As he says, some types are naturally reactive and define themselves and their values and aesthetics by means of comparison or reaction to others. I see these types as essentially unoriginal - my word, not Nietzsche's. Everything is an attack on something that someone else has created. It is particularly exemplified by those who are afraid to state their own opinions, or put themselves forward, or lay out their own ideas for examination and criticism. It essentially stems from 1) lack of originality and 2) lack of courage.The beginning of the slaves’ revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment
itself turns creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of those
beings who, denied the proper response of action, compensate for it only
with imaginary revenge. Whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant
saying ‘yes’ to itself, slave morality says ‘no’ on principle to
everything that is ‘outside’, ‘other’, ‘non-self ’: and this ‘no’ is its creative
deed. This reversal of the evaluating glance – this essential orientation to
the outside instead of back onto itself – is a feature of ressentiment: in order
to come about, slave morality first has to have an opposing, external
world, it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act
at all, – its action is basically a reaction. The opposite is the case with the
noble method of valuation: this acts and grows spontaneously, seeking out
its opposite only so that it can say ‘yes’ to itself even more thankfully and
exultantly, – its negative concept ‘low’, ‘common’, ‘bad’ is only a pale contrast
created after the event compared to its positive basic concept, saturated
with life and passion, ‘we the noble, the good, the beautiful and the
happy!’
When I said in the other thread that Nietzsche saw things from original, unseen angles, this is one example. Many would suppose that, for instance, the admiration of egalitarianism and equality stems exclusively from noble origins. However, for many, it stems from fear and hatred of those who may be better, different, or more powerful - a negative idea elevated to the level of a philosophical/political system. This is an example of how he turns ideas around and makes you see them from an entirely different angle. That is his brilliance.
As for his relevance, I see his ideas apply, for example, in critiquing recent feminist/progressive ideology which couches everything in terms of 'privilege' - white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, WASP privilege. They are ideas wholly distinguished by the adjective preceding the word 'privilege.' They define their 'victim' groups almost entirely in terms of what they lack and what they want from others, rather than in terms of their particular virtues. It is essentially negative, reactionary and unoriginal - the slavish side of egalitarianism.
None of this is to say that egalitarianism (for instance) is bad. But examining such ideals from an angle that allows you to see the negative aspects and origins and thus challenge the very foundations of your ideology can lead to a deeper understanding.
