Yi An Pan Contemporary Civilization Response Journal #8 On the Genealogy of Morals - Nietzsche I found Nietzsches arguments and train of thought

quite hard to follow. Of the points that I did manage to understand, the first we read for todays class revolves around the argument of good and evil, good and bad, and its origins. He begins by saying that the judgment good did not originate with those to whom goodness was shown rather, it was the good themselves who felt and established themselves and their actions as good (26). This reminded me of Aristotle from first semester, who said that virtuous people become virtuous by doing virtuous acts; similarly, Nietzsche is saying that good does not come from showing goodness to people, but that it was people who practiced goodness that the judgment good came about. Nietzsche also says, in talking about the differences between the noble man and the man of ressentiment, A race of such men of ressentiment is bound to become eventually cleverer than any noble race; it will also honor cleverness to a far greater degree: namely, as a condition of existence of the first importance (38). Sadly, I feel like this is how most people in society are, that they succeed because they become cleverer than any noble race, but not clever with regards to intelligence; but more like knowing how to manipulate, climbs the ropes in society, and knowing which strings to pull. I remember growing up that I became very disillusioned when I learnt that in order to succeed, regardless of the field or age of the individual, pure hard work will only take you to a certain extent, but that is insufficient for success in society. Later, he says, To be incapable of taking ones enemies, ones accidents, even ones misdeeds seriously for very long that is the sign of strong, full natures in whom there is an excess of the power to form, to mold, to recuperate and to forget. (49) This point I was able to relate very strongly with even if Im supremely infuriated at someone or something theyve done, the strong feelings for the most part cannot last for more than half an hour. Nietzsche gives the example of Mirabeau, who had no memory for insults and vile actions done him and was unable to forgive simply because he forgot) (39). I think an important distinction that has to be made is that to forgetting can occur in different ways, naturally, as in the case of Mirabeau, or by active repression of such unpleasant memories, which is something Im good at, Ive discovered. The key different then is that forgetting is not forgiving, to forget is a failure to remember, but to forgive is something entirely different. ( sorry for that tangent, I just identified really strongly with this point).