See below how both use the same sets of imagery as a basis for propounding the same naturalistic philosophy of morality.
NIETZSCHE:
That lambs dislike great birds of prey does not seem strange: only it gives no ground for reproaching these birds of prey for bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves: "these birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey, but rather its opposite, a lamb-would he not be good?" there is no reason to find fault with this institution of an ideal, except perhaps that the birds of prey might view it a little ironically and say: "we don't dislike them at all, these good little lambs; we even love them: nothing is more tasty than a tender lamb."
To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a desire to overcome, a desire to throw down, a desire to become master, a thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs, is just as absurd as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength. A quantum of force is equivalent to a quantum of drive, will, effect - more, it is nothing other than precisely this very driving, willing, effecting, and only owing to the seduction of language (and of the fundamental errors of reason that are petrified in it) which conceives and misconceives all effects as conditioned by something that causes effects, by a "subject," can it appear otherwise.
[GENEALOGY OF MORALS, FIRST ESSAY #13]
**************
SADE:
"The man I describe is in tune with Nature."
"He is a savage beast."
"Why, is not the tiger or the leopard, of whom this man is, if you wish, a replica, like man created by Nature and created to accomplish Nature's intentions? The wolf who devours the lamb accomplishes what this common mother designs, just as does the malefactor who destroys the objects of his revenge or his lubricity."
"Oh, Father, say what you will, I shall never accept this destructive lubricity."
"Because you are afraid of becoming its object -- there you have it: egoism. Let's exchange our roles and you will fancy it very nicely. Ask the lamb, and you will find he does not understand why the wolf is allowed to devour him; ask the wolf what the lamb is for: to feed me, he will reply. Wolves which batten upon lambs, weak victims of the strong: there you have Nature, there you have her intentions, there you have her scheme.
[JUSTINE, GROVE PRESS, p 608)
2 comments:
Shall the lamb accept the perspective of the Wolf, as true and decent, therefore, he should squat in front of thus, and let it be perpetrated, the wolf's measure of himself?
His measure extended ever so slightly over the lamb, but his true measure, he never need tell the lamb?
What if the lamb knew not of the wolf's position?
What if the lamb does not care one wit about a wolf, and the wolf only cares about the lamb?
Thanks, that was interesting, but the lamb does not lie with wolves, I"m told the lamb does not lie at all. Making the lamb err to think it must even be a lamb, but only by the wolf does it feel itself a lamb.
The lamb does not deem itself a proper thing until it is told it is the lamb.
When told of this lamb nature, does the wolf automatically prey upon it?
The lamb-i-nator, glosses over the wolf.
Post a Comment