Strength is better than weakness. Is there a serious argument to the contrary?

Yes. The argument runs "being weak is bad but at least we're morally right which is more important, unlike those strong people who abuse us who are morally wrong."

That's not an argument against the claim. Is being strong better than being weak, regardless of moral quality?

It is an argument against the claim because the claim is that being strong is BETTER than being weak. 'Better' can be interpreted as 'morally better' so it does work. The moral quality is precisely why it does work as an argument. The original claim in no way forbids moral reasoning.

What strength what weakness?
A bodybuilder has a mind si weak I can manipulate him into literally whatever I want. But he has 1% more natural brute force even tough I have access to machines that make millions of time more physical strenghtt
Who is stronger?

no lol

Imagine one strong person and one weak person, of same moral quality. Isn't the strong one better?

Stop introducing other variables, morals DO NOT matter for the question.

This biggest hole in Nietzsche's theories.

Nietzsche was incredibly weak.

How's that? Wouldn't you agree that slave morality has triumphed over the noble ideals for the past two millennia?

I was agreeing with you.

Will to power is a scam. Unless you're chad it's certainly difficult to live by those standards and trust me most people who read Nietzsche are not the chad type

Post body. I bet you’re a skinnyfat abomination.

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God.

10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

The weak are clever, for sure, but that doesn't contradict the statement of the OP.

How does that contradict the claim? Must a weak person believe being weak is better than being strong? Are people not able to believe things are true which aren't self-flattery?

but how can you refer to it as "slave" morality, if its winning?

>Will to power is a scam. Unless you're chad it's certainly difficult to live by those standards and trust me most people who read Nietzsche are not the chad type
The best practitioners of Nietzsche would never read Nietzsche. In fact, the chaddest of all would never even read a philosophy book.

That doesn't contradict the claim that strength is better. It's amazing how many people think it's somehow impossible for someone to believe something which isn't self-flattery. Implicitly you're all arguing in Nietzsche's favor, you cannot comprehend anyone arguing a belief which isn't in their self interest.

I'm literally repeating the line of argumentation that Nietzsche ascribed to the jews bud. Obviously I don't think to be weak is good.

>being strong good
Not that I disagree, but is this what really made this guy popular? Were people so starved for ideas in the 1800s?

Attached: file.png (1000x1000, 1.84M)

In a world where suffering is possible, no.

No

>The best practitioners of Nietzsche would never read Nietzsche.
This is retarded, both in the sense that if you read him you'd never understand that will to power is an over-emphasized meme from among his ideas, but in the sense that he explicitly wrote so that others might understand his ideas and better shape society towards the ubermensch/amor fati and away from the last man/the slow death.

They keep winning though. How is this not indicative of having superior strength?

No this board is just full of pseuds lol

>there are many types of weaknesses that can give you a cunning and massive advantage over a "strong" person
name one

Slave and Master morality isn't about winning or necessarily about strength per se. In an oversimplified way master morality is expressing your strengths and power freely, whereas slave morality is a reaction to being unable to do this by turning your weaknesses into "strengths" because you can't get what you truly want, e.g. can't get pussy so you make chastity a virtue and sex a vice; or you're powerless so you make power evil; or you can't have all the food and money you desire so you deny these desires and vow to poverty or asceticism. But at the same time Nietzsche wasn't exactly saying the specific master morality he was speaking of is what we should emulate, but more that we should avoid slave morality as it's born from ressentiment and is therefore weak and sick.

I'd respectfully disagree here. Nietzsche's slave morality is that we value victims because they are low in power like Christ on Earth. This line of reasoning gives Nieztsche far too much credit - it wasn't about the material conditions but the power relationships. It's a valuable critique of Christianity because victimhood without forgiveness is valueless whereas with forgiveness and grace it is beautiful.

being high enough on the oppression food chain allows you to use the full force of legal and social institutions to destroy your enemies

Happiness in slavery concept, being strong bears a high responsibility on people, from having to discipline oneself to being responsible for others well being, strong people are rarely happy. Whereas "slaves" who follow can do whatever the fuck they want and not bother themselves with high responsibilities.

But from a moral standpoint, the "slaves" corrupt the strong into slave mentality, which in turn, turns the world to shit.

From a rational standpoint though, doing whatever makes you happy would be acceptable.

Interesting, admittedly I'm not well read enough to offer a response but I'll look into this interpretation.

What an unbelievable pseud. Imagine if a historian made this claim they'd be mocked endlessly. But cause it's le epic mustache man he gets away with these insane generalizations.

Sounds like Freud

The person you're replying to is giving the most superficial reading of Nietzsche possible. Nietzsche fully recognizes times where slave morality fell by the wayside since antiquity.

Isn't Nietzsche just pointing out the source of the weak's power, so the strong can fight back?

>Whereas "slaves" who follow can do whatever the fuck they want
lmao

Attached: 1650567436001.jpg (683x1024, 137.97K)

Weakness can be stronger than strength. Lao Tzu told me, like river cuts through rock. So we need better definition of strength.

Attached: 1644379089844.png (625x547, 442.91K)

I like the use of “rabble” instead of “weak”

I believe it's from Beyond Good and Evil

Yes. More importantly, he was pointing out how untermensch operate so that the ubermensch can better recognize himself.

Slave morality and weakness are not one in the same. Many who demonstrated strength for Nietzsche were psychically or mentally weak, although not both. In the middle ages and Renaissance, social conditions and Christianity allowed weak people to float inside of society and avoid problems that normally would have come to them on previous ages where the social contract was weaker. Plenty of historical figures (many Catholics, scientists, J00s) were able to avoid trouble by playing whatever their game was within society. Nothing slavish about it. Unless Aquinas, Galileo, and Nietzsche himself count as slaves

>better.
Wow , so even Neetch was a moralistic fag.

It's amazing how one sentence can expose the cognitive deficiencies of so many Yea Forums posters

Disagree. Positioning humility as an ideal creates a culture where people are afraid to have great ambitions for fear of offending others who may perceive them as arrogant. Without people establishing high aims we would have none of the great architecture or technology that we do. Humility is a christcuck slave morality virtue designed to drag higher men down through the weaponisation of guilt.

That makes it sound less like "weakness" and more like "letting yourself be vulnerable so you can be open minded" while being flexible, instead of a stubborn hardass.

>weakness is le bad
>goes insane

nobody can truly go back to pagan morality. anyone who tries will go insane like Nietzsche. we can't undo 2500 years of the Axial Age changing human consciousness.

did you even read nietzsche? also, his definition of weakness is reacting, and his definition of strength is not reacting. so you're weak, you reactionary, right wing, neofascist bigot. i'd shoot you in the head if i had the legal right to, put you down like the dog, the pig, the cow that you are

For all practical purposes Europeans retained traditional aristocratic values. The class system of England goes agains the egalitarianism of Jesus’ teachings. The idolatry of Notre Dame go against Jesus’ teachings. The Crusades would have never happened if it were not for Christianity being rebranded as a warrior religion to convince Germanic pagans to convert. Europeans acted out Platonic virtues despite believing in the Christian metaphysical narrative.

Based

Aren't you making a hidden moral statement?

that's cool that you want to sterilize your children with hormone therapy, expose them to homosexual groomer teachers, and replace your high IQ high trust society with ethnic and cultural conflict, but basically the rest of us are just gonna have to be neofascists, haha I know... UGH I know... I'm sorry! but we're just gonna have to be neofascists is all, hahaha