skip to content
BooksReddit

Book · 1887

On the Genealogy of Morals

by Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche traces where 'good' and 'evil' come from — and argues the answer involves priests, resentment, and a deliberate inversion of aristocratic values.

115
Total mentions
91
Unique Reddit accounts
case-insensitively deduplicated across the selected corpus
+0.16
Avg sentiment
scored published excerpts: −1 pan ↔ +1 praise
3
Subreddits
where it's mentioned

What does Reddit think of On the Genealogy of Morals?

r/askphilosophy generates 92 of those mentions — this is where Nietzsche's historical method gets taken seriously rather than quoted for aesthetics. Sentiment across the catalogue is modest; the book is cited for specific arguments, not as a life-changing read. The most-upvoted comment (↑223, r/askphilosophy) focuses on Essay I, section 13 — the grammatical argument that language tricks us into positing a 'doer behind a deed' where no subject exists. That's a philosophy forum doing philosophy, not self-help. At ↑135, another r/askphilosophy commenter tears into Philosophy Tube for calling the Genealogy 'self-help akin to Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules' and treats the misclassification as an insult to the reader's time. r/philosophy chips in 21 mentions with neutral sentiment, mostly connecting the Genealogy to Nietzsche's broader work — the death-of-god epistemology, the Dostoevsky comparison (he called Dostoevsky 'the only psychologist from whom I had anything to learn'). r/Stoicism mentions it twice, in 2024. The book appears regularly in entry-point recommendation threads alongside Nietzsche's other works.

Community feedback & reader fit

Themes

  • · Master morality versus slave morality
  • · Ressentiment and the inversion of values
  • · The genealogical method as historical critique
  • · Guilt, bad conscience, and ascetic ideals
  • · Language, agency, and the subject-predicate trap

Common praise

  • + r/askphilosophy (↑223) uses Essay I, section 13 to make a genuine philosophical point about agency and grammar — it functions as a working argument, not a quote.
  • + The book gets cited in r/askphilosophy recommendation threads as the Nietzsche text that repays close reading rather than skimming.
  • + r/askphilosophy (↑105) treats it as the entry point for understanding Nietzsche's influence on later philosophy without rattling off post-structuralist jargon.

Common criticism

  • − r/philosophy's 21 mentions carry neutral sentiment; the book gets placed in context of Nietzsche's other works more than it gets championed on its own.
  • − r/askphilosophy (↑135) notes the book gets misclassified badly by popular philosophy YouTubers, which suggests it's badly understood outside academic-adjacent spaces.

Who it's for

You already know Nietzsche wrote something about morality being a power move by the weak, and you want to read the actual argument rather than a summary of it. r/askphilosophy (92 mentions) is the right temperature for this book — analytical enough to track the three essays, interested enough in the historical claims to argue about them. If the Philosophy Tube version of Nietzsche is what you've got, a commenter (↑135) recommends closing the tab and reading the source. Come in knowing that Essay II on guilt and bad conscience is harder than Essay I, and that the r/askphilosophy crowd does not agree on the Buddhism comparison.

Mentions over time

Q1 2019 peak: 10/qtr Q1 2026

Top subreddits

Which Reddit comments matter for On the Genealogy of Morals?

Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.

Have a look at Nietzsche's genealogy of morals 1.13! He argues this is a quirk of language that suggest a doer behind a deed, a subject behind events. But there is no rainer of rain, just the activity of raining. Nietzsche invites us to apply the same thinking to ourselves - there is no free subject…

r/askphilosophy ↑ 223 positive

So to reformulate it in light of your point — the madman is talking to the non-believer crowd who are taking the death of god too lightly. The worry he is focussed on is not the epistemic worry that he was later dealing with in the Genealogy of Morality that I connect it with in the video. In the pa…

r/philosophy ↑ 170 mixed

Philosophy Tube is particularly bad when it comes to philosophy. This video you're referencing was astonishingly bad. I mean, ffs, she calls *The Genealogy of Morals* "self help" akin to Jordan Peterson's 12 rules book. I closed the video there as we should have some respect for our time. I can't ta…

r/askphilosophy ↑ 135 positive

Nietzsche had a few kind words for Buddha but for the most part considered Buddhism to be a life-denying, nihilistic religion akin to Christianity. "I dealt especially with the value of the ‘unegoistic’, the instincts of compassion, self-denial, self-sacrifice which Schopenhauer had for so long g…

r/askphilosophy ↑ 124 Not scored

Some of the other answers here are a bit myopic, focusing on his influence on such and such academic philosopher. If someone isn't familiar with this world, I don't think these answers are helpful. Rattling off words like *Post-post-structuralist* and *methodological* is completely missing the point…

r/askphilosophy ↑ 106 mixed

So, I’m a huge fan of Biblical philosophy and as such am really glad for this question! Now, I don’t know much about the psychology side, so I’ll be focusing on philosophy strictly. Further, thinking through the novelness of an idea is a bit difficult, is it novel compared to the surrounding area?…

r/askphilosophy ↑ 105 mixed

Nietzsche first discovered the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky in 1887. This is relatively late in his intellectual career, yet the Russian writer still had a profound influence on him. He called Dostoevsky “the only psychologist from whom I had anything to learn” and read a few of his novels in F…

r/philosophy ↑ 90 mixed

From Twilight of the Idols: >But Socrates divined still more. He saw right through his noble Athenians; he perceived that his case, his peculiar case, was no exception even in his time. The same kind of degeneracy was silently preparing itself everywhere: ancient Athens was dying out. And Socrates …

r/askphilosophy ↑ 79 mixed

Readers also mention

Books that share discussion threads with On the Genealogy of Morals — counted from the comments, not curated.

On the Genealogy of Morals — frequently asked

Is On the Genealogy of Morals a good starting point for Nietzsche?+

Depends on what you want from Nietzsche. But it assumes some familiarity with the philosophical tradition Nietzsche is reacting against — Schopenhauer, Kant, Christian ethics. Beyond Good and Evil is a smoother entry for many.

What does r/askphilosophy actually use On the Genealogy of Morals for?+

Arguments. The ↑223 comment cites Essay I, section 13 to make a specific point about language and agency. The book functions as a working reference in philosophy discussions, not as a vibe or an aesthetic. 92 of 115 total mentions come from r/askphilosophy, which tells you the audience takes the philosophical content seriously.

Is On the Genealogy of Morals related to Jordan Peterson's work?+

No, and a r/askphilosophy commenter (↑135) got visibly annoyed at a Philosophy Tube video that called it 'self-help akin to Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules.' The genealogical method is a historical critique of moral concepts, not a prescriptive framework for how to live. The misclassification appears to be common and, per that comment, an insult to the reader's time.

Is On the Genealogy of Morals still being discussed on Reddit?+

Yes. Mentions peaked at 22 in 2022 but held at 12 in 2025, with the last r/askphilosophy appearance on 2025-12-29.