Nietzsche and Gandhi, Society

The way that Robert Nietzsche is simple on his eyes the strongest individual always wins. For Nietzsche this applies to both in the human race and in nature. This is the society loves and believes in and wants to implement throughout the entire world. He wants a society to produce the strongest and toughest people possible. To create this, he wants to beat down the weak. To create a superman or “ubermensch”. Also in the eyes of Nietzsche wait, he believes life is that you should beat down and belittle poor people or people below your social status. Life is incorporating being harsh, overpowering, and imposing your will on these poor people.in this scenario, there is a slave and master mentality involved, in which that the master believes that it is absolutely necessary to belittle the lesser poor people. This is not the

"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean is not." -Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was a powerhouse, a leader, and an activist. He started the Salt March, which was a movement that created a new light for the people involved in it.

These two structures are controlled by different intangible themes. The first is ‘good/bad’ in terms of master morality and the second is ‘evil/good’ in terms of the slave morality. Noble classes and races, according to Nietzsche, started by defining their actions, themselves and their way of life as ‘good’, while ‘bad’ simply referred to anything that was not noble – “everything lowly, low-minded, common and plebeian” (OGM, Sec. I.2). In contrast, the morality of slaves discusses a position of weakness rather than strength. It starts by redefining the masters’ values as ‘evil’, while ‘good’ refers to anything opposed to that of ‘evil’. Unable to create their own original values, the slaves instead invert the values of their masters. This makes the master morality affirmative and favorable, while the slave morality is reactant and adverse. Deleuze, in an interpretation of Nietzsche, summarizes these two positions as a constrasting formula: where the master’s saying is “I am good, so that means you are bad”, while the slave’s logic is that of ‘ressentiment’: “You are evil, so that means I am good.”

ADHD, defiance disorder, pregnancy, these are just few of the things medicalized in the West (Davies 1995). With the rising prestige of Doctors in the 19th century, came a widening of the gap of knowledge between Doctors and the general population (Davies 1995). Doctors have kept a sort of lock on medical knowledge, enabling them to medicalize all sorts of “issues” aided by the idea of the medical mystique. But with the emergence of medicalization and cures that are being searched for by Doctors, a new problem has arisen. This fixation on curing illnesses has led to Doctors viewing patients as experiments and not as human beings, this is seen especially in technologically advanced societies as exemplified in the movie Wit. In addition to this new problem, there are clear establishments of hierarchy between medical professionals such as Doctors and nurses as well as the emotional detachments with the patients which can lead to patients feeling left out and alone.

impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom."

Nietzsche also goes back and forth about inflicting pain and cruelty to enable one to see reason more clearly and whether or not public spectacles of pain are beneficial or a further cause of ressentiment. Many of his ideas seem rather drastic but he changes his mind about some of them as he continues to spill his thoughts on paper as they go through his mind.

Slave morality is reactive and negative and originates in the denial of all aspects that are different from it. On the other hand, master morality is concerned with the outside. The bad tends to be an afterthought, and it is a contrast, which brings out the noble ones’ superiority (Cothran 91-2). Meanwhile, both the master and slave morality can encompass the distortion of the truth; master morality does it more lightly. The minorities in the societies are unhappy and the nobles deem themselves as happy. Any misunderstanding is rested on the distance and contempt they hold for the lower class. Masters have the inability to take seriously the aspects that build and fester in the resentment of people such as enemies, misfortunes, and accidents. In permitting hatred and resentments to grow, relying on secrets, patience and scheming, the minorities become clever, as compared to the noble (Fitzgerald

Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher in the 1800’s. His work has since influenced, impacted, and brought forth new questions for many philosophers to follow. One of Nietzsche’s famous writings Beyond Good and Evil expresses his views on society and the two different classes it holds, slave and master. He expresses his belief that the two are in warfare with one another, the strong (master) fighting for the will to power, while the weak (slave) tries to pull the master down to their level using clandestine forms of revenge. Nietzsche believed the slave morality was one that included humility, obedience, and submission, and was the destructive choice and attribute of Christianity, while the master morality was full of arrogance and pride

For Nietzsche, “the slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.” (Nietzsche 913). This imaginary revenge causes the complete reversal in defining words of class. The resentful slaves and priests looked up at the nobility with anger, characterizing them as selfish, corrupted, abusive and tyrannical, among other things. Ultimately, they came to the conclusion that the nobility were the pinnacle of evil. In doing so, “he has conceived ‘the evil enemy,’ ‘the Evil One,’ and this in fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a ‘good one’—himself!” (Nietzsche 915). Through the venomous eye of ressentiment, the slave class has characterized the good men, those with strong moral character as evil, and in doing so, has

According to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, exercising and expanding one’s personal power is “all that one wants” (Nietzsche 36). He argues that “we hurt those to whom we need to make our power perceptible, [and] we benefit and show benevolence toward those who already depend on us in some way” (36). Per this logic, individuals who exhibit generosity feel content with their current influence on the world while those who act injuriously yearn for more control over their peers. It is not surprising, then, that the Poor White sociocultural caste of the Antebellum and particularly the Postbellum South exhibited extreme malice towards blacks, in attempts to elevate themselves due to

The essential of Gandhi is anthology of his life. It is separated into two parts. One as Gandhi the man and the other as the Mahatma meaning Great Soul. I was very much well interested in the readings of The Essential Gandhi. What I was most interested in was that he spoke with so much determination and compassion. His firm belief in nonviolence was presented very strongly. “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. Gandhi believed strongly in non-violent civil disobedience, so he states that violence provides only temporary relief or satisfaction, but the pain it causes people and societies is much greater. There is so much violence in the world today and some believe you have to fight violence with violence but Gandhi was very successful with his method of not acting upon violence in such of as in a hatred way. He solely helped India become independent with his method of nonviolence. Before I read this story I knew very little details of him, but the main thing that always puzzled me, what gave Gandhi the courage to make such a difference in the world?

In his book, Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche examines the origins of Good and Evil. He postures that these two concepts are derived from language, rather than essential morality. He argues that people label things as good or evil based upon their personal feelings and position of privilege. Douglas Smith translated this edition of Genealogy of Morals into English, but he also included explanations of some of Nietzsche’s key concepts. According to Smith, “A central concept in Nietzsche’s argument, ressentiment is the essence of slave morality, a purely reactive mode of feeling which simply negates the active and spontaneous affirmation of values on the part of the nobility” (142). Ressentiment stems from the oppressed party’s jealousy. The oppressed do not accept that it is bad that they do not have the luxuries and rights that the nobility posses. Instead, the oppressed use ressentiment, flip the moral spectrum, and declare that those luxuries are evil.

It does not find its root and origin in objective circumstances; it originates from a place of suppression, of seeking freedom, and most significantly, of ressentiment. Herein the idea Nietzsche proposes is that the slaves are responsive against their noble masters because they are weak and impotent, leading to the festering of hatred and resentment. This means that values culminating from the revolt would be inaccurate in representing the true meaning of “good” or “evil”, because they were formed through the tainted lens of the slaves of ressentiment. They would portray the slaves, the weak, and the powerless as “good” and favourable, while casting the nobles, the masters, and the upperclassmen in an “evil” and malicious light. This inverts the original notion that the nobles are the definition of “good”. Nietzsche expounds this situation by clarifying that the nobles become “blond beast[s]” (Nietzsche, page 128) when out of their familiar circumstances, insinuating that they turn into a barbaric state where they seek victory over those who are inferior to them. In turn, displays of brutality will be expressed, as a by-product of this barbarism and therefore, fulfilling the morality of the nobles as “evil”. Nietzsche also expresses that this form of morality may not always be beneficial; it cages the

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.

The researcher understood the specific theme chosen and was a bit au-fait with the topic, because she had a keen interest in Gandhi and all his work. In an age where violence is on the increase Gandhi’s message of non-violence is needed. It is the researchers hope that this IA will reach a wide cross section of people and will effect a change. Gandhi’s views on issues like untouchability are deeply dealt with. Never anywhere Gandhi’s views about untouchability were effectively heard. But, in this book they were dealt in detail with lots of arguments and convincing proofs of why untouchability is sin. Even his co-living with the untouchables and the resistance he faced for that is discussed. His views on religion, nationality, his movements like civil-disobedience, are also clearly shown. Even his opinions on many religions were discussed in deep; a striking