Customer Reviews

The Genealogy of Morals (Dover Thrift Editions)

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is the intelligent man or woman's bible. It shows just how morals came to be. How they have dictated our lives ever since they have been created. How they have changed our society, and especially how they have silenced the common man. Nietzsche is, for lack of a better word, brillant. His writing never ever loses its passion. He believes in what he writes and he supports it even more, with not just what Christians call "athiest dogma" but with theory and evne fact.

He outlines how "Good and Evil" really came to be. How what we define as good is only what the people in power (the rich and people of religion) tell us is good. They only share with us the good that keeps us in line, not what sets us free. This is what Nietzsche outlines so very well. This book is brillant, one of a kind, and possibly one of his most important novels.

No matter your race, religion, or creed, I hope you check this book out. It is worth your time, trust me. What he talks about affects us all and should be shared in the public. It really is a shame that even today, long after his death, his words still have not had the affect they should have had.

This particular piece of Nietzsche's writing is a marvelous work - it is interesting and lively, much as Nietzsche's own writing and tendency toward the dramatic was noted by his contemporaries.

Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran minister, but he died five years after Nietzsche's birth in 1844. Nietzsche was raised by his mother, grandmother and aunts; later in his life, his sister would become executor of his estate (after Nietzsche had become incapable of managing his own affairs) and reshape his philosophy and writings in her own idea - this becomes a running motif in later anthologies of Nietzsche; editors can quote and clip to fit their own agendas. In some ways, that is true of the text here, but in much less inappropriate ways than others, particularly Nietzsche's first editor, his sister.

Nietzsche was a star pupil from his earliest days at university in Bonn and Leipzig. His formal study was in classical philology, but his attentions turned in various directions quickly during his writing and professional life - he had an intense interest in drama and the arts, with Wagner's music and Greek drama in principal interest. His first book was devoted to these topics - 'The Birth of Tragedy'. It was not highly regarded at the time, but has since become much more appreciated as an anticipation of later developments in philosophy and aesthetics.

Nietzsche's life after this period was a very choppy one - he left the university, claiming illness, and while this developed later to be a true situation, at the time is was probably academic politics and difficulties fitting in with the establishment he was trying to break. He had a formal falling-out with Wagner, even writing later a piece entitled ' Nietzsche contra Wagner', finished just a few week prior to his going insane.

In another edition, Walter Kaufmann states that Nietzsche's real career took off after his active life was over; under his sister's direction, many of the writings Nietzsche had managed to do and not get published, or which were published but forgotten, really took off in major directions. While his major works of Zarathustra, Ecce Homo, Will to Power and Genealogy of Morals were in various editions of disrepair (indeed, the Will to Power was never more complete than a series of notes), Nietzsche had a knack for language that made him very quotable, and his influence continued to grow well into the first half of the twentieth century, influencing art, philosophy, history, and politics in dramatic ways, if not always the ways in which Nietzsche envisioned.

For example, Nietzsche was not particularly impressed with the 'typical' German anti-semitism, which later erupted into the Nazi movement. He considered it rather bourgeois, and while he undoubted had his own issues with Jews (Nietzsche had issues with almost everyone, particularly any group, Christians included, who had a religious connection), the Nazi use of Nietzsche's work owes more to Nietzsche's sister's influence than anyone else.

'The Genealogy of Morals' is perhaps the closest in form to English-speaking philosophical discourse. This is a discussion that involves philosophy, psychology and linguistic theory, looking at morality in three different essays. The first essay explores the idea of good and evil as good and bad; Nietzsche develops the idea of master and slave morality - the slave resists the ideas of the master, and thus values things that are less likely to gain power - Nietzsche sees Christianity as an example of slave morality.

The second essay looks at the issues of conscience and guilt, and how these spawned the invention of gods. The third essay concludes the work with a look at ascetic ideas, how these relate to aesthetic ideas, and where in Nietzsche's opinion the great philosophers of the past have gone wrong.

In his book Ecce Homo (first published posthumously), Nietzsche analyses his own work piece by piece, as well as gives an overall assessment of his life. Nietzsche's insights into his own writings in hindsight is fascinating to behold. His own idea of 'The Genealogy of Morals' can be found in this piece as follows:

'Regarding expression, intention, and the art of suprise, the three inquiries which constitute this Genealogy are perhaps uncannier than anything else written so far. Dionysus is, as is known, also the god of darkness.'

Nietzsce is not easy reading, and this work is not the best for casual reading or the first-time reader of Nietzsche. However, for those who have already made some headway into understanding him, this is a good volume.

I read On the Genealogy of Morals for a graduate seminar on ethics, and in particular his writings regarding the virtue of courage. I found Walter Kaufmann's translation the best of several I looked at. Often regarded in philosophical circles as the first "postmodern" philosopher, Nietzsche is very critical to all of modernity's philosophical attempts to create a scientific or rationally based approach to ethics. Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is in part a refutation of Kant's ethical theory, arguing that Kantian ethics as well as other modern ethical theories were more interested in defining ethical values and not concerned with questioning their usefulness or whether they were derived from what Nietzsche believed were irrational psychological forces feeding people's illusions. Another purpose of the Genealogy is to examine the history of how morals were created in Western culture. Nietzsche's extensive philological studies of ancient Greek literature led him to argue that there needed to be a historical and psychological approach to understanding how ethical values came into existence. Thus, one of Nietzsche's goals in his Genealogy is to provide a critique of ethical values, such as courage, and to examine, "...the conditions and circumstances in which they grew, under which they evolved and changed." (456, GM I, 6). Another important aspect of Nietzsche's Genealogy is found in Nietzsche's ethical notions finding common ground with Aristotelian virtue ethics. Only Aristotelian virtue ethics can fit well with Nietzsche's moral ethics. Thus, I find that an interesting outcome of Nietzsche's examination of Greek culture leads him down a path back to the first evolutionary stage of the virtue of courage in particular, and to the classical Greek inception of virtue ethics in general. Nietzsche enthusiastically followed this path and reintroduced the world to the critical need for the classical Greek interpretation of the virtue of courage to help shape the "postmodern" world.

Nietzsche recognized in ancient Greek poetry that heroes are not content with just living, but are compelled to perform courageous acts even at the peril of their own lives. In fact, for Greek heroes, gaining fame and glory at the expense of often suffering a courageous death seemed to be their raison d'ętre. Nietzsche recognizes this phenomenon in Greek poetry, which alerts him to the notion that the ancient and classical Greek citizens accepted the idea that part of the nature of life was that it could be tragic, dark, and foreboding; however, the Greeks who were noble of character did not despair. This notion was readily accepted by Aristotle but not by Plato, who thought that Greek tragedy taught the citizenry the wrong lessons about life. They knew that to be virtuous was to engage in a constant agon or [contest] to overcome the pitfalls of life. This literary fact causes Nietzsche to understand that like the ancient Greeks, the best of contemporary society, such as philosophers and artists whom he calls the "masters," have to rely on their virtues, such as courage, to constantly struggle to overcome life's limits. Nietzsche's observation of Greek culture leads him to define a theory of master and slave morality, which lays the foundation for his notion of returning to the classical Greek virtue of courage.

Nietzsche understands master morality as the ideals of virtuous characteristics epitomized by the best of Greek aristocracy. On the other hand, slave morality according to Nietzsche, grew out of the Judeo-Christian ethic supporting love and justice over power. Master morality acknowledges "good" and "bad" in the world; while slave morality acknowledges "good" and "evil." Nietzsche recognized the masters as "active" people, and whatever helps them achieve greatness is good. Thus, Nietzsche defines the good and bad characteristics in master morality in the following way. Character traits such as courage, conquest, aggression, and command that engender the feelings of power in people are deemed `good,' while traits of weaker people such as cowardice, passivity, humility, and dependence are deemed `bad.' Furthermore, Nietzsche argues that within the master and slave morality what is good can only be good for the master, because the slave morality is essentially based on a number of opposing ideals from the master morality. Therefore, an important argument for Nietzsche is, that according to slave morality, anything that opposes, destroys, or conquers is evil and should be eliminated from human relations. Nietzsche argues that slave morality espouses humility, selflessness, and kindness as ruling traits for all people as a condition of self-perseverance against master morality. These are all character traits central to Judeo-Christian morality, and are diametrically opposed to the aggressive character traits of the master morality, which were central to the power of the Roman Empire when Christianity was conceived. Against the backdrop of master and slave morality, Nietzsche examines the classical Greek cardinal virtues, and he specifically looks into the virtue of courage, which is so central to master morality.

When Nietzsche contemplates the future of virtues, he laments the lack of courage displayed by people in modern society. Nietzsche sounds a clarion call for artists to once again courageously take their place as masters of society. Nietzsche sees courage as something which is good for the people who have it, in that it enables them to win contests which they would lose without it. In addition, Nietzsche recognizes that in order for people to act courageously, they also need to overcome their emotions of fear. "But there is something in me that I call courage; that has so far slain my every discouragement." Once again, Nietzsche is using Aristotle's virtue ethic model of practical reasoning to show that a person with noble intentions, or in Nietzsche's parlance, a master can will themselves to overcome their fears. After examining Nietzsche's extensive writings on the history of ethics, I find that his description of courage fits well within the classical Greek model of the virtue of courage.

Nietzsche's philosophical project pertaining to the virtue of courage is centered on the idea that those who were the masters in Greek society actually desired to face and conquer dangerous situations. In essence, Nietzsche demilitarized the Greek emphasis on battlefield courage and applied it to the people he thought could be the masters of society of his time and into the future--artists and philosophers. The power Nietzsche yearns for is the power of creative activity. Creativity is the "will to power" that this much maligned philosopher was truly advocating.

I read On the Genealogy of Morals for a graduate seminar on ethics, and in particular his writings regarding the virtue of courage. I found Walter Kaufmann's translation the best of several I looked at. Often regarded in philosophical circles as the first "postmodern" philosopher, Nietzsche is very critical to all of modernity's philosophical attempts to create a scientific or rationally based approach to ethics. Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is in part a refutation of Kant's ethical theory, arguing that Kantian ethics as well as other modern ethical theories were more interested in defining ethical values and not concerned with questioning their usefulness or whether they were derived from what Nietzsche believed were irrational psychological forces feeding people's illusions. Another purpose of the Genealogy is to examine the history of how morals were created in Western culture. Nietzsche's extensive philological studies of ancient Greek literature led him to argue that there needed to be a historical and psychological approach to understanding how ethical values came into existence. Thus, one of Nietzsche's goals in his Genealogy is to provide a critique of ethical values, such as courage, and to examine, "...the conditions and circumstances in which they grew, under which they evolved and changed." (456, GM I, 6). Another important aspect of Nietzsche's Genealogy is found in Nietzsche's ethical notions finding common ground with Aristotelian virtue ethics. Only Aristotelian virtue ethics can fit well with Nietzsche's moral ethics. Thus, I find that an interesting outcome of Nietzsche's examination of Greek culture leads him down a path back to the first evolutionary stage of the virtue of courage in particular, and to the classical Greek inception of virtue ethics in general. Nietzsche enthusiastically followed this path and reintroduced the world to the critical need for the classical Greek interpretation of the virtue of courage to help shape the "postmodern" world.

Nietzsche recognized in ancient Greek poetry that heroes are not content with just living, but are compelled to perform courageous acts even at the peril of their own lives. In fact, for Greek heroes, gaining fame and glory at the expense of often suffering a courageous death seemed to be their raison d'ętre. Nietzsche recognizes this phenomenon in Greek poetry, which alerts him to the notion that the ancient and classical Greek citizens accepted the idea that part of the nature of life was that it could be tragic, dark, and foreboding; however, the Greeks who were noble of character did not despair. This notion was readily accepted by Aristotle but not by Plato, who thought that Greek tragedy taught the citizenry the wrong lessons about life. They knew that to be virtuous was to engage in a constant agon or [contest] to overcome the pitfalls of life. This literary fact causes Nietzsche to understand that like the ancient Greeks, the best of contemporary society, such as philosophers and artists whom he calls the "masters," have to rely on their virtues, such as courage, to constantly struggle to overcome life's limits. Nietzsche's observation of Greek culture leads him to define a theory of master and slave morality, which lays the foundation for his notion of returning to the classical Greek virtue of courage.

Nietzsche understands master morality as the ideals of virtuous characteristics epitomized by the best of Greek aristocracy. On the other hand, slave morality according to Nietzsche, grew out of the Judeo-Christian ethic supporting love and justice over power. Master morality acknowledges "good" and "bad" in the world; while slave morality acknowledges "good" and "evil." Nietzsche recognized the masters as "active" people, and whatever helps them achieve greatness is good. Thus, Nietzsche defines the good and bad characteristics in master morality in the following way. Character traits such as courage, conquest, aggression, and command that engender the feelings of power in people are deemed `good,' while traits of weaker people such as cowardice, passivity, humility, and dependence are deemed `bad.' Furthermore, Nietzsche argues that within the master and slave morality what is good can only be good for the master, because the slave morality is essentially based on a number of opposing ideals from the master morality. Therefore, an important argument for Nietzsche is, that according to slave morality, anything that opposes, destroys, or conquers is evil and should be eliminated from human relations. Nietzsche argues that slave morality espouses humility, selflessness, and kindness as ruling traits for all people as a condition of self-perseverance against master morality. These are all character traits central to Judeo-Christian morality, and are diametrically opposed to the aggressive character traits of the master morality, which were central to the power of the Roman Empire when Christianity was conceived. Against the backdrop of master and slave morality, Nietzsche examines the classical Greek cardinal virtues, and he specifically looks into the virtue of courage, which is so central to master morality.

When Nietzsche contemplates the future of virtues, he laments the lack of courage displayed by people in modern society. Nietzsche sounds a clarion call for artists to once again courageously take their place as masters of society. Nietzsche sees courage as something which is good for the people who have it, in that it enables them to win contests which they would lose without it. In addition, Nietzsche recognizes that in order for people to act courageously, they also need to overcome their emotions of fear. "But there is something in me that I call courage; that has so far slain my every discouragement." Once again, Nietzsche is using Aristotle's virtue ethic model of practical reasoning to show that a person with noble intentions, or in Nietzsche's parlance, a master can will themselves to overcome their fears. After examining Nietzsche's extensive writings on the history of ethics, I find that his description of courage fits well within the classical Greek model of the virtue of courage.

Nietzsche's philosophical project pertaining to the virtue of courage is centered on the idea that those who were the masters in Greek society actually desired to face and conquer dangerous situations. In essence, Nietzsche demilitarized the Greek emphasis on battlefield courage and applied it to the people he thought could be the masters of society of his time and into the future--artists and philosophers. The power Nietzsche yearns for is the power of creative activity. Creativity is the "will to power" that this much maligned philosopher was truly advocating.

I read On the Genealogy of Morals for a graduate seminar on ethics, and in particular his writings regarding the virtue of courage. I found Walter Kaufmann's translation the best of several I looked at. Often regarded in philosophical circles as the first "postmodern" philosopher, Nietzsche is very critical to all of modernity's philosophical attempts to create a scientific or rationally based approach to ethics. Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is in part a refutation of Kant's ethical theory, arguing that Kantian ethics as well as other modern ethical theories were more interested in defining ethical values and not concerned with questioning their usefulness or whether they were derived from what Nietzsche believed were irrational psychological forces feeding people's illusions. Another purpose of the Genealogy is to examine the history of how morals were created in Western culture. Nietzsche's extensive philological studies of ancient Greek literature led him to argue that there needed to be a historical and psychological approach to understanding how ethical values came into existence. Thus, one of Nietzsche's goals in his Genealogy is to provide a critique of ethical values, such as courage, and to examine, "...the conditions and circumstances in which they grew, under which they evolved and changed." (456, GM I, 6). Another important aspect of Nietzsche's Genealogy is found in Nietzsche's ethical notions finding common ground with Aristotelian virtue ethics. Only Aristotelian virtue ethics can fit well with Nietzsche's moral ethics. Thus, I find that an interesting outcome of Nietzsche's examination of Greek culture leads him down a path back to the first evolutionary stage of the virtue of courage in particular, and to the classical Greek inception of virtue ethics in general. Nietzsche enthusiastically followed this path and reintroduced the world to the critical need for the classical Greek interpretation of the virtue of courage to help shape the "postmodern" world.

Nietzsche recognized in ancient Greek poetry that heroes are not content with just living, but are compelled to perform courageous acts even at the peril of their own lives. In fact, for Greek heroes, gaining fame and glory at the expense of often suffering a courageous death seemed to be their raison d'ętre. Nietzsche recognizes this phenomenon in Greek poetry, which alerts him to the notion that the ancient and classical Greek citizens accepted the idea that part of the nature of life was that it could be tragic, dark, and foreboding; however, the Greeks who were noble of character did not despair. This notion was readily accepted by Aristotle but not by Plato, who thought that Greek tragedy taught the citizenry the wrong lessons about life. They knew that to be virtuous was to engage in a constant agon or [contest] to overcome the pitfalls of life. This literary fact causes Nietzsche to understand that like the ancient Greeks, the best of contemporary society, such as philosophers and artists whom he calls the "masters," have to rely on their virtues, such as courage, to constantly struggle to overcome life's limits. Nietzsche's observation of Greek culture leads him to define a theory of master and slave morality, which lays the foundation for his notion of returning to the classical Greek virtue of courage.

Nietzsche understands master morality as the ideals of virtuous characteristics epitomized by the best of Greek aristocracy. On the other hand, slave morality according to Nietzsche, grew out of the Judeo-Christian ethic supporting love and justice over power. Master morality acknowledges "good" and "bad" in the world; while slave morality acknowledges "good" and "evil." Nietzsche recognized the masters as "active" people, and whatever helps them achieve greatness is good. Thus, Nietzsche defines the good and bad characteristics in master morality in the following way. Character traits such as courage, conquest, aggression, and command that engender the feelings of power in people are deemed `good,' while traits of weaker people such as cowardice, passivity, humility, and dependence are deemed `bad.' Furthermore, Nietzsche argues that within the master and slave morality what is good can only be good for the master, because the slave morality is essentially based on a number of opposing ideals from the master morality. Therefore, an important argument for Nietzsche is, that according to slave morality, anything that opposes, destroys, or conquers is evil and should be eliminated from human relations. Nietzsche argues that slave morality espouses humility, selflessness, and kindness as ruling traits for all people as a condition of self-perseverance against master morality. These are all character traits central to Judeo-Christian morality, and are diametrically opposed to the aggressive character traits of the master morality, which were central to the power of the Roman Empire when Christianity was conceived. Against the backdrop of master and slave morality, Nietzsche examines the classical Greek cardinal virtues, and he specifically looks into the virtue of courage, which is so central to master morality.

When Nietzsche contemplates the future of virtues, he laments the lack of courage displayed by people in modern society. Nietzsche sounds a clarion call for artists to once again courageously take their place as masters of society. Nietzsche sees courage as something which is good for the people who have it, in that it enables them to win contests which they would lose without it. In addition, Nietzsche recognizes that in order for people to act courageously, they also need to overcome their emotions of fear. "But there is something in me that I call courage; that has so far slain my every discouragement." Once again, Nietzsche is using Aristotle's virtue ethic model of practical reasoning to show that a person with noble intentions, or in Nietzsche's parlance, a master can will themselves to overcome their fears. After examining Nietzsche's extensive writings on the history of ethics, I find that his description of courage fits well within the classical Greek model of the virtue of courage.

Nietzsche's philosophical project pertaining to the virtue of courage is centered on the idea that those who were the masters in Greek society actually desired to face and conquer dangerous situations. In essence, Nietzsche demilitarized the Greek emphasis on battlefield courage and applied it to the people he thought could be the masters of society of his time and into the future--artists and philosophers. The power Nietzsche yearns for is the power of creative activity. Creativity is the "will to power" that this much maligned philosopher was truly advocating.

I read On the Genealogy of Morals for a graduate seminar on ethics, and in particular his writings regarding the virtue of courage. I found Walter Kaufmann's translation the best of several I looked at. Often regarded in philosophical circles as the first "postmodern" philosopher, Nietzsche is very critical to all of modernity's philosophical attempts to create a scientific or rationally based approach to ethics. Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is in part a refutation of Kant's ethical theory, arguing that Kantian ethics as well as other modern ethical theories were more interested in defining ethical values and not concerned with questioning their usefulness or whether they were derived from what Nietzsche believed were irrational psychological forces feeding people's illusions. Another purpose of the Genealogy is to examine the history of how morals were created in Western culture. Nietzsche's extensive philological studies of ancient Greek literature led him to argue that there needed to be a historical and psychological approach to understanding how ethical values came into existence. Thus, one of Nietzsche's goals in his Genealogy is to provide a critique of ethical values, such as courage, and to examine, "...the conditions and circumstances in which they grew, under which they evolved and changed." (456, GM I, 6). Another important aspect of Nietzsche's Genealogy is found in Nietzsche's ethical notions finding common ground with Aristotelian virtue ethics. Only Aristotelian virtue ethics can fit well with Nietzsche's moral ethics. Thus, I find that an interesting outcome of Nietzsche's examination of Greek culture leads him down a path back to the first evolutionary stage of the virtue of courage in particular, and to the classical Greek inception of virtue ethics in general. Nietzsche enthusiastically followed this path and reintroduced the world to the critical need for the classical Greek interpretation of the virtue of courage to help shape the "postmodern" world.

Nietzsche recognized in ancient Greek poetry that heroes are not content with just living, but are compelled to perform courageous acts even at the peril of their own lives. In fact, for Greek heroes, gaining fame and glory at the expense of often suffering a courageous death seemed to be their raison d'ętre. Nietzsche recognizes this phenomenon in Greek poetry, which alerts him to the notion that the ancient and classical Greek citizens accepted the idea that part of the nature of life was that it could be tragic, dark, and foreboding; however, the Greeks who were noble of character did not despair. This notion was readily accepted by Aristotle but not by Plato, who thought that Greek tragedy taught the citizenry the wrong lessons about life. They knew that to be virtuous was to engage in a constant agon or [contest] to overcome the pitfalls of life. This literary fact causes Nietzsche to understand that like the ancient Greeks, the best of contemporary society, such as philosophers and artists whom he calls the "masters," have to rely on their virtues, such as courage, to constantly struggle to overcome life's limits. Nietzsche's observation of Greek culture leads him to define a theory of master and slave morality, which lays the foundation for his notion of returning to the classical Greek virtue of courage.

Nietzsche understands master morality as the ideals of virtuous characteristics epitomized by the best of Greek aristocracy. On the other hand, slave morality according to Nietzsche, grew out of the Judeo-Christian ethic supporting love and justice over power. Master morality acknowledges "good" and "bad" in the world; while slave morality acknowledges "good" and "evil." Nietzsche recognized the masters as "active" people, and whatever helps them achieve greatness is good. Thus, Nietzsche defines the good and bad characteristics in master morality in the following way. Character traits such as courage, conquest, aggression, and command that engender the feelings of power in people are deemed `good,' while traits of weaker people such as cowardice, passivity, humility, and dependence are deemed `bad.' Furthermore, Nietzsche argues that within the master and slave morality what is good can only be good for the master, because the slave morality is essentially based on a number of opposing ideals from the master morality. Therefore, an important argument for Nietzsche is, that according to slave morality, anything that opposes, destroys, or conquers is evil and should be eliminated from human relations. Nietzsche argues that slave morality espouses humility, selflessness, and kindness as ruling traits for all people as a condition of self-perseverance against master morality. These are all character traits central to Judeo-Christian morality, and are diametrically opposed to the aggressive character traits of the master morality, which were central to the power of the Roman Empire when Christianity was conceived. Against the backdrop of master and slave morality, Nietzsche examines the classical Greek cardinal virtues, and he specifically looks into the virtue of courage, which is so central to master morality.

When Nietzsche contemplates the future of virtues, he laments the lack of courage displayed by people in modern society. Nietzsche sounds a clarion call for artists to once again courageously take their place as masters of society. Nietzsche sees courage as something which is good for the people who have it, in that it enables them to win contests which they would lose without it. In addition, Nietzsche recognizes that in order for people to act courageously, they also need to overcome their emotions of fear. "But there is something in me that I call courage; that has so far slain my every discouragement." Once again, Nietzsche is using Aristotle's virtue ethic model of practical reasoning to show that a person with noble intentions, or in Nietzsche's parlance, a master can will themselves to overcome their fears. After examining Nietzsche's extensive writings on the history of ethics, I find that his description of courage fits well within the classical Greek model of the virtue of courage.

Nietzsche's philosophical project pertaining to the virtue of courage is centered on the idea that those who were the masters in Greek society actually desired to face and conquer dangerous situations. In essence, Nietzsche demilitarized the Greek emphasis on battlefield courage and applied it to the people he thought could be the masters of society of his time and into the future--artists and philosophers. The power Nietzsche yearns for is the power of creative activity. Creativity is the "will to power" that this much maligned philosopher was truly advocating.

I read On the Genealogy of Morals for a graduate seminar on ethics, and in particular his writings regarding the virtue of courage. I found Walter Kaufmann's translation the best of several I looked at. Often regarded in philosophical circles as the first "postmodern" philosopher, Nietzsche is very critical to all of modernity's philosophical attempts to create a scientific or rationally based approach to ethics. Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is in part a refutation of Kant's ethical theory, arguing that Kantian ethics as well as other modern ethical theories were more interested in defining ethical values and not concerned with questioning their usefulness or whether they were derived from what Nietzsche believed were irrational psychological forces feeding people's illusions. Another purpose of the Genealogy is to examine the history of how morals were created in Western culture. Nietzsche's extensive philological studies of ancient Greek literature led him to argue that there needed to be a historical and psychological approach to understanding how ethical values came into existence. Thus, one of Nietzsche's goals in his Genealogy is to provide a critique of ethical values, such as courage, and to examine, "...the conditions and circumstances in which they grew, under which they evolved and changed." (456, GM I, 6). Another important aspect of Nietzsche's Genealogy is found in Nietzsche's ethical notions finding common ground with Aristotelian virtue ethics. Only Aristotelian virtue ethics can fit well with Nietzsche's moral ethics. Thus, I find that an interesting outcome of Nietzsche's examination of Greek culture leads him down a path back to the first evolutionary stage of the virtue of courage in particular, and to the classical Greek inception of virtue ethics in general. Nietzsche enthusiastically followed this path and reintroduced the world to the critical need for the classical Greek interpretation of the virtue of courage to help shape the "postmodern" world.

Nietzsche recognized in ancient Greek poetry that heroes are not content with just living, but are compelled to perform courageous acts even at the peril of their own lives. In fact, for Greek heroes, gaining fame and glory at the expense of often suffering a courageous death seemed to be their raison d'ętre. Nietzsche recognizes this phenomenon in Greek poetry, which alerts him to the notion that the ancient and classical Greek citizens accepted the idea that part of the nature of life was that it could be tragic, dark, and foreboding; however, the Greeks who were noble of character did not despair. This notion was readily accepted by Aristotle but not by Plato, who thought that Greek tragedy taught the citizenry the wrong lessons about life. They knew that to be virtuous was to engage in a constant agon or [contest] to overcome the pitfalls of life. This literary fact causes Nietzsche to understand that like the ancient Greeks, the best of contemporary society, such as philosophers and artists whom he calls the "masters," have to rely on their virtues, such as courage, to constantly struggle to overcome life's limits. Nietzsche's observation of Greek culture leads him to define a theory of master and slave morality, which lays the foundation for his notion of returning to the classical Greek virtue of courage.

Nietzsche understands master morality as the ideals of virtuous characteristics epitomized by the best of Greek aristocracy. On the other hand, slave morality according to Nietzsche, grew out of the Judeo-Christian ethic supporting love and justice over power. Master morality acknowledges "good" and "bad" in the world; while slave morality acknowledges "good" and "evil." Nietzsche recognized the masters as "active" people, and whatever helps them achieve greatness is good. Thus, Nietzsche defines the good and bad characteristics in master morality in the following way. Character traits such as courage, conquest, aggression, and command that engender the feelings of power in people are deemed `good,' while traits of weaker people such as cowardice, passivity, humility, and dependence are deemed `bad.' Furthermore, Nietzsche argues that within the master and slave morality what is good can only be good for the master, because the slave morality is essentially based on a number of opposing ideals from the master morality. Therefore, an important argument for Nietzsche is, that according to slave morality, anything that opposes, destroys, or conquers is evil and should be eliminated from human relations. Nietzsche argues that slave morality espouses humility, selflessness, and kindness as ruling traits for all people as a condition of self-perseverance against master morality. These are all character traits central to Judeo-Christian morality, and are diametrically opposed to the aggressive character traits of the master morality, which were central to the power of the Roman Empire when Christianity was conceived. Against the backdrop of master and slave morality, Nietzsche examines the classical Greek cardinal virtues, and he specifically looks into the virtue of courage, which is so central to master morality.

When Nietzsche contemplates the future of virtues, he laments the lack of courage displayed by people in modern society. Nietzsche sounds a clarion call for artists to once again courageously take their place as masters of society. Nietzsche sees courage as something which is good for the people who have it, in that it enables them to win contests which they would lose without it. In addition, Nietzsche recognizes that in order for people to act courageously, they also need to overcome their emotions of fear. "But there is something in me that I call courage; that has so far slain my every discouragement." Once again, Nietzsche is using Aristotle's virtue ethic model of practical reasoning to show that a person with noble intentions, or in Nietzsche's parlance, a master can will themselves to overcome their fears. After examining Nietzsche's extensive writings on the history of ethics, I find that his description of courage fits well within the classical Greek model of the virtue of courage.

Nietzsche's philosophical project pertaining to the virtue of courage is centered on the idea that those who were the masters in Greek society actually desired to face and conquer dangerous situations. In essence, Nietzsche demilitarized the Greek emphasis on battlefield courage and applied it to the people he thought could be the masters of society of his time and into the future--artists and philosophers. The power Nietzsche yearns for is the power of creative activity. Creativity is the "will to power" that this much maligned philosopher was truly advocating.

This is an excellent philosophical and philological tract that explores several fundemental characteristics of society and morality. I recommend this to everyone.

What Socrates tried to build troughout his whole life, Nietzsche almost destroyed in couple of books. Said like this, it seems simplistic enough, but it is far from that. To understand Nietzsche, one has to reach much deeper than Nietzsche's words suggest. One has to know Schoppenhauer, has to now french philosophers, contractualist, and most of all one has to know greek philosophy. And greek culture. The place where it all began. At least for the westerners. Nietzsche was also great admirer and critic of Indian, Vedanta tradition, so to understand Nietzsche one will eventualy have to travel even to those horisons, which are in itself something completely different.

Why am I saying all of this?

Because it is often proven that it is too easy to misread Nietzsche, calling him an emerging point from which Nacism rose, and putting him, with Plato in a place where inventors of fascist state sleep their eternal sleep.

One has to be careful when reading Nietzsche. It is too easy to insert meaning which are not present in the text. And in that manner, it is easy to create philosophy totaly alien from its author.

If one wants to travel deep inside the Nietzsches core, one should start his journey with this book. It seems to be the most grateful for begginners. Not to mention that it is excellent for trying different approach to history of morals, approach that is in a way revolutionary if we were not customed to it nowadays. But in time of Nietzsches life, this sounded outrageous.

It may stand as constant reminder, if some of you forgot that, how radical criticism is not looked upon with kindness.

These are just few words which doesen't explain a thing in fact, but if you are at least interested in history (or geneaology) of morals, and conceptual problems which rise from it, you should definitely read this book.

Nietzsche, like no other philosopher that I have read, has changed the way that I see the world. This is a book to read if you want to learn something about yourself. Nietzsche may have gone insane and had delusions that he was God, but he revolutionised modern thought. There is a special place in hell for German philosophers, but it's a place that's worth visiting.