This MS proposes to uncover the “origins” of contemporary morality by investigating their “genealogical” development through and out of Christian and pre-Christain practices. The author seeks to displace several current strands in thinking about morality, albeit frequently by implication: utilitarianism and Kantian deontology appear to be central, if unnamed, targets. The argument proceeds by three sections: the first investigates the origins of putatively different concepts “bad” and “evil” and their relationship to “good”; the second the origin of something called “the bad conscience” which is the product of ethical socialisation and the victory of what the author calls “slave morality”; the third the role of “ascetic priests” in morality and the replacement of religion by the worship of science and the will to truth.
The author seems intent on needlessly denigrating scholars in the field: English “psychologists” (I assume the author means philosophers; he has a tendency to confusingly elide the two terms) are referred to early on as “cold, wet, boring frogs”. I do not see the value of this. Quite aside from the fact The Journal has a large number of English subscribers, it does not behove the author to engage in suchad hominem remarks. A German, one would have thought, would have learnt not to throw stones when sitting in such a large glass house.
As for the intellectual content of the MS, I found it mostly fallacious in reasoning or defective in point of fact. Take the author’s claim that the etymology of the words “good” and “evil” reveal their alternative origins and rival meanings. This is flagrant nonsense, as any basic grasp of their linguistic roots shows. I understand that the author is a former professor of philology: it is therefore difficult to conclude whether he is being wilfully disingenuous, or has simply taken leave of his senses.
The author claims that the origin of punishment is in a “creditor-debtor” relationship, and makes the unbecoming claim that “watching suffer feels good, making suffer feels better”. The first claim is a historical absurdity; the second, frankly disturbing. The author may feel this way, but he really ought not to presume to speak for well-bred and decent folk. More generally, I am unconvinced by the idea of a “slave revolt” in morality. The story presented is in itself incoherent. If “masters” lack culture and art, then the Roman Empire must have been one of slaves – and yet we are told that the paradigmatic example of the age-old battle of slaves versus masters is “Rome versus Judea; Judea versus Rome”. More generally, the historical story of a “slave revolt” originating with the Jews and inherited by followers of Christ beggars belief: is this meant as real history, the “grey” science the author promises in the Preface? Surely not. But if not, how is this a genealogy of anything other than fantasy? In which case, what can it possibly tell us that will be of use to contemporary scholarship?
As for the author’s debunking project, I fail to be convinced. This seems to me a clear example of the genetic fallacy. Even if what our authors says is true about the origins of morality (and I see no reason, not least as a Christian, to accept that), it would not follow that the light of truth revealed to us by our Saviour was in any way impugned. The project is thus a failure at both levels.
The third section is both incoherent and unconvincing. The long digression regarding the work of Richard Wagner is hardly appropriate; again, the author’s personal animosities are unpleasant to have to wade through. I would much rather see a return to the style of his earlier The Birth of Tragedy, which seemed to me altogether more sure-footed in its following of the transcendental achievements of Schopenhauer and Kant, which the author has sadly turned away from.
More generally, what are these “ascetic priests” introduced in the final treatise? Earlier we were told that mankind was either master or slave, and that a dialectic engagement between the two forged modernity. So what is this mysterious third class of persons? As for the suggestion that the Christian pursuit of truth undermined itself and now finds expression in the futile search for objective “truth” under the banner of scientific enquiry, I simply do not share the author’s sense of outrage. Perhaps it is because he appears to subscribe (though, again, it is difficult to be sure) to some form of “perspectival” theory of truth. If this is the case, then so much the worse for the author. I would be happy to introduce him to my physicist colleagues: they could set him right about the propositional content of the laws of natural mechanics!
Yeah, it's not as bad now, but that's not saying too much given that my mom's family used to go up there to buy stuff for their farm at Zurn's and used to see people with Nazi flags on open display.
that still happens, honestly.
it's a combination of the demographics down there (mostly German- and Austrian- descended folks) and a sense that it's one of the last pieces of "real America" down there. I know people who have family down there and have been down there myself a few times personally, it's frightening.
Yeah, I'm well aware of the "why." It's just the fact that it is that deeply disturbs me.
There's also the extra layer of irony that my maternal grandfather's family were of the same stock and, despite being very conservative, went in the complete opposite direction... unless his mother was trying to make someone uncomfortable. But she would say just about anything if she wanted to freak someone out. Only her family, though. She was weird.
PA by and large, is a land of vast expanses of empty terrain, abandoned metal shacks and brick churches, small towns with names that no one cares to remember, vestiges of an old, misplaced southern pride, and lots and lots of broken dreams.
it's good for writing about. I have a friend who is a much better author than I who wrote a novella about the town of Parryville called Life Under The Highway.
I think he's still working on it but he showed me an early draft once. It's really good. Sort of a mixed pseudo-autobiography with some magical realism elements drawn from all the weird legends around here.
alright, so don't go to PA unless I'm visiting someone there, got it
Driving through PA is a pretty pleasant experience, so if you're going somewhere else and can pass through here on the way, by all means, I recommend it. Otherwise, nah.
PA by and large, is a land of vast expanses of empty terrain, abandoned metal shacks and brick churches, small towns with names that no one cares to remember, vestiges of an old, misplaced southern pride, and lots and lots of broken dreams.
Yes.
But that would be forgetting the abundance of cool old houses, horse farms and surreal juxtapositions. Like the massive collection of textile manufacturing towns with 50% Jewish populations in the middle of the wilderness in the north.
alright, so don't go to PA unless I'm visiting someone there, got it
Well, go to Philadelphia at least once. It's really cool, despite the bad press it sometimes gets. And see the countryside on the way, because it is occasionally extremely pretty and has some sections that aren't awful, particularly around Penn State.
I imagine it was named before Webster came along with his American spellin's. A lot of places in PA are very old (as old as a European-American settlement can be anyhow, and even then, we're not host to Jamestown).
I imagine it was named before Webster came along with his American spellin's. A lot of places in PA are very old (as old as a European-American settlement can be anyhow, and even then, we're not host to Jamestown).
Well, the county itself was founded in 1800, so that is probably old enough to predate any American spelling standard. Then again, given Pennsylvanian orneriness, I'm still surprised.
Yeah, but horses! Besides, it was a touristy time. It's not like we needed to be somewhere.
Philadelphia has the most important chair in the most important room in the most important building in the most important square mile in American history. It kind of looks like the ones in our dining room, but with better upholstery.
Philadelphia has the most important chair in the most important room in the most important building in the most important square mile in American history. It kind of looks like the ones in our dining room, but with better upholstery.
It's a point of contention with everyone I meet that I never really go sightseeing around Philadelphia, considering that's where I stay when I'm at school nowadays.
It just gets so terribly boring when you go sightseeing by yourself, and everyone I knew well enough to invite was always busy.
It's a point of contention with everyone I meet that I never really go sightseeing around Philadelphia, considering that's where I stay when I'm at school nowadays.
It just gets so terribly boring when you go sightseeing by yourself, and everyone I knew well enough to invite was always busy.
I would volunteer myself, but we are mere web acquaintances, so that could be awkward.
Comments
This MS proposes to uncover the “origins” of contemporary morality by investigating their “genealogical” development through and out of Christian and pre-Christain practices. The author seeks to displace several current strands in thinking about morality, albeit frequently by implication: utilitarianism and Kantian deontology appear to be central, if unnamed, targets. The argument proceeds by three sections: the first investigates the origins of putatively different concepts “bad” and “evil” and their relationship to “good”; the second the origin of something called “the bad conscience” which is the product of ethical socialisation and the victory of what the author calls “slave morality”; the third the role of “ascetic priests” in morality and the replacement of religion by the worship of science and the will to truth.
The author seems intent on needlessly denigrating scholars in the field: English “psychologists” (I assume the author means philosophers; he has a tendency to confusingly elide the two terms) are referred to early on as “cold, wet, boring frogs”. I do not see the value of this. Quite aside from the fact The Journal has a large number of English subscribers, it does not behove the author to engage in suchad hominem remarks. A German, one would have thought, would have learnt not to throw stones when sitting in such a large glass house.
As for the intellectual content of the MS, I found it mostly fallacious in reasoning or defective in point of fact. Take the author’s claim that the etymology of the words “good” and “evil” reveal their alternative origins and rival meanings. This is flagrant nonsense, as any basic grasp of their linguistic roots shows. I understand that the author is a former professor of philology: it is therefore difficult to conclude whether he is being wilfully disingenuous, or has simply taken leave of his senses.
The author claims that the origin of punishment is in a “creditor-debtor” relationship, and makes the unbecoming claim that “watching suffer feels good, making suffer feels better”. The first claim is a historical absurdity; the second, frankly disturbing. The author may feel this way, but he really ought not to presume to speak for well-bred and decent folk. More generally, I am unconvinced by the idea of a “slave revolt” in morality. The story presented is in itself incoherent. If “masters” lack culture and art, then the Roman Empire must have been one of slaves – and yet we are told that the paradigmatic example of the age-old battle of slaves versus masters is “Rome versus Judea; Judea versus Rome”. More generally, the historical story of a “slave revolt” originating with the Jews and inherited by followers of Christ beggars belief: is this meant as real history, the “grey” science the author promises in the Preface? Surely not. But if not, how is this a genealogy of anything other than fantasy? In which case, what can it possibly tell us that will be of use to contemporary scholarship?
As for the author’s debunking project, I fail to be convinced. This seems to me a clear example of the genetic fallacy. Even if what our authors says is true about the origins of morality (and I see no reason, not least as a Christian, to accept that), it would not follow that the light of truth revealed to us by our Saviour was in any way impugned. The project is thus a failure at both levels.
The third section is both incoherent and unconvincing. The long digression regarding the work of Richard Wagner is hardly appropriate; again, the author’s personal animosities are unpleasant to have to wade through. I would much rather see a return to the style of his earlier The Birth of Tragedy, which seemed to me altogether more sure-footed in its following of the transcendental achievements of Schopenhauer and Kant, which the author has sadly turned away from.
More generally, what are these “ascetic priests” introduced in the final treatise? Earlier we were told that mankind was either master or slave, and that a dialectic engagement between the two forged modernity. So what is this mysterious third class of persons? As for the suggestion that the Christian pursuit of truth undermined itself and now finds expression in the futile search for objective “truth” under the banner of scientific enquiry, I simply do not share the author’s sense of outrage. Perhaps it is because he appears to subscribe (though, again, it is difficult to be sure) to some form of “perspectival” theory of truth. If this is the case, then so much the worse for the author. I would be happy to introduce him to my physicist colleagues: they could set him right about the propositional content of the laws of natural mechanics!
it's good for writing about. I have a friend who is a much better author than I who wrote a novella about the town of Parryville called Life Under The Highway.
I think he's still working on it but he showed me an early draft once. It's really good. Sort of a mixed pseudo-autobiography with some magical realism elements drawn from all the weird legends around here.
Driving through PA is a pretty pleasant experience, so if you're going somewhere else and can pass through here on the way, by all means, I recommend it. Otherwise, nah.never been up there. I've heard the people up there don't like folks from my area much, and I can understand why.
Lancaster's a decent place if you don't mind the traffic, but eh.
It also has the town with the best name, Lititz
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
There are some decent small towns in PA, just only a few of them.
Neffs' Station-Laury's Station Junction is a great town despite being run to hell. Their diner is one of the best places to eat I've ever been in.
Why Lititz and not Intercourse? Or the twin towns of Effort and Results? Or Blue Ball? Or Burningwell? Or heck, King of Prussia.Because of this, reading the road signs can be fun even if you're not Central Avenue
ah.
heheh, "Centre County".
people get really pissed up here if you don't spell it "Center".
HUMANS :O
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Matter'a'fact, only horse I've seen in Pennsylvania was in Philly, in the historical section.
I don't recall seeing that when I was there, but this was a long time ago.
I've also been to Iron Forge which I think has been officially un-towned in recent years.
You got lucky, they usually clog up the streets down there.It was the Amish paradise
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Philadelphia has the most important chair in the most important room in the most important building in the most important square mile in American history. It kind of looks like the ones in our dining room, but with better upholstery.
trust me when I say that the Amish are neither terribly interesting nor terribly friendly people. You ain't missin' much.
he doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
It just gets so terribly boring when you go sightseeing by yourself, and everyone I knew well enough to invite was always busy.
:o We are like a pair of waffles!