Why do fedora-tipping atheists an Nitzsche lovers scream about "slave morality" as if it is a bad thing?Everything described as slave morality is objectively good.Was Nitzsche just a pseudo-intellectual larper?
show flag shitskin
>>541267142no. bump
>>541266926>flag hider confused by the difference between slave morality and moralityOh no, it can't fathom the minutia. What will it do to figure it out?
>>541268042bump
>>541266926nietzsche would have a point if the masters were truly superior. observations of our reality show that they are physically weak, unintelligent, unable to govern, etc.
>>541269145bump
Morality is arbitrary.What you're saying is that Sklavenmoral is objectively good..... but there is no such thing as an objective morality. Nietzsche doesn't claim that Sklavenmoral is bad... he writes that it is the morality of the weak and that Herrenmoral is the morality of the strong, the one that affirms life. Like Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are good examples of societies based on Herrenmoral where the strong is the metic. Our time is a good example of Sklavenmoral, especially with Wokism and all the leftist bullshit where the weak becomes the metric. Nietzsche invite people to question morality and understand it's arbitrary and that they should build their own ladder of values.
Nietzscheans would have you believe they have escaped slave morality because they comment on X and YouTube but Charlemagne, Godfrey of Bouillon, El Cid, Roland, King Arthur, William Marshal, Alexander Nevsky, St. George, Richard the Lionheart, Oliver Cromwell, every soldier up to WW1 and others are all slaves with slave morality.
>>541269145Then it means that they aren't masters... Nietzsche hated the elites of his time because they weren't what an elite is supposed to be. He never wrote that social hierarchy should be preserved at all cost or that questioning the elites would be Sklavenmoral.
>>541266926 Big N knew he was going to have people badly interpreting his ideas from the get-go if he made such dramatic and poetic statements. He made them anyway in order to stimulate the conversation and troll people. Nietzsche didn't advocate hard master morality so much as point out that there was a sliding scale of morality between master and slave configurations of morality. Also slave morality is a bad thing, it's reacting to vice by rendering people domesticated cattle rather than seeking a golden mean between passivity and rapacity. Christian doctrine calls for slave morality but in practice Christians have ignored many(or sometimes nearly all) of it's clauses throughout history. Ironically the only time that they almost adhered to it was in the 19th century when Christianity became so visibly corrupted and it's institutions hollowed out that no one could ignore it.
>>541266926It's funny how all these atheist philosophers have these takes on morality when they can't even tell you what makes morality any more than just an arbitrary preference. Morality itself becomes a nonsensical term but they wield the idea with such conviction. I guess they just ignore Hume when he says you cannot get an ought from an is.
