> Nietzsche's moral cynicism is universal and the MS divide is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive or constructive.
Could you elaborate? Nietzsche's usage of slave morality seems pejorative to me, and I wouldn't characterise Nietzsche's stance as an universal moral cynicism; his method does not aim at an universal conclusion.
Funny enough, this illustrates well why it is difficult to find good reads on Nietzsche, it is not easy to summarise his positions briefly and without equivocation.
To dramatically over-simplify: N. thinks that slave morality was inferior to master morality, however he doesn’t think we should return to a master morality system. He also thinks that slave morality did have some benefits in the sense that it turned humanity's creative instincts inward. He mostly has a problem with slave morality because it is life-denying (which is essentially his criticism of Christianity).
It should also be said that he doesn’t use these terms in a scientific or extremely specific way (“this is how it was, factually”) but rather as a sort of myth-like pattern. They are broad repeating trends, so to speak, not scientific observations.
The overman (Übermensch) should transcend both moral systems and create a new life-affirming one. Unfortunately some reactionaries seem to think that he was advocating for a return to master morality.
Are you referring to the OP's post? That part of it is simply incorrect. If you're referring to the comment I replied to, I don't see this argument in there.
Could you elaborate? Nietzsche's usage of slave morality seems pejorative to me, and I wouldn't characterise Nietzsche's stance as an universal moral cynicism; his method does not aim at an universal conclusion.
Funny enough, this illustrates well why it is difficult to find good reads on Nietzsche, it is not easy to summarise his positions briefly and without equivocation.