Abstract

In Zur Genealogie der Moral: eine Streitschrift , Nietzsche analyzes European culture in terms of a succession of moral interpretations of suffering. His polemic against modern morality consists of three essays. Presumably, the essays are related through their method [ Genealogie] and focus [Moral]. However, the essays' disjointed character and the fact that Nietzsche never makes explicit any connections between them has led some interpreters to argue against any connections. This dissertation will argue that the moral interpretation of suffering [ Leiden] is a prominent and repeated theme throughout the essays. ;For Nietzsche, a moral interpretation of suffering is one that assigns blame. Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment in essay one explains how blaming others acquired potency for transforming values. Blaming others created a world of meaning so powerful that it replaced the noble manner of valuation with its own ideals, symbols, and virtues. But blaming others was succeeded by self-blaming; bad conscience emerged from the redirection of blaming. In particular, the concepts of guilt and duty were intensified and internalized by their special connection to Christian morality. Blaming others and self-blaming are succeeded by blaming one's origins. The most refined version of the moral interpretation of suffering extends culpability to life itself. The ascetic ideal views all suffering under the perspective of guilt. This succession of moral interpretations of suffering is responsible for the hypertrophy of man's moral sense to the extent that moderns are demoralized. Nietzsche's polemic aims at arousing spiritedness in a culture based on the morality of compassion [Mitleid]. ;This investigation used GM II:12 as a decoder for the overall structure of the work. Nietzsche's discussion of successive interpretations provided key insight into the organization and unity of the work as a whole. In sum, this dissertation argues that Nietzsche's concern with the moral interpretation of suffering animates the whole and that his remarks on the succession of interpretations in GM II:12 provide its logical structure