继承人和私生子(怨恨的社会成因注释)

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Political Philosophy Pub Date : 2021-12-09 DOI:10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-145-162
L. Fishman
{"title":"继承人和私生子(怨恨的社会成因注释)","authors":"L. Fishman","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-145-162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on redefining the social genesis of ressentiment. The concept of ressentiment, widely used today in the form shaped by Friedrich Nietzsche and fine-grained by Max Scheler, turns out to be both overly and insufficiently connected to the social structure of the societies, for the analysis of which it is used. The reason is that although Nietzsche’s and Scheler’s ideas about ressentiment refer to the socio-structural aspects of its genesis, they do so in a contradictory and incorrect manner. Without noticing their own contradictions, both thinkers elevate genesis of ressentiment to the moral standards of the lower classes. Using the examples of younger heirs and bastards of the medieval aristocratic families, as well as the examples of other relatively privileged social groups, the author shows that one should rather seek the genesis of ressentiment within higher social strata. At the same time, the author shows that the moral feelings and behavioral strategies germane to ressentiment can be adopted and are adopted by representatives of other classes. In this form, it attracts attention in times when the oppressed classes obtain real opportunities to change their position, or, at the very least, they receive reasons to believe that they could achieve more if such an opportunity had been given to them.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heir and Bastard (Notes on the Social Genesis of Ressentiment)\",\"authors\":\"L. Fishman\",\"doi\":\"10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-145-162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article focuses on redefining the social genesis of ressentiment. The concept of ressentiment, widely used today in the form shaped by Friedrich Nietzsche and fine-grained by Max Scheler, turns out to be both overly and insufficiently connected to the social structure of the societies, for the analysis of which it is used. The reason is that although Nietzsche’s and Scheler’s ideas about ressentiment refer to the socio-structural aspects of its genesis, they do so in a contradictory and incorrect manner. Without noticing their own contradictions, both thinkers elevate genesis of ressentiment to the moral standards of the lower classes. Using the examples of younger heirs and bastards of the medieval aristocratic families, as well as the examples of other relatively privileged social groups, the author shows that one should rather seek the genesis of ressentiment within higher social strata. At the same time, the author shows that the moral feelings and behavioral strategies germane to ressentiment can be adopted and are adopted by representatives of other classes. In this form, it attracts attention in times when the oppressed classes obtain real opportunities to change their position, or, at the very least, they receive reasons to believe that they could achieve more if such an opportunity had been given to them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-145-162\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-145-162","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章的重点是重新定义怨恨的社会起源。怨恨的概念,今天以弗里德里希·尼采(Friedrich Nietzsche)的形式被广泛使用,马克斯·舍勒(Max Scheler)对其进行了细化,结果证明,它与社会的社会结构既有过度联系,也有不足联系,因为它被用来分析社会结构。原因是,尽管尼采和舍勒关于怨恨的观点涉及其起源的社会结构方面,但他们以一种矛盾和不正确的方式这样做。两位思想家都没有注意到自己的矛盾,而是把怨恨的根源提升到了下层阶级的道德标准。作者以中世纪贵族家庭的年轻继承人和私生子为例,以及其他相对特权的社会群体为例,说明人们应该从更高的社会阶层寻找怨恨的根源。同时,作者表明,与怨恨相关的道德情感和行为策略可以被其他阶级的代表所采用,并且正在被采用。在这种形式下,当被压迫阶级获得真正的机会来改变他们的地位时,或者,至少,他们有理由相信,如果给他们这样的机会,他们可以取得更多的成就,它就会引起人们的注意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Heir and Bastard (Notes on the Social Genesis of Ressentiment)
The article focuses on redefining the social genesis of ressentiment. The concept of ressentiment, widely used today in the form shaped by Friedrich Nietzsche and fine-grained by Max Scheler, turns out to be both overly and insufficiently connected to the social structure of the societies, for the analysis of which it is used. The reason is that although Nietzsche’s and Scheler’s ideas about ressentiment refer to the socio-structural aspects of its genesis, they do so in a contradictory and incorrect manner. Without noticing their own contradictions, both thinkers elevate genesis of ressentiment to the moral standards of the lower classes. Using the examples of younger heirs and bastards of the medieval aristocratic families, as well as the examples of other relatively privileged social groups, the author shows that one should rather seek the genesis of ressentiment within higher social strata. At the same time, the author shows that the moral feelings and behavioral strategies germane to ressentiment can be adopted and are adopted by representatives of other classes. In this form, it attracts attention in times when the oppressed classes obtain real opportunities to change their position, or, at the very least, they receive reasons to believe that they could achieve more if such an opportunity had been given to them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Political Philosophy is an international journal devoted to the study of theoretical issues arising out of moral, legal and political life. It welcomes, and hopes to foster, work cutting across a variety of disciplinary concerns, among them philosophy, sociology, history, economics and political science. The journal encourages new approaches, including (but not limited to): feminism; environmentalism; critical theory, post-modernism and analytical Marxism; social and public choice theory; law and economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies; and game theoretic, socio-biological and anthropological approaches to politics. It also welcomes work in the history of political thought which builds to a larger philosophical point and work in the philosophy of the social sciences and applied ethics with broader political implications. Featuring a distinguished editorial board from major centres of thought from around the globe, the journal draws equally upon the work of non-philosophers and philosophers and provides a forum of debate between disparate factions who usually keep to their own separate journals.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating International Agreements: The Voluntarist Reply and Its Limits Issue Information The Journal of Political Philosophy Index, Volume 31 (2023) The challenge of policing minorities in a liberal society Noncompliance and the Demands of Public Reason
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1