On the Genealogy of Morals (Barnes & Noble Library of Essential Reading) Book

When I was an undergraduate, I tried some Nietzsche. I read BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, THE GAY SCIENCE and THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY. This was reading that I did on my own and not as part of a class. I don't remember how I chose those books, but I can report now with no embarassment that my reading was superficial and that I did not genuinely understand much, if any, of it. More surprisingly, I did not like Nietzsche. He is too much work. He uses words in idiosyncratic ways that are confusing and force multiple re-readings. He relies on clever aphorisms and allegories that seem calculated to appear profound, but always remain at least partly unexplained. He is not expositive. He rarely asserts a proposition and then defends it with evidence and reason in the conventional way. Instead, he asserts something and generally cannot be bothered to defend it. He would rather discuss the consequences of his assertions than examine their accuracy as the threshold question. This irritates me now, and I can remember being irritated by it all those decades ago too. I lost interest in Nietzsche.

Several years ago, I read Curtis Cates' biography of Nietzsche. Ugh. I do not remember why I picked that biography. I have a vague recollection of seeing it in the sale bin at a used book store. Whatever drove me to pick it up, it was not a good choice. Nietzsche's life was boring and Cates' intellectual history was not insightful. I lost interest in Nietzsche again.

Then, in a random conversation with a friend whose opinion I value, he mentioned that he had given a talk on ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS at a local college and thought it was worthwhile. I did not run out and buy a copy, but I also did not forget his comment. I made a mental note to read it when I had time. Some years passed . . .

This past spring, I had the time and inclination to finally read THE GENEALOGY. Before I began, I was encouraged to learn that many regard THE GENEALOGY to be Nietzsche's most conventional book, and quite a few consider it his best book. That seemed promising. I thought that a conventional presentation of his ideas might make him understandable to someone like me. I began to look forward to digging in and gaining enlightenment. I had to admit that I would love to understand why Professor Nietzsche is held in such high regard.

THE GENEALOGY is written as three distinct essays and I will discuss them as such, though I am going to touch on highlights only. If you want the full down and dirty, you will have to read THE GENEALOGY yourself. It's short and, at times, insightful and fun. At others, it is very frustrating.

In a brief introduction, Nietzsche explains that he intends to investigate the origin and value of morality. He seems to want to understand the degree to which compassion, self-denial and self-sacrifice promote and benefit humankind.

The first essay is Nietzsche's explanation of the difference between the "good vs. bad" dichotomy in comparison to the "good vs. evil" dichotomy. He seems to see these distinctions as a refutation of 'utilitarianism' which he disdains. (At this point, I was already confused. In the introduction, Nietzsche talks of the value of morality in terms of its benefits to humanity. This is utilitarianism talk. Yet, he starts out almost immediately by disparaging utilitarianism. This annoyed me and seemed a sort of classic Nietzschean maneuver.)

In the case of good and bad, Nietzsche asserts that 'good' is associated with the aristocracy and 'bad' is associated with the peasantry. He offers as proof for this the fact that the German word for bad, 'schlecht', has a common root with the German word for peasant-like, 'schlicht'. He notes that Greeks referred to nobles applying the Greek word for 'true'. And the Romans used a word that also meant 'warrior' to refer to the noble class. There. Now are you convinced? Per Nietzsche, the words 'good' and 'bad', in some languages, at a distant time in the hoary past, were terms for different social classes and some of that meaning lingers . . .

Next, Nietzsche considers what happens when the ruling class is made up of priests instead of warriors. Priests value purity whereas warrior aristocrats value health, strength, beauty and power. These are the things that are 'good'. Priests stand the warrior values on their head. To priests, the weak, poor, suffering and ugly are the truly 'good' people. Nietzsche calls this morality "slave morality" and in a passage that does nothing to endear Nietzsche to me, he attributes slave morality to Jews. Though it was the martyrdom of Christ that "baited" the world into accepting slave morality, assuring the dominance of a priestly value system.

In the priestly value system, God is defined as good and the opposite of evil. Evil is identified with the strong, the noble and the beautiful. Therefore, in slave morality the world becomes ugly and banal because the beautiful is evil. Nietzsche does not oppose kindness, humility and forgiveness per se. He does want us to understand that they are transformations of the impotence, submission and cowardice of the slave class.

Nietzsche believes that the conflict between "good and bad" vs "good and evil" reflects two value systems. The latter has been predominant in recent times.

The second essay is mostly a discussion of conscience, justice and punishment.

According to Nietzsche, humans are unique in that they can make promises. This presupposes a continuity of purpose that animals lack. In humans, that purpose is opposed by a tendency to forget. This is healthy. Memory loss prevents a lingering sense of failure and disappointment in humans. It makes it possible to be hopeful about the future.

Conscience is an instinct to carry out responsibilities. Societies have invented means to instill the habit of keeping promises. But Nietzsche insists that a bad conscience is not a fear of punishment. In fact, originally punishment had no connection with what we now call conscience. Rather, punishment originated as a form of repaying a debt. The debtor would repay his creditor by suffering. The creditor was repaid in the form of the pleasure that comes from enjoying the suffering of another. This pleasure is connected to the human experience of power. (Are you rolling your eyes at this? At least a little?)

Nietzsche goes on at length about punishment and suffering. Among other conclusions he draws, he offers the theory that God was invented to make human suffering meaningful. Relatedly, he wonders if free will was invented to make the world more interesting to God.

Nietzsche then returns to the subject of justice and offers a definition that justice is payment by a transgressor of what he owes to the community. Nietzsche thinks that societies move through stages of justice, including a stage where a legal system will be devised to impose justice. Such a system will include elements of mercy, a luxury of the strong.

Nietzsche concludes the second essay by acknowledging that he has been harsh in his criticisms of Christianity. But he feels that the "disease" of "bad conscience" warrants a harsh response. Christianity has associated guilt with feelings that are fundamental and unavoidable as a part of our nature. This creates a desire for other worldliness or purity that Nietzsche considers nihilistic. He argues that humanity requires an upheaval of values so that moral condemnation no longer attaches to things that are a natural part of earthly human life. He sees Zarathustra, of his earlier writings, as the embodiment of the upheaval that humanity needs.

The third essay addresses asceticism. Nietzsche discusses the attraction asceticism holds for women, the psychologically ill and priests, among others. Women find it enhances their charms, says Nietzsche. (He must have been a fun date.) Psychotic people find asceticism attractive because they wish to withdraw from the world. Priest are drawn to it because it gives them power. These differences suggest a shared fear of nothingness and a corresponding urge to find meaning, Nietzsche believes. (And folks, isn't that a weird inference to draw? Or is it just me?)

Nietzsche then considers the case of Richard Wagner and his opera Parsifal, which praises chastity. Why would Wagner, a master of sensuality, praise asceticism? He may have felt a need to embrace and associate with respectability. To this end, Wagner accepted Schopenhauer and his special metaphysical category of music'as an expression of the basic nature of the universe.

Nietzsche then offers a discussion of Schopenhauer's personal psychology and his need for enemies. (Sort of like a guy elaborating on an old girlfriend, "she could never get along . . . ")

Nietzsche thinks that philosophers generally like asceticism for the independence it brings. Poverty, humility and chastity free one from desire. At one time, irrationality, cruelty and violent emotions were considered virtues. But now the opposite is true, resulting in the ascetic ideal becoming associated with priests, something Nietzsche seems mildly unhappy about. The essay then discusses how asceticism is both a symptom and a cure of poor psychological health. Little of this discussion seems plausible.

Finally, Nietzsche concludes the third essay with the observation that asceticism is a "will to nothingness" and 'nothingness' is a purpose for humans to cling to. The alternative is to live with no purpose at all and that provides no meaning to one's will. Humans would rather have nothingness for a purpose than have no purpose at all.

So, wow. That's a lot of stuff to wrap your head around. But for me, it was filled with unsubstantiated and unlikely speculation. Much of his speculation could have been checked via old-fashioned scholarship, but Nietzsche makes no effort to do that. For example, Nietzsche claims punishment started as way of repaying debts? Really? Or women gravitate to asceticism because it makes them seem more attractive? Where is the support for this? And so forth. I just don't get it. For me, he lacks credibility. Often, his argument amounts to nothing more than "because I say so". Plus, he is stubbornly cryptic for my tastes. Are these points of his meant to be accurate descriptions of reality? Or are they thought experiments meant to challenge us without necessarily resembling the real world?

Unraveling Nietzsche is exhausting.

It is possible, of course, that I am not reading Nietzsche in the right way. It might be that I am holding him to a standard that should not be applied to him. For example, when Plato or Aristotle or Augustine offer strange theories or recite tall tales, I ignore it and look for the larger meaning. Perhaps, that is how to read Nietzsche too. His prose displays no sense of accountability for the accuracy of details - historical or otherwise. So maybe I should not expect accuracy in the details with Nietzsche. Perhaps, I should focus on the big picture.

If I were to do that, I might conclude that Nietzsche does not like the bourgeois spirit of Europe in the latter half of the 19th Century. He does not like the mediocrity and egalitarianism of the rising middle class. He does not like the comfortable and smug thing that Christianity had become. He longs for greater creativity, beauty and freedom. He thinks that the creators of beauty should be treated as special and that they should be encouraged to think courageously, to act vigorously and to take risks. The creators of beauty should be free to pursue their vision and not be held back by the passive, careful and mundane attitudes that are the hallmark of the middle class. Nietzsche may be saying that provocative projects in art, literature and even morality should be valued by the rest of us, even when they challenge or frighten us.

A friend reminded me the other day of a handy formulation to remind us of where Nietzche fits in to the history of western philosophy: Socrates wanted to know nature, Descartes wanted to control nature, Nietzsche wanted to liberate nature and the post-moderns want to cancel nature. In the GENEALOGY, Nietzsche argues for restoring to ethics a natural order that has been lost. He wants to return to an ethic that encourages and rewards human characteristics that he regards as more natural than the priestly values. These include strength, vigor, power and the like. This is at the heart of his rejection of slave morality.

Most of us can accept Nietzche's thesis that ethics should conform to nature. But the abiding question after reading his GENEALOGY is whether Nietzche has accurately characterized human nature. At best, his characterization seems incomplete.

Be that as it may, it is Nietzche's desire to craft an ethics that frees human nature that distinguishes him from the moderns, who want ethics to control nature. And that is Nietzche's greatest contribution to western thought. Even if we are not persuaded by Nietzche, we cannot deny that he changed the conversation and is rightly regarded as the end of the modern and/or the beginning of the post-modern period.