In his book On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche explores the relationship between suffering and guilt. Nietzsche argues that human beings react to suffering by thinking that “someone or other must be to blame” (Nietzsche 94) for their suffering. Nietzsche criticizes this phenomenon – that sufferers feel the need to blame someone for their suffering – by analyzing why sufferers feel the need to assign blame, how this need can turn inward, and why this need is self-destructive . In his criticism, Nietzsche uses a deconstructive and figurative approach to language. Explores the origins of words, analyzes the implications of grammar, and uses multiple metaphors. Nietzsche's unique approach is crucial in constructing his critique. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay An important part of Nietzsche's criticism is his explanation of why sufferers feel the need to assign blame. He begins his explanation by exploring the reactive tendencies of powerless beings through a metaphor: a powerless lamb constantly preyed upon by a powerful bird of prey. The lamb, unable to stop the bird, concludes that the bird of prey is evil because it preys on 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 drive of each individual "for an optimal of favorable conditions in which to fully liberate [one's] power" (76). The lamb's reactive will to power is similar to the reactive need to assign blame to the sufferer. As a reaction to suffering, those who suffer look for a culprit – their own bird of prey – because they want a “living being upon whom [they can] release emotions… because the release of emotions is the greatest attempt at relief. "(93). In finding a culprit, sufferers find a place of vengeance to remove their pain. This place of vengeance produces an affection – 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 on the basis of their helplessness, 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 to kill the bird of prey, it is equally absurd to ask the bird of prey not to kill the sheep; the bird of prey does not choose whether to do so or not of the killing of the lamb is the result of the construction of subject-predicate language. Nietzsche argues that the “seduction of language” leads individuals to see “all actions as conditioned by an agency or a subject” (26). To illustrate his point, he uses the example of the phrase “lightning.” The grammar would lead an individual to conclude that there is a subject (lightning) and a predicate (flashes). However, lightning is nothing without flash. In this same sense, the bird of prey is nothing if it does not kill the lamb: the perpetrator cannot be separated from the action. 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, it is only grammar that has led sufferers to think this way. Nietzsche's criticism ofsufferers' need to assign blame is also concerned with how sufferers' search for a culprit may turn inward. Although sufferers may blame others for their condition, 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 dominion is “dominion over the suffering” (92). Nietzsche argues that the search for the guilty by the suffering masses can be violent and dangerous. The ascetic priest acts as “the change of direction of resentment” who “defends his sick flock” (93) against himself. He “detonates the explosive material” (93) of resentment by turning the sufferer's need to assign blame inward. He tells the sufferers, “you alone are responsible for yourself” (94). In doing so, it renders sufferers harmless, promotes bad conscience, and organizes them into a religious structure of sin and guilt. The ascetic priest therefore “soothes the pain” of suffering by providing the sufferer with a culprit to blame but “poisons the wound at the same time” (93) making the sufferer more helpless. The last important part of Nietzsche's criticism is his argument that those who suffer The need to assign blame is self-destructive. Although Nietzsche admits that the effects produced by resentment are effective in overcoming suffering, he still sees them as “bad air” for human beings (25). Nietzsche argues that the effects of resentment are purely reactions to impotence and are not genuine or original; they are simply “the self-deception of impotence” (27). In this self-deception, however, reactivity overwhelms the sufferer. The patient is deeply affected by his own impotence, "irritated by poisonous and hostile feelings" (21) and rendered incapable of action, liberation or empowerment. The sufferer is thus paralyzed and embraces their helplessness as the foundation of their identity. Nietzsche's deconstructive approach to language is important in the construction of 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 of what is relevant to his critique of sufferers 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 association 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) arise only from our experiences with language. His thesis that language fundamentally influences our thinking calls into question the logic and value behind reactive tendencies such as the need to assign blame. 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 leads the individual to see the two as something that can be separated. Nietzsche claims that in reality the actor is only what he does. One can interpret this to mean that Nietzsche is arguing that only verbs truly exist; Nouns and subjects exist in grammar for purely practical purposes. This interpretation is evident in the criticism.