If I recall correctly, that was how he distinguished between "good and bad" and "good and evil". Since he was enamoured of the Greek and Roman societies, he described what he perceived as aristocratic masters as "good" and characterised the values of the slaves as "bad". As noted, a "priestly caste" appeared, which out of envy and ressentiment of the masters' power branded the values of the slaves "good" and those of the masters "evil".
Unless I'm much mistaken, this hypothesis is the fulcrum for his attack on Christianity, which he described as the revenge of the Jewish people (characterised in On the Genealogy of Morality as the perfect example of a priestly caste) on the Roman Empire.
As previous posters have said, on account of Nietzsche's aphoristic and contradictory style of writing, it's extremely difficult to determine what Nietzsche actually believed in a concrete way, although there are definitely a few connected threads of thought in his work that can give us a broad picture of what he actually believed (he was largely glad but also concerned about the increasing secularization of society, he believed in the need for individuals to carve out their own morality and meaning in existence). Keeping this in mind, Nietzsche's work will, in my opinion, provide the most benefit if he is treated as a philosopher to have a dialogue of sorts with; as a philosopher who presents fresh ways of looking at important philosophical problems in a compelling, thought provoking package, as opposed to viewing him as a philosopher with one clear goal in mind that he hopes to convince his readers of through effective, cohesive argument. One passage in Beyond Good and Evil, especially, lends a lot of credence to this interpretation of Nietzsche's work, in which he states (and I paraphrase) that he wishes to create a new breed of philosophers who are experimenters, not afraid to try various, perhaps contradictory hypotheses out to see which one's stick. Viewing the works of Nietzsche as philosophical hypotheses that he wants his readers to work out on their own, in my view, makes much clearer and more useful a confusing yet immensely compelling canon of work.
(and yeah, I know I'm necroing, couldn't care less, this is a conversation that's worth reopening)
As I understand it Nietzsche was just bashing Socratic thought.
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
To be fair., Nietzsche wasnt entirely wrong. The Crab Bucket phenomenon is VERY real.
Its why smart poor people hide being smart. Why country music crows constantly about how blue collar lifestyles arent to be ashamed of and or are the best.
Because knowing full well they cant escape being poor, a lot of poor people instead conflate humility and suffering with good things and ruthlessly discriminate against people who try to escape.
edited 9th Feb '12 10:33:22 AM by Midgetsnowman