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.
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:
[…] 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).
‘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…’
‘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.’
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.
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”.
It doesn’t matter whether German allows Wille zu + verb or noun. I have seen plenty of examples of both. My point is that in English, ‘will to’ + noun is impossible, because the ‘to’ is not a preposition but part of the infinitive.
There is no ‘will to cheese’, ‘will to ketchup’, ‘will to peanut butter’, etc., but ‘desire for’ works for those nouns, and for any noun. But, observe that ‘desire for’ cannot be followed by a verb: ‘desire for eat’, ‘desire for run’, ‘desire for fly’ are improper formations.
Darn. I thought ‘will to power’ was wrong, and that since you want a change of translation from the predominant one, that there was some conceptual difference you would highlight and correct with the change. (Usually the point of altering a translation).
No, and you did not carefully read my posts, because if you had done it, then you would have known that the rules and the changes in the history of both languages are the same - the only difference is that the German language allowed the said exception of that rule much earlier than the English language.
Yes, that is what I said as well, but I also said that both languages (German earlier, Englsih later) allowed an exception of that rule.
It’s not a goof. I will grant you that the construction “will to [noun]” did not exist in English. Then, however, there arose a demand for an English translation of texts of Nietzsche that contained the key phrase Wille zur Macht. Now just as translators would concur on “power” (as opposed to, say “might”), so they would on “will” (as opposed to, say, “want”). But how were they to translate the connective zur? (Naturally they let away the [de]r part, as “the will to the power” would be like a Russian saying “I want to buy car”.) So what were they to choose? “Will for power”, “will of power” (as happened in French), or simply “will to power”? The latter was not just the most obvious choice, but had the added advantage of leaving intact any strict meaning Nietzsche might have wanted to convey with zu. This made it a no-brainer, really.
“Will to power” is found throughout a huge body of scholarship and literature on Nietzsche, not to mention popular use.
But was Wille zur Macht comparably idiomatic in Nietzsche’s times, or even now? I think not. I think the words you may be looking for are Machtstreben (“striving for power”), Machtgier (“greed or desire for power”), or Machthunger (“hunger for power”). The will to power however is not a striving, greed/desire, or hunger; it’s not a want of power, but a will to power: it does not mean that one wants (lacks) power, but that one wills (imposes) it.
It’s the same in German: Der Wille (um) zu [infinitive]. In that case zu is no preposition, but a particle required by the infinitive.
It’s not quite right that all the examples you give for this are concrete things. But at least they’re better than the ones you gave before, like “will to car”–which naturally requires an article in order not to sound like a stereotypical English-speaking Russian.
Ultimately the problem with all your examples is that the will to power is not the will to have power.
The closest verb form would be “empower”, not “power”.
As I said, no matter which way Nietzsche intended it (which is why I avoid discussing dead philosophers), he was wrong.
There is no form or translation of “Will to Power” that reflects the actual reality of life. It is a simple minded, superficial notion, that just happens to be misleading, which is why it didn’t take over the entire world 10,000 years ago. It is only a “half-truth”.
No, there is no ‘exception’ to the rule in English. The earliest translation of Nietzsche’s expression I could find was ‘will for power’, from the 1890s. Some time later, so it seems, some translator used ‘to’ instead of ‘for’, probably because he didn’t know the German zu means ‘for’ since it sounds like ‘to’ and is used with verbs like the English ‘to’ is. But of course the academic morons have no sense and never even questioned it. Perhaps it was a native-speaking German translating into English (such mistakes are frequently made by non-natives). It is not ‘incorrect’, it is impossible.
The term wozu means, ‘what for?’, ‘why?’, ‘to what purpose?’.