An honest book review of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals:

An honest book review of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals:

By Samuel Mack-Poole

Under the star-filled sky of Cyprus, I read Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche’s (a famous German philosopher, 1844-1900, whom proclaimed “God is dead”) passionate investigation into the historical origin of morality. Nietzsche is one of, if not the most, famous philosophers in the cultural zeitgeist of the West because of his fierce criticism of our Judeo-Christian heritage; he is one of my favourite philosophers due to his exquisite, and often intricate, writing style. He is almost poetical and often aphoristic; thus, his writing does not lend itself to the common man (and he did not intend his philosophy to be read by a mere plebeian, either).

Although I find much of what Nietzsche states objectionable, his eloquence is never in doubt. I have written about another work of his before – Beyond Good and Evil for The Philosophy Takeaway – and I don’t doubt that I shall also review Thus Spoke Zarathustra at some point in the future. What is beautiful deserves to be investigated, after all.

The Genealogy of Morals (hereafter shortened to the acronym GOM) is comprised of a preface and three essays, and each essay is itself reduced into intellectually digestible slithers and chunks (and are numbered).  This makes the weighty content easier to comprehend, and it is the one favour which Nietzsche affords the reader in this regard.

The preface is more or less a bond between his previous work (Human, All-Too-Human) and GOM. However, Nietzsche enticingly adds that his thoughts on the topic of the “origin of human prejudices” have ripened, become more coherent, rational and bolder – and thus has evolved, just as he thinks morality has.

The three essays are titled Good and Evil, Good and Bad, Guilt, bad conscience and the like and What is the meaning of ascetic ideals? respectively.  As this essay will only number a mere thousand words,  I cannot analyse the true depth of his work, but perhaps by analysing a quote of his from each essay, I could perhaps give you a glimpse of his abyss (but don’t let that glimpse become a stare).

“To demand from strength that it does not express itself as strength, that it does not consist of a will to overpower, a will to throw down, a will to rule, a thirst for enemies and opposition and triumph, is just as unreasonable as to demand from weakness that it express itself as strength.”  -- First essay, Section 13.

One of Nietzsche’s major complaints was about the form of morality permeating through Germany, and the wider Western nations, in the 1800s was that it was, in essence, weak. He despised its averageness. Nietzsche’s view of relatively early human history was that there were various races in Europe, but that a blond haired, blue-eyed savage tribe – the Aryans – dominated the rest and imprinted its ethos in the nature of their descendants’ characters.

This, for him, was all to the good. However, Christianity reared its ugly head, rich in blood sacrifice, and changed the essence of human conduct in Europe. Nietzsche was an avowed atheist, and one of Christianity’s most fierce critics. Whilst many Christians bristle at the mention of his name, his criticism of their religion is due to the consequences of it for the human condition, rather than its twisted theology.

Nietzsche feels that Christianity is a denial of the stronger human instincts – the urge to conquer, to dominate and create empires are what he values as true greatness --  and that its charitable ethos makes its adherents a flabby, meek mess, intent on being utterly average. In Christianity Nietzsche senses something egalitarian and he vehemently despises it. Although humans are more equal, he would argue that true greatness is diminished.

This holds some truth when applied to elitism within education, as genius should be allowed to flourish. Nonetheless, as a socialist, I disagree with his conclusion, if applied blindly – it seems to assert that power should be sought on a individualistic level, with little regard to the consequences of society. Nietzsche’s philosophy is far from sentimental or empathetic – he cares little for plight of human beings.

To be clear: what society calls ‘good’ and ‘bad’, Nietzsche does not. He doesn’t believe that morality originates from God, but that it evolved to value what religion told it to (which is very distant from what the guiding principles of the Aryans).

“In this area, that is, in the laws of obligation, the world of the moral concepts “guilt,” “conscience,” “duty,” and “sanctity of obligation” has its origin—its beginning, like the beginning of everything great on earth, was drenched thoroughly and for a long time with blood.”  Second essay, section 6.

Nietzsche’s second essay, as previously mentioned, deals with the origin of bad conscience, and guilt. If one is an atheist, you may think that you can guess where this portion of human morality evolved from. However, Nietzsche does as a point of fact go much further back than the blood sacrifice of Christ, he examines the very idea of blood sacrifice in itself. He claims that sacrifice was used for archaic savage man to create memory for himself; Nietzsche goes on to claim that a painful memory will never be forgotten.

The sacrifice of the first-born and castration are cemented in religious practice. First-borns were sacrificed to appease the wrath of the gods, and castration was practised to prevent high born women from having sex – yet both practices are barbaric. Nietzsche feels compelled to comment “all religions are in essence nothing but systematic cruelty”, but he understands that what was once physically practised is now internalised as part of the human condition by the followers of Christianity.

It is this which he cannot stand. After all, bad conscience, based on false premises, will only lead to tragedy. A further tragedy is the fact I wasn’t able to condense the analysis of all the essays into one piece, but I shall finish this hat trick in a fortnight.