Just ran across this again. I have probably posted it before, but I can’t remember.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjIAcRiDLXg[/youtube]
and this one…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9T9AwlFcmQ[/youtube]
I consider N. to be a special kind of atheist much different than Dawkins and the American atheists of modern society at this time. Instead of a materialist he focused on the will. I think a valid question is how does will compare to matter? Matter and will are highly important words in general. Matter is the supposed foundation of things and objects, the base nature of the true world. Will on the other hand, is, in my own opinion, a special type of causal energy. Part of philosophy is redefining words according to a higher purpose or understanding. Not all words are true, in fact very few words are perfect or accurate. We absolutely must make up new abstractions and replace the old with the new better ones. At forums it seems to me that most people can’t get passed this. When you try to talk to them, they think you are using the worst type of words. For example, at philosophy forums I said how it is morally best to try to be god-like, and then all the readers went to the oldest, poorest most religious definition of the word god. What I meant was highest being possible, highest logic, highest will, etc.
Philosophy is a twisted stair case that most people can’t climb. There are tons of reasons for this.