Book · 1887
On the Genealogy of Morals
by Friedrich Nietzsche
A philologist turns the word 'good' inside out and finds a slave revolt hiding underneath it.
What does Reddit think of On the Genealogy of Morals?
r/askphilosophy carries almost all of this. One answer (↑223) walks through Nietzsche's grammar argument directly: there's no doer behind the deed, no rainer behind the rain, and the same logic applies to the self. That's the entry point most cited here, not a plot summary. Elsewhere the book gets defended rather than explained. A top answer (↑135) tears into a Philosophy Tube video for calling it "self help" next to Jordan Peterson, closing the video rather than finishing it. Another (↑106) dismisses jargon-heavy answers that rattle off "post-post-structuralist" without addressing someone unfamiliar with the text. r/philosophy's single high-upvoted thread (↑90) goes somewhere different: Nietzsche's debt to Dostoevsky, discovered late and called the only psychologist he learned from. Genuine disagreement is thin in this sample; askphilosophy mostly agrees on what the book says, then argues about how badly other people explain it.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · No doer behind the deed: grammar mistaken for metaphysics
- · Master morality versus slave morality as a historical argument, not a slogan
- · Nietzsche's debts to Schopenhauer, Buddhism, and Dostoevsky
- · Pop-philosophy explainers getting the text wrong in public
Common praise
- + One answer (↑223) makes the doer-behind-the-deed argument concrete with the rain analogy instead of leaving it abstract.
- + A respondent (↑135) actually defends the text against a popular video calling it self-help, walking through why that reading fails.
- + The r/philosophy thread (↑90) traces a real influence most casual readers wouldn't expect: Dostoevsky, not just Schopenhauer, shaping Nietzsche's later thinking.
Common criticism
- − Gets flattened into self-help by pop-philosophy content, a misreading common enough that one commenter closed the video rather than finish it (↑135).
- − The next answer down (↑106) calls out other responses for rattling off terms like "post-post-structuralist" instead of explaining anything to someone new to the book.
- − Only 115 recognized references across seven years, almost all inside one subreddit, so this sample can't speak to how the book lands outside academic philosophy circles.
Who it's for
Start here if the appeal of Nietzsche is the argument, not the aphorisms; r/askphilosophy's most upvoted answer is doing close textual work on essay one, not vibes. Already rolled your eyes at a video calling this book self-help? You're the audience for the pushback quote sitting at 135 upvotes. Want the theology angle instead of the psychology angle: there's a whole thread on his read of Buddhism and Schopenhauer's compassion ethic. If your interest in Nietzsche is mostly the death-of-God material, that conversation is happening in r/philosophy, adjacent to this book rather than inside it.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for On the Genealogy of Morals?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. 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…
“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…
“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…
“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…
“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…
“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?…
“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…
“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 …
“if you want to just dive in into the primary works, *on the genealogy of morals* is a fairly good place to go. he's fairly clear in his meanings and, more than anything else by him i think, it somewhat resembles the way philosophy is usually written. *beyond good and evil* and *thus spoke zarathustr…
“I can’t speak to your personal constitution, but I can give you something to read up on in case you are interested. I feel like it’s somewhat cliché to recommend Nietzsche, on the other hand, he dealt with the issue quite well. One of my favorite lines from Nietzsche’s *On the Genealogy of Morals*…
“If you like Freud’s critique, I’d suggest Nietzsche’s argument about slave morality in which religious ethics permit endless abuse in this world by creating a hyper abstract (other worldly) punishment. This is in both his “Beyond Good and Evil” as well as “On the Genealogy of Morals”
“Watched a bunch of this guy's videos a while back, he's good. On the Genealogy of Morality is Nietzsche's best book.
“I think Nietzsche was one of, if not the first to recognize this in opposition to the Catesian view. He says it explicitly in the "Genealogy of Morals" in which he says "we are unknown to ourselves, we knowers" as the first line of the book.
“Each book has different targets and topics. Genealogy of Morals, his most philosophically rigorous and last complete and intact book of his life, is what I consider to be marginally more important than his other books for understanding him. It is a lexicon for understanding Zarathustra to a high (b…
“Sounds like Nietzsche’s *Genealogy of Morals* is especially up your alley.
Convinced? Pick up On the Genealogy of Morals
Readers also mention
Books that share discussion threads with On the Genealogy of Morals — counted from the comments, not curated.
Guides featuring On the Genealogy of Morals
Ranked best-of lists and editorial guides where this book's tracked mentions place it.
On the Genealogy of Morals — frequently asked
Is On the Genealogy of Morals actually about self-help, like Twelve Rules for Life?+
No, and Reddit gets specifically annoyed at that comparison. A top r/askphilosophy answer (↑135) singles out a Philosophy Tube video for calling the book self-help and says they closed it out of respect for their own time. The displayed discussion treats it as a historical and grammatical argument about morality, not a self-improvement text.
What's the core argument in On the Genealogy of Morals, according to Reddit?+
The most upvoted r/askphilosophy answer (↑223) points to essay one: Nietzsche argues that assuming a subject behind an action is a grammatical habit, not a fact, comparable to assuming there must be a rainer behind rain. That framing gets cited as the clearest way into the book's first argument.
Do you need outside philosophy background to follow On the Genealogy of Morals discussions on Reddit?+
Depends which answer you read. One respondent (↑106) criticizes other explanations for leaning on jargon like "post-post-structuralist" without helping a newcomer, suggesting some of the discourse assumes background the text itself doesn't require.
Does On the Genealogy of Morals connect to Nietzsche's other ideas Reddit talks about, like the death of God?+
Loosely. An r/philosophy thread (↑170) discusses the parable of the madman and the death of God as a separate, earlier epistemic worry, distinguishing it from the concerns raised later in the Genealogy rather than treating the two as interchangeable.