Slave morality?

[Husseinisdoingfine]

How valid is this concept? Is it true that for a lot of people, being spiritual and “Christ-like” only comes after not being able to attain what one wants? 
 

Is spirituality in large part a cope for weakness? For example, someone is unsuccessful with women and money, so they being to devalue the two by claiming sexuality is impure and money is greed.

On the other hand…

Paramahansa Yogananda had assured his followers that they can remain lustful towards women and still continue to obtain money after they were done practicing the spiritual techniques,

but…

If those earthly desires still remained after days of spiritual retreats, this could not be assured. 
 

Personally for me, I am infinitely more happy doing spiritual exercises then I am at social-partying events.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Husseinisdoingfine

[Osaid]

22 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

For example, someone is unsuccessful with women and money, so they being to devalue the two by claiming sexuality is impure and money is greed.

Yeah, this happens all the time, but it doesn't really have much to do with being spiritual or moral, it's actually just jealousy. Morality and spirituality is just a disguise the jealousy takes on. It's a coping mechanism. Being spiritual is way cooler than being jealous, right? Calling it "moral" and "spiritual" is just a way to hide the jealousy, and the ego doesn't like feeling jealous, it would rather feel saintly, so it will use those concepts to its advantage. 

This reminds me of the fable with the fox and the grapes, after the fox is unable to attain the grapes, it just says "they were probably sour anyways" and leaves it at that to make itself feel better about the fact that the grapes can't be obtained.

[AtheisticNonduality]

Brahman is the Truth. This is what those spiritual journeyers, monks, and ascetics say when they leave this world and go to some other-world. Nietzsche would call these ones the Afterworldsmen or the Preachers of Death or the weak fettered victims of slave morality, patheticness, and illness of their fragile bodies and minds of this world so that they must flee on to another. Brahman is One. This is what the enlightened say when they achieve understanding of the Truth that they sought and stumbled upon. Brahman is the world. This is what they see and say when they realize that, due to Brahman's nonduality, Brahman and the physical world are indistinguishable, forming a bridge between life and what is beyond even life and at the same time refuting Nietzsche's attack on journeys into higher Spirit beyond this world (because beyond this world is not necessarily a dissociation from this world).

Edited May 26, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

How valid is this concept? Is it true that for a lot of people, being spiritual and “Christ-like” only comes after not being able to attain what one wants?

Nietzsche did not understand spirituality or Christianity.

Skip all the bullshit and go straight for awakening. You don't need to be combing through Nietzsche. It's a distraction from the real work. Get to the real work!

[JosephKnecht]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Nietzsche did not understand spirituality or Christianity.

You need to read Thus Spoke Zaratustra. 

[AtheisticNonduality]

2 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

You need to read Thus Spoke Zaratustra. 

That book is about the evolution of humankind, yes. But the Spirit mentioned in that book is not the same thing as Spirit in the sense it would be used here.

[Oeaohoo]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Nietzsche did not understand spirituality or Christianity.

Skip all the bullshit and go straight for awakening. You don't need to be combing through Nietzsche. It's a distraction from the real work. Get to the real work!

People are on here talking about picking up girls at clubs and absolutely petty political bickering, studying philosophy is surely less of a “trap” and a “waste of time” than this (in most cases). Obviously dwelling on anything is a trap, but in most cases the ego has to be gradually unfolded and studying ideas can be helpful for this.

In any case, there is an obvious way in which Nietzsche is at least imprecise here: in master morality, the Good comes first, and to be bad is to fall short of that goodness; whereas in slave morality, evil comes first, and to be good is to not be evil like those nasty masters. But by this definition, Christian morality is generally somewhere in between master and slave morality: according to the Augustinian doctrine in which God is good and God is all, all “evil” can only be a privatio boni (a privation of good), as in a master morality; but we are talking about “evil” here, and not simply about badness, which implies a slave morality.

Nietzsche’s analysis is particularly aimed at Protestantism (this was particularly popular in Germany since Luther and the Reformation, but America too is very Protestant) and it is also to a certain degree a projection of a more modern phenomenon onto the past. One sees slave morality operating everywhere today, but that doesn’t mean that all of Christianity can be reduced to it (although Christianity might have helped pave the way to it in some respects). 

Here are some examples of some typical modern confessions of a slave morality: I’m good because I don’t keep guns like those nasty republicans, I’m good because I don’t have gay sex, I’m good because I’m not a fascist, I’m good because I didn’t get a vaccine, I’m good because I’m not like the insane anti-vaxxers, I’m good because I’m not fat and lazy, I’m good because I don’t judge people for being fat and lazy - and finally, I’m good because I don’t judge people for judging people for being fat and lazy! In fact, the whole “democratic” apparatus today has devolved into one huge slave morality, in the sense that both sides define themselves simply in terms of not being like the other. Generally speaking, neither the “left” nor the “right” have any real positive vision for our countries, they just try to show that they’re less “evil” than the other, and this is exactly what Nietzsche means by slave morality.

All of the judgements above are those of slave morality because they are essentially passive (interestingly, the word passive comes from the root pati which means “to suffer”! Remember the “Passion” of Christ..?) and hence do not spring from one’s own being. In a certain way, Nietzsche is actually saying what Leo said above: all external identities are a trap to distract you from your Self. The Self is obviously a master - not in the sense of being a Machiavellian despot and tyrannising over weaklings, which is not really Nietzsche’s point anyway - but in the sense of being rooted in itself and not needing anything exterior to define itself.

Obviously, Christ was showing one way to attaining this absolute mastery over all forms of passivity to oneself; this is precisely what it means to be able to “walk on the waters”, water being the traditional symbol of all that is yin, feminine and passive (for more on this, see the the excellent work of René Guénon, Symbols of Sacred Science). For what it is worth, it is clear from his writings that Nietzsche did understand Christ quite well, along with the value of traditional forms of asceticism (whether of a contemplative or action-oriented form). As a modern “philosopher”, his writings are of course full of digressions and confusions, and you would probably do better to study traditional wisdom, but - given that we have all been affected to one extent or another by the modern world - he can be useful in deconstructing your inherited moral prejudices.

Hope this answers your question!

[Husseinisdoingfine]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Nietzsche did not understand spirituality or Christianity.

Or Christianity you say…?

Do you understand Christianity? What is it really about?

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, modmyth said:

Has anyone else looked at the way other people have interpreted Nietzsche (like when it comes to close reading and interpreting specific extended passages, for instance, not just going with how it's trope-ishly interpreted...) and thought that this guy is kind of like the I-Ching of Western philosophers? Or like a Rorschach test.

He has a very vibrant and scattered writing style that creates massive amounts of connections in every sentence he says that depend on the viewer, but some interpretations are superior to others. For example, the Nazi version of the Übermensch based around nationalism was just objectively not something Nietzsche would have supported. But that's too trope-ish.

When it comes to readers of it, I've noticed some people focus a lot on the power aspect, as in the agency of an individual. And then I know of somebody who would go and watch the sunrise every morning and recite Zarathustra's address to the sun Thou Great Star, what would be thy happiness if it were not for those for whom thou shinest! while magickally visualizing a flaming arrow piercing and softening their hardened heart. So idiosyncratic interpretations can be found all over the place, I would presume.

[thisintegrated]

23 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Is it true that for a lot of people, being spiritual and “Christ-like” only comes after not being able to attain what one wants? 

You will never attain what you want.  Once you realize this, you become ""spiritual"".

Even billionaires will never attain what they want.  It's not a matter of what you're capable of, but of your mindset.

Edited May 27, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Nilsi]

What Nietzsche calls "will to power" or "master-morality" is basically just you becoming more and more transcendent and thus standing on top of more and more parts of reality. I'm pretty sure he kind of understood what would be the logical consequence of this, which is really not different from the work of actualized.org. What do you think the "Übermensch" is? Is it not exactly what we're pursuing here? 

Also don't fucking watch a video about Nietzsche, go get one of his books, read it and see if it resonates - getting your philosophy from some random YouTube armchair philosopher is not going to cut it - that's true slave morality right there.

The trap with philosophy is getting hung up on words and concepts and not really understanding what they are pointing to (or what you imagine they point to lol).

The more pragmatic approach would be to study developmental psychology or evolutionary biology - though you would need a really deep understanding of these fields to start applying them to spiritual work (and of course access these states that are being talked about).

Edited May 27, 2022 by Nilsi

[Chew211]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

What Nietzsche calls "will to power" or "master-morality" is basically just you becoming more and more transcendent and thus standing on top of more and more parts of reality. I'm pretty sure he kind of understood what would be the logical consequence of this, which is really not different from the work of actualized.org. What do you think the "Übermensch" is? Is it not exactly what we're pursuing here? 

Also don't fucking watch a video about Nietzsche, go get one of his books, read it and see if it resonates - getting your philosophy from some random YouTube armchair philosopher is not going to cut it 

I second this. 

My world view is close to Brahmanism, but Nietzsche is important in order to root out any slave morality that will be contaminating your spiritual work. 

A lot of people are driven to spiritual as a means of cope. They can't get what they want in the material world, so they immerse themselves in the spiritual-- as a result they never transcend. Think of the dude who can't get laid so he decides to be a monk. 

I recommend reading the first essay in the Genealogy of Morals (at least) to understand what slave morality is. I'd recommend going through Twilight of the Idols first though, in order to first get acquainted with him. 

[Chrisd]

Sexuality being impure seems illogical to me. It's part of nature so how can it be impure?

Money being greed... that's like saying any desire is bad. Because money is just a tool to fulfill a desire.

[Nilsi]

12 minutes ago, Chew211 said:

I second this. 

My world view is close to Brahmanism, but Nietzsche is important in order to root out any slave morality that will be contaminating your spiritual work. 

A lot of people are driven to spiritual as a means of cope. They can't get what they want in the material world, so they immerse themselves in the spiritual-- as a result they never transcend. Think of the dude who can't get laid so he decides to be a monk. 

I recommend reading the first essay in the Genealogy of Morals (at least) to understand what slave morality is. I'd recommend going through Twilight of the Idols first though, in order to first get acquainted with him. 

See i don't think that's what slave morality is about. It's basically just you submitting yourself to another part of reality instead of transcending it. 

What Nietzsche was lacking is an understanding of non duality; there really is no slave or master - it's just you playing with yourself - but even if he understood it, it does not matter, the concepts are still useful for any finite actor to grasp (should he/she want to become powerful).

[Leo Gura]

13 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

People are on here talking about picking up girls at clubs and absolutely petty political bickering, studying philosophy is surely less of a “trap” and a “waste of time” than this

You will get far more value from talking to girls at the club than you will reading Nietzsche.

At least when you go to the club you are not mentally masturbating.

[AtheisticNonduality]

7 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Also don't fucking watch a video about Nietzsche, go get one of his books, read it and see if it resonates - getting your philosophy from some random YouTube armchair philosopher is not going to cut it - that's true slave morality right there.

Exactly.

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You will get far more value from talking to girls at the club than you will reading Nietzsche.

At least when you go to the club you are not mentally masturbating.

Physically masturbating is better?

[Oeaohoo]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You will get far more value from talking to girls at the club than you will reading Nietzsche.

At least when you go to the club you are not mentally masturbating.

That’s definitely true in some cases, but we have to remember that the proper hierarchy is: pre-rational - rational - trans-rational. I see an example of the pre-trans fallacy here: that which is really pre-rational (sex, the body, and even relationships in most cases, to say nothing of trashy fun and partying) proclaims itself to be trans-rational simply because it is not rational.

Anyway, I’m not suggesting anyone waste their life pouring over every word of Nietzsche’s anti-gospel. I just know from personal experience that it can be useful to some people, and that to say that “Nietzsche did not understand spirituality or Christianity” is quite a dumbed down oversimplification of the reality.

[Nilsi]

22 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

That’s definitely true in some cases, but we have to remember that the proper hierarchy is: pre-rational - rational - trans-rational. I see an example of the pre-trans fallacy here: that which is really pre-rational (sex, the body, and even relationships in most cases, to say nothing of trashy fun and partying) proclaims itself to be trans-rational simply because it is not rational.

Anyway, I’m not suggesting anyone waste their life pouring over every word of Nietzsche’s anti-gospel. I just know from personal experience that it can be useful to some people, and that to say that “Nietzsche did not understand spirituality or Christianity” is quite a dumbed down oversimplification of the reality.

How is having sex or being embodied pre-rational? It surely depends on how developed you are sexually and kinesthetically or whatever. Even Nietzsche said "I am body, through and through"

[something_else]

30 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

That’s definitely true in some cases, but we have to remember that the proper hierarchy is: pre-rational - rational - trans-rational. I see an example of the pre-trans fallacy here: that which is really pre-rational (sex, the body, and even relationships in most cases, to say nothing of trashy fun and partying) proclaims itself to be trans-rational simply because it is not rational.

I don't think anyone said it was trans-rational. It's more that social skills and relationships are a basic part of life that you need to have down and sorted out before you can move onto more advanced things in a healthy way. A well-rounded person knows how to let loose, not give a fuck, party, socialise and enjoy themselves now and then.

Being the philosophy-obsessed, anti-party, stick-up-ass dude is not what you should aim to be in life. But it's a very common way that many under-socialised people try to justify their poor social skills: "I wouldn't partake in all that dumb, trashy partying, I'm too busy contemplating the important things in life like philosophy"

Source: I used to do this and now I realise how dumb it is