The Definition of Power and how we should live
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
Nietzsche is a proto-Humanist who says that the human is more than the ape when the human aims to control events instead of accepting Authority.
Capitalism and its corollary hierarchical work structures has since about two or three centuries ago wrecked the basic human control method of group cooperation with egalitarianism.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
Nietzsche does argue for chance and accident, this does not mean that all change is the result of chance and accident, but it is ineliminable.But I'm still not sure if what you suggest about a person's inability to swim is something similar to the lack of intention in changes happening in nature.
There are also unintended consequences that result from the success to initiate intended changes. Global warming for example. Our success is also our failure. And now the goal is to overcome this failure. It is all part of the will to power.Perhaps we can just conclude that changes happening unintentionally in nature are not part of the concept of Power, but that all changes brought upon intentionally by a living being can be considered Power usage and are (or at least can be) driven by Will to Power? Viewed like this unintentional changes caused by individuals due to lack of skill or accidents can be viewed as failures to initiate intended changes to external reality.
- Freudian Monkey
- Posts: 57
- Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
What we really need to tackle here is to go beyond semantics. It doesn't really matter whether we call these phenomena Power, Control, Self-Overcoming, Growth, Will to Power, Power acquisition or control over internal and external reality etc if we mean the exact same thing. Right now I tend to believe that there are no significant differences between these concepts, they're merely slightly different angles to the same concept.
- Freudian Monkey
- Posts: 57
- Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
This quote indeed emphasize the importance of self-overcoming. Nietzsche also seems to be directly referring to Lamarcism in the last sentence, but that's besides the point. But why does Nietzsche see it so important to overcome the ape-man? I tend to believe that due to it's his lack of Power. He doesn't have the self-discipline (internal) or physical fortitude and skills (external) that would make him the new, better version of homo sapiens. So the end-goal is the superman, who has a thorough control over his internal and external reality. But we're actually stuck in argument about semantics here. I don't see significant difference in our use of these concepts.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2018, 9:58 pmZarathustra:Freudian Monkey wrote:What is the ultimate goal of Will to Power that drives us? Is it simply to succeed at whatever personal goals we have (self-overcoming) or is it to gain control over our internal and external reality? I tend to think it's the latter. Especially if we see Power as a force of nature, an unchanging law of the cosmos. So doesn't it then follow that self-overcoming is merely something related to the ultimate end-goal rather than the goal itself?
Behold, I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?… All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.
I completely agree with this definition of Will to Power. I might have said something that has made it seem as if I thought differently, but this has been my view from the beginning and it got even stronger when Maxcady wrote about the concept of growth. I haven't used the term "overcoming", but we have spoken about Will to Power as growth and as desire to expand, to become more. This is what overcoming means, does it not? To become something more than what you currently are, in other words, to overcome and outgrow your limitations.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2018, 9:58 pmI am not sure that property is the right term, but I think you have missed what I am trying to get at, which is that the will to power is not simply about change from one state to another but is intentional or directed change, and further that it is about change as an overcoming (but that is not to say that all intentional change is a matter of self-overcoming).Freudian Monkey wrote:This is why I believe Power and Will to Power to be properties of living organisms.
It's a very interesting approach. In cultural anthropology this kind of powerlessness is usually seen to lead to the forming of beliefs in magic, spirits and gods. These beliefs create an artificial means for dealing with the feeling of powerlessness. So the early Christians might indeed have created a belief system that made their apparent powerlessness look like strength. However when you brought up Christians habit of seeking powerlessness as a means for self-overcoming, I start to scratch my head. Can we really see this kind of behavior as a representation of Will to Power? Or perhaps as misguided Will to Power? If a person's Will to Power leads to the diminishment of his Power, then what are we really talking about? A perversion of Will to Power? If Nietzsche saw Christianity this way, I can completely understand why he despised Christianity.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2018, 9:58 pmAs I mentioned this is from ,Genealogy of Morals. The Christians were powerless against the Roman Empire. They turned their will inward because they could not change outward circumstances. They not only accepted their suffering they willed it. Martyrdom become their road to salvation. They developed an inward discipline. Those things that were the master morality’s sign of power, those things the powerless were incapable of doing, became things they forbid themselves, sins. Their natural impulses were suppressed. They developed the power of self-denial, which became the means of their self-overcoming.Freudian Monkey wrote:Can you perhaps clarify this a bit further? How is inwardness related to the powerlessness?
- Freudian Monkey
- Posts: 57
- Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
Fooloso4 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2018, 9:58 pm
Zarathustra:
Behold, I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?… All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.
It's really up to interpretations whether Nietzsche is referring to Christian moral values here, which is what you seem to imply. Zarathustra is not exactly a cohesive argumentation of anything, as far as I remember. To me he seems more concerned about evolution than Christianity here. Later in Zarathustra he took some time to ridiculed the religious men, but I don't see it been the center of his attention here.
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
I have read and reread the last chapter on the eternal recurrence, and the idea is not at all metaphysical, the last passage may read as spiritual because it is beautifully written, however Nietzsche did not intend for his idea to become a new religion or mythology. It was for combating nihilism, and he did not intend anything metaphysical in this idea. He offered what was current scientific understanding of the universe as the basis for this idea. To only quote the last passage does not provide a complete idea of the eternal recurrence. The eternal recurrence is what he ultimately calls the will to power.
"The law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence........That a state of equilibrium is never reached proves that it is not possible. But in an indefinite space it would have to have been reached. Likewise in a spherical space. The shape of space must be the cause of eternal movement, and ultimately of all "imperfection."
(The Will to Power, pg. 547)
"If the World may be thought of as a certain definite quantity of force and as a certain number of definite centers of force---and every other representation remains indefinite and therefore useless---it follows that, in the great dice game of existence, it must pass through a calculable number of combinations. 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."(The Will to Power, pg. 549)
Nietzche makes zero metaphysical assertions in this last chapter. Just because he discusses similar themes does not make his idea a metaphysical one. He clearly comes to conclusions outside any of the ones presented in any philosophers brand of metaphysics.
If anyone wants to read the will to power they can download the pdf free here
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... i_2kMW-vrj
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
There are different senses of overcoming. Domination is a form of overcoming, but is not a self-overcoming.I haven't used the term "overcoming", but we have spoken about Will to Power as growth and as desire to expand, to become more. This is what overcoming means, does it not?
They did not seek powerlessness, they were powerless. It is from this condition that they developed a new kind of power that enabled an overcoming of their oppression and an overcoming of themselves. Christian morality was a means of man’s self-overcoming. The problem, according to Nietzsche, is that having succeeded it has outlived its usefulness. What was a source of strength has become a source of weakness in a changed world.However when you brought up Christians habit of seeking powerlessness as a means for self-overcoming, I start to scratch my head.
All reading involves interpretation. I do not think there is much disagreement among scholars of Nietzsche that for him Christianity is what man today must overcome.It's really up to interpretations whether Nietzsche is referring to Christian moral values here, which is what you seem to imply.
See the quote in an earlier post about writing and reading from Zarathustra. Certainly it is not a discursive argument. I would say, however, that it is highly cohesive; but to see that is so is something the reader has to do for himself.Zarathustra is not exactly a cohesive argumentation of anything, as far as I remember.
Maxcaddy10001:
The whole of Nietzsche’s philosophy cannot be found in one passage or one book. This passage does, however, refer to “my Dionysian world”. Dionysus and Dionysianism is a common theme in his works.I have read and reread the last chapter on the eternal recurrence, and the idea is not at all metaphysical, the last passage may read as spiritual because it is beautifully written, however Nietzsche did not intend for his idea to become a new religion or mythology.
Right.It was for combating nihilism …
If by metaphysical you mean otherworldly then that is correct. It is a religion of the earth and bacchanalia. Nietzsche points to the need for such a religion, he did not intend to invent a religion, but the idea of inventing a religion points in the right direction:… and he did not intend anything metaphysical in this idea.
Maxcady10001:"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto." (The Gay Science)
There has been a great deal of scholarly discussion but very little agreement as to what eternal recurrence means. There is a human and a cosmological aspect to both eternal recurrence and the will to power. He says one should live as if whatever happens will happen over and over again, that is, we should will it to be so; but if it is so we cannot will it, we are powerless against it.The eternal recurrence is what he ultimately calls the will to power.
Nietzche makes zero metaphysical assertions in this last chapter.
How do you define metaphysics? The claim of eternal recurrence, that the same identical things have happened infinitely many times, is understood by many to be a metaphysical claim. Certainly it is not something that physics can demonstrate. It is not something that we have any empirical evidence of. It is not falsifiable.
-
- Posts: 474
- Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
Here's another example: the Power of lying. Lying is almost always done to increase the power of the liar and make it easier for them to effect changes. Therefore, Power is, literally, found in a lie.
We're not far from my conclusion that Nietzsche's Power is a chimera.
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
If you mean the invention of a personal religion, then yes it does, under the definition of religion as a personal value system, it is in the right direction.fooloso4 wrote: he did not intend to invent a religion, but the idea of inventing a religion points in the right direction
Dionysus and Dionysianism is a common theme in his works
Yes, but this does not make his work religious, this is only to emphasize complete life affirmation and the acceptance of what is traditionally thought of as evil, which is what is sudden and chaotic, also what is terrible.
"Terribleness is a part of greatness: let us not deceive ourselves."
Why do you not see this as whatever has happened will happen over and over because we have willed it to be so? He makes no distinction between the eternal recurrence and the will to power, and even calls this eternal recurrence the will to power in the last passage, so why would anyone separate the terms? I see no need to consider an aspect of the idea to be strictly cosmological and without the human element.here has been a great deal of scholarly discussion but very little agreement as to what eternal recurrence means
Whether something is falsifiable, does not determine it is as a metaphysical claim. If I say " I thought of a bird," this is not a falsifiable statement, and it is also not a metaphysical claim.It is not falsifiable.
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
Nietzsche saw religion in general as beneficial to mankind, in large part this benefit is based on having something to follow and believe in. Most men are followers and in need of guidance. Not only are they not able to invent a religion, they would not follow a religion they knew was an invention. It is the task of the philosopher to give them a religion, just as Plato did.If you mean the invention of a personal religion, then yes it does, under the definition of religion as a personal value system, it is in the right direction.fooloso4 wrote:he did not intend to invent a religion, but the idea of inventing a religion points in the right direction
Nietzsche's work is primarily a work of philosophy and as such it is not a work of religion, it does, however, address the philosopher regarding the need for religion. He is well aware that there will be some form of religion without the philosopher’s intervention, but for both the benefit of philosophy and the rest of mankind there is a need for a religion that is not antithetical to this world or to philosophy. A religion that is philosophy's handmaid.Yes, but this does not make his work religious …Dionysus and Dionysianism is a common theme in his works
Simply because it is not dependent upon us. What power does anyone have to determine what has been and will be again eternally?Why do you not see this as whatever has happened will happen over and over because we have willed it to be so?
You do not solve the interpretive problem of the meaning of a term by saying it means the same thing as another term whose meaning is also problematic.He makes no distinction between the eternal recurrence and the will to power, and even calls this eternal recurrence the will to power in the last passage, so why would anyone separate the terms?
He ends by saying:
Does this mean that there is no distinction between you and the will to power and eternal return? No distinction between you and me and everyone else who ever was and ever will be?And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing besides!
It does, however, following Popper, determine whether it is a scientific claim. You still have not said what you mean by metaphysics.Whether something is falsifiable, does not determine it is as a metaphysical claim.
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
If we are also the will to power it is.fooloso4 wrote: Simply because it is not dependent upon us
Where is the interpretive problem? He actually calls the eternal recurrence the will to power, how is there a problem of interpretation? You are separating us from the will to power, instead of seeing us as one of its forms. We are the will to power in our need for expansion and elevation into a more complex form, and then eventually reverting to a simpler one, and continuing the never-ending process of becoming.You do not solve the interpretive problem of the meaning of a term by saying it means the same thing as another term whose meaning is also problematic.
Nietzsche did not make any distinctions between the will to power and the eternal recurrence, but between individual people he did, the will to power being in some greater than others, that is, the need to induce the change and chaos that gives rise to other forms.Does this mean that there is no distinction between you and the will to power and eternal return? No distinction between you and me and everyone else who ever was and ever will be?
I define metaphysics as being anything transcendent, outside of nature, and is not according to what is apparent to us in reality.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
See below. A form of something cannot be what that thing is dependent on.If we are also the will to power it is [dependent on us].
The problem is with what the terms actually mean. The fact that you do not see an interpretive problem does not mean that there is not one, as is evidenced by the long history of scholarly debate.Where is the interpretive problem? He actually calls the eternal recurrence the will to power, how is there a problem of interpretation? How could that be before any of us was?Where is the interpretive problem? He actually calls the eternal recurrence the will to power, how is there a problem of interpretation?
A form and the thing of which it is a form are two different things in the same way as dog and animal are - all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs. In one sense we do not separate dogs from animals but in another we do. Analogously, in one sense we do not separate man from the will to power but in another sense we do. We are not separate from nature, but that does not mean that nature is human (although some scholars do claim that Nietzsche's nature is anthropomorphic, in the image of man.You are separating us from the will to power, instead of seeing us as one of its forms.
You miss the point. You say that he:Nietzsche did not make any distinctions between the will to power and the eternal recurrence …
But when I point out that in the same passage he says that you yourself are nothing other than the will to power, here you are able to make a distinction. The question of their relationship remains an open question for scholars.It is not that he does not make a distinction it is, rather, that you are unable to make it.even calls this eternal recurrence the will to power in the last passage
You cite the following passage:
This suggests that the will to power manifests itself in infinite time and since in infinite time all possibilities must have occurred infinitely often, everything occurs or returns infinitely. It is not that they are willed to return, but that they must.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.
I pointed out more than once that not all metaphysics makes transcendent claims. I listed several other metaphysical issues. It is not a matter of one definition being correct and all others incorrect, but of understanding what is meant when the term is used. And so, when you reject all claims that have been made that the will to power is a metaphysical concept because it is not about transcendence you are talking past and misunderstanding these claims.I define metaphysics as being anything transcendent, outside of nature, and is not according to what is apparent to us in reality.
Eternal return is not apparent to us in reality. What evidence of it exists?
Free will is apparent, but according to some, merely apparent, that is, not actual. That living things other than man possess will is not so apparent let alone actual. That nature itself, which includes things that are not living, possess will is not only not apparent it is firmly rejected by many if not most people.
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
In what sense do we separate man from the will to power?fooloso4 wrote: in one sense we do not separate man from the will to power but in another sense we do
I made no distinction between man and the will to power, the distinction was between man and man, and the will to power as it varies in different men.when I point out that in the same passage he says that you yourself are nothing other than the will to power, here you are able to make a distinction
Why do you say this
And then thisA form of something cannot be what that thing is dependent on
You have just answered your question, as to how something is dependent on its form.(although some scholars do claim that Nietzsche's nature is anthropomorphic, in the image of man
And why did you say this
And then thisthe will to power manifests itself
And, can you name one example of a metaphysical claim associated with what you listed as examples, that is not transcendent?It is not that they are willed to return, but that they must.
In order for a claim to be metaphysical, it must also be transcendent, I challenge you to find a metaphysical theory that is not also transcendent.matters found in traditional metaphysics - beginning and end, limits, fixity and change, simplicity and complexity, eternity, theology
"The law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence........That a state of equilibrium is never reached proves that it is not possible. But in an indefinite space it would have to have been reached. Likewise in a spherical space. The shape of space must be the cause of eternal movement, and ultimately of all "imperfection."Eternal return is not apparent to us in reality. What evidence of it exists?
(The Will to Power, pg. 547)
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live
If, as you say, we are a form of the will to power then there is the same difference here as between any form and that of which it is a form.In what sense do we separate man from the will to power?
Again, a form of something is not the thing it is a form of.I made no distinction between man and the will to power
If the will to power and eternal return are dependent on man how do you explain nature prior to man? If man is a form of the will to power 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.Why do you say this
And then thisA form of something cannot be what that thing is dependent onYou have just answered your question, as to how something is dependent on its form.(although some scholars do claim that Nietzsche's nature is anthropomorphic, in the image of man
You left out in time. The will to power manifests itself in time. It is the infinity of time that leads to all things returning, not the will to power. All things must return because in the infinitely of time all possibilities have occurred over and over again.And why did you say thisAnd then thisthe will to power manifests itselfIt is not that they are willed to return, but that they must.
You are talking in circles. I pointed out that transcendence is not a necessary feature of all metaphysics, but then you deny that the listed examples are examples of metaphysics because they are not transcendent. The study of being qua being, Realism and Idealism, Monism and Dualism are all examples of metaphysics without transcendence.And, can you name one example of a metaphysical claim associated with what you listed as examples, that is not transcendent?In order for a claim to be metaphysical, it must also be transcendent, I challenge you to find a metaphysical theory that is not also transcendent.matters found in traditional metaphysics - beginning and end, limits, fixity and change, simplicity and complexity, eternity, theology
This is not evidence, it is an argument."The law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence........That a state of equilibrium is never reached proves that it is not possible. But in an indefinite space it would have to have been reached. Likewise in a spherical space. The shape of space must be the cause of eternal movement, and ultimately of all "imperfection."Eternal return is not apparent to us in reality. What evidence of it exists?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023