Ressentiment

[Anonymous No.19183628]

What value is there, according to Nietzsche, in not being resentful towards the strong(er) when the resentful can easily turn the tables by the promulgation of slave-morality?

[Anonymous No.19183635]

Nietzsche is self-refuting, who cares. “There’s no facts, only interpretations”. So Nietzsche’s own philosophy is an interpretation of his own. Something relative, baseless. There’s no value in not being resentful beyond some subjective preference of Nietzsche. Nietzsche is not a philosopher, he is a rhetorician (and not a bad one). He’s not to be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.19183734]

a noble race has a longer fuse and will revolt in a short outburst, which clears the air. slave-morality is a product of long inner fermentation within slave race.

GoM:
>The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.

>Ressentiment itself, if it should appear in the noble man, consummates and exhausts itself in an immediate reaction, and therefore does not poison: on the other hand, it fails to appear at all on countless occasions on which it inevitably appears in the weak and impotent.

>This instinct for freedom forcibly made latent—we have seen it already—this instinct
for freedom pushed back and repressed, incarcerated within and finally able to discharge and
vent itself only on itself: that, and that alone, is what the bad conscience is in its beginnings.

[Anonymous No.19183769]

>>19183734
>Ressentiment itself, if it should appear in the noble man, consummates and exhausts itself in an immediate reaction
Does he mean immediate ACTION towards ones own self betterment? So resentment, which only lasts for a second in the noble man, acts as the inspiration for self-overcoming. Whereas resentment of the slave race ferments for decades or even centuries into something like Christianity and Marxism?

[Anonymous No.19184121]

>>19183628
hes against having ressentiment because it would leave us denying life. ressentiment exists as a negation to naturally occuring drives, such as the will to power. if we base our morality on ressentiment then we will be living within a paradigm built to deny our own natural drives.

[Anonymous No.19184145]

>>19183635
Consider actually reading him before shitposting, please.

[Anonymous No.19184151]

>>19183628
Ressentiment is a completely rational will to power unfortunately it creates conditions for life-hatred and self-punishment.

[Anonymous No.19184152]

>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.19184182]

>>19183628
This faggot himself was a resentful goblin yet he had the audacity to throw shit at noble philosophers and who lived and died by their philosophies. And after that he stole their ideas.

>Nietzsche immediately read Die Philosophie der Erlösung in the year it was published, before any review had appeared. The work contributed to his final separation from Schopenhauer's philosophy.[22] In his own works, Nietzsche gave no attention to Mainländer until a decade later, that is, in the second, expanded edition of The Gay Science, the same book in which he had introduced the phrase "God is dead" in the first edition five years prior: "Could one count such dilettantes and old maids as the sickeningly sentimental apostle of virginity, Mainländer, as a genuine German? After all he was probably a Jew – (all Jews become sentimental when they moralize)."[23] It has been suggested that Mainländer was more than a mere influence, and was instead plagiarized.[24][25]

>Nietzsche also mentions in one of his letters that he met an adherent of Mainländer's philosophy, "a quiet and modest man, a Buddhist […], passionate vegetarian."[Note 9] The "modest man" told Nietzsche that Mainländer was, in fact, not a Jew.[27]

[Anonymous No.19184237]

>>19184182
>Later on, towards the middle of my life, I grew more and more opposed to alcoholic drinks: I, an opponent of vegetarianism, who have experienced what vegetarianism is, — just as Wagner, who converted me back to meat, experienced it, — cannot with sufficient earnestness advise all more spiritual natures to abstain absolutely from alcohol. Water answers the purpose. . . . I have a predilection in favour of those places where in all directions one has opportunities of drinking from running brooks. In vino Veritas: it seems that here once more I am at variance with the rest of the world about the concept 'Truth' — with me spirit moves on the face of the waters. . . . Here are a few more indications as to my morality. A heavy meal is digested more easily than an inadequate one. The first principle of a good digestion is that the stomach should become active as a whole. A man ought, therefore, to know the size of his stomach. For the same reasons all those interminable meals, which I call interrupted sacrificial feasts, and which are to be had at any table d'hôte, are strongly to be deprecated. Nothing should be eaten between meals, coffee should be given up — coffee makes one gloomy. Tea is beneficial only in the morning. It should be taken in small quantities, but very strong. It may be very harmful, and indispose you for the whole day, if it be taken the least bit too weak. Everybody has his own standard in this matter, often between the narrowest and most delicate limits. In an enervating climate tea is not a good beverage with which to start the day: an hour before taking it an excellent thing is to drink a cup of thick cocoa, feed from oil. Remain seated as little as possible, put no trust in any thought that is not born in the open, to the accompaniment of free bodily motion — nor in one in which even the muscles do not celebrate a feast. All prejudices take their origin in the intestines. A sedentary life, as I have already said elsewhere, is the real sin against the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.19184249]

>>19184237

[Anonymous No.19184302]

>>19183635
you didnt even bother answering the question, you just compulsively decided to give your irrelevant take.

[Anonymous No.19184383]

>>19183628
If someone burns down my house, it's natural I feel resentful. I don't give a damn if Nietzsche makes value judgements on being resentful. One the one hand, being resentful is bad, since I've had experience with it. My resentment made me strive towards my goals but at the same time miserable. Secondly, if enough people were mad that their house was burned by someone else too, we could take initiative and hunt the arson.

For me, it's by using logic and reason, do I decide whether I should band with the resentful people or don't. I choose what path serves my goals better.

[Anonymous No.19184675]

Daily reminder that only walter kaufmann a kike translates Resentment as ressentiment, because Kaufman is RESENTFUL of the nazi appropiation and legacy of nietzsche, and because the nazis are stronger than him

[Anonymous No.19186285]

>>19184675
>the nazis are stronger than him
but the jews won