If we are to assume that a slave is to the herd as
an individual is to a master, then I take issue with a
statement presented by one of the day’s speakers who says “you can’t have an
individual before the herd.” I disagree. I think what Nietzsche means is that
for the vast majority of people, for those initially endowed with the herd morality,
this is the case. What about those who possess the master morality from the
outset? The conclusion made by the aforementioned speaker presupposes all of
humanity follows the same basic trajectory: Humans all start out as having the slave
morality and either transcend into a state of master morality, or remain static
within the herd. The problem I have with this stems from the nature versus
nurture debate insomuch that there exist inherent differences between
individuals that are not the product of environmental exposure. This is an
important point because it touches on the distinctions that are evident within
the master morality. While there certainly exists a hierarchy of sorts within
the herd—characterized by a continuum of progression representing the path
along which a slave may find himself in his journey toward becoming a master—this
differs greatly from the hierarchy witnessed among masters. Here we can see
that the “extent” of mastery is far more discrete. This results from the nature
of what it means to be an individual, a master. Whereas those subscribing to
the herd all lack the same quality, the will to power, individuals classified
as masters differ in their objectives, and thus in their extent of mastery.
This lends itself to some notable inconsistencies within the master morality,
making it much more subject to externalities (that may or may not influence the
trajectory of the individual).
Yours Tru.ly
No comments:
Post a Comment