In his book On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche explores the relationship between suffering and guilt. Nietzsche argues that humans respond to suffering by thinking that “someone or other must be to blame” (Nietzsche 94) for their suffering. Nietzsche critiques this phenomenon—that a sick person feels the need to blame someone else for his or her suffering—by analyzing why sick people feel the need to blame themselves, how this need can turn in on itself, and why this need is self-destructive. In his criticism, Nietzsche employs a deconstructive and figurative approach to language. It explores the origins of words, analyzes the implications of grammar and uses multiple metaphors. Nietzsche's unique approach is essential in constructing his critique. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay An important part of Nietzsche's criticism is his explanation of why victims feel the need to feel guilty. He begins his explanation by exploring the reactive tendencies of helpless beings through a metaphor: a helpless lamb constantly preyed upon by a powerful bird of prey. The lamb, powerless to stop the bird, concludes that the bird of prey is bad because it attacks the lamb and that the lamb is good because it is nothing like the bird . In this reaction, the lamb compensates for its resentment, or anger and resentment at its helplessness, by becoming the stronger moral being despite being physically weaker. This reaction is the lamb's will to power. The will to power is the desire of each individual “to obtain an optimum of favorable conditions in which to fully release [one’s] power” (76). The lamb's reactive will to power is similar to the patient's reactive need for guilt. In response to suffering, patients look for a culprit – their own bird of prey – because they want a “living being upon whom [they] can release their emotions… because the release of emotions is the greatest attempt at relief ". » (93). By finding a culprit, victims find a place of vengeance to move their hurt. This place of vengeance produces an affect -- like the righteousness of the lamb against the bird of prey -- that overwhelms the suffering. Although Nietzsche accepts the conclusions of the sheep and the sufferer as understandable due to their helplessness, he rejects that these conclusions can be used to blame the bird of prey for its actions or label it as evil. Just as it would be absurd to ask the sheep to overcome its helplessness and kill the bird of prey, it is equally absurd to ask the bird of prey not to kill the sheep. The bird of prey kills; he does not choose whether to do it or not. Nietzsche argues that the misconception that the bird of prey is guilty of killing the lamb is the result of subject-predicate language construction. Nietzsche argues that the “seduction of language” leads individuals to view “all actions as conditioned on an action or subject” (26). To illustrate his point, he uses the example of the phrase “lightning”. Grammar would lead an individual to conclude that there is a subject (flashes) and a predicate (flashes). However, lightning is nothing without flash. In the same sense, the bird of prey is nothing if it does not kill the lamb: the one who acts it cannot be separated from the act. When sufferers look for someone to blame, they fall victim to the same grammatical error. They see their suffering as a predicate, and a subject must be responsible for it. However, only thegrammar caused patients to think this way. Nietzsche's critique of patients' need to blame themselves also focuses on how the search for a culprit can turn inward. Although sufferers may blame others for their illness, Nietzsche argues that it is also possible for sufferers to blame themselves. The key figure in this reversal is the ascetic priest. The ascetic priest is an individual who preaches the ascetic ideals of "poverty, humility and chastity" (78) and whose domain is "reign over suffering" (92). Nietzsche argues that the search for a culprit by the suffering masses can be violent and dangerous. The ascetic priest acts as “the direction changer of resentment” who “defends his sick flock” (93) against himself. It “detonates the explosive material” (93) of resentment by turning the patient's need for guilt inward. He tells the sick: “you are solely responsible for yourselves” (94). In doing so, he renders the sick harmless, promotes a bad conscience, and organizes them into a religious structure of sin and guilt. The ascetic priest thus “eases the pain” of suffering by providing the sick with someone to blame, but at the same time “poisons the wound” (93) by making the sick more helpless. The final important part of Nietzsche's critique is his argument that sufferers' need to blame is self-defeating. Although Nietzsche admits that the effects produced by resentment are effective in crushing suffering, he still considers them "bad air" for humans (25). Nietzsche argues that the effects of resentment are pure reactions to helplessness and are neither genuine nor original; they are only “the self-illusion of impotence” (27). However, in this self-deception, reactivity overwhelms the patient. The person suffering becomes deeply invested in their own helplessness, “prey to poisonous and hostile feelings” (21) and rendered incapable of action, liberation, or empowerment. The patient is thus paralyzed, considering his helplessness as the foundation of his identity. Nietzsche's deconstructive approach to language is important in constructing many of his arguments. An example of this approach is Nietzsche's exploration of the origins of words. Throughout the text, Nietzsche explores etymologies in an attempt to historically trace the evolution of concepts such as conscience, law and justice. An example relevant to his critique of suffering and guilt is his investigation into the origin of the word “guilt.” He identifies a similarity between the German words for guilt and debt, suggesting that guilt originally had no connection with morality or bad conscience. Nietzsche thus suggests that many of the things we automatically accept in our society (for example, the relationship between guilt and bad conscience) are drawn solely from our experiences with language. His argument that language fundamentally affects our thinking calls into question the logic and value behind reactive tendencies like the need to attribute guilt. Our reactions may not be logical or valuable, but rather the product of something as simple as a similarity between two words. Another example of Nietzsche's deconstructive approach to language is his analysis of grammar. Nietzsche argues that the construction of subject-predicate sentences is the greatest deception of language. The construction of an actor and an act causes an individual to view the two as something that can be separated. Nietzsche argues that in fact the actor is alone in what he does. This can be interpreted to mean.