In any case, ‘Aryan’ appears to have been a general term for the whole nation or community before it became restricted to a noble caste (Gr.): ‘the cowardice is emphasised’, ‘the plebeian’.
Actually means ‘bad, awful, worthless’, though there is a derivative meaning cowardice (and others meaing ‘harmful’, ‘to damage’, ‘to scorn’ and so on).
However, this may just have been via ‘clean’, ‘stainless’, without any diversion through class labels.
Additionally, the ‘Fin-Gal’ () Nietzsche names weren’t Celtic, they were Vikings.
Nietzsche says that words for ‘good’, in his experience, all lead back to words for aristocracy, and words for ‘bad’ originate in words for the lower classes.
It can’t be argued that this does often happen: my translation gives three examples in English of the latter, ‘vulgar’, ‘base’ and ‘low’, compared with ‘noble’ for the former.In this case it would be particularly interesting to hear an argument against Spencer, because Spencer’s argument is very reminiscent of Nietzsche’s own comment in the Preface, that morality had to be challenged because it would otherwise prevent the full flourishing of the potential of the human species.After all, is Nietzsche not there holding up behaviour (in this case the action of calling something immoral or moral) against a standard based on what will be ‘useful’ for humanity?And we’re not even turning to recondite languages in the far corners of the globe, this is English we’re talking about here. talks about the word for ‘good’ having had the sense of ‘noble’ or ‘aristocratic’, the German actually has the same source as the English – if it may once (I don’t know) have had a connotation of aristocracy, that’s certainly not its origin. Meanwhile, developed (either from a dialect form or from a verbal form) to maintain the older meaning, which in turn drifted in a different direction, toward simplicity.So far as I can see, neither word was ever primarily a term of class identification, and that certainly isn’t the origin.Origin unknown, possibly related to words for ‘small’. doesn’t give an origin but suggests it will be about bravery, in contrast to the above.Origin still unknown, but Beekes suggests it’s actually a word borrowed from the autochthonous population the Greeks conquered (the direct opposite of Nietzsche’s theory). He says this is because the native populations were dark-haired, by contrast to the blond Aryan invaders.Indeed, Buckle identified the growing participation of women in intellectual society as the defining trait of modern civilisation compared to all the inferior ones that had come before, and of England over the barbaric, misogynist continent.Nietzsche’s view on this question was quite different – in European civilisation, on the grounds that even though they’re idiots, there’s been an increasing and abominable trend to let them cook, devastating male productivity through their inedible and poisonous products – the continuing incompetence of female cooking he takes as evidence that women are not ‘thinking creatures’ at all, and that women must at all costs be kept of the kitchen. He takes the observation Buckle makes that, unlike modern civilisation, Greek civilisation became more misogynist as it developed, and takes this to show the superiority of misogny.No man who believes in equal rights can be a deep thinker, he says – on the contrary, “a man who has depth of spirit as well as of desires, and has also the depth of benevolence…can only think of woman as orientals do: he must conceive of her as a possession, as confinable property, as a being predestined for service and accomplishing her mission therein…” This section continues Nietzsche’s ‘philological’ arguments.