☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Beyond Semantics: The Nature Of The Sikh One
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neutral Singh" data-source="post: 88" data-attributes="member: 2"><p>Welcome Avnit,</p><p> </p><p>You have raised a very good question indeed... I am sure only you could put some more light on this topic...</p><p> </p><p>I found an interesting topic on the philosophy of Nietzsche... Hope its useful to you... please read it with a neutral mindset...<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p> </p><p>Kind Regards</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Beyond Good and Evil: Nietzsche and Morality </strong></p><p> </p><p>This essay is an exposition of my interpretation of Nietzsche’s division of morality into the strong/master/noble and the weak/slave/cowardly, and hopefully does away with popular misconceptions. The starting point is a relativistic position that doesn’t cater to absolute values of “good” and “evil” that rationalistic moralists would have others to believe. The dichotomy of “good” and “evil” are relative concepts that are contingent upon the greater end of the individual life form, and are merely aspects of power that the individual exercise in order to maintain their existence/position/place in the world. Machiavelli was right: for all intents and purposes, “good” and “evil” are expedients for acquiring supremacy. </p><p>reach: </p><p> </p><p>It is the killer whale’s good to devour a sea lion. It’s the narrow-headed frog’s good to tell a foe a deception. Its brown and yellow coloring as well as its rough texture allows itself to blend in the mud and tree trunks in its environment. When a frog is in danger, it clings immobile to either the mud or tree trunks and declares thus: “I am not a frog, I am a piece of bark or mud, so I am useless.” This deception is good for the frog, since it preserves its life. Every species of organic being in nature instinctively adopts and practices behavior that is most conductive to the supremacy/prevalence of its kind. Once an efficient and advantageous form of behavior is found, it becomes the ruling morality of the species that adopts it and elevates them to success. That said, no species value alike, for what is the killer whale’s good is the sea lion’s evil, and vice versa. </p><p> </p><p>The reason why Nietzsche rejects Christian moral values and calls it an abomination is because of this deconstruction of morality: that like all other morals, Christianity’s code of ethics is merely an expedient for protecting a certain kind of man. And in Nietzsche’s opinion, Christianity’s type is a low one. </p><p> </p><p>Nietzsche postulates that there has been a constant conflict between the powerful, the noble, the strong, and the healthy on one side and the impotent, the mean, the petty, and the weak on the other. The war rages over moral principles. For the morals of the powerful class, Nietzsche labels Noble or Master Morality, and for the weak, Slave or Herd Morality. An analogy may illustrate the deep chasm between these two fundamental pictures of human relationship: the killer whale (as a representative of the noble person) observes a plump sea lion and infers that “eating sea lions is good.” The sea lion (representing the slave) looks down from the ice floe and whinnies dissentingly: “eating sea lions is evil.” </p><p>Quote: </p><p> </p><p>"That lambs dislike great birds of prey does not seem strange: only it gives no ground for reproaching these birds of prey for bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves: 'these birds of prey are veil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey, but rather its opposite, a lamb - would he not be good?' there is no reason to find fault with this institution of an ideal" </p><p>Genealogy of Morals First Essay, #13, p. 29 </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The difference between Master and Herd Morality is astounding: </p><p>Master morality is active, creative (positive), self-directed (leader), this-worldly, proud (but not vain), self-aware, experimental, egoistic, aristocratic (as in value hierarchy), discreet, and preaches a morality of persons (similar to Aristotle’s “golden means”). In direct opposition, Slave Morality reverses everything: passive, reactionary (negative), other-directed (follower), other-worldly, humble (meek), self-deceptive, prudent, altruistic, democratic (self-indulgent), confessional, and preaches a morality of principles (Kant) </p><p> </p><p>Everything “good” in the Master morality (MM) proceeds from strength, power, health, constitution, happiness. The dichotomy “good” and “bad” in MM is identical to “noble” and “despicable,” respectively. The noble man experiences himself as the most virtuous and powerful precisely because he rules by his own moral beliefs- which is encapsulated in this form: “I will. . .” What they call ‘bad’ applies to the coward, or any action that is derived from weakness, i.e. the person who is willing to forfeit everything in order to live. </p><p> </p><p>In a community that is subjugated, suffering, and in bondage, and world-weary, their conception of “good” necessarily alleviates their state of suffering. Examples such as Pity, obligation, warm heart, patience, industry and humility are most useful qualities that renders life livable, they assist in the “struggle of existence,” which is the main motivation behind the people who practice this form of morality. Everything to this sect that is awful is bad, and is essentially the evil par excellence. What is strong, healthy, extraordinary is regarded with hate, suspicion, and fear by the subordinate class. Slave morality is pretty much the herd, the common individuals. They perform out of a sense of obedience- a sign of passivity. The problem is that because the cowardly despite their masters by desiring the power and influence, they develop “ressentiment.” This unconscious desire impels a “drive” to democratize, i.e. making everyone equal in the eyes of God/law/state. Consequently the slave defines ‘evil’ as individual power or strength, while the ‘good’ is merely ‘non-threatening’ (equality, humility, modesty, compassion and charity. This is the morality of herd animals. A desire that all people be equal, both socially and spiritually, is a corruption of reality. The very notion of sin in Christian morality, “Thou shalt … !” is in contradiction to self-assertion, to the creativity, action, and self-authenticity of the noble man. </p><p> </p><p>Nietzsche had this image before him, that the end of humanity was not the lowest common denominator, but its highest individuals. Any means that reduced the number of great men was found wanting, and to be vilified. Ergo, the noble morality was conductive to an ascent in the line of life because it was creative and active, and affirms life. On the other hand, slave morality leads to degeneration because it posits passivity, leads to guilt, and is merely a means to keep the practitioners alive. </p><p> </p><p>Nietzsche is not endorsing an aristocratic ideal, precisely because he does recognize the fact that slave morality does make sense and is beneficial to certain types. That said, by no means is Nietzsche a victim of his earlier denials of absolute claims, that he is making one. After all, God is dead. (or at least our belief in an immortal being has finally succumbed to hypocrisy) Since truth/morality is merely relative and appropriate to every perspective, Nietzsche is no nihilist. The fault with such Christians, Kantians, rationalistic moralists, democrats, and socialists (or insert any form of slave morality here) is that they claim universality for their morality when it actually is appropriate only for some kind of humans. </p><p> </p><p>All else is folly, because naïve faith or belief that a single perspective transcends others betrays duplicity and dishonesty, and is totally inappropriate to other perspectives. This is not a denial of one’s perspective, rather that a perspective is appropriate to the very owner of that perspective, but remains inapplicable to everyone else’s. A killer whale’s perspective is fitting only for the killer whale, and not others, and so on. IOW, a killer whale’s perspective is no less valid to the killer whale’s than the cow’s perspective is to the cow. The problem occurs when either claims that its perspective is the only true and objective one. <strong><span style="color: navy">Since God is dead, (killed off by the very same absolutists) those who wish to maintain dogmatic or absolute beliefs in universal doctrines are essentially absurd. Man's experience of nature isn't immaculate, but a matter of perspective, conditioned by his senses and his mind. Knowledge from no standpoint is incoherent as saying "seeing from no particular vantage point." The idea of an all-encompassing or omniscient perspective is as meaningful as the idea of seeing an object from every possible point of view simultaneously.</span></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neutral Singh, post: 88, member: 2"] Welcome Avnit, You have raised a very good question indeed... I am sure only you could put some more light on this topic... I found an interesting topic on the philosophy of Nietzsche... Hope its useful to you... please read it with a neutral mindset...:) Kind Regards [b]Beyond Good and Evil: Nietzsche and Morality [/b] This essay is an exposition of my interpretation of Nietzsche’s division of morality into the strong/master/noble and the weak/slave/cowardly, and hopefully does away with popular misconceptions. The starting point is a relativistic position that doesn’t cater to absolute values of “good” and “evil” that rationalistic moralists would have others to believe. The dichotomy of “good” and “evil” are relative concepts that are contingent upon the greater end of the individual life form, and are merely aspects of power that the individual exercise in order to maintain their existence/position/place in the world. Machiavelli was right: for all intents and purposes, “good” and “evil” are expedients for acquiring supremacy. reach: It is the killer whale’s good to devour a sea lion. It’s the narrow-headed frog’s good to tell a foe a deception. Its brown and yellow coloring as well as its rough texture allows itself to blend in the mud and tree trunks in its environment. When a frog is in danger, it clings immobile to either the mud or tree trunks and declares thus: “I am not a frog, I am a piece of bark or mud, so I am useless.” This deception is good for the frog, since it preserves its life. Every species of organic being in nature instinctively adopts and practices behavior that is most conductive to the supremacy/prevalence of its kind. Once an efficient and advantageous form of behavior is found, it becomes the ruling morality of the species that adopts it and elevates them to success. That said, no species value alike, for what is the killer whale’s good is the sea lion’s evil, and vice versa. The reason why Nietzsche rejects Christian moral values and calls it an abomination is because of this deconstruction of morality: that like all other morals, Christianity’s code of ethics is merely an expedient for protecting a certain kind of man. And in Nietzsche’s opinion, Christianity’s type is a low one. Nietzsche postulates that there has been a constant conflict between the powerful, the noble, the strong, and the healthy on one side and the impotent, the mean, the petty, and the weak on the other. The war rages over moral principles. For the morals of the powerful class, Nietzsche labels Noble or Master Morality, and for the weak, Slave or Herd Morality. An analogy may illustrate the deep chasm between these two fundamental pictures of human relationship: the killer whale (as a representative of the noble person) observes a plump sea lion and infers that “eating sea lions is good.” The sea lion (representing the slave) looks down from the ice floe and whinnies dissentingly: “eating sea lions is evil.” Quote: "That lambs dislike great birds of prey does not seem strange: only it gives no ground for reproaching these birds of prey for bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves: 'these birds of prey are veil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey, but rather its opposite, a lamb - would he not be good?' there is no reason to find fault with this institution of an ideal" Genealogy of Morals First Essay, #13, p. 29 The difference between Master and Herd Morality is astounding: Master morality is active, creative (positive), self-directed (leader), this-worldly, proud (but not vain), self-aware, experimental, egoistic, aristocratic (as in value hierarchy), discreet, and preaches a morality of persons (similar to Aristotle’s “golden means”). In direct opposition, Slave Morality reverses everything: passive, reactionary (negative), other-directed (follower), other-worldly, humble (meek), self-deceptive, prudent, altruistic, democratic (self-indulgent), confessional, and preaches a morality of principles (Kant) Everything “good” in the Master morality (MM) proceeds from strength, power, health, constitution, happiness. The dichotomy “good” and “bad” in MM is identical to “noble” and “despicable,” respectively. The noble man experiences himself as the most virtuous and powerful precisely because he rules by his own moral beliefs- which is encapsulated in this form: “I will. . .” What they call ‘bad’ applies to the coward, or any action that is derived from weakness, i.e. the person who is willing to forfeit everything in order to live. In a community that is subjugated, suffering, and in bondage, and world-weary, their conception of “good” necessarily alleviates their state of suffering. Examples such as Pity, obligation, warm heart, patience, industry and humility are most useful qualities that renders life livable, they assist in the “struggle of existence,” which is the main motivation behind the people who practice this form of morality. Everything to this sect that is awful is bad, and is essentially the evil par excellence. What is strong, healthy, extraordinary is regarded with hate, suspicion, and fear by the subordinate class. Slave morality is pretty much the herd, the common individuals. They perform out of a sense of obedience- a sign of passivity. The problem is that because the cowardly despite their masters by desiring the power and influence, they develop “ressentiment.” This unconscious desire impels a “drive” to democratize, i.e. making everyone equal in the eyes of God/law/state. Consequently the slave defines ‘evil’ as individual power or strength, while the ‘good’ is merely ‘non-threatening’ (equality, humility, modesty, compassion and charity. This is the morality of herd animals. A desire that all people be equal, both socially and spiritually, is a corruption of reality. The very notion of sin in Christian morality, “Thou shalt … !” is in contradiction to self-assertion, to the creativity, action, and self-authenticity of the noble man. Nietzsche had this image before him, that the end of humanity was not the lowest common denominator, but its highest individuals. Any means that reduced the number of great men was found wanting, and to be vilified. Ergo, the noble morality was conductive to an ascent in the line of life because it was creative and active, and affirms life. On the other hand, slave morality leads to degeneration because it posits passivity, leads to guilt, and is merely a means to keep the practitioners alive. Nietzsche is not endorsing an aristocratic ideal, precisely because he does recognize the fact that slave morality does make sense and is beneficial to certain types. That said, by no means is Nietzsche a victim of his earlier denials of absolute claims, that he is making one. After all, God is dead. (or at least our belief in an immortal being has finally succumbed to hypocrisy) Since truth/morality is merely relative and appropriate to every perspective, Nietzsche is no nihilist. The fault with such Christians, Kantians, rationalistic moralists, democrats, and socialists (or insert any form of slave morality here) is that they claim universality for their morality when it actually is appropriate only for some kind of humans. All else is folly, because naïve faith or belief that a single perspective transcends others betrays duplicity and dishonesty, and is totally inappropriate to other perspectives. This is not a denial of one’s perspective, rather that a perspective is appropriate to the very owner of that perspective, but remains inapplicable to everyone else’s. A killer whale’s perspective is fitting only for the killer whale, and not others, and so on. IOW, a killer whale’s perspective is no less valid to the killer whale’s than the cow’s perspective is to the cow. The problem occurs when either claims that its perspective is the only true and objective one. [b][color=navy]Since God is dead, (killed off by the very same absolutists) those who wish to maintain dogmatic or absolute beliefs in universal doctrines are essentially absurd. Man's experience of nature isn't immaculate, but a matter of perspective, conditioned by his senses and his mind. Knowledge from no standpoint is incoherent as saying "seeing from no particular vantage point." The idea of an all-encompassing or omniscient perspective is as meaningful as the idea of seeing an object from every possible point of view simultaneously.[/color][/b] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Beyond Semantics: The Nature Of The Sikh One
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top