The aim of this paper is to discuss the later development of Nietzsche’s notion of ressentiment in the philosophies of Gilles Deleuze and Vladimir Jankelevitch. In the context of Nietzsche’s philosophy, the concept of ressentiment is used to explain a revolution in morality. It is argued that ressentiment should not be understood with appeal to the motivation of a subject, whose notion Nietzsche refuses, or to the intensity of exterior excitation, but rather to the function of memory. In Deleuze’s theory, ressentiment is understood as the product of reactive forces that triumph over the active by eliminating the faculty of forgetting. The man of ressentiment is said to be unable to get rid of external excitations and, in turn, he projects his frustration on other people. Because of this, the figure of a “faulty other” functions as a priori of the man of ressentiment. In the philosophy of Jankelevitch, ressentiment is also understood as a negative, anti-vital phenomenon. However, Jankelevitch also introduces the positive notion of ressentiment, which functions as a precondition of authentic forgiveness.

I discuss Peter Sloterdijk’s critique of egalitarian projects presented in his book Zorn und Zeit and Slavoj Žižek’s response to it. My claim is that both of these thinkers show an oscillation between polemical and analytical aspects when using the concept of ressentiment. By using the concept of ressentiment, Sloterdijk explains the transformation of anger in Western societies. He holds that the atemporal anger, which characterized ancient greeks assumes a temporal form and becomes the project of revenge and ressentiment under Christianity and later emancipatory movements. I show that alongside this view, the author implies a political-polemical argumentation with the intent of delegitimizing the political left movements. Then I discuss the notion of ressentiment in Žižek’s view, which implies the same ambivalence, on the one hand, this concept is introduced as an alternative to Sloterdijk’s attempts at delegitimization, on the other, it seeks to explain anger and revenge related phenomena. At last, I claim that Sloterdijk’s and Žižek’s positions differ on the polemical aspect, but are compatible analytically.