That is a mistranslation. The zu means ‘for’, not ‘to’, and Wille is not always merely ‘will’, as you can see if you consult a good German-English dictionary. Thus, Leben ist Wille zur Macht = ‘Life is the desire for power’.
oh crap… ornello… you just broke ILP.
Well, the Nietzsche portion anyway. 
And no matter which way Nietzsche meant it, he was wrong.
The English “will” can also be synonymous with “desire”, so you don’t really have a point there.
Moreover, you’re also wrong there, as the Wille in Wille zur Macht does expressly not mean “will” in the sense of “desire”.
As for zu, that means as literally “to” as Wille obviously literally (etymologically) means “will”.
The only reason to translate it as “for” is if the context demands it, for instance because there is as little such a thing as a “desire to” as a “will for” something.
But, to be sure, there is an even more literal possible translation than mine above: “Living is will to might”.—
No. ‘Will to’ in English is followed only by a verb (will to win, will to fight, will to live, etc.). The ‘to’ is thus not a preposition but part of the infinitive. The translation ‘will to power’ is not only incorrect, it is impossible.
Zu in German does not mean only ‘to’. For example, zum Beispiel means ‘for example’. Ich bin zu Berlin means ‘I am in Berlin’. Er is nicht zu Hause means ‘he is not at home (or in)’. To say I am going home, you say nach Hause, not zu Hause.
See this:
“Living is will for might.”
?
Life is the desire for power.
Life is the desire for power.
Life is the will to power.
What conceptual difference would you like to shed light on?
Are you saying it is impossible because you don’t think ‘power’ is a verb?
No, Ornello merely broke ILN 1 (I Love Nietzsche) and ILSC (I Love Social Criticism).
tab ILF (“I Love Fun”),
(2) ILG (“I Love Gossip”),
(3) ILL (“I Love Lies”),
(4) ILN 1 (“I love Nietzsche”),
(5) ILN 2 (“I love Nonsense”),
(6) ILN 3 (“I Love Nothing”),
(7) ILP (“I Love Philsophy”) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% (1/8) are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (I Love Social Criticism).[/tab]
The Nietzschean(ist)s do not know what Nietzsche meant - as usual.
But perhaps the German philologist Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche did also not know what he meant. 
“Ich bin in Berlin” <=> “I am in Berlin”.
Instead of “Er ist nicht zu Hause (zuhause)” you can also say “Er ist nicht daheim” <=> “He is not at home”.
Instead of “Ich gehe nach Hause” you can also say “Ich gehe heim” <=> “I am going home” or “I go home”.
The English (and b.t.w.: also the Low German) preposition “to” is the right translated form of the High German preposition “zu” in the term “will to power” or “will to might” <=> “Wille zur Macht”. But it is also true that the English (and b.t.w.: also the Low German) preposition “to” requires a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun, and this is mostly also required by the High German preposition “zu”.
Are you shocked now? 
So again: perhaps the German philologist Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche did also not know what he meant.
The German preposition “zu” does not always but mostly also require a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun. “Wille zur Macht” or “Liebe zum Detail” are examples of the absolutely accepted exceptions of a rule. So the preposition “zu” in the term “Wille zur Macht” is the right preposition, and therefore the term “Wille zur Macht” is correctly translated by “will to power (might)”.
No, it is not. ‘Will to’ can never be followed by a noun in English. It’s impossible. The ‘to’ is not a preposition here, but part of the infinitive (‘to live’, ‘to fight’). There is no such thing as ‘will to (noun)’. But in German, Wille zu is followed by a noun, sometimes a nominalized verb (Wille zum Leben). Thus, Wille zur Macht is perfectly normal. The zur means ‘for’, just as it does in zum Beispiel. Thus, since ‘for’ is the correct translation of zur (and ‘to’ is incorrect), a noun such as ‘desire’ or ‘wish’ is called for.
Had you lived before roughly the turn of the twentieth century, you may have had a point. Living languages like English are not fixed, however. So, like it or not, there has been a tradition of the phrase “will to” followed by a noun in English for well over a century now.
Yes, it means different things in different contexts, as I already pointed out. The language into which one translates it may require different words in different contexts. This does not change the fact that the German literally says “to example” (more literally “to the byplay”), “I am to Berlin”, “he is not to house”, etc.
Yes, literally “after house”. Compare the fact that one may also say “desire after” instead of “desire for”. This may serve as a hint as to the difference between “will to power” and “desire for power”: the will to power reaches all the way to power, it touches power–it is not removed from power. Thus Nietzsche writes:
[size=95]“‘Willing’ is not ‘desiring,’ striving, demanding [‘begehren’, streben, verlangen]: it is distinguished from these by the affect of commanding.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 668, Kaufmann translation.)[/size]
Whoever wills is thereby already a commander–one in power.
[quote=“Sauwelios”]
Nonsense. ‘Will to (noun)’ is not a proper construction in English. There may be some influence from the mistranslation that we are discussing.
By the way, Kaufmann’s translations are full of egregious errors.
See:
linguee.com/english-german/s … y=wille+zu
Während auf palästinensischer Seite heute der Wille zu verzeichnen ist, zu fordern, daß die Europäische Union in den Friedensprozeß […]
While the Palestinian side is currently demonstrating a desire to seek European intervention in the peace process, there are […]
Dieser gemeinsame Wille zu Veränderung hat in der Wirkung dazu geführt, dass der Anteil unrentabler Geschäfte bei LANXESS […]
The effect of this common commitment to change has been to greatly reduce the share of unprofitable businesses within LANXESS as measured by EBITDA margin.
Zu diesen zählen beispielsweise das Vermeiden von Leid, der Wille zu leben, die Freiheit und die Verwirklichung von Interessen an sich.
tierrechte-muelheim.de
These interests are for example the avoidance of pain, the will to live, to live in freedom and the realization of interests itself.
[…] den EU-Außenbeziehungen strukturell angelegtes und daher wiederkehrendes Problem: die Frage nach der Gewichtung der Wertedimension im Verhältnis zu Staaten, die gravierende Defizite bei der Achtung der Menschenrechte und der Herrschaft des Rechts aufweisen und in denen der politische Wille zu substantiellen Reformen fehlt.
However, a divergence of opinion emerged in relation to a structural and therefore recurring question within EU foreign policy: what role should values play in the EU’s relationship with states that lack the political will for substantive reforms and exhibit grave deficits in their respect of rule of law and human rights?
Ornello, you have misunderstood me. I did not say that “will to” is followed by a noun. I said it is followed by a verb. Please read my last post again.
The foregoing word of the preposition (in this cae: “to” or “zu”) is of course meant by “if the foregoing word is a noun”.
Again: [size=109]Will (noun and foregoing word of the preposition ‘to’) to (preposition) power (noun).[/size]
The English rule and the German rule are the same. The German language allowed the said exception of that rule much earlier than the English language - that is the only difference.
I’m very sorry, Ornello, but you are wrong.
Normally it is “noun + to + verb” as it is in German: “Wille + zu + Verb” but in High German “Wille zu (Nomen)” is acceptionally also possible. That is what I said.
As I said: ii is an exception of a German rule that means the same as the English rule: “Nomen (noun) + zu (to) + Verb (verb)”. So the construction “Nomen + zu + Nomen” is normal merely as an exception of that said rule.
Behind the word “zur” are two compund words: “zu” + “der”.
You’re turning matters around. Yes, “to” in phrases like “will to live” is not a preposition but a particle demanded by the infinitive (though not quite required: compare “I want to live” with “I will survive”). To have the translation of Nietzsche’s Wille depend on this, however, is folly, if not ill will. The translation of zur Macht as “for power” is not a given to which the translation of Wille has to conform. To the contrary, the terms Wille and Macht are the decisive concepts here. We seem to agree that Macht means “power” rather than the narrower “might”. Well then, depending on our translation of Wille, the translation of the word zu will be obvious. Looking at synonyms for “desire”, I find that most words do indeed require “for”–or “after”!–, but a fine example of an exception even in this direction is “delight”–whose meaning by the way perfectly fits the etymology of “will”–: it would be “delight in power”, not “delight for power”. Compare the German word Lust, “pleasure, joy, etc.”
Yes, this is governed by idiom. ‘Delight in’, ‘desire for’, can be followed by nouns or gerunds (which are similar to nominalized German verbs). But ‘will to’ can be followed only by a verb, which is why some other construction must be used so that we can keep ‘power’. "Will to power’ is simply impossible, as would be ‘will to car’ or ‘will to light bulb’. Since ‘power’ is the word that cannot really be avoided, we have to make the construction allow for its presence as a noun. ‘Will to’ thus cannot be used. Everything turns on ‘power’, not ‘will’, because ‘power’ must be used, as it is the key concept in the expression.
Consider this one, where Will zu is followed by a noun:
From:
linguee.com/english-german/s … y=wille+zu
[…] den EU-Außenbeziehungen strukturell angelegtes und daher wiederkehrendes Problem: die Frage nach der Gewichtung der Wertedimension im Verhältnis zu Staaten, die gravierende Defizite bei der Achtung der Menschenrechte und der Herrschaft des Rechts aufweisen und in denen der politische Wille zu substantiellen Reformen fehlt.
However, a divergence of opinion emerged in relation to a structural and therefore recurring question within EU foreign policy: what role should values play in the EU’s relationship with states that lack the political will for substantive reforms and exhibit grave deficits in their respect of rule of law and human rights?
I would translate this better as ‘relationship with states that lack the political will to make substantive reforms and…’
There is some history of the usage ‘will for power’ in the 19th century unrelated to Nietzsche (so far as I know).
Here is one where ‘to will’ (the verb) is used:
books.google.com/books?id=ZWcrA … 22&f=false
‘The Spirit Of Might. He was so in Christ, and, therefore, Christ is called by the same Name (Hebrew word) Mighty, in Isaiah ix. The Spirit is the Spirit of Might; because there is no Might, but by him. Not by Might, nor by Power, but by my Spirit, faith the Lord of Hosts. Zech. iv. 6. He is the Spirit of Might to the Redeemed; because Sin, in robbing them of their spiritual Life, left them without any spiritual Strength. Rom. v. 6. Throughout the Scriptures, in this respect, they are described in the Condition of a dead Carcase—without Sensation— without Capacity—without the Power even to wish or to will for Power. In their Regeneration, this Spirit exerts his Might, quickening them from the…’
Here is another example:
books.google.com/books?id=OjcZA … 22&f=false
‘And now, Monsieur Doltaire, do we settle with you? No, there is no one on earth who could do that. Illegitimate birth, royal and peasant blood, a life of sickening evil, brute cruelty, a relentless will for power or revenge, a love for Alixe — for Alixe! — that was so low a thing as a mere pursuit; and yet a man above petty meannesses, a man of willing charity and generous hand when his heart was touched, a voice, a manner, a pleading grace, a wit to charm in spite of all the evil of his life. Mr. Parker does not leave you to sneer at such a man’s powers of fascination. As Alixe Duvarney fought against his charm the reader has to fight.’
Sure it is. It has been at least since the phrase “will to power” was first widely accepted.
Actually, I couldn’t agree more. What’s your point, though?
Again, what’s your point? “The will to seek power”, “the commitment to power”, “the will to live in power”?
Are you seriously saying that “the will for [noun]” does have a long, respectable pedigree?
What do you mean ‘widely accepted’? It is a mistranslation and always has been. Some translator makes a goof, and since nobody seems to give a shit about English idiom, that means it’s ‘widely accepted’? I think not! I did find some early examples (late 19th c) where the translation of Nietzsche’s phrase was ‘will for power’.
‘Desire for power’ is an extremely common expression, and is idiomatic.
Why?
It’s certainly not a person, place, or thing to Nietzsche.
I don’t understand what you are asking. It’s a concept. This is a translation issue. The word ‘power’ is the one word that is almost unavoidable in the translation. Thus, the other words have to be chosen accordingly.
Ornello, the German language made an exception of that said rule long ago, very long before Nietzsche wrote his books; and later the English language made this exception too.
So “Nomen + zu + Nomen” is an accepted exception of the rule “Nomen + zu + Verb”.
Exactly the same in English: “noun + to + noun” is an accepted exception of the rule “noun + to + verb”.