1.) Power is not a singular thing as you implied where some guy is sitting on a throne with people kneeling at his feet. Power comes in many shapes and forms. A person who relinquishes their individual authority to become subsumed within another higher power is still a case of will to power; the person simply becomes part of the other power. There is the feminine will to power, i.e., a person submits to another authority figure which offers protection and other benefits. And then there is the masculine will to power, e.g., a revolutionary that overthrows another power structure.
) With plants and sentient creatures, there is a universal telos or striving to resist resist entropy via accumating energy and passing on genetic material. To argue to the contrary that such organisms are just meaningless, non-teleological stuff just roaming around without any fundamental drives is absurd. Cool, bro - you say the universe has no meaning, that there is no purpose given by some Creator God - That’s great, man, Good job, but don’t fucking tell me that sentient life has no naturalistic telos.
3.) Your initial post consisted mainly of falsities, passive aggressive mockery, and cheekiness. That’s cool if you want to be cheeky because it makes you feel superior; everyone has their quirks, but don’t think you are fooling me with your bravado. " Knowledge is power" is self-evident. Do I really need to explain how knowledge is a form of power…really, dude?
That sounds like everything is will to power… it becomes a meaningless concept. If it’s everything then it’s nothing.
Revolution can’t be the norm, that would result in chaos.
Ignorance is power. Ignorance prevents you from being paralyzed by analysis of options. It’s much easier to decide between two options, the consequences of which you are largely ignorant than to decide between a hundred options, all of which you understand completely.
That’s not a mistake I made, it’s the basis of why what you’re saying is empty. Empty ideas are always non-falsifiable, because they’re fucking empty. You can see power behind every thing and action----because ‘power’ to you is fucking empty. There’s nothing it can’t fit, because it’s fucking empty. The point is that ‘power’ is not a goal, at all. Just as the paper that money is printed on is not a goal. If you want money, or power, it’s because you have a goal in mind that isn’t simply money, or power.
I didn’t; Darwin did. --You know, the guy you’re erroneously basing your pseudo-science foundational garbage on. Random mutation, played out. Get it?
Everything is a form of power, according to you. If I sit on the toilet and take a shit, that is a form of power, because it removes toxins from my body and whatever. My dental floss is a form of power, because it keeps my teeth in my head. Having a pencil is a form of power, because it lets me write down my grocery list. Having nose tweezers is a form of power, because people aren’t grossed out by nose hairs. Do you know why you see power everywhere? —Because the way you use the term, it is fundamentally empty, and meaningless.
My point though is that some confuse their definition of words like “objective” and “philosophy” and “will to power” with the ever so much more complex use of the words in the course of interacting with others from day to day out in the world.
Which, basically, is the point you seemed to be making to ES. And I thought your argument was pretty good.
I’m more bent on exploring the limitations of words – their use value, their exchange value – reduced down to whatever one presumes is their definition.
I agree with both of you on your take of this Will to Power.
It is useless unless defined properly but i think ES is very much helpless in this case. Because, it has been throughout the problem of the blind worshippers of the God N. N used this term in a very particular and dominant manner and his followers make his term of Will to power just an alternate of simple Will.
But, when these worshippers see Will to power not fitting in each and every mould, they immediately start interpreting it as simple Will, because they do not want to annoy their God.
Von, for this post, I tried not to use the word ’ power ’ very often due to people’s narrow conception of it. I chose rather to use words like " survival", " Darwinian Evolution", etc. Nietzschean power-ontology is often misunderstood as evidence here by you.
But since you want to focus on power, I will too.
Taking a shit is associated with maintaining your anatomic power. If you don’t release fecal matter, then you will explode with feces all over the place and die, thus ending your anatomic power. A pencil is used as a tool for written communication, communication can maintain the power structure of a group, tribe, etc as it allows the members to bond, scheme, etc, etc. These things you mention are associated with maintaining/and or increasing some form of power. This is not empty - this is just a case of your ignorance on Nietzschean power-ontology.
It is empty. A word that applies to everything, consequently applies to nothing meaningfully. You could just as well have said that “everything is god”, and I would have told you that what you said was empty.
You said that “all life is will to power”, and I told you (I) power is not a goal (as explained earlier), and (2) the way you use the term renders it empty/meaningless (as explained). On top of this, there are some pretty glaring errors in your thinking. (A) Power is not the same as survival (as explained). (2) Darwinian evolution is not teleological, it consists of random mutations. And (3), because of (2) not all organic developments are for the purpose of either survival, or power.
Here’s a final thought for you: If it makes sense to ask, “Why do you want power?”, (and it does), then power is not a final goal—it’s merely a means.
Throwing around the word " empty " without, actually, demonstrating logically how something is ’ empty ’ is pretty empty itself.
There is no such thing as " random". There are no random mutations that just spring out of some void of nothingness for no logical or functional reason. Just because you are ignorant of the functionality of a trait, that doesn’t mean there is no functionality.
Is the word ’ energy ’ meaningless to you too as it applies to everything?
Why do I want power? Which power are you referring to?
That’s just false. Mutations don’t spring out of a void, they are based upon the genetics that preceded them. Mutations don’t need reasons to occur, and some clearly don’t serve any logical or functional necessity. Are you under the impression that all mutations increase fitness?
A word that applies to everything, consequently applies to nothing meaningfully. That’s because we understand the meaning of a term by opposing it to what it is not. Here’s an example: Suppose someone says, “God is in everything”. They’ve rendered ‘God’ meaningless, because there’s nothing you can point to to recognize what it is not. That’s what you are doing with the term ‘power’. You think everything is power (even, as you said, taking a shit on the toilet). You have rendered the term ‘power’ meaningless in the same way.
On top of that, you have rendered the term empty in a related way. ‘Power’ is not a goal—as you are trying to claim that it is. Power is an ability to do something, a means, not a goal.
There is, if you are Darwin. Didn’t you keep telling me about “Darwin 101”? …
If you applied ‘energy’ to everything, then it would be meaningless in the same way.
You claimed that power was a fundamental, ontological consitutent, and that all life pursues power. You didn’t name anything more specific, just that blank, empty, generality. It’s not my job to tell you what you were referring to.
Power - The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.
The prior is capacity, which is neutral. One can acquire the capacity to do something, even as a byproduct of another skill. To acquire this form of power is healthy over time, and doesn’t highlight any cause of concern.
Power - Physical strength and force exerted by something or someone - The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.
Exercising control, especially by means of force, isn’t sustainable. I say it’s unhealthy and ought not be sought.
Using one’s power to disempower others, as a means to perpetuate one’s own power is corrupt. It’s driven by fear and lack of respect.
Everything is made of energy, so the word applies to everything. How is this therefore meaningless?
I’ve stated on numerous occasions that there are many forms of power, e.g., collective power, mental power, anatomic power, physical power, social-power, political power, etc. I didn’t choose to live in a world of will to power. The will to power simply IS; there is no cause of the WTP. It would be like asking " Why does existence exist?". Life simply is the will to power - and nothing besides.
There has been a case where a man was abandoned somewhere isolated with his infant son, and he was, actually, able to breast feed the son ( produce milk via his nipples ). Same reason why females have nipples: to breast feed. Maybe in the distant past, males were able to produce more milk, but eventually, it became an activity dominated by the females. Perhaps in time, male nipples will fade away completely unless they have some other functionality we are unaware of.
And no, Phyllo, I can’t think of any activity that is not associated with power.
That’s your excuse for misunderstanding Darwinian evolution?
Because there’s nothing it’s not, and you cannot understand the meaning of a word that you cannot contrast to something it is not. …It’s something you would see on the occult self-help section in a bookstore for quacks.
This is not a response to what I wrote. In fact, I do not think you can see me, even though I’ve made myself pretty clear, and my put my points right in front of you. You can list as many kinds of power as you like. Since you think everything is power, you can list everything, and attach the label ‘power’ to it. It doesn’t change the fact that you’ve emptied the term of content, and rendered it meaningless.
You think males evolved nipples in order to breast feed, even though males don’t have breasts? Do you think there was ever a time when males breast fed? Or do you think the natural world conspired to produce breasts in the one man who might one day be stranded on an island? Hm. Do you think male nipples will disappear like the appendix? Ohh dude, I totally just realized why male breasts might have de-evolved… it was so that men could swing a battle axe!
Men have nipples which are able to produce milk. And men can grow bitch tits - it’s possible. As prior mentioned, perhaps in the past, male lactation was more prevalent. Food for thought.
It only makes sense to talk about situations where there is an excess or lack of energy and how that alters system dynamics. In other cases it’s irrelevant and not worth discussing.
That is a clue that it is an empty concept. We can use Occam’s Razor to take it out of the discussion and it will alter nothing. One is better off looking at motivations which do produce distinct actions.