The Definition of Power and how we should live

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

From wiki

Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme

. In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

Monism is the view that attributes oneness or singleness (Greek: μόνος) to a concept (e.g., existence). Various kinds of monism can be distinguished: Priority monism states that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them (e.g., in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One).

Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. Wikipedia

Please google these concepts, as they are all metaphysical, and necessarily imvolve transcendence. I should not have let the conversation continue without saying transcendence is necessary for anything to be metaphysical.

I don't know if there is a difference between ontology and being qua being, so I would not say it is definitively metaphysics.
fooloso4 wrote: then there are other forms that are not man, in which case man and the will to power are not the same, man is a part or aspect or an instantiation of the will to power.
Fair enough. But how is an aspect of something not the same as what it is an aspect of? I am one aspect of nature, but I am also nature, in that I am made of it.

The point was on what aspect of our apparent reality warranted an eternal recurrence, and I believe 4he quote suffices.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

So even if we are an aspect of the will to power we are still the will to power, just, as an aspect of nature, we are nature.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Belindi »

Is it possible that Nietzsche thought of eternal recurrence as that state in which the ordinary man is stuck, unless and until the superman comes along and injects some genuine creativity, some movement and life, into the dead deterministic alternative of eternal recurrence?
User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 338
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by SimpleGuy »

Belindi wrote: January 21st, 2018, 7:30 am Is it possible that Nietzsche thought of eternal recurrence as that state in which the ordinary man is stuck, unless and until the superman comes along and injects some genuine creativity, some movement and life, into the dead deterministic alternative of eternal recurrence?
I think you should divide for Nietsche for will-power and power. The one is the inert force of genuine creativity and self-conquest which manifest metaphysical within your mind. Power, is not only will-power but the capablity to change the social status of other people due to ones own manifest
claims of will. So if somebody says give him a job and he get's it he influences the social and the financial status of somebody but this is mostly not connected to will-power. Will power is the power to befeat your owns weakness of mind as well as the capability to govern the laws of metaphysics via pure will.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Fooloso4 »

Max:
Please google these concepts, as they are all metaphysical, and necessarily imvolve transcendence.
None of the definitions you provided necessarily involve transcendence. That objects in the world exist independent of our conception of them is not a transcendent claim. Likewise that objects do not exist in the world independent of our conception of them is not transcendence. That all things are fundamentally one is not transcendence, that they are two may involve transcendence depending on what those modalities are.
I don't know if there is a difference between ontology and being qua being, so I would not say it is definitively metaphysics.
The question of being qua being is the subject of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. It is where the term metaphysics comes from.
Fair enough. But how is an aspect of something not the same as what it is an aspect of? I am one aspect of nature, but I am also nature, in that I am made of it.
A part is not the same as the whole of which it is a part. Jazz is a form music, we say jazz is music, but this does not mean that music is the same as jazz. There are other forms of music, other aspects. Identification is not identity.

Putting aside the problem of identity and difference, I cited a passage that seems to be saying that it is the infinity of time that leads to all things returning, not the will to power.

Belindi:
Is it possible that Nietzsche thought of eternal recurrence as that state in which the ordinary man is stuck, unless and until the superman comes along and injects some genuine creativity, some movement and life, into the dead deterministic alternative of eternal recurrence?
He says in the Will to Power that escape is not possible. It may be that the superman too must someday be overcome or it may be that the circle is closed and begins again. In the Gay Science he uses the metaphor of an eternal hourglass turned upside down again and again. In Zarathustra the third metamorphosis of the spirit is the child:
Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred yes.
forgetfulness is necessary because all new beginnings become old and in need of being overcome.

In both Gay Science and Zarathustra he uses the injunction:
Become who you are.
One of the many permutations through which this can be thought is that to become yourself is to return to yourself, but you cannot return to yourself without already being yourself, for it is you who must return, and yet, if you must become yourself then in some sense you are not now yourself. This closed recursive loop mirrors that of the eternal return.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Fooloso4

Please tell me the difference between being qua being and ontology. They are by definition exactly the same.
Fooloso4 wrote:None of the definitions you provided necessarily involve transcendence. That objects in the world exist independent of our conception of them is not a transcendent claim. Likewise that objects do not exist in the world independent of our conception of them is not transcendence. That all things are fundamentally one is not transcendence, that they are two may involve transcendence depending on what those modalities are.
That objects exists independent of our conception certainly is transcendent, if it cannot be experienced in nature, yet is said to exist, it must transcend nature and experience, because it must exist on a separate plane then our own. The claim that objects do not exist in the world separate from from our experience is empiricism, which is not metaphysical. There is only one kind of monism that is metaphysical, and that is priority monism, substance(depending on what you call substance, if it is mind or spirit it is obviously metaphysical or transcendent) and existence monism is materialism which is not at all metaphysical. Depending on what modalities? To say everything is fundamentally two doesn't even make sense, unless you are using metaphysics, e.g., body and soul. Why are you confusing the definitions of what is considered metaphysical and of course transcendent.
A part is not the same as the whole of which it is a part. Jazz is a form music, we say jazz is music, but this does not mean that music is the same as jazz. There are other forms of music, other aspects. Identification is not identity.
A part is fundamentally the same as the whole of which it is a part. What is music made of? Various combinations of pitch and sound duration. Now what is jazz? Obviously various combinations of pitch and sound duration. Fundamentally music is jazz. Yes there are separate aspects but fundamentally they are the same, so identification is identity, as all music is a various combination of pitch and sound duration.
Putting aside the problem of identity and difference, I cited a passage that seems to be saying that it is the infinity of time that leads to all things returning, not the will to power.


What passage was this? The last one? That's funny as I don't see time mentioned once in that entire passage. Time does not exist in this passage. Please see definition of eternal, i.e.,timeless.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

My bad, disregard the last remark.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Then again, the concept of time cannot be applied to the eternal recurrence.

See Merriam Webster Definition:

Definition of time. 1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration. b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

So don,t disregard all of the last remark, I'd only forgotten which passage you were referencing.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Fooloso4 »

Max:
Please tell me the difference between being qua being and ontology. They are by definition exactly the same.
There is different concepts of ontology, but in general we might define ontology as the question of what is, and the question of being qua being posed by Aristotle as the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. This was translated in Latin as, essentia, a term invented to translate the Greek, meaning “the what it is”. Substance, according Aristotle, is not matter or what stands under something, but rather, what it is to be what it is.

Whether you make a distinction between them or not is not the issue since ontology may be thought of as a metaphysical study.
That objects exists independent of our conception certainly is transcendent, if it cannot be experienced in nature, yet is said to exist, it must transcend nature and experience, because it must exist on a separate plane then our own.
Existing independent of our conception does not mean it cannot be experienced, it means that our experience of it is determined by what it is not by what we are. If we discover something previously unknown, that means, according to the realist, that it is already there in nature and its existence is what enables us to experience it.
The claim that objects do not exist in the world separate from from our experience is empiricism, which is not metaphysical.
The claim that objects do not exist in the world separate from from our experience is not empiricism it is idealism. Empiricism is the claim that knowledge comes from experience. This is generally thought of as a question of epistemology. The distinction between epistemology and ontology, however, blurs since we cannot talk about what is if we have no knowledge of it, and what it is, how we experience it, pace realism, may not be independent of how it is for us.In other words, questions of ontology lead to questions of epistemology and questions of epistemology lead to questions of ontology, and thus we return to metaphysics.
… existence monism is materialism which is not at all metaphysical.
Your claim is that it is not metaphysical because it does not involve transcendence. Rather than modify your concept of metaphysics, you deny that a metaphysical claim is metaphysical. Material monism is a claim about fundamental reality, and that is, as generally understood, metaphysics even if you insist on a different definition of metaphysics. Again, it is not a question of an arbitrary determination of the “correct” definition, but rather, of what philosophers and others mean when they use the term. So when Nietzsche scholars talk about his metaphysics you completely miss the point.
To say everything is fundamentally two doesn't even make sense, unless you are using metaphysics, e.g., body and soul.
That is correct, but first, ‘soul’ is not always a transcendent concept. Rather than a review of the history of the meaning of the term, we can consider other dualities such as the physical and mind or consciousness. This distinction does not involve transcendence but rather, the problem of reductionism - whether one can be reduced to the other.
A part is fundamentally the same as the whole of which it is a part.
If you cannot understand the difference between whole and part I do not think I can help you see it.
Fundamentally music is jazz.
Was there music before the advent of jazz? If someone does not understand what music is providing a sample of jazz may help, but they may conclude from this example that classical, hip hop, of even earlier or later examples of jazz are not music because it contains or does not contain sounds that are present in the example. Or they may conclude that a siren is music because it contains various combinations of pitch and sound duration. It is not simply a matter of what jazz has in common with other forms of music but what distinguishes it from other forms of music. Identity and difference.

In an attempt to get back on topic, this points back to the question you have not addressed of whether the natural world existed before man.
What passage was this? The last one? That's funny as I don't see time mentioned once in that entire passage. Time does not exist in this passage.
This passage:
In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized; more: it would be realized an infinite number of times. And since between every combination and its next recurrence all other possible combinations would have to take place, and each of these combinations in the same series, a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the world as a circular movement that has already repeated itself infinitely often and plays its game in infinitum.
Max:
Then again, the concept of time cannot be applied to the eternal recurrence.
See Merriam Webster Definition
Meriam Webster is hardly a definitive source for Nietzsche’s discussion of time and eternal recurrence. Eternal recurrence occurs within infinite time. Again, it is not because of the will to power but because in infinite time all possibilities have played out time and time again.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Fooloso4
Fooloso4 wrote: it means that our experience of it is determined by what it is not by what we are. If we discover something previously unknown, that means, according to the realist, that it is already there in nature and its existence is what enables us to experience it.
That's impossible, as our experience of anything is determined by what we are, the way we see, hear, smell, all determined by what we are. If we were not human,or had different physical attributes, would apples still be apples? No.
Again, it is not a question of an arbitrary determination of the “correct” definition, but rather, of what philosophers and others mean when they use the term. So when Nietzsche scholars talk about his metaphysics you completely miss the point.
I highly doubt whether a definition of correct is arbitrary, as these definitions have been constructed over thousands of years. When you say Nietzsche and his metaphysics, this seems to be incorrect, and a premature conclusion to the conversation.
That is correct, but first, ‘soul’ is not always a transcendent concept. Rather than a review of the history of the meaning of the term, we can consider other dualities such as the physical and mind or consciousness. This distinction does not involve transcendence but rather, the problem of reductionism - whether one can be reduced to the other.
Separating the mind from what is considered physical is clearly metaphysical and transcendent. It is only the problem of reductionism from the standpoint of a metaphysician. Now I ask you what evidence has there been of the mind as separate from the body?
Was there music before the advent of jazz? If someone does not understand what music is providing a sample of jazz may help, but they may conclude from this example that classical, hip hop, of even earlier or later examples of jazz are not music because it contains or does not contain sounds that are present in the example. Or they may conclude that a siren is music because it contains various combinations of pitch and sound duration. It is not simply a matter of what jazz has in common with other forms of music but what distinguishes it from other forms of music. Identity and difference.
How is a siren not music? Is it not pitch and duration of sound? Have you ever heard of techno music? You certainly cannot make the claim a siren is not music, at least not logically, as it is fundamentally the same as other genres of music. If someone does not understand what music is, a correct definition would be various combinations of pitch and sound duration. What distinguishes jazz from other forms of music is what makes it the same as other forms of music, namely a combination of pitch and sound duration, which is what music is. You continue to falsely separate Jazz from music. Consider what Jazz is, and then consider what music is. If you gave an example of any genre or just clapped your hands together, this can be described as music, you have yet to state logical reasons for this not being the case.

Meriam Webster is hardly a definitive source for Nietzsche’s discussion of time and eternal recurrence. Eternal recurrence occurs within infinite time. Again, it is not because of the will to power but because in infinite time all possibilities have played out time and time again.
Merriam webster is necessary to establish a definition of time, if you know of another definition please provide it. You can in no way logically say, we are at the end or the beginning or the middle of the circle of the eternal recurrence. Once again, it can be said that what has happened will happen again because we have willed it to be so.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Fooloso4 »

Max:
That's impossible, as our experience of anything is determined by what we are, the way we see, hear, smell, all determined by what we are.
Realism was introduced as an example of a metaphysical theory that does not entail transcendence. Whether you or I agree with realism is not the point.
I highly doubt whether a definition of correct is arbitrary, as these definitions have been constructed over thousands of years.
It is because these definitions have been constructed over thousands of years that it is arbitrary to insist that one and only one of those definitions is correct even though others are in common use. It is arbitrary to say that metaphysics entails transcendence when the history of ideas shows that several definitions have been constructed over thousands of years and not all of them involve transcendence.
When you say Nietzsche and his metaphysics, this seems to be incorrect, and a premature conclusion to the conversation.
It seems incorrect to you because you insist that metaphysics entails transcendence.
Separating the mind from what is considered physical is clearly metaphysical and transcendent.


That is simply not the case. The claim that the mental cannot be adequately explained in physical terms does not mean that mind is transcendent, only that the physical is not the only natural fundamental category. Although there are some who do see it as transcendent others see it as a feature of the natural world.
It is only the problem of reductionism from the standpoint of a metaphysician.
It is a problem for anyone who wishes to understand mind and/or consciousness.
Now I ask you what evidence has there been of the mind as separate from the body?
I am not a mind/body dualist. What leads some contemporary philosophers and cognitive scientists to mind/body dualism is the problems that arise when mind or consciousness is explained in physical terms. This is off topic. The point is that dualism does not necessarily entail transcendence.
How is a siren not music?


I am not going to get into a discussion of the aesthetics of music. There is a lot more to music than blaring sirens. We are getting further and further off track.
Merriam webster is necessary to establish a definition of time …
You have got this backwards, dictionaries do not establish definitions, usage does, dictionaries document that usage. There were words before there were dictionaries and new words are not the creation of dictionaries.
… if you know of another definition please provide it.
Compare what Nietzsche says with the definition from Webster's. Nietzsche’s concept of time is circular and does not divide into a measured or measurable period, nor it is linear from past to present to future.
You can in no way logically say, we are at the end or the beginning or the middle of the circle of the eternal recurrence.


And this shows why Webster’s definition is inadequate and irrelevant.
Once again, it can be said that what has happened will happen again because we have willed it to be so.
You have provided absolutely no evidence that eternal recurrence is the result of what we will. You have ignored a passage I cited (actually you cited it first) more than once indicating that it is a logical consequence of infinite time that all possibilities must occur and must play out again and again. You have not explained how this could be possible. You have ignored the problem of nature prior to the advent of man. If eternal recurrence is a reiteration then there has been and always will be throughout the interations of recurrence a time prior to man, just as there was a time prior to man during this iteration.

[A statement from a preliminary draft to an earlier question was inadvertently included. ]
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Fooloso4

[quote"Fooloso4"]Realism was introduced as an example of a metaphysical theory that does not entail transcendence. Whether you or I agree with realism is not the point.[/quote]

The point was that it is nothing to us if it cannot be experienced, and if it is said to exist outside of our experience it is transcendent.
that the physical is not the only natural fundamental category.
Other natural categories?
am not going to get into a discussion of the aesthetics of music. There is a lot more to music than blaring sirens. We are getting further and further off track.
Music cannot be defined as what is aesthetically pleasing, as that is far too subjective and personal to pass as a definition. It must be defined as various combinations of pitch and sound duration.
Compare what Nietzsche says with the definition from Webster's. Nietzsche’s concept of time is circular and does not divide into a measured or measurable period, nor it is linear from past to present to future.
Wouldn't this conception make time completely irrelevant?
it is a logical consequence of infinite time
So why do you say this?
You have provided absolutely no evidence that eternal recurrence is the result of what we will.
I have provided evidence the eternal recurrence could be what we will, as any point can be considered the beginning.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Belindi »

Maxcady wrote:
The point was that it is nothing to us if it cannot be experienced, and if it is said to exist outside of our experience it is transcendent.
True, if something transcends our experience it is transcendent of our experience. Some people like that there might be something that transcends our experience and find the idea encourages them to aspire to be better or happier than they are. Some art forms provide analogous experience of something that transcends experience.

When I say "something transcends our experience" I don't refer to something of which nobody has any conception. I refer to something of which it's impossible that anybody could conceive, except as a poetic analogy.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Belindi

Where do weigh in on jazz being music and music being jazz?
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021