Nietzche in a Book Corner

Our last Book Corner gathering was dedicated to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The aim was not to discuss a specific book, but rather to explore an introduction to his philosophy.

Our guest speaker, Anthony Oueiss, who holds a master’s degree in philosophy, opened the discussion with this question: “If you had the choice to repeat your life endlessly after death, without knowing what it would contain, would you accept or not?”

The answers varied between “yes” and “no,” but the majority leaned toward “no.” This question served as a starting point for Anthony to introduce Nietzsche’s philosophy.

He explained that Nietzsche saw the world as divided into two groups: the dominants (those who rule over others) and the dominated (those who are ruled). According to him, morality applies only to the dominants. The dominated, having no one above them, are free from such constraints and can act as they wish. The dominants, on the other hand, are bound by morality and its demands.

Humans carry a “bad nature” that must be denied. There are three main ways this denial is attempted: through the state, religion, and society.

However, Nietzsche argued that these means do not work for the dominants, since they are the state, they represent religion, and they control society. This means that the burden of denying “bad nature” falls on the dominants themselves. To ensure they do so, strict measures and even harsh punishments are placed upon them if they refuse.

To enforce this denial, Nietzsche introduced the concept of the “Ideal Asctique.” This leads to what he called “the morality of slaves”. This morality, shaped by the dominated, dictates that the dominants must embrace suffering and restraint: living modestly, fasting, undertaking unpleasant religious practices, and sacrificing pleasures, all with the promise of heaven as a reward.

In this way, the dominated gain influence and control over the lives of the dominants, shaping their behavior through moral and religious expectations.

What is Nietzsche’s solution to this problem?

Nietzsche proposed the creation of a figure he called the Übermensch (Superman). This figure embodies three key values:

1-He must be able to answer “yes” to the question posed at the beginning — to embrace the eternal return of life.

2-He must establish his own morality and take full dominance over his own life.

3-He must not harm others.

With this, Antony concluded the introduction to Nietzsche’s philosophy. The session then opened into an exchange of questions and debate.

Marina noted that the distinction between dominants and the dominated is not entirely clear, since every person can be dominant in one situation and dominated in another. Even the most powerful individuals in the world experience moments of being dominated. And if the foundation of Nietzsche’s philosophy is not fully clear, how can we be certain of its truth?

Michael pointed out Nietzsche’s strong rejection of religion, since he considered religion a burden for humanity and believed that dominants used it as a tool to control others. Michael, however, argued that this was a misuse of religion. In his view, Christianity is for everyone, and God alone is the unique Dominant, since He Himself represents morality.

Here Anthony added that the very idea of religion remains necessary, even for those who do not believe in God. Without it, society risks collapsing into violence and disorder. Nada responded to this that it is not enough to view God merely as a safeguard against immorality. God is essential because He created humanity itself, and thus morality flows from Him.

The meeting ended with an engaging exchange of perspectives that revealed both the challenges and the richness of Nietzsche’s philosophy. It opened the way for further reflection and encouraged us to continue exploring his writings together in future sessions, specifically the book “Genealogy of Morality” recommended by Anthony.

Marina, the coordinator of Book Corner, said ‘I found this meeting to be a great experience, as it allowed me to get to know philosophers I do not necessarily agree with or relate to in their writings and ideas; I believe this is just as important as exploring the philosophers I admire and share common ground with. Engaging with thinkers I disagree with helps me understand how they think, why they reject certain things, why they accept others, and how they view the world. For me, this understanding is essential, because it teaches me to accept people around me and contributes, in its own way, to making the world a better place.’