Whereas some think that a slave cannot be defined independent of a master, I see the opposite: a slave is conceptually complete in itself, whereas a master is never complete without slaves. It’s total nonsense when someone says that he is a master of himself, because that would actually imply that he himself is a slave. [Or perhaps some might argue that the phrase really means one’s own being is master of one’s own desires, but that is just silly, to use decadent Jesuit morality to justify repression of one’s own desires and in stead of seeing one’s own desires and one’s own body as all that there is and that all human achievement rests upon desires …. Anyway.]
A slave is someone who enjoys being subservient, who enjoyed being tortured, who enjoys being humiliated, who, while she despises war and conquest, willingly allows herself to be conquered and actively seeks out her own defeat from her superior opponent, who, while she cannot endure to see the pain of others, willingly allows herself to be afflicted with pain, who not only enjoys her own suffering but actually derives immense satisfaction from seeing the images of her own suffering, and who sees her own suffering as sublime and beautiful. While a slave by herself will act according to all that is good and holy, she does not condemn evil, but rather she sees evil as the means to prove her good.
A slave, in essence, is a cross between a masochist and a narcissist. Sometimes she will seek out masters to punish her, but she does not need a master to complete her being. She is complete in herself.
A master, on the other hand, cannot be made conceptually whole without a slave. A master is not a master unless he has slaves. Though he is strong and aggressive, he is a far simpler creature.
So perhaps that is why the slaves have always been more interesting, because in them one finds the eternally feminine: the Jews and the Chinese immediately come to mind, as races that have this slave-like and feminine touch to their beings.