4 ms·

Of course ressentiment is constant, but the question is which kind of thinking dominates society? Historically, the pendulum has swung back and forth between w

by sltkr 3y ago

Of course ressentiment is constant, but the question is which kind of thinking dominates society? Historically, the pendulum has swung back and forth between what Nietsche labeled master and slave morality. The Roman empire is a typical example of master culture: it's good to be rich and powerful, and it is right for the strong to dominate the weak. There might have been ressentiment among the Barbarians the Romans conquered, but the dominant culture certainly didn't sympathize with them. Then in Europe we get the rise of Christianity, a typical example of slave morality which regards strength and power as evil (the New Testament is full of messages like the meek will inherit the earth, it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven, etc.) Then Western civilization swings back to Master morality: the crusades as an early example, later manifest destiny, the white man's burden, the rise of fascism in Europe, etc. Then after WW2 fascism loses its luster and the pendulum swings back. Western colonies which were previously considered mutually beneficial developments are now condemned as exploitative of the less advanced native cultures. People like Columbus who were once lionized for their discoveries and conquests are now condemned as villains. You can view the American civil war as a midpoint of the pendulum's swing: while Negroes, who are poor and uneducated, are not (yet) considered morally superior to Whites, it is no longer morally acceptable to enslave them just because you can. Today, the pendulum has swung fully towards slave morality. You should check your privilege, and shut up, so the oppressed may speak. Representation is important. The rich and powerful are almost by definition evil. Bill Gates and Elon Musk won't be remembered in the same way as Rockefeller or Ford. Racism is no longer racism, as it was in Martin Luther King's time, but now it's prejudice PLUS power (also everyone has racial bias, so by the very definition, the powerful are evil, while the powerless are innocent). So while you can argue that the pendulum has swung back and forth on this topic through history, and it's hard to say if slave morality is currently at an “all-time high”, I think it's undeniably true that we are currently heavily biased towards celebrating the powerless over the rich and powerful.

jemmyw 3y ago
I think this is too much of a simplification to be a useful guide. First the older stuff can be discounted because there just isn't enough written evidence to know what the general Roman population was thinking. Columbus wasn't generally lionised and celebrated during his lifetime, a lot of the mythology about him comes later > As a colonial governor, Columbus was accused by some of his contemporaries of significant brutality and removed from the post. But I think the weakness of this argument is apparent when you consider the modern examples. Gates and Elon have been lauded and praised and reviled and criticised at various levels at different times. There has always been a plurality of opinion about successful celebrities, modern and historic. So I don't see that there is a master/slave swing. Rather perhaps the issue is that recently we've come into a situation where everyone's voice can be broadcast and opinion written. In the not so distant past the writing of the majority either didn't exist or wasn't available for consumption by society in general, and only the writing of influential people survived for us to read later. The grumbling of the masses was only apparent when it boiled over into action.
- sltkr 3y ago
  > Columbus wasn't generally lionised and celebrated during his lifetime, a lot of the mythology about him comes later Right, but the point is he was lionized during a period where people found his conquests more important than the atrocities he committed, as is consistent with master morality of the time, even if it was not during Columbus' own time. Similarly, Christianity only became really popular long after the death of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean his viewpoints aren't an example of slave morality. > There has always been a plurality of opinion about successful celebrities, modern and historic. That's a fair point; obviously this obfuscates the situation a bit, but I don't think it disproves the general trend. > In the not so distant past the writing of the majority either didn't exist or wasn't available for consumption by society in general, and only the writing of influential people survived for us to read later. Also a fair point, but the observation doesn't rely on learning what the masses think (which I suspect is mostly what they're told to think). We see the same shift in attitude among the powerful elites. For example, President Joe Biden picked a non-white woman as his vice president, and later vowed to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, to increase representation of underrepresented minorities. If any past president made such a declaration it would have been on record too. The same is true about a lot of other topics. Homosexuals have existed forever, but large corporations didn't find it necessary in the past to dedicate a month per year to celebrating them, and there are plenty of historical records to prove that. And so on, and so forth. I think it's hard to deny overall that it's a sign of the times we live in that we must praise and promote the marginalized and oppressed, and criticize and penalize the powerful.
  - squigz 3y ago
    > we must praise and promote the marginalized and oppressed, I have to wonder why this is a bad thing? To be a bit pedantic, the use of the words "praise and promote" is a bit... loaded, isn't it? This really seems like a simplification of civil rights movements. To be a bit more pedantic, "must" is a pretty strong word. Why "must" we praise the marginalized?
    - seec 3y ago
      Because the positions being idolized are weak and cannot exist if they don't get everybody to agree. It's all built on moving sand, it cannot be a long-term proposition. And if a majority of society would adopt the behaviors/values of the minorities being praised it would be in deep shit, especially for survival/reproduction. In the end, nature doesn't care much about your feelings... Those things only happen in "good times", a period of ultra abondance where even the weakest is well off. It is not a coincidence that right-wing politics are rising everywhere. When times get harder, competition for ressource is increased and people collectively agree that they don't have time/ressources to celebrate the weak anymore...
the_af 3y ago
> celebrating the powerless over the rich and powerful Surely by "celebrating" you mean with words and gesturing? Because in actual practice, the rich and powerful are as rich and powerful as ever, if not more so.
- filoleg 3y ago
  The whole argument is about “words and gesturing” aka the prevailing attitudes regarding which qualities and behaviors are supported/celebrated and have power in discourse. I don’t think the parent comment was trying to say that when the mentality pendulum swung after the US civil war era in the direction of the oppressed (as they claimed it did), suddenly the liberated former slaves became the ones in power of controlling politics/economy/etc. That aside, yeah, you are correct, in the actual practice the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. The difference that the pendulum makes is about whether they are treated by the public as Fords and Rockefellers or as Musks and Thiels, which is just about the prevailing attitudes.
  - the_af 3y ago
    Understood, but what I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and shallow gesturing. Just words, and not even deeply felt. In practice the world still admires the rich and powerful. Re: the Musks and Thiels of this world, it probably doesn't help their public image that the modern world makes their bizarre opinions and outright arrogance more easily communicated. If Ford was arrogant or held freakish opinions, it was a little harder for the common man to find out. Now Musk can call a scuba diver a pedophile or spout conspiracy theories and this reaches tons of people almost immediately.
    - filoleg 3y ago
      That’s a really good point I haven’t thought about before. For all I know, Ford indeed could’ve been even less revered than Musks and Thiels in the timeline where internet was already commonplace back then. Legitimately thanks for bringing it up. That makes quite a lot of things about the current time more difficult to comprehend using historical precedence. Because a lot of the fundamental things about living in our present time are exactly the same, yet unprecedented in significant ways. I guess the same could be said about almost any time period in history though.

by sltkr 3y ago

jemmyw 3y ago

I think this is too much of a simplification to be a useful guide. First the older stuff can be discounted because there just isn't enough written evidence to know what the general Roman population was thinking. Columbus wasn't generally lionised and celebrated during his lifetime, a lot of the mythology about him comes later > As a colonial governor, Columbus was accused by some of his contemporaries of significant brutality and removed from the post. But I think the weakness of this argument is apparent when you consider the modern examples. Gates and Elon have been lauded and praised and reviled and criticised at various levels at different times. There has always been a plurality of opinion about successful celebrities, modern and historic. So I don't see that there is a master/slave swing. Rather perhaps the issue is that recently we've come into a situation where everyone's voice can be broadcast and opinion written. In the not so distant past the writing of the majority either didn't exist or wasn't available for consumption by society in general, and only the writing of influential people survived for us to read later. The grumbling of the masses was only apparent when it boiled over into action.

sltkr 3y ago
> Columbus wasn't generally lionised and celebrated during his lifetime, a lot of the mythology about him comes later Right, but the point is he was lionized during a period where people found his conquests more important than the atrocities he committed, as is consistent with master morality of the time, even if it was not during Columbus' own time. Similarly, Christianity only became really popular long after the death of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean his viewpoints aren't an example of slave morality. > There has always been a plurality of opinion about successful celebrities, modern and historic. That's a fair point; obviously this obfuscates the situation a bit, but I don't think it disproves the general trend. > In the not so distant past the writing of the majority either didn't exist or wasn't available for consumption by society in general, and only the writing of influential people survived for us to read later. Also a fair point, but the observation doesn't rely on learning what the masses think (which I suspect is mostly what they're told to think). We see the same shift in attitude among the powerful elites. For example, President Joe Biden picked a non-white woman as his vice president, and later vowed to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, to increase representation of underrepresented minorities. If any past president made such a declaration it would have been on record too. The same is true about a lot of other topics. Homosexuals have existed forever, but large corporations didn't find it necessary in the past to dedicate a month per year to celebrating them, and there are plenty of historical records to prove that. And so on, and so forth. I think it's hard to deny overall that it's a sign of the times we live in that we must praise and promote the marginalized and oppressed, and criticize and penalize the powerful.
- squigz 3y ago
  > we must praise and promote the marginalized and oppressed, I have to wonder why this is a bad thing? To be a bit pedantic, the use of the words "praise and promote" is a bit... loaded, isn't it? This really seems like a simplification of civil rights movements. To be a bit more pedantic, "must" is a pretty strong word. Why "must" we praise the marginalized?
  - seec 3y ago
    Because the positions being idolized are weak and cannot exist if they don't get everybody to agree. It's all built on moving sand, it cannot be a long-term proposition. And if a majority of society would adopt the behaviors/values of the minorities being praised it would be in deep shit, especially for survival/reproduction. In the end, nature doesn't care much about your feelings... Those things only happen in "good times", a period of ultra abondance where even the weakest is well off. It is not a coincidence that right-wing politics are rising everywhere. When times get harder, competition for ressource is increased and people collectively agree that they don't have time/ressources to celebrate the weak anymore...

the_af 3y ago

> celebrating the powerless over the rich and powerful Surely by "celebrating" you mean with words and gesturing? Because in actual practice, the rich and powerful are as rich and powerful as ever, if not more so.

filoleg 3y ago
The whole argument is about “words and gesturing” aka the prevailing attitudes regarding which qualities and behaviors are supported/celebrated and have power in discourse. I don’t think the parent comment was trying to say that when the mentality pendulum swung after the US civil war era in the direction of the oppressed (as they claimed it did), suddenly the liberated former slaves became the ones in power of controlling politics/economy/etc. That aside, yeah, you are correct, in the actual practice the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. The difference that the pendulum makes is about whether they are treated by the public as Fords and Rockefellers or as Musks and Thiels, which is just about the prevailing attitudes.
- the_af 3y ago
  Understood, but what I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and shallow gesturing. Just words, and not even deeply felt. In practice the world still admires the rich and powerful. Re: the Musks and Thiels of this world, it probably doesn't help their public image that the modern world makes their bizarre opinions and outright arrogance more easily communicated. If Ford was arrogant or held freakish opinions, it was a little harder for the common man to find out. Now Musk can call a scuba diver a pedophile or spout conspiracy theories and this reaches tons of people almost immediately.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    That’s a really good point I haven’t thought about before. For all I know, Ford indeed could’ve been even less revered than Musks and Thiels in the timeline where internet was already commonplace back then. Legitimately thanks for bringing it up. That makes quite a lot of things about the current time more difficult to comprehend using historical precedence. Because a lot of the fundamental things about living in our present time are exactly the same, yet unprecedented in significant ways. I guess the same could be said about almost any time period in history though.