• To begin with, N faults British philosophers for their genealogical approach towards the “origin of the concept and judgment “good”,” precisely due to their ahistorical approach to the issue, which in turn sees them proclaim that “unegoistic actions” were deemed “good” from the standpoint of the recipient individual, but over time this meant that the authenticity of what made these actions “good” was forgotten and through continued and repeated behavior …show more content…
Instead, the suppressed peoples develop an imaginary revenge, which is the slave morality, but in essence this type of morality is a reaction, and it needs an external stimuli for it to occur. The core difference between the development of the noble morality and the slave morality is that the former is a culmination of a “triumphant affirmation” among the nobles, while the latter is a culmination of a rejection of external morality, that of the …show more content…
Since the valuation of the nobility emerges from already affirmed triumph, it “seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly,” (N, 1989:37). It is in this process of triumph affirmation and contempt that the nobility “falsifies” the image of the common man, but this “falsification” is less grave than the one it triggers from among the common men, which shows that the nobility are “too much careless, too much taking lightly, too much looking away…[…]… for it to be able to transform its object into a real caricature and monster,” (N,