The second treatise in in the genealogy of morality: Nietzsche on the origin of the bad conscience
European Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):55–81 (2001)
| Abstract | On a postcard to Franz Overbeck from January 4, 1888, Nietzsche makes some illuminating remarks with respect to the three treatises in his book On the Genealogy of Morality.2 Nietzsche says that, ‘for the sake of clarity, it was necessary artificially to isolate the different roots of that complex structure that is called morality. Each of these three treatises expresses a single primum mobile; a fourth and fifth are missing, as is even the most essential (‘the herd instinct’) – for the time being, the latter had to be ignored, as too comprehensive, and the same holds for the ultimate summation of all those different elements and thus a final account of morality.’ Nietzsche also points out that each treatise makes a contribution to the genesis of Christianity and rejects an explanation of Christianity in terms of only one psychological category. The topics of the treatises are ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (first treatise), the ‘bad conscience’ (second), and the ‘ascetic ideal’ (third). The postcard suggests that Nietzsche discusses these topics separately because a joint treatment is too complicated, but that in reality, these ideas are inextricably intertwined, both with each other and with others that Nietzsche omits. Therefore, the three treatises should be regarded as parts of a unified theory and critique of morality. Nietzsche’s remarks on that postcard are important because in the Genealogy itself, he makes little effort to show the unity among the treatises. We shall return to this postcard repeatedly.3 The first treatise has attracted most scholarly attention, but much less work has been done on the second treatise, ‘ “Debts”, “Bad Conscience”, and Related Matters’. This is unfortunate, since it seems that, in Nietzsche’s own view, the central notion of the second treatise, namely, the bad conscience as a feeling of guilt, is a key element of Christian morality. Therefore, understanding Nietzsche’s treatment of this notion is essential to understanding his views on Christianity and the impact of the Christian heritage on non-religious moral philosophy.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesFriedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (2007). On the Genealogy of Morality. Cambridge University Press.
Mark Alfano (forthcoming). Nietzsche, Naturalism, and the Tenacity of the Intentional. International Studies in Philosophy.
Lawrence J. Hatab (2008). Nietzsche's on the Genealogy of Morality: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Christopher Janaway (2007/2009). Beyond Selflessness: Reading Nietzsche's Genealogy. Oxford University Press.
David Lindstedt (1997). The Progression and Regression of Slave Morality in Nietzsche's Genealogy: The Moralization of Bad Conscience and Indebtedness. Man and World 30 (1):83-105.
Christopher Janaway (2007). Guilt, Bad Conscience, and Self-Punishment in Nietzsche's Genealogy. In Brian Leiter & Neil Sinhababu (eds.), Nietzsche and Morality. Oxford University Press.
Gabriel Zamosc (2011). The Relation Between Sovereignty and Guilt in Nietzsche's Genealogy. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2):n/a-n/a.
Rafael Pangilinan (2009). Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosopher of Immoralism? Lumina: An Interdisciplinary Research and Scholarly Journal of Holy Name University 20 (2):1-28.
Donovan Miyasaki (2010). Nietzsche Contra Freud on Bad Conscience. Nietzsche-Studien 39.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads119 ( #4,439 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,489 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
