Gestalt in meaning

It’s bothered me a while how in literature or holy scripture one passage can have many meanings. Some recommend for scripture to take any charitable reading and one won’t be far off.

Be that as it may, today I’ve been wondering about life itself and world-views…how different theories can explain phenomena. It seems that some theories have unnecessary complexness, and others have too little subtlety. Come to think of it, that’s not quite the same as different reading in literature, where meanings may not include one another – but in philosophy and science, it seems differing systems can include one another.

For example, a theory that man desires power or that knowledge is of relations may work as part of a larger scheme if they do not explain everything themselves.

Dos this topic interest anybody?


I’ll be very interested if you could give examples which illustrate that the will to power fails in explaining all.

Love. It’s vulnerability.

Law. It too is a submission for others’ sake.

Creativity. It is an outpouring.

Perhaps I misunderstand what Friederich meant, but from the examples of his proteges, I’d say “power” is taken far too loosely.
Too much goodness in life is from giving.


Thanks for these examples, let me see if I could refute them.

Being more vulnerable is indeed being less powerful, but this fact doesn’t contradict with the fact that love is arised from the will to power. The reason is that the emotional vulnerability caused by loving doesn’t define love itself. Such a vulnerability has many causes, it doesn’t have to be love. The way love is related to the will to power is defined as willingfully romanticist ego expansional action.

Law itself serves as the best example illustrating creations driven by the will to power. It is imposed by the herd, on the herd, for general security of the herd. It has been a main social tool, alongside with morality and religion, ensuring the survival of our race. Again, you wrongly or insufficiently defined the subject, hence your point fails to refute the theory of the will to power. The fact that you realised law poses constraint on all, demostrates your will to power.

Creativity is both the highest and basist form of expression of the will to power. Man invent and construct material objects in order for him to adapt the constantly changing natural environment. Man invent and construct immaterial subjects as well, in order for him to adapt the constantly chaning social enviornment. All creativity rises out of necessity, as to fulfill the necessary will to power, a will which is ubiquitous, because it can be found ubiquitously.

No one gives for nothing. Everyone gives for carrying out his will to power. Every genuine gift contains a wish. Wish is Will proceeded to conception. The physical act of giving complete the process. The deisre for return, is the ceaseless will to power setting itself into work again.

To me, your responses sound insufficient. If something starts from the will to power, but it’s developed into something else, it seems you should not say it is will to power. I guess the problem is “will to power” means man is selfish, right? But if man can evolve individually to surpass the physical and the necessary, then man’s will turns to something else. I’m reminded here of Plato’s discourse of Diotima on Love, where the object of the will starts from the physical and grows into the more spiritual by steps.

I think a basic difference between my position and Freiderich’s is that I believe in Spirit, which is free. I’m not sure what you mean over your avatar by “Free Spirit”. How can you be free if you are necessitated by will to power, to self?

Man has to be selfish in order to survive. Being selfish at the fundamnetal level come innately in the genes. The self, simply cannot be unselfish, in the strictest sense. This applies to all living organism.

The self is the evetual consumer of all consumption, let it be the consumption of the mind, spirit, or body. This self has this taste of the will to power, it does not consume willingfully things which are irrelevant to power. Spirituality does not automatically exclude itself out of the domain of power. Unless you have a valid argument on this.

The will is much of what the self is. The newly born baby has nothing but this will to power. Thus he sucks. Later he learns many means to excert this will efficiently, in learning he gains power, in gaining power, he grows and learns on. How free can you be depends on how much power you are using on your creativity. The higher, bigger the world you create for yourself, the freer you are in relavence to the herd.

“How much power you are using on your creativity”? Is all you mean by the will to power, the power of the will? If all you mean is a having a strong will, that sounds like an aspect of virtue. But “a will to what?” would be the next question.

Let me try again with an example. Let’s say I am giving a dinner party. What power do I gain by giving it, and what power do you get by attending?

The “will to power” is translated from German as it should be, so you can take the English meaning as the correct meaning. Not the power of the will. But the power will. Not powerful will. Will has no power, that’s why it goes for power. But no will, no power. But you will, only for power.

You dining Uniqor. What power do you gain from that? I don’t know… how about - you having a fantastic person’s radiant presence, in your home, at your table, eating your food and listening to your talk - your ability to have a quality time by means of a powerful invitation?

my real name, I feel like we are having orings and apples now. Here is some stake and spagetti: Bon appetit.

You may have to define posessing “power”. You describe a good, but are all goods convertible with “power”? If not, I think there’s another name for it, and you might be stretching the meaning.

I know there is a will to live in animals; can the addition of intellect explain a will to power in itself? (Oh, that’s right, moderns don’t believe in the intellect either. And the ubermench lives by his own rules/without rules.)

If it’s true there is a slave morality and a power morality, does the power morality have to enjoy power for it’s own sake, or can it be a virtue ethics? Can part of gaining power include gaining power over his own passions?

Thanks for chatting with me. It empowers me.

un chevalier mal fet


I just realised, as i become affected by our discussion, that if power is convertible with the good, Philosophers may have to think of the Good, the True, the Beautiful,…and the Empowering! Welcome, mrn, to the 20th century! I guess everything has power insofar as it exists, so it might be convertible with being after all.

Someone talk me out of this. It puts power on a par with other objects of the will. But some power seems to be social instead of an act of being. Maybe I have to answer this myself.


My Real Name,

I have not posted much here at ILP; I have preferred to remain an observer of dialogue, rather than a participant. However, I think I may be able to share something of note which may perhaps help you in your encounter with the “Will to Power.”

I have been engadged in the Nietzschean thought world for a little while now and perhaps my reflection on the “will to power” will allow you to exhert some power over your current situation.

If everything is chaos, if truth is the creation of man, albeit perhaps most often an unconscious one, then simply being able to navigate your way through the world requires the “will to power.” The “will to power” orders the chaos in such a way as to maximize the control, or “power,” man has. Understanding, therefore, or at least understanding the world in the way you do, unless you are totally dominated by the herd’s way of thinking, (which, by the way, exherts its own “will to power”) is a manifestation of the “will to power” in action.

The “will to power” is not selfishness; although it can be; it is rather the ability to funtion and understand the world which is always in a state of becomming, always moving, never fixed. For Nietzsche, the Christian God is a manifestation of the “will to power.” The early christians were able to order the universe in such a way as to maximize their power within it, or at least to maximize their ability to understand it.

Understanding, therefore, insofar as we can ever really understand anything, is part of the funtioning of the “will to power.”

Thanks for the post, Trotter.

The question I have is, does the will to power explain everything on it’s own, or is it only part of the explanation. Maybe understanding exercises a will to power, but that’s not to say that there is not true understanding.

Also, I’m not sure how one orders chaos, that is, giving order that was not discovered there before.

Recently, I seem to find myself redefining modern philosophy (Hegel, and here, Nietzsche) in classical terms.


My vivacious friend, allow me to welcome you into the 21st century!

Trotter made a correct and important point by the way.

The will is the base, it can’t be used to anwser all questions to satisfactory details, that’s why Nietzsche haven’t made it to the Christ status. Whatever seems to be able to offer all the anwsers is an offer from a tramp. Christianity was an irresistable offer from a smart Jew who managed self-deception via his own ethical-mystical creativity in order to fulfill his will to power nd he did a damn good job at that. Too bad the Romans eventually fell for it, the Chinese would never have though, they were already way too deep into Confuscious’ ass, who was an intellectually more modest and cultrally more advanced Chinese equavalent morality big shot to Jesus himself. All these holy men were about power, they longed for it because their will told them so. They created their fairytales to gain control over their own existential world in the first place. They preached and teached for the purpose of expanding the power out of the domain of their ego. The will is inexorable. The way of the will evetually involves consuming and conquoring others, because the wills between people clash. The reason for the clash that’s been shaping the development and pushing forward our society is that we all want the same thing, that is power, but not survival. The will to survival explains jackshit, but the will to power encompasses the former itself. Morality shows the will to power. Knowledge shows the same will. The way of the will is through creativity. Morality and knowledge are human inventions. Man lives by his inventions. The world for man is never enough on its own, but it’s always enough to host man’s ceaseless creativit, for the earth itself is the original source of all power available for man. This is why Nietzsche wants us to stay true to the earth. The earth made us in such a way that we can live with it in harmony, in peace and in joy, via the conduct of creatitivity. All else is wacky fally. All else offends the earth’s power. The earth is our God. Fuck with the earth and you’ll pay the hard way. Mess with its existentiality, you’ll end up as a suicidal nihilist or a sensualist nihilist or both. Mess with its physique, you’ll end up living in underwater cities that farted way too much CO2. But doesn’t matter who you fuck with, the drive is the same, that is power. Some power are virtuous that lead to happiness, others are vice that lead to self-destruction. The will only makes you act, there is just no way that you won’t act and stay put all day long with mind blankness. Nietzsche observed that whatever your actions are, they are for you to gain or at least to taste the senses of control, concieve, conceptualise, communicate, convice and concern. All life forms live to propagate and expand, and they need energy and power to do so. To grow physically they need physical power, to grow intellectually they need intellectual power. They aquire physical power by creating food, intellectual power by creating knowledge. They will to power. We will to power, the small men, the great men, the untermensch and the ubermensch alike. Some execute the will better than others. Do you wan to live wisely? Then firstly stay true to the will, secondly learn from Fritz.

Freddie and I have a basic disagreement. I believe knowledge is discovered, not made. If I hold that position, I get interesting things out of a Power to Will – something like Aristotle’s virtue of magnanimity, or “big-souledness”. If I leave Will to Power on it’s own, I think I get a horror. Nightmare on Elm Street. :wink:


“Freddie” can’t be disagreed with on any ground, you either misunderstood him or you thought he was a total mush up. It’s like you can’t disagree with Jesus over the colour of God’s beard. Being godless needs piety, too. The Nietzschean will is something that you can’t refute no matter what you do. The idea that all is human creation is in accord with Kantians and many others. The Eternal Recurrence is as beyond human refutation as the super string theory of quantum physics. The Ubermensch is human existentiality in its most matured state, it’s something either you understand from your own experience or it strikes you as akin to adult fiction. my real name, the first task however, is to understand Nietzsche’s correct nick name.


I believe I did refute Nietzsche above, as explained, and I am more than comfortable with my refutation. I don’t follow Kant either, unless you extend it to “Transcendental Thomism”. If I did not actually refute Freddie’s position, I at least provided an alternative explanation for his alluring siren song.

Good night.

my real name

Sure, I refuted Jesus the day I turned smart enough to say that “there isn’t God, there is Superman”. It’s a way to get around philosophy and confirm yur intellectual progression, I agree. Want some more rewarding refutation related stuff? Try the Antichrist, won’t you, crusader? Good night? The knight never says that, he says “en guard, stranger, pike up!”.

As i understand the situation, Nietzsche is post-intellect. How can you talk about intellectual progression? The difference between merely disputing and disproving Nietzsche rests on whether the reason can be shown to actually know. If so, the Will to Power is merely the Power to Will, which is a lot like Aristotle’s virtue of magnanimity, or “big-souledness”, in the Ethics, sub-reason. Edit: Actually, now that i’ve consulted the Ethics, magnanimity is the virtue of giving appropriately grandly, but I suppose that is one of many cases of “big-willing” in Aristotle’s thought.

But we have seen historically what happens when people take the post-rational Ubermensch seriously: lots of goose-stepping. On the contrary, we see what happens from Aristotle…well, okay, Alexander the Great.

I also left an issue whether power is convertible with being. But even if it is, is it the power that is willed or the good that is also convertible? I don’t expect a non-Scholastic to understand.


As for showing whether we know, doesn’t a rational form have to exist in the mind before willing something? At least I have trouble deciding something without reasons.

If you say power itself is the purpose, I think that is not sufficient for a moral act, which must have an appropriate end. You end up saying power is for the sake of power for the sake of power. But “power” can be thought of in the sense of an ability to do something. Does that mean there there is something to achieve greater than power? Unless that power is virtue, on which Aristotle wrote comprehensively for the ages.

I’ve been reading a dialogue, where it is proposed that the richest man is the one who knows how to use things properly. Perhaps if we also know how to use things and people properly, then our desire for power seems less outlandish…it will have some rational boundaries, even if not the rational ground I propose.


I’ve just read just about enough of you, my friend. Despite that fact, I think I’ve managed to recognise the core of our differene. You, are Greek through and through, Hellas is your entire intellectual base, it’s the proof of your argument, you assume that the ancient Greeks who didn’t have the slightest idea what the scientifc method was, are paramount. Do I have contempt for the ancients? No, I just pity that they were born too early. I pity that they lived in a world almost devoid of the light of science. I pity that they were as vunerable to physical illnesses as to intellectual illnesses. This is probably, I mean definitely, not fair to ask, but my friend, do you know the Greeks better than Nietzsche? Do you realie that the starting point of the Nietzchean intellectual progresion is the Greeks? The Greeks are dead. Nietzsche hadn’t said that only because his entire philsophy had. Dead as their Gods. F W Nietzsche, on the other hand, haven’t really lived, yet. What is our difference? You dig a hole to the Greek tomb and I live two thousand leagues above you, over the herdish ground, on the Nietzschean mount. What is your Greek stuff to me, my life, my existentiality, my friend? About as irrelevant as “turn-the-other-cheek”… What am I to Nietzsche, if I was still doning something that the man had already spent his life trying to overcome? I brought Nietzsche in, you brought “scholastic” Aristotle in… we are not made for a match, stranger. Good night.