The point of Will to Power is that motive comes from within human individuals, absent a (nonexistent) god, and that there is no “opposite” force - that even supplication is a manifestation of will.
No God, no opposites.
Take it for what you will. That’s really important, or it’s not. You choose.
There is no “moving beyond” it. There are just different perspectives. They do not represent “progress”, but just taking a different position along the spectrum of explanations for the acts of sentient beings.
I tend to agree with you there, I find I have to make an effort to translate the will to power into things like the will to structure, will to greater complexity, will to discharge, will to behold ones own creation, or simply the will to enjoy a moment of peace. It can be done, but ‘power’ needs to be translated into ‘the feeling of power’ first, which must then mean any pleasurable sensation.
I once, a lot of years back, proposed ‘the lust for truth’ as another way of explaing everything in a holistic concept. Truth, like power, can be interpreted in a lot of ways. I took Crowleys account of it:
and I replaced ‘will’ with ‘lust’ because lust leaves no question about the anthromorphous nature of this definition of ‘everything’. Besides, this experience of truth can as far as I am aware only be attained by employing to the fullest libidal energies. Also, ‘lust’ is more in line with the Darwinistic analysis of the fundamental condition of life, which that existence is only guaranteed by procreation. Further, truth, in occult terms, arises from the union of opposites. It is always of a temporary nature, if a stage of unification and integration has been reached, one finds oneself a new pole of another polarity. Tension builds, and at one point the tension is strong enough to be experienced as an uncontrollable desire to experience union again, or rather, to unite again with what then becomes the other part of oneself, to know oneself as one again, which is truth.
Taking the perspective of a hypothetical God, I always imagined that a reason for creating a universe could be the desire to know himself. That is also found in the lust for truth, (desire for truth is too weak, too civilized), not directly in the will to power.
Truth should not be mistaken for knowledge - if I would mean knowledge, the concept would be perverse. Lust for knowledge only too often leads to indifference or psychosis, cruel and cold death. Truth is a subjective state, an experience.
[edit] I know it is scientifically absurd to anthromorphize the universe, but that is what Nietzsche does, and I think this concept is more workable in that sense. Also it leads to more constructive results.
I dsiagree that he is anthropomorphising the Universe. He is, rather, universalising motive. But that motive is not representative of a conscious decision, or even of consciousness.
And yeah, he waxes poetic about the very rocks and grains of sand, but that’s just a little friendly hyperbole.
Motive is an anthropic principle. The universalising of motive, as you put it, amounts to anthropomorphising the universe itself, if only somewhat dishonestly or imperfectly.
But stones don’t. I don’t think it’s just an innocent bit of poetry, as N states quite bombastically that all is will to power.
But even if it is only about conscious beings, I don’t think ‘power’ really cuts it. The culminating moments life is constantly moving towards, like a cat catching a mouse or a man getting something done, they can with some effort or imagination be explained as power, but I prefer to see them as moments of truth, where for an instant, what one is is perfectly clear.
Yes! Thank you! =D> You, sir, are smart. Nietzsche definitely got way too caught up in his own metaphor(s). I for one happen to take a great liking to his eternal recurrence (which he stroked a lot less and admitted its metaphorical merits more than factualness) as a personal device for overcoming nihilism and depression. The idea of living the same exact life, moment for moment, over and over again, for all eternity, will really sit your kiester on a stovetop.
Faust, I agree with The Last Man and Jakob; there is something to be said of Nietzsche’s anthropomorphizing ways that is rather negative. He’s essentially making the same mistake as two people: Schopenhauer and theists. Schopenhauer considered Will to be the opposite of Idea, in truth the thing-in-itself as it is universally known to us. He says we observe intention in ourselves so we would not be wrong to extend that analogy to all things: All things are intended, that is, Willed.
Theists make a similar joke with their teleological argument, arguing that the analogy between the complexity of human creations and the complexity of the universe is enough to imply a supreme deity.
However houses aren’t universes and trees aren’t humans. The best these two arguments can do is offer intriguing, floral ways of looking at things. They’re analogies, not demonstrations. They’re also not particularly useful analogies, at least not in the sense that you can use them for long periods of time without running into hiccups. (I understand that all inductive conclusions are essentially nothing more than analogies but at least they’re useful explanatory tools.)
There’s a fine line between the useful and the museful.
I don’t need to sue him, he’s given me more than I’m legally entitled to. But I think the Will to Power is not one of his best philosophical ideas. It seems to me that whenever he reaches an ultimate conclusion, it is more poetic that philosophical. Maybe ultimate conclusions aren’t philosophical.
But as an interpretation, is it really even useful at all?
I think that the will to power concept can lead us out of habitual thinking patterns that are more closed-minded and into generally more holistic ones. I think it is a tool that can help to show us underlying unities. But I also think that other tools can accomplish this as well. Buddhism, Hindism, Taoism, these all can help point us in this direction. Nietzsche had respect for the eastern religions because of this. They represent a more open and diverse mind than those of western religions.
But back to will to power, Nietzsche accomplishes a nice trick with his “All is will to power. . .”, as you say, turning it on its head as “It is the agent” rather than being a result or consequence of agents. But this is only a trick - will to power is an idea that Nietzsche took and changed the definition of. He supplanted human will for a universal Will which was not only the source of human will but was human will. He created a Tao-like concept of universal Being, but he made it into a universal Becoming instead - but a universal Becoming is still a universal Being. Saying that “everything changes” is somewhat disingenuous, as the principle of change itself nonetheless remains constant - the Being behind the becoming. Nietzsche’s ‘Will to Power’ as this universal Becoming principle or “. . .and nothing besides” is a neat inversion of the traditional meaning of Being, but in the end he did not so much counter Plato as he did build upon Plato’s structure - Nietzsche kept the ontological structure the same but simply changed the content of the terms themselves, which is okay with me. . . I think Nietzsche’s take on it is much better than phenomenological or Ideal ones. But using will to power as a be-all-end-all, infinitely-applicable and explanable concept is only watering down the idea to meaninglessness.
We can speculate about the possibility of universal principles, either Beings or Becomings, we can think about the differences between being and becoming, whether Plato or Nietzsche had it more right - that is fine, sure. But this topic here is meant to remind us that Nietzsche’s ideas were just that: ideas. They were not solid gold, he did not create anything in reality, he did not discover any new energy or God or law of nature - Nietzsche invented a nice new system of thought that we can use to try and explain certain things. But not to fundamentally understand them - to, as you say, interpret them.
So in this sense, if Nietzsche’s system of thought is useful, we should use it. But if it is not useful, we should not cling to it. His ideas are no more fundamentally real or unreal than those of Plato or Aristotle or Kant or Hegel or Heidegger regarding ontology or metaphysics. They are different perspectives, different concepts and definitions and ways of relating these to each other - and each of us will find an affinity in one over the others. Which is certainly a good thing. But this tells us more about ourselves than it does about anything else “out there” in reality.
Philosophers do not describe reality, much less understand it - they describe their own psychology and, as an extension of this, the human condition. But very few of them end up understanding it. Nietzsche probably did end up understanding more of the mind and working of human consciousness than most philosophers, as least based on my readings of him - but once again this tells us more about my own interpretations than anything else - yet in this topic here I caution against forgetting that these philosophical systems such as Nietzsche’s are only as true as they are useful to us. There is no reason to cling to them if they become obsolete to us on a personal level, just as there is no point in trying to determine which of them is more “real” or “true” in any sort of absolute or external way.
I have nothing against Nietzsche, he was a wonderful philosopher. Let’s just remember to look at his ideas pragmatically and with an eye towards determining their usefulness for us on a personal level. Believing in Nietzsche’s ideas dogmatically or absolutely or as if his words are Divine Truth, as I have noticed some people on this website do, is somewhat silly.
Yeah, I think it is. But that doesn’t mean is hasn’t been misused, underused, overused and made useless, by some.
Pick the tools you like best. I have no argument for that. Mostly, it’s a tool against religion and absolutism. I think many readers of N have made way too much of it.
He was trying to get across the notion that life is not a collection of paired opposites - paired opposites is a prerequisite for much of the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that preceded him. While Rene Descartes was sitting in his study, contemplating a God that would not deceive him and evil demons that would, he was thinking about paired opposites - either of which he could be at the mercy of. Nietzsche was trying to tell us that it was all Rene, there, and that neither metaphysical force was present in that study. Will to Power is not an entity. It’s a description.
But a principle is not a thing.
Correct - if you take it as a be-all, end-all. It’s a context. It shifts the context from universals to particulars - here’s the difference. Plato’s Forms “precede” particulars. Nietzsche’s WTP follows them. It’s an abstraction - is extracted from particulars. Plato starts with the abstraction. And the particulars, to Plato, get their meaning from that abstraction. Plato puts the cart before the horse. Nietzsche’s doesn’t.
Oh. Yeah-okay.
They were just ideas, yes. The idea of God explains things much better. But only if you believe it. Nietzsche was writing for materialist/atheists.
Of course. Nietzsche would concur. he would also ask you to do better, but he would concur.
Translation – Treating any particular philosophy as a religion is somewhat silly.
The moment you stop thinking for yourself you become an evangelist.
Anyone can preach and regurgitate ideas from a book, people do it every day. I can’t find fault in the belief of a theory as long as it is justifiable and applicable to you.
Also, referring to a Philosopher’s writing as “a system of thought” kind of suggests that you have missed the point of the content. A statement like that implies no ‘movement’, or change, in the perspective of the author; only emphasis on one perspective. Nietzsche’s perspectives, like his ideas, showed movement in his writing. Even the same ideas, such as ‘will to power’, evolved in the consideration of different variables. He had a strong, logical theory that he believed in; why is it so absurd that others find the theory believable and applicable?
Holding a belief is fine, and quite necessary to us in life as we all have our own opinions. Beliefs only seem to become dangerous when pride becomes reliant. If you can’t let a belief go, you will likely justify it any possible way you can…
At the point where you feel compelled to tell others of your beliefs, and you have a passionate need to sway others opinions or refute their counter-arguments against your beliefs, yes.
Well it isnt as if there arent differences between ideas or theories, or that some are not better than others by some measure of value (such as logical consistency, practical application, correspondence with observed events or facts of reality, ability to generate internal harmony or happiness or actualisation, ability to cover up psychological complexes or pathologies and to aid in rationalising and denial, etc). Whatever standard we pick to evaluate a belief or belief-system by, we can surely compare them to each other and find some better, and some worse.
A system of thought can and does change and evolve, of course some more than others. Nietzsche’s indeed evolved a great deal. But this changing aspect of it does not mean that it is not still a system - a set of beliefs, convictions, attitudes, assumptions, descriptions, motivators, justifications, etc. Whatever that set may be, however statically or temporally it exists, it nonetheless constitues a paradigmatic system of thought.
I do not think it is “so absurd that others find the theory believable and applicable”, on the contrary, I think this is a wonderful thing. I am only making the point that given certain circumstances of growth and expansion of consciousness and awareness and perspective we will outgrow every paradigm that previously contained and explained our experiences/feelings/thoughts/etc. I am also making the point that these paradigms are not objectively real, or objectively true, nor do they understand reality or define reality - they only interpret and evaluate it, subjectively of course.
Well if you stop thinking for yourself, you will naturally defend that which thinks for you; no? I imagine that one’s passion to find those who agree with him, and disprove those that don’t, would come quite naturally.
This is entirely subjective, as are the perceived “standards” and “beliefs” of individual people. Even cultural or scientific beliefs are perceived differently. That is why one person may favor the idea of “God”, another the ideas of Nietzsche, etc.
A “system” kind of implies a whole, or something that is encompassed within boundaries. My point with the statement about ‘movement’ and evolution of thought is that no boundaries need exist. I do not see a beginning, end, or any statement of necessity in Nietzsche’s writing – it is purely food for thought.
For example, I see a strict set of boundaries in the Christian system of thought. It has evolved in its own right, but those fundamental tenants are not changed, only built upon. The Bible and staunch defenders of it would not admit contradiction or inaccuracy because the that admits flaw in the system. Nietzsche openly admitted some of his own errors and was continually re-thinking. His beliefs were never really the “whole” that a system would be built upon. If anything, his only “system” was to avoid becoming a system – to keep thinking!
Well, in that case, great point! And likely correct. Though I am curious now why it was directed toward Nietzsche in particular…
That statement should be applied to all sources of ideas & ‘knowledge’, or not at all, in my humble opinion. Wouldn’t you say that all philosophical paradigms, regardless of age or author, fit your description above if it fits any at all?
I’m absolutely no Nietzsche scholar, but it seems to me that it’s a similar category to Dawkins’ “selfish gene” - not a literal description, so much as a useful metaphor to translate complex reality into terms simple for humans to understand.
N focusses very much, at least when it comes to his overarching views, on the idea that personal experience is what determines value, and in extension of that, truth - as much as he tries to avoid that concept. He doesn’t care so much whether something can be proven true or false, just how it affects someone who believes it.
“The necessity of false values. - One can refute a judgment by proving it’s conditionality: the need to retain it is not thereby removed. False values cannot be eradicated by reason anymore than astigmatism in the eyes of an invalid One must grasp the need for their existence: they are a consequence of causes which have nothing to do with reasons.” [WTP 262]
Feelings are everything to Nietzsche. In The Will to Power he says somewhere that what ultimately matters is the feeling of increased power. I can’t find the exact passage right now but here’s something similar:
““Useful” in the sense of Darwinist biology means: proved advantageous in the struggle with others. But it seems to me that the feeling of increase, of becoming stronger, is itself, quite apart from any usefulness in the struggle, the real progress:, only from this feeling does there arise the will to struggle-” [649]