One often hears Nietzsche's views on ressentiment cited, but I contend that they are resentful. Nietzsche considered ressentiment as a central theme of his philosophy describing it as feelings of powerlessness and envy. It is also accompanied by a deep-seated resentment against those who possess power. Ressentiment, in the Nietzschean sense, is closely tied to the "slave morality" of Christian ethics. Instead of being life-affirming, this ethics is life-denying and stifles individuality, authenticity, and creative self-expression. It is reactionary, morally undermining the "strong" through moral judgments and guilt. Nietzsche views ressentiment as a destructive force hindering cultural flourishing without exception. This is why he advocated the revaluation of values.
But Max Scheler, despite being heavily influenced by Nietzsche, explored the concept of ressentiment and offered a significantly different approach. He first emphasized the importance of empathy or the ability to understand the feelings of others. Ressentiment, Scheler claims, arises from the inability to empathize with people possessing power and privilege. Scheler, therefore, did not see ressentiment as inherently negative and destructive. He argued that it could serve as a catalyst for social change and justice. He argued that ressentiment can lead to both destructive and transformative outcomes for the individual. It depends on how one channeled the emotions and whether he or she sought positive or perpetuated negativity.
While Nietzsche portrayed ressentiment as a destructive force, Scheler offered a more complex perspective, acknowledging its potential for both harm and transformational change. Which of the two has the "stronger," more advantageous interpretation and why?
