Ressentiment (Marquette Studies in Philosophy): Written by Max Scheler, 1994 Edition, (New) Publisher: Marquette University Press [Paperback]

In this slim but brilliant volume Max Scheler explains how the egalitarian philosophies of the modern secular age springs from the systematic resentment of those who are materially, intellectually, or even spiritually better off than oneself. Although it may pass itself off as deriving from noble humanitarian sentiment, the emotional disposition that underlies egalitarianism is the very negation of true Christian charity, which is the loving affirmation of the unique person, whatever its circumstances in life. Once you understand the irrational well springs of egalitarian thought, it is no surprise to find that the movements it has inspired down through history have typically ended up perpetrating the worst crimes against the person. All forms of totalitarianism begin with egalitarian sentiment --- and that is a fact about egalitarianism, not totalitarianism. The paradigm example is perhaps the French Revolution. After the optimism of new beginnings, the ideals of liberté and fraternité became drowned in the blood of the revolutionists' victims in their ruthless pursuit of égalité at the expense of all else. Egalitarianism has now come to be seen as a political end in itself in mainstream democratic thought, and although the desire for equality may appear never so benign, what is conceived in darkness will bring forth darkness.

Well worth reading if you want to explore what resentiment means

“Ressentiment is an incurable, persistent feeling of hating and despising which occurs in certain individuals and groups. It takes its root in equally incurable ‘impotencies’ or weaknesses that those subjects suffer from. . . . They can permeate a whole culture, era, and an entire moral system. The feeling of ressentiment leads to false moral judgements made on other people who are devoid of this feeling.’’ (5)This short (125 pages) scholarly, analytical, insightful essay, written in 1914, explains much (if not all) of modern culture. Great!The meaning here of the French word ‘ressentiment’ is ‘persistent, incurable’ hatred. Ongoing, permanent, continuous, despising attack on others. This ‘ressentiment’ shows as the stage following - revenge, malice, envy, spite. Even more, “is the repeated experiencing and reliving of a particular emotional reaction against someone else. The continual reliving of the emotion sinks it more deeply into the center of the personality, but concomitantly removes it from the person’s zone of action and expression.’’ (20)Wow! Where does this come from?“Any feeling of ressentiment stemming from the impotency in the ressentiment-subject is accompanied by hidden feelings of self-disvalue over against others.’’ (6)How is a strong person different?He “has no need to compare himself with his fellow humans, even if they happen to be superior in specific respects and abilities. . . . Therefore, no ressentiment can come up.’’(6)Why weak irritated by strong?“By the ‘unattainability’ of positive values that others represent.’’This ‘unreachable’ good that the other person has already attained and possesses, overwhelms the weak, and ‘ressentiment’ consumes him.An example is “the “arrivist” is a person who incessantly tries to ‘arrive’ at he top, outdoing his fellow persons at any cost. . . . He is unable to love, to give and forgive, to sacrifice, to admit defeat with his head up, to make friends, to be content with his own self.’’ (15)He we find the classic ‘overachiever’. Success but . . .“He is impotent to enjoy the value and the quality of his life. He is good at smirking rather than smiling in friendship. Impervious and sometimes stiff as his personality is, his motivation to do extra work and to crave for perfection is not motivated by realizing a common good like that of a corporation, a company, nation, or church.’’ (16)Why Work so hard, so much painful effort?“His impotency to fill the deep gaps in his hollow personality generates the constant urge to do better than, and win over others ‘in public’ and to fish for social esteem and respect. Marks for excellence acquired in school, business or elsewhere, cover up the personal dearth which makes him a social loner rather than a friend, sharing and feeling compassion.’’ (16)How did Max Scheler know? This ‘arrivist’ is everywhere! What drives this. . .this. . .warped life?He works “for any goal but for that of his own moral standing. Whenever an individual is unable to face himself and instead loses himself and dissolves into external, societal relations to elude himself, there is an index of ressentiment possible.’’ (17)‘Anything but his moral standing’! Outward never inward! (Where have I heard this before? - Matthew 23)IntroductionPrefatory RemarksI On the Phenomenology and sociology of ‘Ressentiment’II ‘Ressentiment’ and Moral Value JudgementIII Christian Morality and ‘Ressentiment’IV ‘Ressentiment’ and Modern Humanitarian LoveV ‘Ressentiment’ and Other value shifts in modern moralityThe chapter ‘Christian morality’ discusses the contrast of love and altruism . . .Altruism “is not directed at a previously discovered positive value; there is nothing but the urge to turn away from oneself and to lose oneself in other peoples business. We all know a certain type of man frequently found among socialists, suffragettes, and all people with an ever-ready ‘social conscience’ - the kind of person whose social activity is quite clearly prompted by inability to keep his attention focused on himself.’’ (64)This Scheler wrote in 1914! What would he say now?He wrote - “Looking away from oneself is mistaken for love!’’ Really? Isn’t thinking about others and ignoring yourself always love?“The malicious or envious person also forgets his own interest, even his ‘preservation’. He only thinks about the other man’s feelings, about the harm and the suffering he inflicts on him.’’ (64)Scheler has clearly spent years and profound meditation on the subject. Amazing insights.Another is Scheler’s explanation of ‘envy’ . . .The “tension between desire and nonfulfillment does not lead to envy until it it flares up into hatred against the owner, until the latter is falsely considered to be the ‘cause’ of our privation. Our factual inability to acquire a good is wrongly interpreted as a positive action ‘against’ our desire - a delusion which diminishes the original tension.’’ (30)Wow! How twisted! Our failure transformed (by delusion) into another’s attack!What type of envy worst?“The most powerless envy is also the worst. Therefore ‘existential envy’, which is directed against the other person’s very ‘nature’, is the strongest source of ‘ressentiment’. It is as if it whispers continually: “I can forgive everything, but not what you are - indeed that I am not ‘you’”. This form of envy strips the opponent of his very existence, for this existence as such is felt to be a ‘pressure,’ a ‘reproach,’ and an unbearable humiliation.’’ (30)Scheler thinks this is the rarest form of envy. Good thing.What type immune from envy?“The ‘noble’ person has a completely naive and non-reflective awareness of his own value and of his fullness of being, an obscure conviction that enriches every conscious moment of his existence. This should not be mistaken for ‘pride.’ Quite the contrary, pride results from an experienced ‘diminution’ of this ‘naive’ self-confidence.”What a contrast!The introduction comments - “Max Scheler (1874-1928) was one of the most brilliant thinkers in our century. . . . Others agreed with the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset who wrote that with the death of Scheler, Europe had lost one of the greatest minds it ever had.’’ (3)

Quite different from Nietzsche. Resentment in Nietzsche is something the have nots feel towards the haves. A kind of "slave revolt." Scheler ties it to a sense of superiority. The insecurity of a group that feels when its status is threatened. The "master race" mentality of Nazi Germany would be an example. What this means is that In Nietzsche, resentment is prevalent in the politics of the left. In Scheler, in politics of the right.

There's already one of those horrible types of reviews that consists entirely of colossal quotes from the book (broken apart by sophomoric rhetorical questions and juvenile exclamations) that always inexplicably garner the thanks of potential buyers, so I don't feel the need to go into great depth as to the importance or contents of the book.Put simply, it's an excellent answer to Nietzschean criticism of Christianity and Christian values and at the same time, an utter dismantling of the "moral" arguments for socialism and similar errors. It's one of the easier reads of Scheler (as opposed to, for example, at least the first part of his essay "Idols of Self-Knowledge") and as such, is a great starting point for the study of this philosopher (of course you simply can't go without reading his "Formalism" at some point) or of phenomenological ethics in general (see also the writings of Dietrich von Hildebrand, Aurel Kolnai, and Nicolai Hartmann, not to mention a few lectures by the Master himself, which unfortunately, have not yet been translated [I'm thinking especially of Husserl's "Vorlesungen ueber Ethik und Wertlehre 1908-1914" but also "Einleitung in die Ethik 1920/24"]).

I was attracted to the subject from Nietzsche's treatment of ressentiment. Of course Nietzche saw in this type of feeling the source of Christian evaluation of the poor, miserable, unlucky as the people a good Christian should love, against what he was calling the "blond brutes", the dominating aristocrats of Germany who had his favor. Could it be that ressentiment was the source of Christianity? - Well, Max Scheler, a philosopher in the circle of Edmund Husserl, thought not and presents Christian love as a pure sentiment touching everything, if I may say so, from any human (poor and rich) to the whole of Nature. His book defends Christian love against Nietzche. His characterization of ressentiment is interesting, but I recommend the introduction of the book by his translator as even a clearer exposé of what ressentiment is.Not being myself a believer, I had some problems with Scheler's arguments. But this is my problem, not the one of many readers, I suppose.