On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Chris Doss wrote:
> Nietzche....did not mean morality; he meant slave morality.
That's exactly right. Nietzsche is also the *father* of the idea of competing moralities. and their connection to worldviews, and the struggles between them -- as well as the first to explore the paradoxes such an account involves -- while simultaneously basing moralities on our (interconnected) visceras. So he's not someone to cite against this line of argument.
> Nietzsche, if you notice, almost never gives any evidence for his
> assertions :)
That's not entirely right. By the standards of his times, he gives cutting-edge linguistic, historical and anthropological evidence (much of the latter being interpretations of ancient texts -- a method you'll find in Mauss, Durkheim and Weber).
Our standards for evidence today are so much higher as to rule virtually all of his evidence out of court except as suggestions. But it's actually kind of remarkable that some of his hypotheses are still alive amont the most factually minded kind of people. If you read present-day classicists on the origins of Greek drama, they're still debating how Nietzsche's account does or doesn't square with the latest findings in archeology
Michael