Introduction
A genealogy refers to a historical account that explains aspects of human life by illustrating how they came into existence. The account can be based on facts or can be speculative, but a common characteristic is that such accounts are historical. When genealogy is seen as a historical narrative, this view occasions a lack of a clear beginning. The historical lookout is mostly primarily linked with Friedrich Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals (Tibor, 2022). Nietzsche holds that genealogy has a grave purpose which includes revealing the shameful and reliant origins of entrenched practices and cherished ideas. This paper offers an overview of Nietzschean Genealogy. It argues that it is an ineffective form of critique as it entails no valid content historically and thus fails to attain its vital aims, though appealing to some historical past.
Understanding Nietzschean genealogy
Typically, for a theory of genealogy to be effective, it ought to specify a specific criterion. It first needs to explain why there was a rise to the eminence of genealogy in the 19th century. Second, it should contain a plausible account of implied epistemic assurances made by genealogies. Third, it needs to offer an understanding of how genealogical accounts act as critiques. Lastly, it should cover the principal self-proclaimed genealogies examples provided by Foucault and Nietzsche and do so in a manner that differentiates their genealogies from their other writing. Nietzschean Genealogy fails the test: it contains no historically valid content.
Ironically Nietzschean Genealogy is, in its historical moments, a bombshell. It offers a diagnosis of revered moral traditions as life denial forms. In what the standards value as good in contradiction to the actual conditions of natural life (Allison, 2021). Nonetheless, Nietzsche’s work does not serve to promote an amoral or immoral stance on behalf of life forces that are apparently value-free. Instead, Nietzsche is on a quest to explore life-affirming ideals by drawing sources that traditional systems deemed immoral but which are capable of redemption as morally defensible life values. Thus, the genealogy’s vitriolic character infers a twin adverse structure, a fight countering life-refuting ethics on behalf of life-supporting values. Though Nietzschean Genealogy blatantly targets Christian morality, the critique is more than just religion.
Christianity shaped every level of culture in the world, and according to Nietzsche, even moralities that are referred to as secular are not immune to Christianity’s formative elements and its elements of negating life. Furthermore, the genealogy’s polemic is not restricted to morality that is narrowly interpreted as ethics. Nietzschean Genealogy affirms that judgments based on morality countering natural life also have marked an enormous part of the cultural and intellectual history of the west, various spheres not limited just to ethics and religion but also in politics, psychology, philosophy, logic, and science.
These primaries are proven by considering the Genealogy as it relates to the book that precedes it directly in the published works of Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil. Scholar Kaufman avows that the genealogy’s title page is followed by the words: my last book’s sequel, Beyond Good and Evil, which main aim is clarification and supplementing. Supplementing translates to Erganzung, which also has the meaning of completing. Thus, it is imperative to ensure that Beyond Good and Evil is anticipated when construing the Genealogy. Nietzsche affirms that Beyond Good and Evil commenced his war against established values (Biley, 2022). Furthermore, he specifies that Beyond Good and evil is in all aspects a modernity critique, without exception to modern arts, modern politics, and modern sciences, together with indicators of a differing type that is as slightly modern as probable.
Therefore, as this former book’s contemplation, Nietzschean Genealogy ought to be construed as a critique of the contemporary world and the complete assortment of intellectual concepts’ effects on contemporary life. Obviously, at the Genealogy’s core are queries of politics and ethics, but it should be understood that its critique of morality is also an entry to broader queries on meaning, truth, and knowledge. The traditional tactics to which are diagnosed by Nietzsche as identically harboring judgments that are moralistic against natural life.
Through an investigation into how genealogy should be approached philosophically, according to Nietzsche, one discovers that he rejects the concept of philosophy as an impersonal quest for knowledge. By conceiving philosophy in such a manner, this has the effect of concealing an insensible memoir or an individual confession, and thus the thought of a philosopher is a conclusive witness of who the philosopher is. In contemplating a philosophical claim, the critical question should revolve around what the claim says of the person making it. Nietzsche believes it is impossible to separate philosophy from existential interests; thus, disinterested knowledge is fiction (Daisy, 2019). He contends that value perspectives are much more central than objective.
Understanding philosophy in such a manner denotes that the standard knowledge that is demonstrable ought to be exchanged for the concept that is more open to interpretation. Which means the introduction of meaning and not its explanation (Joshua, 2022). Nietzsche emphasizes philosophy as psychological forces personified expression. Key questions that follow such an emphasis would no longer turn on cognitive tests but psychological probes and explorations. Thus, Nietzsche views philosophy as constantly value-loaded and cannot be condensed to objective, descriptive terms or a rational demonstration mission.
In the course of his writing, Nietzsche is consistent in this recognition. By posing the question of what one has to do with refutations, Nietzsche indicates sufficiently that philosophy, including his own textual work, is a reading and writing circulation that taps into and emanates from personal dispositions and forces to life. Though Nietzsche’s text tends to have many first-person singulars, this does not imply that philosophy is just an individual expression. In as much as Nietzsche uses I, he also numerously utilizes We, offering a suggestion of collective dimensions in cultural importance. Through addressing the culture “we” and “you,” Nietzschean Genealogy construes the reader as its baseline textual feature. Furthermore, Nietzsche examines various philosophical queries regarding reality, knowledge, life, truth, and knowledge to get convincing answers to these questions.
Critique of Nietzschean Genealogy
By Critiquing Nietzschean Genealogy for having no contents that are valid historically. It is essential first to ensure one is aware of the aspect in which genealogy is history. The view that genealogy is history is itself subject to doubt, though it is extensively taken to be just as Nietzsche did: to be, in his own authority, a practicing genealogist. He is a historian of even the seemingly non-historical: this is what the highly influential essay, Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’ by Michel Foucault, sets out (Eli, 2022). Though it would appear heroic, it is futile to attempt, as it is with Foucault, to induce a method and theory of historical inquiry from the genealogical writing of Nietzsche when the writing has been tainted visibly with myth and myth-making features.
The account or group of explanations Nietzsche purports to hint at the monotonous current-day evolution narrates a story. The story tells of a culture that was, in a particular instance, aristocratic and knightly, showing a healthy logic of moral affirmation. However, it degenerated due to the oppressed, the acetic-priestly case, and the weak waging a reactive revolt (Matthieu, 2019). Overturning this first hierarchy and the values it has, the slave rebellion starts when antipathy becomes inventive, resulting in values that are inimical to the previously overman embody and, henceforth, susceptible masters.
Numerous millennia later, this noble idea has faded to the misty past, and contemporary men are in the present day in the grasp of a diseased reactive culture. An essential point that Nietzsche incorporated is that the slave revolt opened the door to reverting to the values of the master. Whether in Overman’s figure in some self-affirmation and self-overcoming form or in all instances as a second innocence type. A number of studies examining the origins of contract law, punishment, and other moral value institutionalized forms, offer this memory with a somber foreground of a more necessary and brighter past (Matthieu Q., 2017). However, such studies are a lot that is curious: they appear to be similar stories, mere repetition, viewed from somewhat varied vantage points. Particularly where and when is the slave rebellion in morality supposed to have transpired.
Nietzsche has slight value to illustrate in the manner of documentation, evidence, or the persistent learning that inspires Foucault Nietzsche’s program. Rather what appears is the setting forth of a fair amount of pseudo-erudition in an apodictic mode and challenging brazenly out historical plausibility sense. At one point, Nietzsche claims suavely that the Celts were certainly a blond race. At this argument’s most vital point and its multiple digressions which can be discerned. The claims by Nietzsche, draining all gullibility, occupy an identical status as his intriguing pseudo-etymologies that put no effort in concealing their dubiety as they pretend to plugging unknown gaps.
An important question is on the amount of historical truth that genealogy necessitates. Nietzsche questions the values of his contemporary extant. Why should drawing them to their past roots or just revealing their historically liable character count in counter to them nevertheless? Mapping their history would be differing their critique, failing to achieve it. If the purpose is to demonstrate instinctual effacements, this occasion transpires with sociality onset, if not earlier. Arguments regarding this effacement are inescapable of a mythology piece: just a projection of the present.
It is inevitable to have another approach to this problem. The astounding rush in Nietzsche’s prose is nothing more than a congeries of hypotheses. The query is not in the historical nature of the hypothesis but on why anybody should contemplate it. Nietzsche points out his critique of moral values, actual parameters, and the value they possess in the following terms: “morality as a symptom, as a consequence, as tartufferie, as a misunderstanding, and as a mask. He also spells out morality as a remedy, cause, restraint, poison, and stimulant (Werner, 2022). In his third essay, he continues to suggest that it is his purpose to bring to light not what has been done by ideal. Instead, his is to indicate what it specifies, what it means, what lies beneath it, and what it is.
In plain terms, Nietzsche is inquiring not about values in historical sources but into their form, their illogic, and the matter of sustained bond to morality, its quality to bind, even when it has an acknowledged valuelessness. Regardless of whether the acknowledgment transpired in our underlying awareness secrecy or more openly, whether from an enlightened perspective or cynically. Nietzsche is inquiring into the circumstances and conditions through which the growth of moral values was experienced. Through this, we can understand the constantly new behaviors that values are consistently re-masking, including their fluctuating susceptibility to critique.
Nietzsche’s inquiry is driven by certain types of questions and not historical origins. Some of these questions include, It is inquisitive about why people are fascinated by morality. The manner in which morality seems like a consequence or cause of something or a cause of its own. However, within the inquiry of Nietzsche, there is another unspoken question, which tends to incline more toward a suspicion that it is a theme. The fact that morality might have furtively and intentionally camouflaged itself by seeming to have changed and evolved. The element that perspective and history sense was a morality disguise that tolerates moral values and a belief in their value.
In such a circumstance, the query of why Nietzsche should have opted to present his genealogy as a historical, moral inquiry project would be mystifying. However, this baffling sense is certainly the effect sought to be produced by Nietzsche’s inquiry among those reading his work and offers a clue to the form taken by his critiques. It is important to shove off some probable delusions that are brought by the term genealogy.
When deploying the genealogy concept, Nietzsche lacks a linear developmental scheme that hints modern appearances back to evil causes that have been long-forgotten. However, ultimately banal and shameful that most origins attest to be. However, neither is the genealogical analysis by Nietzsche’s inquiry a study on value formations. What is ultimately named by genealogy are not sequences but their invention. What genealogy labels is not the repression of certain content but the misrecognition that institutes repression. Nietzsche views forgetting as a lively and, in the severest sense, repression’s positive faculty. Such imaginations are obviously not free from free historical determination. The view by Nietzsche’s later and early is that for all its historical conciseness, it is ahistorical, it is overdetermined critically by accretions over time. It is highly so that specific fealties of the manner of the working of the mid seem fixed unreasonably, virtually interporal, and invariable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the discussion offers an overview of Nietzschean Genealogy, thus helping one understand it better. The analysis then presents it as a form of critique that is ineffective. Specific questions have been raised showing its inefficiency. Initially, one has to wonder about Nietzschean Genealogy’s relevance in the modern world. Another question is on what receiving Nietzsche’s teaching means. By exploring this question, one concludes that Nietzschean Genealogy contains no historically valid content; thus, it is highly ineffective.
References
Allison, M. (2021). Knowing ourselves: Nietzsche, the practice of genealogy, and the overcoming of self-estrangement. MDPI, 2-13. Web.
Biley, F. C. (2022). Medicine’s nature and goals: Nietzsche’s genealogy of morality and the changing boundaries of medical practice. Research Article in International Journal for Human Caring, 8(2), 5-10. Web.
Daisy, L. (2019). Three modes of history in on the genealogy of morality. The Journal of Nietzsche Studies, 50(2), 292-309. Web.
Eli, B. L. (2022). Explanation and evaluation in Foucault’s genealogy of morality. European Journal of Philosophy, 4-10. Web.
Joshua, R. (2022). Nietzsche’s genealogy in its relation to history and philosophy. MDPI, 25-29. Web.
Matthieu, Q. (2017). Nietzsche’s Pragmatic Genealogy of Justice. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 5-18. Web.
Matthieu, q. (2019). Nietzsche as a critic of genealogical debunking: making room for naturalism without subversion. The Monist, 2-14. Web.
Tibor, S. (2022). The genealogy of Nietzsche – from a phenomenological perspective. Eszterházy Károly Catholic University, 145-150. Web.
Werner, S. (2022). An orientation to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Orientations Press, 3-10. Web.