The ""Will to Power'' is a lie

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The idea of the ‘‘Will to Power’’ is a lie
but how do we come to this realization?

It is laid out as a ‘‘universal’’ principle… that ALL
animals including humans are engaged in this ‘‘Will to dominate’’
Which is what the ‘‘Will to Power’’ is… but a look at human
beings disprove this… There are millions, if not hundreds
of millions of human beings that have no interest of any kind
in power or in dominating others…

Those defenders of the ‘‘Will to Power’’ often state that there
are two types of people, those who are ‘‘brave’’ enough to accept
this ‘‘Will to Power’’ and those who are too weak or not brave enough
to accept it… but the fact is that this ‘‘Will to Power’’ is mistaken
for something else… A true universal principle is the ‘‘Will to survive’’
to continue life at all costs is a universal trait… and this universal
trait is mistaken for the ‘"Will to Power’'… to dominate is not a
universal trait…it has nothing to do with being weak or impotent,
the goal is not to dominate, but to survive and the believers of the
‘‘Will to Power’’ mistake the two traits…

There is an ancient notion, described by Plato, that ‘‘Might
makes right’’ and the ‘‘Will to Power’’ follows this notion…
but this notion is easily disproved… they are two different,
distinct notions… might and right… to be right, has nothing
to do with one’s might or lack of might… all might can do
is enforce its ‘‘values’’ on others… just as one tries, in
the ‘‘Will to Power’’ to enforce one’s values one another…

Might is just another word for power… but even a cursory
look at power shows us that power is transitory…
Parents have complete power over their children…
and yet, as the child moves into adulthood, the power
then shifts… whereas both sides have power,
and then in a parents old age, the child has the power over
the parent… depending on the situation, who has the power
shifts, changes… the nature of power is that it is ‘‘Ad hoc’’…
of the moment… and it changes, often quite dramatically…
Power is not a fixed, set property, it changes, moves, ends
and begins…how can something so in flux, be a permanent,
universal trait?

Let us look at power itself… Power is nihilistic… the
use of power is nihilistic… because it is coercive…which
is using force to ‘‘persuade’’ people to do things that they are
unwilling to do… and what is nihilism? the negation of
people and their values…and if you are using power to
coerce people, against their will, that is the negating
of people and their values… hence, the use of power is
nihilistic…the use of power is the basic trait of
transactional systems… which is why transactional
systems are also nihilistic… the very heart of
transactional systems, businesses, for example,
is coercion… where the goal is not the betterment
of people, but the pursuit of the, all might dollar…
and people and their values are expendable in that
pursuit…and that is nihilism… Coercion is by
its very nature, nihilistic…and coercion is only
possible by the use of power over others…

Power is also not pursued for itself, it is pursued for
what it can do… we use power to get objects, values,
desires… the nature of power often allows one to
attract the opposite sex… but this is in line with
the need to procreate, to continue surviving… not for
power itself…and the other objects we might pursue given
our power, are ego stuff…the fancy house, the expensive
sports car, the second house… ego stuff, but even
this aspect is not universal…

The ‘‘Will to Power’’ is not a universal trait, that much is
clear… and if it is not a universal trait, then it is not true…

Kropotkin

2

Will-to-will is the proper rendition.

Like-towards-like.

Growth of growth.

The funny thing is that animals and humans
can self destruct. Or be predatory.
Danger ensues.

3

I think you misunderstand, and that it is more a question of whether “power” is the most appropriate word, given how it can evoke notions of domination or control, which may not fully capture the nuance of Nietzsche’s idea. However, Nietzsche’s use of the term “power” in Der Wille zur Macht is much broader and more philosophical than its conventional meaning.

“Power” as dynamis? Nietzsche used “power” to signify the inherent vitality and dynamism of life, not just the ability to dominate others. It refers to the capacity to assert, create, and transform—not simply to control. We could also say “empowerment over domination.” The “power” in question is about self-realisation and self-overcoming, not external conquest. It’s about realizing one’s potential and affirming life.

Perhaps “The Will to Growth” would align with the idea of self-expansion and evolution, emphasizing life’s tendency to flourish and exceed limitations. “The Will to Creation” also suggests a drive to innovate, produce meaning, and shape the world. Although it sounds a bit odd, “The Will to Vitality” focuses more on the life-affirming and dynamic aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Finally, “The Will to Becoming” highlights the process-oriented nature of striving and transformation.

German words like “Macht” carry a broader connotation than their English equivalents. While “power” is the usual translation, the original term also suggests “capacity,” “ability,” or “force,” which might resonate more closely with Nietzsche’s broader philosophical aims. Imagine replacing “power” with “potential.” The “will to potential” evokes a continuous striving toward self-realization and mastery. While it may lack the provocative edge of “power,” it more clearly suggests an unfolding of latent abilities and a dynamic process of becoming.

4

Bob:
I think you misunderstand, and that it is more a question of whether “power” is the most appropriate word, given how it can evoke notions of domination or control, which may not fully capture the nuance of Nietzsche’s idea. However, Nietzsche’s use of the term “power” in Der Wille zur Macht is much broader and more philosophical than its conventional meaning.

“Power” as dynamis? Nietzsche used “power” to signify the inherent vitality and dynamism of life, not just the ability to dominate others. It refers to the capacity to assert, create, and transform—not simply to control. We could also say “empowerment over domination.” The “power” in question is about self-realisation and self-overcoming, not external conquest. It’s about realizing one’s potential and affirming life.

Perhaps “The Will to Growth” would align with the idea of self-expansion and evolution, emphasizing life’s tendency to flourish and exceed limitations. “The Will to Creation” also suggests a drive to innovate, produce meaning, and shape the world. Although it sounds a bit odd, “The Will to Vitality” focuses more on the life-affirming and dynamic aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Finally, “The Will to Becoming” highlights the process-oriented nature of striving and transformation.

German words like “Macht” carry a broader connotation than their English equivalents. While “power” is the usual translation, the original term also suggests “capacity,” “ability,” or “force,” which might resonate more closely with Nietzsche’s broader philosophical aims. Imagine replacing “power” with “potential.” The “will to potential” evokes a continuous striving toward self-realization and mastery. While it may lack the provocative edge of “power,” it more clearly suggests an unfolding of latent abilities and a dynamic process of becoming.

K: as usual, you are correct, but what I was aiming for was
not Nietzsche, but his followers… those who think that the
Übermensch was/is their destiny… to ‘‘dominate’’ others…
mind you, I too was young once and a ‘‘Nietzschean’’ to boot…
for a few years anyway… What Nietzsche was referring to
was the ‘‘power’’ of self-control, of mastery over oneself…
That is the true Übermensch… not one who has control over
others, but control over themselves…the ‘‘overcoming’’ he talks
about is the overcoming of oneself…

''Man is a rope stretched between animal and the Superman–
a rope over the abyss…

…What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not goal: what is
loveable in man is that he is OVER-GOING and DOWN-GOING.‘’

And this refers not to the power one may have over others, but
the power one has over oneself… this is the ‘‘Übermensch’’

But like Jesus, Nietzsche has been co-opted by those who
have failed to understand him…it is not Jesus I have a problem
with, it is with his followers who completely miss what Jesus said…
as with Nietzsche…

The ‘‘Will to Vitality’’ is very much a Henri Bergson idea…
and much closer to what Nietzsche believed then what
most people believe…

I recall reading not too long ago around here that someone
said that the strong are willing to take power and the weak
are too weak to accept power, or something like that…
and this reading of Nietzsche is flat out wrong and that
is what I am arguing against… Not Nietzsche himself,
but his weak-minded followers who have completely
misunderstood him…and there are several on this site
who do so…and that is my target in this thread…
overcoming is the overcoming of oneself, not of the overcoming of
others…

but I thank you for your answer because what you wrote is true…
and part of the answer I am trying to get across to the
youngsters who still have much to learn…

Kropotkin

5

No flower can exist without very concentrated power. Is this nihilistic? All beings require power to act. If they lose that power they wither. Hence, they will to power or die.

Power does not mean Capitalism or Communism. It is more elementary than that. Your posts all express the will to power over some form of subject matter. In this case over the idea of will to power.

1 Like
6

Jakob:
No flower can exist without very concentrated power. Is this nihilistic? All beings require power to act. If they lose that power they wither. Hence, they will to power or die.

Power does not mean Capitalism or Communism. It is more elementary than that. Your posts all express the will to power over some form of subject matter. In this case over the idea of will to power.

K: Your post has some puzzling ideas… for example, ‘‘concentrated power’’,
what exactly is this? ‘‘That all beings require power to act’’
is also unclear…what is the connection between power and action?
‘‘if they lose that power, they wither’’… again, very unclear…

and power specifically is about something… to have power over
something is what power is… power over some form of subject matter…
to bring in capitalism or even communism is part of the idea
that the power of capitalism is power over some subject matter,
us in this case…

Now some may say, power is some internal value, but
it is still directed toward matter…otherwise power has no
meaning…

Kropotkin

7

Yeah…because willing anything besides control over self is ‘evil’…in the Christian ethos…and nature is not based on exploitation and dominance of others.
Every time you eat a steak you exploit the work of another life form.

It’'s good to know that Nietzsche was a true Christain to the end.

8

excuse me?

9

‘the power to do something’

how is this unclear?

power is not at all always over something. Power is essentially the same as freedom to act.

10

If we give ‘life’ the platonic “linguistic treatment” we used on '“free-will” then we can declare life illusory, as well, because if we define life platonically, idealistically, metaphysically, then we can say that it must be eternal, immortal… and anything below this supernatural criterion is illusory.
So, we are all equally dead, and life is an illusion.

I’m sure many of you already think so.

If this becomes conventional, then we can all sit around supporting each other’s delusions.

Isn’t it comforting to think it is all fake, and that we do not actually live?

11

If we give Will to Power, or will power, the same platonic treatment we used to nullify free-will, then we must define ‘power’ supernaturally, and idealistically, as omnipotence… Will to Omnipotence.
Not simply a degree of power, but absolute power - total, complete power.
All other forms of power being “illusory,” according to these hypocrites.
This will nullify the concept of power, because omnipotence is impossible, so will to power is a will to what can never be attained. by any mortal man.
Such power and freedom can only be attained by a god.
Power being what determines freedom.

We must conclude that all will is impotent, given that our standard is so supernatural no natural entity can ever attain it, so when we perceive it, it must be an illusion… a platonic shadow of ideal power.

Isn’t this the postmodern/Marxist goal?
To equalize all, by using supernatural metaphysical definitions of concepts?
Isn’t it their goal to fabricate despair, where capitalism failed to create it, triggering a revolution, as they had predicted?

12

Ironic…
The one denying Will to Power is denying it in order to gain power over, as he said, the hearts and minds of the young.
His motive is mass manipulation… and a poor attempt, at that.
As shallow and useless as every one of his meandering philosophical soliloquies.