Nietzsche and the Sunflower
In The Sunflower, Simon Wiesenthal, the author and main character in this narrative and a Holocaust Survivor is confronted by a dying SS soldier who asks Simon to forgive his crimes during the holocaust. Simon finds this question hard to answer or respond to and walks away without granting or denying the SS solider, Karl, forgiveness. At the end of the narrative, Simon asks the reader what he or she would have done in his situation. In On the Genealogy of Morals, the author Friedrich Nietzsche explores a framework for good and evil that is unlike frameworks previously presented, which divides the attitudes of slaves (the suppressed, the passive, the “ressentiment”) from the attitudes of nobles (the dominant, the active) and favors the attitudes of the nobles. By applying Nietzsche’s framework to Simon’s problem I will show that Simon was not acting in accord with the ressentiment mentality, and that Nietzsche himself, if he was sticking to his framework, would have been decisive in his moral decision.
I will begin by explaining Nietzsche’s framework of morality. As mentioned before, Nietzsche divides morality into the active and the passive. Individuals in the active group, which he refers to as the nobles, act quickly when they have been wronged, and individuals in the passive group, which he refers to as ressentiment, bottle up their anger when they have been wronged (Nietzsche 38). Nietzsche says, “The reverse is the case with the noble mode of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly . . .” (Nietzsche 37). The passive group, on the other hand, withholds its anger and allows it to fester until it turns into hate. Nietzsche says, “The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.” (Nietzsche 36) In other words, the passive group does nothing directly to compensate for wrongdoing or to correct wrongdoing; instead, they allow it to fester. This mentality leads the passive group to believe (perhaps through self-deception) that they are the “good” people and harbor hatred towards the nobles. The active group, on the other hand, act out their anger, allowing it to diffuse. Nietzsche does not necessarily agree that the active group is ideal, but he does believe the passive group acts in a self-destructive manner, which breeds hatred, ill feelings, and guilt.
Simon, at first glance, seems to fit right in with Nietzsche’s ressentiment, but I will argue that Simon remained passive only out of necessity, and was not of the ressentiment mentality. Simon explains the way in which the SS soldiers controlled revolts within the camps, “Staying in camp meant that one was guarded not by a single SS man but by many, and often the guards amused themselves by wandering from one workshop to another, whipping prisoners indiscriminately, or reporting them to the commandant for alleged sabotage, which always led to dire punishment.” (Wiesenthal 11) Since the guards had no problem torturing and killing indiscriminately for some sort of pleasure or fun, the punishment for revolt would be much more severe. This leads me to doubt that prisoners would have even had a chance of escaping or truly punishing the SS soldiers if they had fought back. Simon also notes that the prisoners were often underfed and exhausted (Wiesenthal 77), which would have made the prisoners incapable of fighting. Thus, Simon was in no position to fight against his perpetrators. However, after the holocaust ended, Simon was then able to fight back by seeking justice, rather than revenge. So, Simon remained passive only out of necessity and when he did find the opportunity to fight back he took it. Thus, Simon does not appear to be a part of the ressentiment mentality.
There are many instances where Simon has the opportunity to use his position as a victim of the holocaust to purposefully hurt another or prove he is a better person, but instead he chooses not to, which separates Simon from the ressentiment. The first example of this is when he walks away from Karl without granting or denying his request (Wiesenthal 55). Simon could have easily hurt this dying man by cursing him for his wrongdoing, yet he refrains. The second instance is when Simon visits Karl’s mother. Simon could have easily ruined Karl’s mother’s image of her son as a “good boy”, but instead he remained silent. He says, “ In her present circumstances, to take from her her last possession would probably have also been a crime.” (Wiesenthal 95) So, Simon is not vengeful, as a person of the ressentiment would be.
But the main reason Simon does not fit into the ressentiment mentality is due to his inability to respond. A person’s response to a situation is dependent upon how he or she has been trained to respond. According to Nietzsche, the active group responds to wrong doing spontaneously, in an outward fashion, where as the passive group, in the same situation, responds within the self (36-37). I believe Nietzsche would even say that these responses have been established through years and centuries of practice. He says, “The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious--there is plenty of time.—To this end, does the church today still have any necessary role to play?” (Nietzsche 36) Thus, according to Nietzsche, both the active and the passive groups have been trained, through time, to respond in one way or another. Because of this, I believe Simon cannot be considered a part of the ressentiment mentality. Simon did not have a trained response to the situation presented to him. If he was of the ressentiment mentality I believe he would have responded based on his training within this mentality. In other words, Simon does not display hatred, as mentioned above, and does not use his position to harm others or make himself feel better, as a person of the ressentiment mentality would have been conditioned to do. Nietzsche, on the other hand, would not have been indecisive, as he has taken the time to reflect on his method of response. I believe both the ressentiment and noble mentality are methods of response, which require training, and, which Simon did not seem to posses.
It is impossible to know exactly how Nietzsche would have responded to Simon’s situation, but I believe that in whatever way Nietzsche responded, he would have responded decisively. Throughout this essay I have shown that Nietzsche disagrees with the ressentiment mentality; therefore, I feel safe in concluding that Nietzsche would not have adopted this mentality to respond to Karl’s request. However, I do not believe that Nietzsche would have adopted the noble mentality either. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra explains his ideal mentality, which is different from the noble mentality, yet I’m still not convinced he would have responded with his ideal mentality either. But in whatever way Nietzsche would have decided to respond he would have been decisive, for the fact that he has critically analyzed his moral position, where as Simon has not.
Although one might expect Simon to be rather vengeful after such atrocities happened to him and those he loved, Simon seemingly refrained from hating. Perhaps he did hate, but from what is portrayed in The Sunflower Simon does not seem to possess this feeling, which I personally find amazing. Because Simon did not respond with vengence, or with action, Nietzsche could not say he was a part the ressentiment mentality, as Simon’s was confused about his moral position.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.
Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower. New York: Schocken Books, 1997.
I will begin by explaining Nietzsche’s framework of morality. As mentioned before, Nietzsche divides morality into the active and the passive. Individuals in the active group, which he refers to as the nobles, act quickly when they have been wronged, and individuals in the passive group, which he refers to as ressentiment, bottle up their anger when they have been wronged (Nietzsche 38). Nietzsche says, “The reverse is the case with the noble mode of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly . . .” (Nietzsche 37). The passive group, on the other hand, withholds its anger and allows it to fester until it turns into hate. Nietzsche says, “The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.” (Nietzsche 36) In other words, the passive group does nothing directly to compensate for wrongdoing or to correct wrongdoing; instead, they allow it to fester. This mentality leads the passive group to believe (perhaps through self-deception) that they are the “good” people and harbor hatred towards the nobles. The active group, on the other hand, act out their anger, allowing it to diffuse. Nietzsche does not necessarily agree that the active group is ideal, but he does believe the passive group acts in a self-destructive manner, which breeds hatred, ill feelings, and guilt.
Simon, at first glance, seems to fit right in with Nietzsche’s ressentiment, but I will argue that Simon remained passive only out of necessity, and was not of the ressentiment mentality. Simon explains the way in which the SS soldiers controlled revolts within the camps, “Staying in camp meant that one was guarded not by a single SS man but by many, and often the guards amused themselves by wandering from one workshop to another, whipping prisoners indiscriminately, or reporting them to the commandant for alleged sabotage, which always led to dire punishment.” (Wiesenthal 11) Since the guards had no problem torturing and killing indiscriminately for some sort of pleasure or fun, the punishment for revolt would be much more severe. This leads me to doubt that prisoners would have even had a chance of escaping or truly punishing the SS soldiers if they had fought back. Simon also notes that the prisoners were often underfed and exhausted (Wiesenthal 77), which would have made the prisoners incapable of fighting. Thus, Simon was in no position to fight against his perpetrators. However, after the holocaust ended, Simon was then able to fight back by seeking justice, rather than revenge. So, Simon remained passive only out of necessity and when he did find the opportunity to fight back he took it. Thus, Simon does not appear to be a part of the ressentiment mentality.
There are many instances where Simon has the opportunity to use his position as a victim of the holocaust to purposefully hurt another or prove he is a better person, but instead he chooses not to, which separates Simon from the ressentiment. The first example of this is when he walks away from Karl without granting or denying his request (Wiesenthal 55). Simon could have easily hurt this dying man by cursing him for his wrongdoing, yet he refrains. The second instance is when Simon visits Karl’s mother. Simon could have easily ruined Karl’s mother’s image of her son as a “good boy”, but instead he remained silent. He says, “ In her present circumstances, to take from her her last possession would probably have also been a crime.” (Wiesenthal 95) So, Simon is not vengeful, as a person of the ressentiment would be.
But the main reason Simon does not fit into the ressentiment mentality is due to his inability to respond. A person’s response to a situation is dependent upon how he or she has been trained to respond. According to Nietzsche, the active group responds to wrong doing spontaneously, in an outward fashion, where as the passive group, in the same situation, responds within the self (36-37). I believe Nietzsche would even say that these responses have been established through years and centuries of practice. He says, “The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious--there is plenty of time.—To this end, does the church today still have any necessary role to play?” (Nietzsche 36) Thus, according to Nietzsche, both the active and the passive groups have been trained, through time, to respond in one way or another. Because of this, I believe Simon cannot be considered a part of the ressentiment mentality. Simon did not have a trained response to the situation presented to him. If he was of the ressentiment mentality I believe he would have responded based on his training within this mentality. In other words, Simon does not display hatred, as mentioned above, and does not use his position to harm others or make himself feel better, as a person of the ressentiment mentality would have been conditioned to do. Nietzsche, on the other hand, would not have been indecisive, as he has taken the time to reflect on his method of response. I believe both the ressentiment and noble mentality are methods of response, which require training, and, which Simon did not seem to posses.
It is impossible to know exactly how Nietzsche would have responded to Simon’s situation, but I believe that in whatever way Nietzsche responded, he would have responded decisively. Throughout this essay I have shown that Nietzsche disagrees with the ressentiment mentality; therefore, I feel safe in concluding that Nietzsche would not have adopted this mentality to respond to Karl’s request. However, I do not believe that Nietzsche would have adopted the noble mentality either. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra explains his ideal mentality, which is different from the noble mentality, yet I’m still not convinced he would have responded with his ideal mentality either. But in whatever way Nietzsche would have decided to respond he would have been decisive, for the fact that he has critically analyzed his moral position, where as Simon has not.
Although one might expect Simon to be rather vengeful after such atrocities happened to him and those he loved, Simon seemingly refrained from hating. Perhaps he did hate, but from what is portrayed in The Sunflower Simon does not seem to possess this feeling, which I personally find amazing. Because Simon did not respond with vengence, or with action, Nietzsche could not say he was a part the ressentiment mentality, as Simon’s was confused about his moral position.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.
Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower. New York: Schocken Books, 1997.
posted by Karen Jarboe at
11:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home