Are the Sith Nietzsche's Masters yearning to be the Superman?

With thanks to Darth Ghost for sparking this idea with the Hegel thread, it occurred to me that Nietzsche's ntion of master and slave moralities may be an avenue worth exploring in regard to the Sith-Jedi relationship.

In the infamous Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche argues the aristocracy, the ruling class, embodies the values of master morality: Controlling, dominant, powerful, they do what they like and take what they want. Contrasted against this is the slave morality of the working class who, lacking the power of their masters, conspire to shackle them in other ways. To the end of proving the former superior to the latter Nietzsche proposes a selective history, society and psychology.

In regard to the Superman ideal, this is an area of Nietzsche I'm less familar with, but in essence, I believe it is a means for realising the aim of going beyond good and evil. A way for the master morality to ascend away from those that wish to constrain it.

Given the evolution of the Sith, especially in regard to the last few years, it would seem that where the Sith's own perception is concerned, they do fit the Nietzschean master mould quite neatly. If we recall Darth Sidious view of the Force, both in Shadow Hunter and ROTS, he sees the Jedi as weak, wedded to a morality that sees them serving their lessers that is narrow. He does not see the dark side as evil but as a wider application of the Force.

Yet, though he railed against it, Nietzsche's "master" figures were defeated again and again by their lessers, for it is against the victory of slave morality that the polemical Genealogy of Morals is aimed at, much as the Jedi defeat the Sith, time and again.

I'd add that this thread can quite easily expand to other areas/applications of Nietzschean thought to SW EU, but this struck me as the best starting point.

 

I think this has been a part of the Sith since the Knights of the Old Republic game actually. There's also something to be said that Palpatine's Weakness of Inferiors is nothing more than watered down Nietzsche. Basically, the Sith attempt to move beyond traditional notions of Good vs. Evil to embrace their own personal freedom.

There's something to be said that the Sith adopt a Nietzsche worldview with some elements of Objectivism. However, whereas Objectivists are fundamentally materialists, The Sith are still mystics. The Sith furthermore have a "Return to Primitivism" view regarding emotions.

If Nietzsche would have any objections to the Sith morality, it would undoubtedly come from the fact that they move "Beyond Good and Evil" only slightly. The Sith make a claim towards freeing themselves from the Master/Slave Morality but then immediately shackle themselves to a new religion. Nietzsche would be the first one to point out the hypocrisy of the fact that apprentices, once they have abandoned their traditional morality, then immediately find themselves in an Anton Levay style Satanism that devotes them to pushing their boundaries in terms of both morality and emotion. The Sith are shackled to the same belief structure that Nietzche railed against in Thus Spoke Zarathustra where they do not question what they are told religiously.

Darth Maul, for example hates the Jedi Knighthood. Why? He's told to do so by Sidious who he is a slave to. Darth Maul, Darth Vader, and Count Dooku are all slaves to Darth Sidious who is the only potential person genuinely beyond good vs. evil in the Sith mindset since everyone else is a slave to him. They not only are physically enslaved to him but mentally enslaved to him as well as they act out their loathing of the Jedi Knighthood without ever moving past the pointlessness of the loathing. The Sith are not freeing their minds, simply exchanging one religion for another.

 

I've often likened the Sith to Nietzsche's work, yeah. I suppose though one could probably model most "Evil Overlords" to fit the idea, but I think the Sith are quite good because they aren't (usually) the same as Dark Wizards like Voldemort who basically just want to kill everything. In contrast, the Sith normally have at least some sense of perverse and twisted logic behind their actions, making them more evil dictators than simply the Sauron-esque Dark Lords you get all the time in Fantasy.

It doesn't apply to all Sith; Dark Empire's Palpatine, Darth Nihilus, and perhaps even Darth Bane, all aimed more to just become dark gods than the rulers of the galaxy like the normal more conventional Sith. I think perhaps the ancient Sith Empire may also on the whole have fit the dark god model more than the Post-Revan ones. Karness Muur does not strike me as fitting Nietzsche so much as simply fitting the thoroughly psychotic Fantasy Dark Lord stereotype. I think perhaps the ancient Sith Empire became more conventional by the days of Naga Sadow who wanted to subjugate the Galaxy, rather than simply master dark magics in private like Marka Ragnos and his predecessors had been fairly content with.

 

There is still a very strong Palpatine-Sauron connection though, since Palpatine hoped for near-immortality and the continuation of his rule threatened "to cover all the lands in a second darkness", so to speak.

 

I've always seen Dark Empire Palpatine as akin to Sauron, yeah. I tend to feel prior to Endor he fit the more conventional model though. I suppose, privately, he was already planning his move to replace the Moffs with his Dark Side Adepts and transform the galaxy into his eternal Dark Empire; though the public "Evil Overlord of Emperor Palpatine" was more toned down than the "Dark God of Darth Sidious" in Dark Empire.

It is certainly true though that in a sense he was indeed always "Dark God Darth Sidious" the whole time, just we never saw that side of him very much.

 

As a philosopher firmly in the analytic tradition, all I have to say is, "Nietzsche?"

 

He was apparently concerned with cheating death around the time of ROTS.

 

Your point is predicated on a fundamental misreading of Nietzsche.

Ignorance is not bliss.

 

Hey Mathew! Welcome to our thread!

We'd love for you to give your view on Sith morality!

Unrelated to Matt...

I think the most coherent view of the Sith's "ethics" was expressed by Yuthara Ban in the Korriban Academy during Knights of the Old Republic. The Sith teach that they do what they want, when they want it, and they make no apologies about it. The Sith do not follow any "Will of the Force" but instead attempt to make their own destinies.

This isn't inherently evil but the Sith seem to have a weird focus on dominating others.

 

I'm not sure that Sith have a morality at all.

Morality, fundamentally, is a framework of value-judgments. The Sith seem to me to have no framework beyond the simple position that "Good is whatever I say it is. The term gooditself is useful only for deceiving cattle who might otherwise obstruct the fulfillment of my desires."

Caveat lector: The response above is only my opinion as a fellow fan. It should under no circumstances be presumed to reflect some "inside knowledge" gained through my position as a SW author, nor should it be presumed to represent in any way the views or opinions of anyone other than myself.

Anyway . . . I can't hang out; I just stopped in to give my brain a rest.

Back to work.

 

That being said, the Sith do seem to follow this particular interpretation of Nietzche.

Charles: the argument you make about religion makes sense, but it's also part of the fundamental test of Bane's line - when the apprentice "realizes" that he is wiser and more powerful than his master, he makes a move to kill. Maul was an attack dog, and you're quite right in your assessment of him, but I think that just goes to show that Palpatine never really had grand plans for him.

 

True,

On the other hand, this is actually something only Palpatine understands with the possibility of Darth Vectivus and Darth Krayt also realizing it. Darth Bane's plan rests upon the concept that the Sith will continue to work to the overthrow of the galactic Republic along with the destruction of the Jedi.

The reason that real life Secret Societies fail over generations is that generally people will realize that they have no obligation to people that died a couple of centuries years ago.

It's a bit like a Doctor Who episode "Daleks in Manhattan" and its sequel. The Doctor points out that the Dalek Mutant is correct in its assessment of the fundamental paradox of the Daleks. They're constantly getting nearly destroyed because they're carrying around the Villain Ball everywhere they go.

It would actually be MORE conducive to Sith survival and power if they didn't behave like amoral psychopaths.

Palpatine alone seemed to say "I'll do what *I* want."

Which was build a Dark Side theocracy, live forever, and let the galaxy burn if he failed. Apprentice or no apprentice.

 

That requires a level of meta-cognition that the Sith aren't engaging in - from the villains' point of view, he's the protagonist, after all.

Well there's two important points here: first, Palpatine really was the bestest of the best of Sith, and so it's only natural that he would be able to keep a handle on things, and second, as the victor, the Sith who was able to finally checkmate the galaxy, it fell on Palpatine to wonder what to do next in ways it didn't fall on other Sith. Which is not to say they didn't have plans, too.

 

MWS,

Be interesting if you could expand on what you see as a misreading in what I've proposed - as I didn't mention the idea of ignorance being bliss in that opening.

Another Q is also: Which Nietzsche? What he wrote earlier isn't necessarily the same as his later work.

For example the infamous "God is dead" aphorism has a great deal of truth to it - if lip service is but paid to ideals, does not the mass desertion of them effectively kill them? Which could be said of the GFFA in the PT, the Sith ascend on a carpet of banal viciousness and petty-minded spite that's been going so long as to be deemed the way things are.

Finally, was Nietzsche wrong about the "victory" of slave morality? Did the "masters" actually end up winning? After all, the same people who run the world now are the reasonably similar to those that did the same thing 100 or 200 years ago. Are the Sith having greater impact on the galaxy due to being so often in control of it? Either overtly or covertly?

 

I think it is simple. there are two bodies of work of FN. No.1 is the pop-cultural work. You take several sentences from him, Friedrich Nietzsche, and interpeet them in a way that fits into the "Nietzsche is evil" and his philosophy is too, way. People with that kind of knowledge of Nietzsche usually think the Nazi´s followed Nietzsche, doing evil is what Nietzsche thought is okay and the Übermensch is something ruling the world.

They lack understanding.

Nietzsche No2 is much more complex. I studied him in Law Philosophy for five years and still I understand him (to some extend, nothing compared to my mentor´s), but have a hard time adopt to his thinking. He is one of the more complex philosophers. Invented several viewpoints he wasn´t even aware of (the ground-breaking idea that law is not to be mixed with morale was credited to him, even so Mr. Kelsen might have a good part of influence) and was actually cursed by having a good talent for one-liners that summarized his ideas. Oneliners that later appear somewhere and are associated with primitve self-serving ideas like fascism or . . . the fictional Sith.

The Master/Slave morality is actually something born of it´s time. And even Nietzsche sees it´s end coming, but fears for a rebirth. It may be an idea if the internal Sith in their Golden Age worked according to this model. Actually it is smart enough to see it in any ruled society. The Jedi are surely not part of it. They seem to have more of a Master-philosophy, actually. As they share their main idea: Ignorance for other views.

The Ãœbermensch/Superhuman is something entirely different. A human being beyond the limitations of several key problems Nietzsche had analysed in human thinking, perception and interpretation.
Nevertheless, the Sith think more like german fascists and their "Herrenmensch" than Nietzsche´s "Übermensch". Not to be mixed. The Nazi´s said it´s the same, but even their smarter heads knew that was bulloks.
The "Übermensch" is thought to be constructive. An architect of society (by example) and guide of men (intellectual). Not a ruler. Actually being an "Übermensch" and having any desire to "rule" doesn´t work at all.

Without now outlining the idea of the "Ãœbermensch" . . . which I think my english might be too limited to do, I hope nobody gets the idea Sith and Nietzsche have any common ground. But rather take Nietzsche and read him with an open mind. He needs years to be fully understood, but it is a journey worth taking.

My two cents. Maybe even three.

-Fin-

 

Your use of the pejorative ("infamous" has come up twice now), for example, betrays the ignorance I spoke of; your interpretation of his ideas seems to share, at least in your presentation of it in this thread, the fundamental flaws that sent Leopold and Loeb off the deep end. You find your concept of his ideas loathesome -- the flipside of L&L -- but the concept smells very much the same.

For example: Toward a Genealogy of Morals (I refer Kaufman's reading) is not a polemic. It's a diagnosis. Neitzsche surgically separates morality from religion -- he shows, in fact, how religion is tailored to political ends. This is not a "celebration" of master morality. Nietzsche is always more descriptive than prescriptive, if you see what I mean. Nor does he contend, if I recall correctly, that "master" and "slave" morality are the only forms that exist. He also (again, if I recall correctly) does not contend that either flavor of morality exists unalloyed. Most of the book is an exploration of the power of ressentiment as a social force.

The phrase "beyond good and evil" is taken from an aphorism in the volume of the same name: "Whatever is done out of love takes place beyond good and evil." It has nothing to do with the Ubermensch, nor is it framed as a worthy goal toward which to strive. It is a simple statement, one that (in my experience) is empirically verified. Love is stronger than moral stricture.

Nietzsche's ideas did develop -- perhaps "refine" would be a better term -- over the course of his career, but they are not self-contradictory in the manner, say, Wittgenstein's two metaphysics.

What nearly everyone misses about Nietzsche is that for him, philosophy was an art in the essential tradition of, say, Taoist poetry. His fundamental truths are couched in metaphor; there's a section in the early parts of Beyond Good and Evil that you might find valuable -- where he develops a theme first presented in Thus Spake Zarathustra, about the masks that truth must wear.

 

I must say I wouldn´t have expected you ( or any other Star Wars author for that matter) to be trained in the (these days) underestimated arts of philosophy, Mr. Stover. I apologize for my ignorance . But I am very impressed. Especially taking into account I liked your last novel, a lot.

Back to Nietzsche:

I think that the topic of "early" Nietzsche and "late" Nietzsche (and many think there is another Nietzsche: The "collapsing Nietzsche") really haven´t contradicted themselves. Late Nietzsche only had much broader concepts as the matter of his analysis. He also shifted to a more active approach in shaping philosophy. Simplified he truend from "Social Philosophy" to "human nature philosophy".
In "Morgenröte" (no idea what it was translated to) he did no less than judge and challenge all of the western philosophy since Plato.

I am not sure if this is right. I think our world has changed very much in the last 200 years. Especially in Europe/Germany, where Nietzsche lived. When he was alive, we still had strong ideas of feudalism in this country.
But I think though his idea of "victory" is a theoretical one, anyway. Like all true philosophical conflicts, both concepts are worldviews which change over time. The Manager-Elite of today may have some similarities to the Nobles of the 19th century. But being similar doesn´t make the ideas behind them exchangable.



And yeah: I would die to know what Nietzsche thinks of our media society. It is something I am dreaming about.

 

Matt,

Thanks for the reply.

In regard to my use of the description 'infamous' it is reference to the use - or you may prefer, abuse - which I'd agree on - of Nietzsche by the Nazis.* I think you'd agree Nietzsche is vulnerable to people hijacking phrases from his work and putting them to differet ends than he may have envisaged. Not that Nietzsche is blameless here, he did have a liking for burying and obscuring meaning in his works and says as much in one of his books.

(* At the same time though, it might be said that aspect draws people to Nietzsche because they want to see what he really said and how.)

Equally, I do need to reacquaint myself with Nietzsche, as its some years since I was able to look at it - in that time my outlook has likely changed greatly so it'd be an interesting experiment.

As to the Genealogy not being a polemic, I'm reasonably certain the author entitles it so.

DLSF,

Thanks for the expansion and explanation on the nature of Nietzsche's Superman - an area I acknowledged only passing familarity with - that changes the thread quite a bit and opens up an entirely new avenue to go down.

 

The influence of Nietzsche on the Nazis was the result, almost exclusively, of the post-breakdown and posthumous editing of The Will to Power by his sister -- who was a raging paranoid anti-Semite, by most accounts. For Nietzche's true feelings on anti-Semitism and the general Deutchland uber alles spew that formed the (supposed) philosophical underpinnings of Nazism, check out his late Nietzsche contra Wagner, which makes a nifty read, especially if you read his youthful The Case of Wagner first.

There is a series of translations by RJ Hollingdale (an associate, and -- I believe -- sometime student of the aforementioned Walter Kaufman) that are really beautifully written.

DLF --

I was not trained in philosophy. I just like to read (which leaves me pretty weak on, for example, Hegel and Kant, because they make my eyes glaze over). Nietzsche is a particular favorite of mine because he was (arguably) the best writer that European philosophy has produced since Plato.

Part of what I like about Nietzsche is that he can't be bothered with constructing an intricate framework of logic to surround his observations; he's only interested in reporting the truth as he sees it. In fact, the introduction of Beyond Good an Evil contains a fascinating mini-essay on the value of truth -- he points out that no one has ever made a persuasive case for truth being more valuable than a useful lie; he himself admits that his devotion to truth is an act of blind faith.

Truth has value, for him, because he has chosen to give it value . . . which is one of the reasons he is generally regarded as the father of existentialism.

I share his faith in the intrinsic value of truth, which leaves me permanently suspicious of most forms of "analytic" philosophy (pacé Pharistes above) -- because, in my experience with university-trained analytic philosophers, they are more concerned with whether a statement is valid than with whether it is true . . . which inevitably leads into the wilderness of free-floating epistemology, from whence few travelers return.

 

Ouch. There are bad apples in any bunch, but this would be a gross caricature if applied to all analytic philosophers. We deeply value truth. Most of us agree with Plato, Aristotle, etc., that truth is intrinsically valuable and that knowledge of truth is valuable for its own sake, i.e., that knowledge of truth is, in that characteristically Kantian idiom, an end in itself.
We value logic because, among other uses, it helps us to detect errors in reasoning, and so helps to avoid believing falsehoods. When someone provides an invalid argument, it is quite useful to know that it's invalid so that one isn't misled into believing its conclusion on the basis of said argument (of course, we don't disbelieve the conclusion on that basis either, for that would also be an invalid inference). Speaking for myself, I specialize in analytic metaphysics and analytic philosophy of religion precisely because I want to know the truth about reality, and analytic methods are wonderful for this.

 

Thanks for those recommendations Matt, they'll be added to The List. (Everyone's got one of these, haven't they?)

One point I am intrigued by is the notion of training in philosophy. For myself, the first time I came into contact with philosophy as a subject and area formally was first year at Uni as an undergraduate. Hence, the various traditions, formalities, conventions etc were totally unknown to me - and for the most part, still remain so - doing an MA taught me I did not want to go further into academia, for it was too concerned with turf wars.

(At the same time though, due to reading SF, fantasy, comics and other stuff, I was quite familar with a lot of the concepts and ideas found in philosophy.)

 

Philosophically, it's interesting to note the Sith seem to have a number of different viewpoints. Anyone want to comment on these?

1. Objectivist Sith

These are Sith Lords who pursue enlightened selfishness as the ultimate pursuit of an individual. They attempt to gain more Knowledge, More Power, and more Influence as their only pursuits. Darth Bane is a follower of this viewpoint and some have considered Emperor Palpatine to be this way.

I think Lucas' recent retcons have Palpatine not as an Objectivist Sith. The Sith Teacher on Korriban who has become a strange old hermit is one.

2. Fascist Sith

These are Sith who pursue the idea of "Peace through Power" in the manner of Kane from Command and Conquer. Emperor Palpatine, Krayt, Darth Caedus, Malak, Revan, and Darth Vader all followed this particular school of thought.

They attempt to institutionalize repressive and authoritarian military regimes with Dark Side leadership.

3. God-Emperor Sith

Freedon Nadd, Exar Kun, and Marka Ragnos follow this viewpoint. They take on the manner of Oriental Despotism (as the Romans defined it) where a King is also worshiped as a god. The Sith Empire was one of these viewpoints and they are a theocracy ruled by Dark Side magicians.

Darth Wyrrlock also appears to be one of these.