is ambiguous at best as to whether or not the context of the quoted material indicates that these are taken to represent how N thought a society should be—it seems much more that he is quite insistent on getting the reader to realize the truth that this is how society thus far has been constructed. This leads into two aspects of N’s thought which, I would agree, seem to be more represented as a shadow in the academy, but again, do we ourselves have these ideas straight?
The two things I am talking about are 1) the slave and master morality dichotomy, and 2) the Will to Power. Now both of these seem, again to this reader, as descriptive philosophical elements and not necessarily prescriptive. N seems to find that 1 is a necessary product of an aristocracy and that 2 is what drives all life (260 and 259, respectively). Thus, I don’t think that these passages illustrate that N supported these things—more that this is what he saw as driving the cultures that he was considering.
Now, he does appear to show a distaste for the slave morality of mediocre men, and yes, he does seem to think that the qualities of nobility are higher or better than the qualities of other classes. However, this still does not seem to support nickyludd’s thesis. It seems to me that N’s discussion-description draws out what it is that is better about noble qualities in an individual, but I don’t know if he is saying that these qualities must continue to be bred only in the elite. Again, I don’t think he is being prescriptive here.
However, in 272 N offers us “Signs of nobility: never thinking of degrading our duties into duties for everybody; not wanting to delegate, to share, one’s own responsibility; counting one’s privileges and their exercise among one’s duties.” It seems to me that this can be applied to any person in any position; that is, “nobility” seems here more a product of our attitude towards our self and our duties. Put differently, N’s “signs of nobility” seem here a prescription that any person could take towards his or her life regardless of position in society. Also, in 260 he says, “The noble human being honors himself as one who is powerful, also as one who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and be silent, who delights in being severe and hard with himself and respects all severity and hardness.” Again, the nobility that N appears to exalt extends beyond any boundary of class and engages the individual directly.
We can also look to the fact that in 259 N talks about how the elite group must treat each other as equals, but this is exactly what is so loathsome about the slave morality and its associated desire for humanitarian ideals. In other words, N seems to show more that there is a necessary inter-dependence and indeed a blurring of what first appears as a sharp divide.
So it seems to me that nickyludd’s quoted material doesn’t work to show what s/he would like it to show. In fact, it is the later parts of the chapter which are most interesting in regards to how nickyludd is interpreting this portion of N’s work. At 275 N says, “Anyone who does not want to see what is lofty in a man looks that much more keenly for what is low in him and mere foreground—and thus betrays himself.” And this sortta’ seems to me what nickyludd might be doing with respect to this particular part of N’s work: there seems to be the attempt to bring out what is low in Nietzsche and entirely ignore what is lofty. What is better, I feel, in showing that nickyludd’s interpretation misses the mark wrt these passages is where N says:
“The hermit does not believe that any philosopher—assuming that every philosopher was first of all a hermit—ever expressed his real and ultimate opinions in books: does one not write books precisely to conceal what one harbors? Indeed, he will doubt whether a philosopher could possibly have ‘ultimate and real’ opinions, whether behind every one of his caves there is not, must not be, another deeper cave—a more comprehensive stranger, richer world beyond the surface, an abysmally deep ground behind every ground, under every attempt to furnish ‘grounds.’ Every philosophy is a foreground philosophy…Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy…”(Section 289).
It seems to me that Nietzsche consider himself a hermit and that the image of the hermit plays an important role in his work. Now it also seems to me that the hermit (ideally) is a figure that employs the Will to Power with wisdom and discretion, that is beyond the “old morality” that exists in the slave-master dichotomy, and exists in that divine state that N casts as “nobility.” Again, this seems to run entirely contrary to the thesis that Nietzsche supported a caste or class structured society founded on slavery. I think that N was much more content to be the hermit that was removed from such a life of drivel and trivialities. To me, N seems to make the hermit the highest “rank” of individual. So I think it is important to look behind the shallow caves on the surface of Nietzsche’s work—he tells the reader to do as much! This seems to me to again work towards discrediting the ideas that nickyludd has about Nietzsche.
Now, as to whether or not “the real Nietzsche” is to be considered as a “cozy libertarian of the speaker's claim that 'Nietzsche says to have nothing above you',” that is another mater. I would tend to agree that it’s not so cut and dried, but I don’t think that these two interpretations (yours and the speakers) are the only available ones. |
