I would just like to open up a discussion on Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morality".

Something I wonder about this text...
Based on Nietzsche's analogy of the lightning and the flash (ie. the deed is everything, the doer is an afterthought of the deed), I think it is only logical to say that the Man of Ressentiment cannot exist.
This is because the concept of Ressentiment is based on the fact that the "possessor" of ressentiment is incapable of acting on the festering ressentiment building up inside of him. Therefore, since the titles we assign to "doers" are based the the deeds they commit, then it would be illogical, in the realm of Nietzsche, to assign "Man of Ressentiment" as a title.

I have in mind of course that Nietzsche seems to refer to the Man of Ressentiment as a psyche and not a literal man. Maybe it is his language that is stumping me here. My friend, when asked this question, told me that Nietzsche is just being inconsistent and he didn't mean to apply the analogy of the lightning to every instance of reality.

I'm not looking for answers, I just thought I'd get the ball rolling - so, what are YOUR thoughts and musings on The Genealogy of Morality?