Il risentimento

by Max Scheler, Angelo Pupi (Translator), Laura Boella (Contributor)

"Il risentimento è un autoavvelenamento dell'anima che nasce da un'inibizione sistematica dello sfogo di certi affetti in sé stessi normali e inerenti alla struttura di fondo della natura umana: il sentimento e l'impulso di vendetta, l'odio, la cattiveria, l'invidia, la malignità, la perfidia" (Max Scheler).

Un testo fondamentale per comprendere la trama profonda di un sentimento dominante del nostro tempo. Un capolavoro d’introspezione filosofica, che esplorando l’animo umano ci racconta come funzioniamo.
Con finezza fenomenologica, Scheler presenta la genesi e le caratteristiche del risentimento nella complessità, ricchezza e potenza della nostra vita emotiva.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, Sociology, Classics, Germany, German Literature

71 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1912

About the author

Max Scheler (August 22, 1874, Munich – May 19, 1928, Frankfurt am Main) was a German philosopher known for his work in phenomenology, ethics, and philosophical anthropology. Scheler developed further the philosophical method of the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, and was called by José Ortega y Gasset "the first man of the philosophical paradise." After his demise in 1928, Heidegger affirmed, with Ortega y Gasset, that all philosophers of the century were indebted to Scheler and praised him as "the strongest philosophical force in modern Germany, nay, in contemporary Europe and in contemporary philosophy as such."[1] In 1954, Karol Wojtyła, later Pope John Paul II, defended his doctoral thesis on "An Evaluation of the Possibility of Constructing a Christian Ethics on the Basis of the System of Max Scheler."

Reviews

[Sarah (Gutierrez) Myers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scheler's book is probably the most thorough analysis of ressentiment ever written in response to Nietzsche. While he gives Nietzsche due credit for what he thinks was genuinely insightful in Nietzsche's presentation of ressentiment, he also argues that Nietzsche was deeply wrong to see Christianity as a product of ressentiment values. Scheler's analysis of ressentiment goes in three parts:

1. Nietzsche was right in seeing in ressentiment a force that can and has produced a massive reversal of values and a new morality. Ressentiment flourishes wherever there is weakness that is consciousness of powerlessness to achieve positive values; it generates hatred of the possessors of value (wealth, strength, excellence of any kind).

2. But Nietzsche was wrong to think Christianity is manifestation of ressentiment. Christianity is, in fact, the supreme remedy to ressentiment in that it makes possible, through grace, the ability to love others without first comparing their value against one's own.

3. Modern bourgeois morality is a flower of ressentiment, however. Its antagonism to hierarchy, its commitment to individualism and equality, and its subjugation of higher values to mere utility value (expressed partly through overemphasis on value of work) all mark it as a fruit of ressentiment.

It's hard to know what to make of the whole book. It comes off pretty harsh on humanitarian sentiment, which Scheler takes to be a kind of false love. And he's quite frank about his opposition to every way of maintaining human equality. He seems to think Christianity is quite compatible with the preservation of the agonistic or militaristic spirit, and I'm not sure that it is. But it's a book that will leave you with a lot to think about, and that's one sign of a book well worth reading.

[Mehmet]

Tekrar tekrar okunması ile ancak anlaşılabilecek bir kitap; bir felsefe klasiği. Kitabın ana konusunu oluşturan Hıncın yani "ressentiment"in en iyi özeti şu cümlelerde bulunabilir:

"Öncellikle ressentiment başka birine karşı özel bir duygusal tepkinin tekrar tekrar yaşanmasıdır. Bu duygunun sürekli yaşanması onu kişiliğin derinliklerine yerleştirmiş ama aynı zamanda kişinin eylem ve ifade alanının dışına çıkarmıştır. Bu yalnızca belli bir duygulanımın ya da ona "karşılık gelen" olayların zihinsel olarak hatırlanması değildir; bu bizatihi o duygulanımın yeniden canlanmasıdır." (s.20)

[Nic Lishko · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably one of the most important philosophical books of the last 200 years. Scheler is amazing in his observations. This is a must for any student of philosophy.

[Sara Hosseini]

بسیار کتاب جالبیه، به‌خصوص طرح بحث راجع به سنخ «موفقیت‌جو» و همینطور مفهوم
‌پردازی حول حسادت و اخلاق مدرن به‌طور کلی. فقط کاش از همون اول می‌رفتم سراغ ورژن انگلیسی و نه ترجمه‌ی فارسی.

[Jef Gerets · Rating 5 out of 5]

Je zou bijna christelijk van dit boek worden. Bijna...

[Tighy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scheler tratează resentimentul ca pe o preocupare etică, explorând atât implicațiile sale psihologice, cât și sociologice. El susține că recunoaște diferența dintre nemulțumirile legitime și cele imaginate, dintre judecățile morale adevărate și cele false. Resentimentul nu este o furie justificată despre a fi tratat injust, ci o formă specială de ură care decurge din credința că cineva este impotent din punct de vedere social. Luptele împotriva nedreptății sunt mișcări către valori superioare precum dreptatea, adevărul și iubirea. Resentimentele sunt mișcări către valori inferioare, cum ar fi răzbunarea, invidia ori răutatea. Scheler concluzionează că semnificația resentimentului constă în puterea lui toxică pentru formarea valorii și valorii-înșelătoare. Capitolul cel mai demn de luat notițe mi s-a părut cel legat de creștinism. Scheler consideră teoria lui Nietzsche despre resentiment aplicat valorii dragostei creștine ca fiind complet greșită. În schema lui Nietzsche, iubirea sacrificială era resentiment vădit și operat pe un sistem de valori creat de sine însuși, care era exact inversul status quo-ului; pentru Scheler, un astfel de sacrificiu îndreptat spre valori superioare vine ca un dar, concluzionând că rădăcina iubirii creștine, adică inversarea valorilor morale, este complet lipsită de resentimente.

[0 · Rating 2 out of 5]

A Christian phenomenologist responds to Nietzsche's accusations that Christianity is motivated by ressentiment. He finds instead that early Christianity is the perfect antidote to ressentiment, and suggests a return to early Christian love.

Scheler locates the source of ressentiment in the rise of secular humanism and capitalism, which have attempted to reduce humanity's highest spiritual values to a more base level of use-value. By restricting the value of human life to its proper functioning as a "machine," secularism has deprived humans of their ultimate spiritual purpose--to share in God's infinite love.

For Nietzsche, Christian love is based on that "inversion of the value tablets" whereby the weak are celebrated and the strong are condemned. Nietzsche's Christian love is motivated by self-hatred and guilt. But for Scheler, Christian love is motivated by the exact opposite of ressentiment. It is motivated by love of the highest spiritual values in humans, insofar as humans come to rest in the infinite well of God's love. Scheler's Christian love explicitly echoes Nietzsche's conception of the virtuous ubermensch as a figure who overflows with love of oneself and others, and bestows one's gifts upon them. This love is generative and affirmative, rather than destructive and negative.

Scheler's synthesis of Nietzschean ethics with Christian love ethics results in a weird kind of Nietzschean Christianity. He decries Christian socialists and moralists, since they, like the secular humanists, attempt to reduce the higher values of the spirit (love) to the mundane values of the social. Christian love transcends earthly life. The transcendent status of Christian love doesn't require Christians to reject earthly life, but it does encourage them to feel indifferent about it, insofar as their orientation towards God's love allows them to rest securely in the kingdom of God. Scheler allows for Christians to participate in earthly social conflicts as long as they act out of love for their enemies, which prohibits hatred (and ressentiment), but not conflict itself.

Read for analysis of Merleau-Ponty's first essay, "Christianity and Ressentiment"

[AlyssumAcantha · Rating 2 out of 5]

So, all those texts on feminism, slavery and casteism that I’ve been reading were because I have to write a response paper to this book. Which I have opinions about.

It is a well-written and thorough response to Nietzsche’s writing that makes excellent points about value inversions and the way our society’s value systems has been distorted by greed and fear.

However, he makes a lot of rather poorly-examined, Eurocentric statements. Such as the idea that enlightenment and detachment from worldly materialism cannot be divorced from Christian Theology. Buddhism suggests otherwise.

Then there is his bit about how Sparta and slavery/casteism are the pinnacles of moral society. Yeah... that and his understanding of the reasons undergirding women’s “attitudes” were kind of ignorant, to say the least.

It’s one of those works that has a really good core concept and ideas, but is so heavily immersed in the authors own personal interpretations (he assumes to know the intentionality of a man who has been dead for centuries and whose words we only know from other people’s transcripts) and worldly belief systems, that it cannot be read without being highly critical of the material given.

[Yalena · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was initially very promising but degenerates into something ridiculous (it cannot be called philosophy). The first chapter is by itself a magnificent piece of philosophical research. The other chapters are awful and muddled although Chapter V, with it's criticism of the concept of (democratic) equality and the confusion between general validity and objectivity, contains a glimmer of the philosophical prowess found in Chapter I. I am also sympathetic to the Bergsonist orientation of his analysis into how the English attitude to the concept of evolution aligns with a mechanical—industrialist ethos. This is once again spoiled by the the most moronic and poorly thought-out defence of moral objectivism imaginable.

Insightful things are said now and then but the book is ultimately ruined by Scheler's intellectual hypocrisy and immense stupidity or laziness.

[Abdullah Başaran · Rating 4 out of 5]

Max Scheler'ın Ressentiment'u son zamanlarda okuduğum en ilginç kitap. Sadece Nietzsche'nin Soykütüğü'nü eleştirdiği için değil, çok derin bir teolojik fenomenoloji sunduğu için de.

Kitabın Türkçesi de varmış; bu çok mühim. Din felsefesi derslerinde muhakkak okunması gereken bir çalışma. Tabii iyi bir Hıristiyan kelamı altyapısıyla. Yoksa basit bir Nietzsche eleştirisinden öte bir anlam ifade etmez.

[Francis Berger · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was struck by two things after I finished reading this:

1. How topical and relevant Scheler's insights are in our current social, political, and religious climate.
2. Why hadn't I heard of this philosopher in any of the philosophy courses I took at university?

Definitely a book that deserves to be read and then reread.

[John Reis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scheler offers an in-depth analysis of ressentiment. He makes a strong case that Nietzsche is wrong about the Christian origins of ressentiment, at least his version of Christianity.

Later, he makes the case that the Enlightenment was a creation of ressentiment values, as were the later development of industrial values.

He wishes a return to/recapturing of his notion of high Medieval values.

[Serdar Tutal · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ahlakın Soykütüğü Üstüne Max Scheler'in de söylediği gibi büyük bir keşifti. Yahudiyenin hınçtan (ressentiment) doğduğu, ahlakın temellerinin ezene (efendiye) duyulan nefretle kölece oluşturulması. Ahlakın ortaya çıkışı ile "hırs" ve kin arasında güçlü bir ilişki vardır. Hristiyan ahlakının da çilecilik, sabır, sana kötülük yapana iyilik yapma gibi aslında elinden gelmeyeni kötüleme ve ona karşı ikiyüzlü bir tutum. Kartalları (Roma ahlakını temsil eder.) pençelerinden utandırmak için kuzuların (Hristiyanlığı temsil eder.) uydurduğu değerlerdir ahlak değerleri. Biz kuzuyuz deyip kabullenmek yerine bizim bir ruhumuz var diye melerler.

https://sirazduvari.com/yahudiye-ve-r...

Scheler burada ayrılıyor Niçe'den. O buradaki iki yüzlü tutumun aslında iki yüzlü olmadığını çünkü açık bir kıskançlığın rekabeti tetikleyeceğini ama gizli bir hınç ile kendini ortaya koyan köle ahlakının ilerlemeye sebep olamayacağını ekliyor. Asıl ayrıldığı nokta ise bir Hristiyanlığı savunma güdüsü ile hırs ile sevginin ayırt edilmesi gerektiği ve Hristiyanlıkta sevginin de olduğu. Bence Scheler Niçe'nin büyük keşfinin biraz açmış. Metinden çıkarılacak akıllıca şeyleri çıkarmış ama yeni bir şey söylememiş. Hristiyanlık ve sevgi üzerine yazdıkları ise havada kalan cümleler gibi geldi bana. Yine de asıl kitabı daha iyi anlamak için iyi bir yan metin olarak okunabilir.

[Amirsaman]

این کتاب را می‌توانید با قیمت بسیار پایین از کتابفروشی من سفارش دهید:
t.me/turnipbooks

[Mark Mcconnell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ressentiment is a frustrated hostility felt especially on behalf of the inferior against the superior, a sympathy that is sickened to the point that it idolizes what is lower over what is higher, e.g.:

The fake love of ressentiment man offers no real help, since for his perverted sense of values, evils like “sickness” and “poverty” have become goods. He believes, after all, that “God giveth grace to the humble” (I Peter, 5:5), so that raising the small or curing the sick would mean removing them from their salvation.

Ressentiment is a contagious feeling that wants revenge on behalf of something wrong with the world, putting the blame on what is better in comparison. In fact, it is often experienced as self-hatred by those who are better off in some way, "a kind of loathing for those who can accept this privilege". If you are comfortable having privilege, ressentiment will hold you in contempt.

These days we can see all sorts of things we'd like to slap this label on, in the way we frequently talk about homelessness, addiction, divorce, even the lives of animals. But the clearest example is gay marriage. I don't think the topic can even be discussed without stirring up the contagious social feeling that Scheler calls "ressentiment".

Gay marriage cannot make homosexuality sacrament-like because it cannot evoke the eternal love of God for his people or of Christ for his Church, it cannot bless or sanctify the power of homosexuality to produce a new life because there is no such power - it produces diseases not children - and even in the civil sphere the arguments are rare or non-existent that gay marriage is a necessary institution, certainly not one needed on account of the children it may produce. Gay marriage lacks what is necessary to measure up to "marriage", and therefore it is an institution of ressentiment. Instead, it rejects everything about marriage that is different from a committed homosexual relationship.

Despite being called "marriage" it is still homosexuality, and therefore the name applied to it draws attention to what it is not - creating a new institution for expressing hatred and a longing for revenge against the values and institutions in comparison to which homosexuality is seen as inferior: the law of God, the Christian church, a sacred covenant, father and mother, the multi-generational family, etc. Ressentiment is the longing for vengeance against even saying such things.

Back to the book, the scaffolding on which Scheler relies to build his arguments emerges into view when he writes about a hierarchy of values dictated by the author's special phenomenology. How can "things" that are not things, like values, be discerned? How can what is lower be distinguished from what is higher, so that we can talk about them in terms of superior and inferior, etc. That's where phenomenology comes in. Those parts of the book which most openly discuss phenomenology show that he had become convinced of pantheism (although with many Christian elements mixed in). That is, the cosmos is alive; or at least, the vital aspect of the cosmos is its highest characteristic - and Life is not an accidental state that otherwise dead things go in and out of, but elementary, a principle or force that expresses itself in manifold ways, most typically but not exclusively in living things.

Because this phenomenological sociology accounts throughout for what Scheler says, confusing the difference between Christianity and pantheism, it isn't always clear what he's trying to say. I agree with him when he defends Christianity against Nietszche, but I also don't think he understands Christianity as he should, either, for example. And as with other phenomenologists, now and then things are said with such confidence and finality that it's supposed to be taken as a declaration of settled science, but you probably won't agree with this supposed certainty because you are subject to different fashions these days than he was in his, and these are fashionable thoughts. For example:

The rule of life over matter has weakened; the spirit (and the will above all) has lost much of its mastery over the automatism of life: that is the ultimate explanation for the expansion and development of the mechanistic world view, and of the corresponding values which created it.

[Esteban · Rating 1 out of 5]

Empieza con algunas observaciones psicológicas interesantes y con la promesa de una axiología no utilitarista, pero enseguida se encamina hacia una interpretación católica de Nietzche particularmente aborrecible. La referencia constante al caritas cristiano trata de encubrir una profunda misantropía (como sucede casi siempre, por lo demás), y la única idea axiológica interesante es la propuesta de una jerarquía de valores. En su versión, ciertos valores vitales serían condición necesaria para la existencia del valor hedónico. Eso podría justificarse causalmente, pero ese registro (demasiado científico, quizás) ofendía a su sensibilidad fenomenológica, así que opto por precipitarse a denunciar a la sociedad moderna por su debilidad, su resentimiento y su decadencia. Con razón le gustaba a Heidegger.

[Kahveci · Rating 4 out of 5]

Öncelikle kitabı bana hediye ve tavsiye eden sevgili dostum M. Baran'a teşekkür ediyorum.

Kitabın adın Hınç olmakla birlikte; kitapta fransızca karşılığı olan Ressentiment kullanılıyor. İlk bölümde kelimenin ne anlama geldiği basitçe sözlük anlamıyla değil, uzun uzadıya anlatılıyor. Nietzsche’nin Hıristiyanlığa karşı söylediklerini reddediyor. Nietzsche'yi daha öncesinde okumuş olmak, anlatılanları daha iyi kavramak açısından biraz önem arz ediyor.

Ressentiment insanı bir zavallıdır; kendi yargısına kendisi dayanamaz. Yalnız başınayken bile bir nesnel iyiliğin farkına varabilen ve bunu bütün bir dünyanın direnişine rağmen yapabilen insan tipi, Ressentiment insanının tam karşıtıdır. s:183

[Stephan Naro · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oh, goody. Yet another delusional man trying to justify delusion. Just because he is correct in criticising one thing and another, doesn't mean that he is also correct when pretending that christianity provides the only alternative - for instance, just because "love of mankind" is a non sense idea doesn't mean that christian Super-Duper Love is any more real. And that's just one type of rubbish he gets up to.

[Oliver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Come for the imperfect yet no less impassioned defence of Christian ethics, stay for the stunning, thoughtful construction of ressentiment into a rich complex with staggering implications for the history of value systems upon which a decadent modernity precariously stands... And maybe leave a little early when you get tired of the tepid invectives against "humanitarian love" and awkward if plausibly deniable exaltations of some disturbingly reactionary principles.

[Ebi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Das erste Kapitel ist sehr gut aber danach hatte ich das Gefühl, dass Scheler nur noch Apologetik betreibt.

[Uğur · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Subconscious", which tells about the concept of Friedrich Nietzsche's first psychoanalytic perspective, although it is quite deep, Freud, Nietzsche and psychoanalysis that are not affected from important maintenance is recalling Nietzsche and Freud explained in detail later revealed again "ressentiment" I think it's through the concept of to describe the contents of the book. Ressentiment is a concept mentioned in Nietzsche's book Ecce Homo. Although it is translated into Turkish as Resentment, it has a broader meaning. Because ressentiment is not a psychological state that can be felt individually, such as resentment, but a psychological state that the masses who are being managed and directed fall into. Do the masses and societies in Tokyo feel this today? Of course not, but it would be more accurate to say the situation that groups who oppose and are uncomfortable with the imposition of this herd morality imposed on the crowd have fallen into. This is the exact equivalent of the revenge motive that these opposing groups and masses feed against the power, the one who directs, the dominant one, deviating from their goals. Ressentiment also constitutes the psychological infrastructure of Nietzsche's theory of the will to power. Scheler also made both psychological and sociological investigations and determinations based on ressentiment in his book.

However, I would say that the solution of the concept of resentment was a little incomplete at the point. This may be my only criticism of the book. Apart from this, Scheler has produced a very qualified work. People evolve their shell by breaking the topic of the destruction of the sense of resentment and again, must evolve with the detection of Nietzsche's Superman, and this should continue to live at this level as creative tragic human could survive in the face of other psychological conditions.

Although the book is very instructive, it also has a very enveloping flow because it focuses on the subject through many areas. I wish you a pleasant reading.

[sadra jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

هربار که کتابی در باب نقد مدرنیته میخوانم فکر میکنم دیگر دراینباره نمیتوان حرف زد و دیگر همه چیز را برایم تکراری خواهد بود اما آنقدر از جنبه های متوع و گوناگونی میتوان به نقد آن پرداخت که حد ندارد.
ماکس شلر فیلسوف پدیدارشناسی بود که در سال 1914 کتاب کین توزی را نوشت. هایدگر که قطعا بزرگترین فیلسوف زمانه او بود و هر کسی را آدم حساب نمیکرد، کتاب های شلر را بسیار قابل استفاده میدانست.
فحوای اصلی کلام شلر در این کتاب آن است که انسان ها در اثر ناتوانی و شکست هایشان، دچار کینه هایی میشوند که با گرفتن انتقام و عقده گشایی قابل رفع است اما اگر قادر به همین کار هم نباشند، کین توزی در آنها باقی میماند و نظام ارزشی آنها تغییر میکند. کسی که نمیتواند پول دربیاورد، افرادی را که در پی کسب ثروت اند را ملامت میکند. کسانی که قادر به درک معنای حقیقی زندگی و لذت بردن از آن نیستند، اموری جعلی را مهم قلمداد میکنند و به آنها میپردازند.
این تغییر نظام ارزشی در شیفت سنت به مدرنیته مشهور است که فاییده مندی مبنای تعیین تکلیف برای لذت و زندگی کردن میشود. در حالی که در نظام سنتی اصل بر زندگی کردن است. در مر��له بعد لذتی که به زندگی کمک کند و در آخر فایده ای که لذتی از آن برده شود اما تمام ساختار سیاسی، اجتماعی، فکری مدرنیته این فلش ها را برعکس میکند.
عشق مسیحی که حاصل نشود، نظام ارزشی تغییر میکند و تعریف از عشق و نوع دوستی کین توزانه میشود. شلر در ستایش عشق و اخلاق مسیحی بسیار گفته و نقش کینه در تغییر آنها را بررسی کرده.
در آخر کتاب شلر پیشنهادهایی میکند از جمله اینکه به شغل هایی مثل کشاورزی باید بیشتر از صنعتگری اهمیت داد چراکه زندگی در آن محوریت میابد به جای فایده و تاثیرش را در تمامی ساحت ها به نحو مثبت میگذارد. اما این ارزش گذاری باید چگونه باشد؟ حقوق کشاورزها یا مزایای آنها بیشتر باشد؟ آنگاه با ابزارهای مقبول مدرنیته به جنگ با ارزش هایش پرداخته ایم. لازمه این تشویق پذیرفتن مبنا و ارزش اهمیت این قبیل مسائل است که منجر به نفی غرض میشود. پس باید در باب پگونگی این اهمیت دهی نیز اندیشید.
متن کتاب بسیار سخت است اما ترجمه نسبتا ضعیف هم کار را دشوارتر میکند اما کتاب بسیار قابل استفاده ای است. امیدوارم از آثار شلر بیشتر ترجمه شود.

[Dan-Constantin Gitman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Am oscilat între o stea și două, din cauza modului admirabil în care Scheler și-a susținut această rară colecție de sofisme care, înțeleg, au trecut drept filosofie în epocă (și, aparent, încă mai sunt unii care consideră asta).
Ironic, autorul scrie o carte despre resentiment, care este izvorâtă în mod indubitabil din resentimentul propriu: glorificând evul mediu prin comparație cu epoca sa, după ce doar cu câteva pagini mai devreme afirmase că indivizii care glorifică epoca antică sunt conduși de resentiment. Vorbind despre ”valoare”, despre ”drept din naștere și de sânge”, Scheler (având în vedere propria ereditate) se gudură pe lângă cei care, crede el, merită să conducă societatea umană, să dicteze ceea ce este drept și nedrept, să fie deasupra legii (judecați doar de către ”egali”), dovedindu-se, de fapt, chiar el unul dintre ”sclavii” despre care spune.
Surprinzător pentru un autor de după anul 1900 este să mai susțină că Nazarineanul nu a venit să conteste legea (de fapt, Legea, cu majusculă, pentru că peste tot unde este vorba despre ”lege” în evanghelii este vorba despre Torah), ignorând ceea ce a făcut și luând în considerare doar ceea ce a spus: ”nu am venit să schimb Legea”; numeroase fapte de-ale sale contrazicând această afirmație repetată în evanghelii.
Cine nu apreciază sofistica și teologia care se prezintă în mod fals drept filosofie să stea departe de resentimentul lui Scheler!

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scheler asks, can one accept Nietzsche's theory of resentment (that, promoted by modernity's emphasis on equality, weaker people or groups try to coerce stronger into serving their interest) without accepting his claim that Christianity is a form, and the main cause, of this resentment? The first couple chapters reiterate Nietzsche's theory, with which Scheler seems largely to agree. He then argues that the Christian view of love is not, as N argues, subjugating stronger to weaker, because it does not adopt the classical view of Lover as stronger than Beloved, but rather love coming from a place of strength and vitality. He then continues, in the last chapter (which was a slapdash rollercoaster he could have expanded into several more sections) against 'equality of souls before God,' and this doctrine's implications in church and society. very interesting argument that Luther, in denying love as a theological virtue, opened the way to interpret it only as a natural instinctual phenomenon and not this higher, non-resentment virtue. He's placed very curiously among the canon. Likes Nietzsche, doesn't like Kant, quotes Hume a few times. Apparently a non-practicing Roman Catholic vitalist of sorts. Worth a read as expands mind beyond calcified 'inequality for pagans; equality for christians' type rhetoric. Lovely prose, even in translation.

[Kimberly Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked up this book in an effort to go through all the works mentioned by Camus in The Rebel. It was a very interesting read and I'm glad I bought it. It's a purely philosophical work, which is not something I'm generally excited to read. But it is a great study of how people in a society can be divided to an unhealthy and dangerous degree. It also offers a good rebuttal to some of Nietzsche's theories without being at all anti Nietzsche, so if you're a fan you should enjoy reading that chapter as well. I think this could be an important work today, considering how divided we've become recently. But it's handled very respectfully and without trying to assign blame to any particular group of people. Scheler does look at things from a Christian perspective, so if that is a big turn off you may find less value in his conclusions. However, I think even in that case, a reader will appreciate how clearly Scheler shows historical patterns that keep repeating themselves around the world.

[ehk2 · Rating 1 out of 5]

A Christian endorsement of Nietzchean idea of the "reversal of values" through resentment -but of course with the crucial "true Christian" direction. It's indeed a powerful argumentation, yet in direct opposition to my thoughts and beliefs. At the end, it is a legitimation of "noble" values and the social ranks and systems built according to them. It's contrary to my favourite thinkers like Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Mill, Marx (and all values of liberalism and socialism). Contrary to his claim, what the "reactionary" is not them, but Scheler himself. What's that "noble", "powerful" anyway? Nietzsche was a constantly weak figure in terms of health, or power and certainly not a most handsome man throughout his life. Such ideas of nobility & elitism is disgusting and in fact played proto-fascistic role in historical terms.

[Aaron Richmond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely enjoyable. His appreciations and criticisms of Nietzsche were equally on point, while his discussion of true Christian love as a corrective to ressentiment did about 70-80% of the work that he needed to do with it.

Ressentiment is everywhere in our lives and this book helps you see it. Perhaps more importantly, this book helps you see when you or someone else is in a situation which could lead to ressentiment, and how to get out of it (Scheler uses the delightful phrase "moral self-conquest").

As I say, ressentiment is everywhere. It's behind a great revolution within the form concerning morals that has taken place in modernity, and it's there in racial, generational, sexual, and political dynamics. Left and Right have been raised on it, and the way of declining life is in the air we breathe. Be killing it or it will be killing you.

[Francis S. Poesy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, or more rightly these transcribed and translated lectures, will require multiple readings over time. I think at least once a year. But they seem to strike at the heart of the modern world and describe the progressive mindset quite accurately.

[Davide Battilori · Rating 3 out of 5]

Malattia dell'anima e insieme patologia della cultura moderna, frutto di un diffuso senso di impotenza.
Pubblicato a inizio novecento ma ancora attuale.

[Senlin Du · Rating 5 out of 5]

Großartig!