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
User avatar
Freudian Monkey
Posts: 57
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Freudian Monkey »

WOW, that was an amazing post! Thank you so much Max for taking the time to write all that. I have rarely read so insightful forum post and especially about a topic that I'm deeply invested in.

I will take some time to digest all that and I try to give a more comprehensive answer a bit later. Needless to say, it gave me a lot to think about.
User avatar
Freudian Monkey
Posts: 57
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Freudian Monkey »

Thank you again Max for your terrific post.

I find myself agreeing with Nietzsche with most of what he writes about the nature of Power. However I don’t agree with the social implications he draws from the realization that all living organisms are driven by will to power. But I will get to that later. Maybe I will go through some of your quotes and give my thoughts on each separately.

Maxcady10001 wrote: Nietzsche would have his higher men (master types) rule, in an aristocracy, over the herd. He did not believe people were equal, and he loathed anything that meant otherwise. He loathed everything he called herd virtues, what he believed subjected the higher types to the lower herd, anything that reduces the distance between men.
Here’s one fundamental point where I find Nietzsche’s theory lacking. He doesn’t seem to put any value to communal and social power structures. To me they are among people’s greatest sources of power. I think this might be the reason why he suggests that the higher men should lead like omnipotent oligarchy without caring about the desires or opinions of the masses. Obviously Nietzsche never lived to witness the horrors of 20th century and the great men who ruined nations in their omniscience and omnipotence.

I agree with Nietzshche that in terms of Power, men can never be equal. However this doesn’t lead me to conclude, like Nietzsche does, that society needs to be structures so that the powerful can become increasingly more powerful and everyone else’s ability to obtain power is limited. I think Nietzsche believed that the main goal of human species was to aim to accomplish great feats and he believed that the best possible way to accomplish greatness was to let few extraordinary geniuses use all collective power resources to realize their dreams. I can see and appreciate his trail of thought here, but I simply don’t believe his approach is practical. Even if our ultimate goal was to, say, colonize Mars, it might be actually more effective to inspire the masses to undertake and support such a task on their own free will instead of forcing them to work against their will to accomplish this goal. Think of all the rage against “The 1%” or “The Illuminati”. The masses will always use their collective power to oppose oppression and therefore oligarchy is not a “power efficient” way to govern. Modern Western models of government might not be perfect, but their way of dividing Power to multiple independent institutions leads to better lives for everyone and gives plenty of room for everyone to accumulate Power, within certain restraints. I guess I don’t agree with Nietzsche about concentrated Power being preferred over a more broadly spread out Power.

However, I have to stress that even the most charitable and humble individual has to amass Power if he wants to help others or to make a society more equal. Power is a necessity to anyone who wants anything other than simply to cease to exist.
Maxcady10001 wrote:"that the will to power would is the primitive form of affect, that all other affects are only developments of it" (The Will to Power, pg.366)
I think Nietzsche might be referring to Spinoza or some later philosopher when he writes about affects. Spinoza defined them as all the stimuli that change one’s capability to sustain their existence. Spinoza’s concepts ponatus and potentia actually come very close to Nietzsche’s concept of Will to Power, although he has a really weird definition of how individuals can become more powerful – by embracing everything that give them pleasure. So his conclusion is pretty much the exact opposite to that of Nietzsche’s.

Maxcady10001 wrote:Nietzsche especially despised morality.
I think he mainly despised Christian moral values, which he correctly identified to be in complete opposition to the fundamental driving force of nature, Will to Power. But was Nietzsche really against all morality? To me that kind of philosophy can lead a society into uncontrolled anarchism, which is obviously not preferred by any rational person. I refuse to believe Nietzsche to be a proponent of anarchism. Besides, wouldn’t Nietzsche’s own utopian society also have morality – a collective aspiration for great deeds, for instance? I think your other quote actually answers this question:
Maxcady10001 wrote:And even this is not the most important thing; the possibility has been established for the production of international racial unions whose task will be to rear a master race, the future "masters of the earth"; --a new, tremendous aristocracy, based on the severest legislation, in which the will of philosophical men and artist-tyrants will be made to endure for millennia - -
This quote reminded me somewhat of Plato’s ideal society in The Republic. Although Nietzsche’s superman leaders wouldn’t perhaps have been philosophers in Plato’s sense of the word.
Maxcady10001 wrote:Nietzsche believed in a new master race comprised of men of the higher type from different races. He believed in an aristocracy of higher men that would rule the masses of the world. Contrary to what many people have said, Nietzsche was not a nationalist, or at all for nationalism, he actually hated Germans, and believed they were the reason for the end of the renaissance period. Because of Martin Luther, the church was able to return to its traditional values, instead of continuing on its path during the enlightenment period. He also hated Kant, who was German, and any kind of idealism. I remember him calling Kant a theologian in disguise.
I remember Bertrand Russell writing something similar in his “History of Western Philosophy”. Russell treated Nietzsche very unfavorably in that book though, which is a shame, since otherwise it’s a great book. But obviously it was written during the second world war, which made it difficult for Russell to sympathize with “the Nazi philosopher”.
Maxcady10001 wrote:"that all driving force is the will to power, that there is no other physical, dynamic or psychic force except this."(The Will to Power, pg.366)
This is pretty much my view of Power as well. Life is Power.
Maxcady10001 wrote:"It can be shown most clearly that every living thing does everything it can not to preserve itself but to become more--"(The Will to Power, pg.367)
This is where Nietzsche diverges from Schopenhauer. And I think he’s correct with his perception.
Maxcady10001 wrote:For him, the will to power is a becoming, it is appropriating, and dominating.
This is where I can see the influence of Schopenhauer, although Nietzsche’s Power always aims to accumulation whereas Schopenhauer’s Will is focused preserving what already exists.
Maxcady10001 wrote:Every feeling of pleasure is the registering of growth in consciousness.
I’m very surprised that Nietzsche would write something like this. I thought Nietzsche didn’t value pleasure. Now, somehow, he seems to suggest we should seek pleasure to grow our consciousness? Or did I misunderstand you here?
Maxcady10001 wrote:He says this on displeasure:
"The measure of failure and fatality must grow with the resistance a force seeks to master; and as a force can expend itself only on what resists it, there is necessarily an ingredient of displeasure in every action. But this displeasure acts as a lure of lufe and strengthens the will to power!"(The Will to Power, pg.369)
I completely agree with this view.
Maxcady10001 wrote:"Life is only a means to something; it is the expression of forms of the growth of power."(The Will to Power, pg.375)
I agree with this view as well, but with some reservations. As I mentioned in OP, to me the ultimate meaning of life is development. The meaning of an individual’s life is to accumulate power and to affect desired change in his internal and external reality. This can be called development. Life is an endless chain reaction of Power transforming and accumulating. When all living entities strife to accumulate Power, the total amount of Power grows as well. There is no finite amount of Power available, but it can grow as far as there’s enough resources for all life forms to sustain themselves and to continue accumulating Power. Lack of resources can of course become an issue and as a matter of fact this is what is currently happening in the world. This is where the “desirable change” comes in. When mankind is running out of resources, the desired change that people should strife for would be to either create more resources, to find new forms of resources, to decrease the number of entities consuming the resources or to decrease the use of resources.
Maxcady10001 wrote:He also mentions that eventually strength fades and comparison of former feelings of overcoming and growth weaken the present feelings and capacity for pleasure.
Nietzsche might be right about this as well. After one has accomplished all of his most important goals, the feeling of accomplishment can become harder to achieve. But I’m not sure why he puts so much emphasis on feelings. To me they seem inconsequential. Maybe he is referring to Spinoza here, since he also put a lot of emphasis on feelings.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Sorry I've been taking so long in these replies, I've just been too scatterbrained to sit down and read Will to Power.
I don't believe he gave much creedence to social power structures because he believed they were fulfillment of the power instinct of the herd, and limitation for the individual. I mentioned Nietzsche believed morality, and all other Christian values were herd virtues, but I forgot to say he thought they were the herd's attempt to fulfill their will to power. How else should those that are weak attain power, but to invent and spread values that make them equal to the powerful. Nietzsche was opposed to all kinds of morality, not only Christian morality, because he believed it was anti-natural. He believed the powerful should be able to enact their will on the less powerful. On anarchism, I believe he thought enabling the people to act out their will to power would eventually lead his aristocracy lead by his higher man. Most likely through horrific acts. I don't believe he thought it would be anarchism, because anarchism implies a kind of equality. He thought socialism was the jesuit based counterpart of anarchism. On your theory of power, doesn't morality get in the way of people inflicting external or internal change? It must, as morality says everyone is equal and restricts action and doesn't allow for all of the potential for change.
However, on the social power structures and the herd, Nietzsche thought society forced individuals to act in a way beneficial to the herd in fulfillment of the herd's will to power. Consider what he called the herd, the weaker members of the species, groups of these weaker individuals would act as a strong one. Together they act in a way that is contradictory to their nature as a weak herd type. For instance, in society responsibility is abolished, one individual would not take responsibility for executing or punishing a man, but he is absolved of responsibility when the state tells him to do this. The state also contains justice and equality before the law, in order to abolish the tension, enmity and hatred between people. However, he says it is an error to suppose happiness will result from this. He also goes into criminals, he remarks on how criminals have been treated. He mentions that criminals have made up the greatest men in history so far.
"we resist the idea that all great human beings have been criminals (only in the grand and not in a miserable style), that crime belongs to greatness (---for that is the experience of those who have tried the reins and of all who have descended deepest into great souls---). To be free as a bird from tradition, the conscience of duty---every great human being knows this danger. But he also desires it: he desires it and therefore also the means for it."(The Will to Power, pg.390)
He goes on to repudiate concepts of reward and punishment, because he believes this race is undisciplined, and is most susceptible to the least bit of stimuli, so because these criminals act on impulse reward and punishment mean nothing. He then mentions dealing with rebels, saying they are suppressed not punished. Nietzsche also says the criminal is, in a way, a man of courage, and should not be looked upon with contempt by society. He then repudiated punishment as a purifier or penance. Saying there'sno relationship between guilt and punishment and "punishment does not purify, for crime does not sully." To him, punishment began with religion and what he called contemptible men (e.g., slaves). There is also this criticism of society's punisment:
"My rather radical question mark set against all modern penal codes is this: if the punishment should hurt in proportion to the magnitude of the crime---and fundamentally that is what all of you want!---you would have to measure the susceptibility to pain of every criminal. Does that not mean: a previously determined punishment for a crime, a penal code, ought not to exist at all? But considering that one would scarcely be able to determine a criminal's pleasure and displeasure, wouldn't one have to do without punishment in practice?"(The Will to Power, pg. 394)
He mentions more Schopenhauer here:
"Schopenhauer wanted rascals to be castrated and silly geese to be shut up in convents: from what point of view would this be desirable? The rascald have this advantage over many other men, that he is not mediocre; and the fool has this advantage over us, that he does not suffer at the sight of mediocrity."(The Will to Power, pg. 394)
Quotes on previous statements:
"Basic principle: only individuals feel themselves responsible . Multiplicities are invented in order to do things for which the individuals lack courage." (The Will to Power, pg. 382)
The way this is accomplished is through a division of labor, and using virtues that are only beneficial to society. Virtues, such as obedience, duty, patriotism, and loyalty.
The individuals also believe in the pride, severity, strength, hatred and revenge of the group.
"None of you has the courage to kill a man, or even to whip him, or even to---but the tremendous machine of the state overpowers the individual, so he repudiated responsibility for what he does (obedience, oath, etc.)" (The Will to Power, pg. 383)
He believed even striving to leave legacy behind, was the result of enslavement by society.
"That something longer lasting than an individual should endure, that a work should endure which has perhaps been created by an individual: to that end, every possible kind of limitation, one-sidedness, etc, must be imposed upon the individual. By what means? Love, reverence, gratitude, toward the person who created the work helps; or that our forefathers fought for it; or that my descendants will be guaranteed only if I guarantee this work (e.e., the polis). Morality is essentially the means of ensuring the duration of something beyond individuals, or rather through an enslavement of the individual." (The Will to Power, pg. 387)
A quote on society vs the will to power:
""The will to power" is so hated in democratic ages that their entire psychology seems directed toward belittling and defaming it. The type of great ambitious man who thirsts after honor is is supposed to be Napoleon! And Caesar! And Alexander!---As if these were not precisely the great despises of honor!" (The Will to Power, pg. 397)

A quote on governments:
"According to whether a people feels "right, vision, the gift of leadership, etc., belong to the few" or "to the many"--there will be an oligarch or a democratic government.
Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly superior, a leader, savior, demigod.
Aristocracy represents the belief in an elite humanity and higher caste.
Democracy represents the disbelief in great human beings and an elite society: "Everyone is equal to everyone else." "At bottom we are one and all self-seeking cattle and mob.""(The Will to Power, pg. 397)

Nietzsche on why the individual is better than the herd:
"Basic error: to place the goal in the herd and not in single individuals! The herd is a means, no more! But now one is attempting to understand the herd as an individual and to ascribe to it a higher rank than to the individual---profound misunderstanding! ! ! Also to characterize that which makes herslike, sympathy, as the more valuable side of our nature!"(The Will to Power, pg. 403)
"The individual is something quite new which creates new things, something absolute; all his acts are entirely his own. Ultimately, the individual derives the values of his acts from himself; because he has to interpret in a quite individual way even the words he has inherited. His interpretation of a formula is at least personal, even if he does not create a formula: as an interpreter he is still creative."(The Will to Power, pg. 403)
He also believes freedom is essentially the will to power. He says this:
"The degree of resistance that must be overcome in order to remain on top is the measure of freedom, whether for individuals or for societies---freedom understood, that is as the will to power. According to this concept, the highest form of individual freedom, of sovereignty, would in all probability emerge not five steps from its opposite, where the danger of slavery hangs over existence like a hundred swords of Damocles. Look at history from this viewpoint: the ages in which the "individual" achieves such ripe perfection, i.e., freedom, and the classic type of the sovereign man is attained---oh no! they have never been humane ages! One must have no choice: either on top---or underneath, like a worm, mocked, annihilated, trodden upon. One must oppose tyrants to become a tyrant, i.e.,free."(The Will to Power, pg.404)
I listened to Bertrand Russell on Nietzsche, in a YouTube video, and I think a question of his, was how it would be ascertained that someone else is of the higher type once the aristocracy was established, how would they get to elite status, if they weren't already. Nietzsche's answer is they would become the elite through force and barbarism, or any other means. I don't know I listened to it a few months ago.
I think this stuff answers your government questions. As for his plan's of government, Nietzsche thought the herd or masses should have a rigorous military polytechnic education, and should treat work as soldiers do, while these higher types used them as means. Thinking about your idea of colonizing Mars, do you believe the masses would be able to put an like that idea forward, or would it be an individual?

Nietzsche's section on knowledge as the will to power, consists of his refutation of metaphysical principles. He took on cause and effect, the thing-in-itself, "true" worlds, and a priori judegements. He was against any kind of metaphysics or idealism, anything that confused nature, or the will to power.
Here are a few of these refutations:
"A judgement is synthetic; i.e., it connects different ideas.
It is a priori; i.e., every connection is a universally valid and necessary one, which can never be given by sense perception but only through pure reason.
If there are to be synthetic a priori judgements, then reason must be in a position to make connections: connection is a form. Reason must possess the capacity of giving form."(The Will to Power, pg. 288)

"The properties of a thing are effects on other "things": if one removes other "things," then a thing has no properties, i.e., there is no thing without other things, i.e., there is no thing-in-itself."(The Will to Power, pg. 302)

"The apparent world, i.e., à world viewed according to values; ordered, selected according to values, i.e., in this case according to the viewpoint of utility in regard to the preservation and enhancement of the power of a certain species of animal. The perspective therefore decides the character of the "appearance"! As if a world would still remain over after one deducted the perspective! By doing that one would deduct relativity!............But there is no "other," No "true," No essential being---for this would be the expression of a world without acting and reaction---"(The Will to Power, pg.305)
I don't know why I included this part, you never proposed anything metaphysical, I just thought it was important. Thank you for providing those details on Spinoza, I'd never read Spinoza abd did not know what Nietzsche was talking about by affects.
User avatar
philojoe
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: December 22nd, 2017, 7:08 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by philojoe »

Have any of you read The Foundation for Exploration by Sean Goonan? I highly recommend it for his revolutionary analysis of power among other things. The book came out only a year ago so it is not well known, but I see him being the next big philosopher.
User avatar
Freudian Monkey
Posts: 57
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Freudian Monkey »

I will reply a bit later, I'm little busy with work today.
User avatar
Freudian Monkey
Posts: 57
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Freudian Monkey »

Maxcady10001 wrote:I don't believe he gave much creedence to social power structures because he believed they were fulfillment of the power instinct of the herd, and limitation for the individual. I mentioned Nietzsche believed morality, and all other Christian values were herd virtues, but I forgot to say he thought they were the herd's attempt to fulfill their will to power. How else should those that are weak attain power, but to invent and spread values that make them equal to the powerful. Nietzsche was opposed to all kinds of morality, not only Christian morality, because he believed it was anti-natural. He believed the powerful should be able to enact their will on the less powerful. On anarchism, I believe he thought enabling the people to act out their will to power would eventually lead his aristocracy lead by his higher man. Most likely through horrific acts. I don't believe he thought it would be anarchism, because anarchism implies a kind of equality. He thought socialism was the jesuit based counterpart of anarchism. On your theory of power, doesn't morality get in the way of people inflicting external or internal change? It must, as morality says everyone is equal and restricts action and doesn't allow for all of the potential for change.
I’m not sure if morality by definition implies that everyone has to be equal. This was never the case in Ancient Greece that we consider to be the womb of democracy – women and non-citizens didn’t possess the same rights are citizens and therefore the same moral principles didn’t apply to them. As a matter of fact, for instance individual rights almost never apply to all the members of a society even though they’re at the heart of Western morality. A more contemporary example: if a person is labeled to be a terrorist, he often loses the basic human rights other members of society naturally possess. So I don’t think morality always aims to make everyone equal.

Morality indeed does get in the way of individual’s pursuit of gaining power. However I see morality is a safeguard that prevents individuals of openly fighting each other for power, which drains a lot of resources and ultimately weakens everyone’s chance of survival. Society benefits everyone who seeks power is countless ways – it makes finding friends and wives/husbands much easier, it gives a guarantee of safety, it increases the availability of resources that are hard to come by etc.

I can’t get over the fact that Nietzsche didn’t put any value to social and communal power – that’s a huge flaw in his approach. Society is an excellent framework in which people can strife to obtain more power. If you want power, you shouldn’t be trying to destroy the rules - you should be the one making the rules. That’s how you get the best of both worlds.
Maxcady10001 wrote:However, on the social power structures and the herd, Nietzsche thought society forced individuals to act in a way beneficial to the herd in fulfillment of the herd's will to power. Consider what he called the herd, the weaker members of the species, groups of these weaker individuals would act as a strong one. Together they act in a way that is contradictory to their nature as a weak herd type.
I heard somewhere that Nietzsche’s approach to Power was inspired by Lamarckism. Nietzsche never read Darwin and learned about The Theory of Evolution only from second hand sources. So basically Nietzsche believed that nature always favored the strong and that strength could be inherited. This is why he speaks about “the race of supermen” – he believed that someone could accumulate enormous amount of physical and mental strength during his life and then pass on all this strength to his offspring. This is basically what Lamarckism (and Social Darwinism) implies. Nietzsche failed to see that natural selection is not driven by some universal power but rather is based on random mutations that sometimes give individual organisms advantage over others. In terms of evolution, the strong don’t always survive over the weak. So basically, whatever you think about Nietzsche, you have to accept that he didn’t have access to all the knowledge we possess today and that his theory has to be re-interpreted and improved so fit the contemporary world.
Maxcady10001 wrote:He goes on to repudiate concepts of reward and punishment, because he believes this race is undisciplined, and is most susceptible to the least bit of stimuli, so because these criminals act on impulse reward and punishment mean nothing. He then mentions dealing with rebels, saying they are suppressed not punished.
I cannot really follow Nietzsche’s reasoning here. I think he might be limited by his idea about morality being tied to Christian moral values here. To him a criminal is powerful because he is strong enough to venture beyond morality and to reject the social contract that binds a society together. So basically he’s powerful because he’s not mediocre. But to me this doesn’t make someone powerful. The mere act of rejection only shows an increased willingness to break society’s norms. This can either benefit the criminal or lead to persecution and punishment. We all break norms occasionally, but we know when breaking these norms can lead us into trouble, and we restrict ourselves to avoid punishment. Criminals are unable to see these limits or don’t care about them and are therefore more susceptible to punishment.
Maxcady10001 wrote:Nietzsche also says the criminal is, in a way, a man of courage, and should not be looked upon with contempt by society.
A rebellious person who shows exceptional courage is often admired even in contemporary societies. However a criminal is someone who breaks society’s rules and is therefore undermining it’s very foundation. Therefore Nietzsche’s suggestion can only work in a society without a rule of law. A complex society is not possible without some manner of rules and laws, so Nietzsche’s approach could not work in practice.
Maxcady10001 wrote:There is also this criticism of society's punisment:

"My rather radical question mark set against all modern penal codes is this: if the punishment should hurt in proportion to the magnitude of the crime---and fundamentally that is what all of you want!---you would have to measure the susceptibility to pain of every criminal. Does that not mean: a previously determined punishment for a crime, a penal code, ought not to exist at all? But considering that one would scarcely be able to determine a criminal's pleasure and displeasure, wouldn't one have to do without punishment in practice?"(The Will to Power, pg. 394)
This is just banal. Maybe he is joking?
Maxcady10001 wrote:The way this is accomplished is through a division of labor, and using virtues that are only beneficial to society. Virtues, such as obedience, duty, patriotism, and loyalty.
The individuals also believe in the pride, severity, strength, hatred and revenge of the group.
"None of you has the courage to kill a man, or even to whip him, or even to---but the tremendous machine of the state overpowers the individual, so he repudiated responsibility for what he does (obedience, oath, etc.)" (The Will to Power, pg. 383)
These virtues are also beneficial to the individual. These virtues aim to make a society more cohesive and strong. A strong society lends it’s strength to its members.
Maxcady10001 wrote:He believed even striving to leave legacy behind, was the result of enslavement by society.
"That something longer lasting than an individual should endure, that a work should endure which has perhaps been created by an individual: to that end, every possible kind of limitation, one-sidedness, etc, must be imposed upon the individual. By what means? Love, reverence, gratitude, toward the person who created the work helps; or that our forefathers fought for it; or that my descendants will be guaranteed only if I guarantee this work (e.e., the polis). Morality is essentially the means of ensuring the duration of something beyond individuals, or rather through an enslavement of the individual." (The Will to Power, pg. 387)
If he truly means here that the human strife for reproduction is exclusively tied to society and its morality, it's rather far-fetched. Society certainly plays an important part in creating a model for an individual's life as a member of a society, but the need to reproduce is first and foremost an inbuilt instinct rather than a mere product of socialization.
Maxcady10001 wrote:A quote on society vs the will to power:
""The will to power" is so hated in democratic ages that their entire psychology seems directed toward belittling and defaming it. The type of great ambitious man who thirsts after honor is is supposed to be Napoleon! And Caesar! And Alexander!---As if these were not precisely the great despises of honor!" (The Will to Power, pg. 397)
What does Will to Power have to do with honor? Maybe it’s a product of great deeds? To me honor is fairly inconsequential. Power itself should be our goal, it ultimately leads to being perceived as honorable as well.

Maxcady10001 wrote:Democracy represents the disbelief in great human beings and an elite society: "Everyone is equal to everyone else." "At bottom we are one and all self-seeking cattle and mob.""(The Will to Power, pg. 397)
The Elite has always found a way to operate within democratic societies. They are always highly valued members of societies. Even if the society sets limits to their power, they can still find ways to make themselves more powerful. But I agree that powerful individuals often want to distort undermine democracy to further their own interests.

Maxcady10001 wrote:Nietzsche on why the individual is better than the herd:

"Basic error: to place the goal in the herd and not in single individuals! The herd is a means, no more! But now one is attempting to understand the herd as an individual and to ascribe to it a higher rank than to the individual---profound misunderstanding! ! ! Also to characterize that which makes herslike, sympathy, as the more valuable side of our nature!"(The Will to Power, pg. 403)
Again Nietzsche deals only with absolutes. Is there no medium between individual’s pursuit for power and being a member of a society? At least he refers here to the fact that herd can be a means to an end. Why can’t he embrace this idea and give practical ideas how to live in a society in a way that maximizes individual’s power?
Maxcady10001 wrote:"The individual is something quite new which creates new things, something absolute; all his acts are entirely his own. Ultimately, the individual derives the values of his acts from himself; because he has to interpret in a quite individual way even the words he has inherited. His interpretation of a formula is at least personal, even if he does not create a formula: as an interpreter he is still creative."(The Will to Power, pg. 403)
Individual can either adopt society’s values or create them himself. In my view, the nature of one’s values don’t actually matter that much in terms of Power acquisition. You can believe in Christian moral values and become an extremely powerful individual nonetheless. Or you can be an atheist sociopath and succeed all the same. As long as individual has a strong will to make changes to his internal and external reality, he has the capability to become powerful. Only if one’s values are somehow in contrast with a person’s will to initiate change can values be a hindrance to power acquisition.
Maxcady10001 wrote:He also believes freedom is essentially the will to power. He says this:
"The degree of resistance that must be overcome in order to remain on top is the measure of freedom, whether for individuals or for societies---freedom understood, that is as the will to power. According to this concept, the highest form of individual freedom, of sovereignty, would in all probability emerge not five steps from its opposite, where the danger of slavery hangs over existence like a hundred swords of Damocles. Look at history from this viewpoint: the ages in which the "individual" achieves such ripe perfection, i.e., freedom, and the classic type of the sovereign man is attained---oh no! they have never been humane ages! One must have no choice: either on top---or underneath, like a worm, mocked, annihilated, trodden upon. One must oppose tyrants to become a tyrant, i.e.,free."(The Will to Power, pg.404)
Here I agree with Nietzsche: power brings freedom to the individual. I also agree that freedom is will to power, since the lack of will to power means a slow and steady decline towards death. Power gives an individual the ability to choose, the lack of power means the inability to choose (in other words, slavery).
Maxcady10001 wrote:I listened to Bertrand Russell on Nietzsche, in a YouTube video, and I think a question of his, was how it would be ascertained that someone else is of the higher type once the aristocracy was established, how would they get to elite status, if they weren't already. Nietzsche's answer is they would become the elite through force and barbarism, or any other means. I don't know I listened to it a few months ago.
I think this stuff answers your government questions. As for his plan's of government, Nietzsche thought the herd or masses should have a rigorous military polytechnic education, and should treat work as soldiers do, while these higher types used them as means.
This might only be Russell's interpretation of Nietzsche though. Although I highly respect Russell's views in general, he might not have been completely impartial in his criticism of Nietzsche.
Maxcady10001 wrote:Thinking about your idea of colonizing Mars, do you believe the masses would be able to put that idea forward, or would it be an individual?
It would certainly be an individual, but in a democratic society individuals can come up with such ideas and convince others to join the cause. The individual doesn’t need to be a member of the elite to come up with such an idea. Again I think Nietzsche’s idea of the elite is that a handful of elite individuals would be both physically and intellectually superior to all the billions of individuals of the masses due to their genetic superiority. This would unlikely be true – it’s much more likely that the best possible candidates for financing, planning and executing the hypothetical Mars expedition would be found among the most accomplished and resourceful individuals from all around the world and from all social classes. I understand that his elite class would be international collection of supermen, but his supermen would still be products of genetic cultivation rather than simply a group of accomplished individuals.
Maxcady10001 wrote:Nietzsche's section on knowledge as the will to power, consists of his refutation of metaphysical principles. He took on cause and effect, the thing-in-itself, "true" worlds, and a priori judegements. He was against any kind of metaphysics or idealism, anything that confused nature, or the will to power.

Here are a few of these refutations:

"A judgement is synthetic; i.e., it connects different ideas.
It is a priori; i.e., every connection is a universally valid and necessary one, which can never be given by sense perception but only through pure reason.

If there are to be synthetic a priori judgements, then reason must be in a position to make connections: connection is a form. Reason must possess the capacity of giving form."(The Will to Power, pg. 288)

"The properties of a thing are effects on other "things": if one removes other "things," then a thing has no properties, i.e., there is no thing without other things, i.e., there is no thing-in-itself."(The Will to Power, pg. 302)
I can’t really comment too much about his thoughts on metaphysics, but I’d love to hear someone more versed in metaphysics to dissect his statements here. I want to keep a practical approach to the question of Power, since metaphysics rarely offer insights that affect everyday lives of individuals. You could say that there's very little Power to be acquired through the study of metaphysics. Power on the contrary is a concept that’s profoundly significant to people’s everyday lives and that’s why we should learn about it’s true nature.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

I understand why you are against including immorality as part of your theory of power. If you're planning to teach this, it would be impossible to be approved for a lesson plan that included immorality as essential to obtaining power. However, I find it contradictory to have a theory of power and allow for morality. It is like telling students to conquer the world with their hands tied behind their backs. Eventually someone else would point out this contradiction of encouraging the exertion of will and change while limiting it through morality. If you include morality, your theory is no different than the motivation techniques and theories that are already in existence. The contemporary example of the terrorist does not work, because once he became a criminal he lost his rights, he had equal rights before he became a criminal.
The rights of criminals are not a good example of the rights of all democratic society.
On the other example using Greece, you've said women and non-citizens did not possess the same rights as male citizens. This is not analogous to a modern democracy, where women and non-citizens do possess these rights, and morality is equally applied. If you are advocating for the kind of democracy of ancient Greece in your theory of power that is something different, and is in conflict with your current theory of power that includes morality, because now you're taking away rights.

Nietzsche did read Darwin, and the way you apply social Darwinism to Nietzsche I don't believe works, as Nietzsche thought the most prevalent and most mediocre types survived.

You also say something contradictory when you say a person with Christian values can become powerful. I know you would give me the example of the politician, however the politician is anti-christian in their power grabs. In running for office the so-called christian is essentially renouncing christian virtues, they are the antithesis of a christian. They are ambitious, prideful, vengeful (do christian campaigners not act as though their religion has been wronged), hateful (against those not of their faith), and wealthy. Politicians are anti-christian.
The nature of one's values matter very much, in terms of power acquisition. Consider a person who is raised valuing intelligence, pride, strength, versus the person who is raised valuing intelligence, humility, morality. Who will be stronger?
User avatar
Freudian Monkey
Posts: 57
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Freudian Monkey »

First of all, I want to apologize my long silence. I tried to write a reply during December, but in the end I found my answers lacking and I realized that I needed more time to think about your fine questions and try to come up with more coherent answers. Hopefully we can still resume our conversation that I've grown very fond of.
Maxcady10001 wrote: December 26th, 2017, 2:46 pm I understand why you are against including immorality as part of your theory of power. If you're planning to teach this, it would be impossible to be approved for a lesson plan that included immorality as essential to obtaining power. However, I find it contradictory to have a theory of power and allow for morality. It is like telling students to conquer the world with their hands tied behind their backs. Eventually someone else would point out this contradiction of encouraging the exertion of will and change while limiting it through morality.
I think our discussion might benefit from us defining the term morality, since that seem to be at the heart of our conversation right now. Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Morality (from the Latin moralis "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or principles.

I see teaching children about Power similarly to how they are taught evolution and natural selection. They're not topics for young children and require a certain degree of maturity to digest. However it's imperative that children learn about these fundamental laws that govern our existence so they don't grow in ignorance and superstition. Similarly, the concept of Power should be introduced to the children gradually - first through play and simple plans for improving themselves. This is in fact what is already been done, but without any clear, detailed plan about how children can best be introduced to self-improvement and the realities of power acquisition, power distribution and different power structures. The concept itself is so self-explanatory that there's no need for in dept theoretical education - student counselors would help students to make individual power acquisition plans and give them guidance when they need it.

Now, to the point that I think we need to focus on in our discussion. You seem to imply that power acquisition is always either immoral or amoral in a contemporary Western society. Why? Why cannot children be taught power acquisition within the social boundaries of a society? As I mentioned in a previous post, people control their behavior and their impulses all the time to better adapt to their social environment. Power acquisition can very well function within boundaries that a society deem adequate and desirable.

Another thing to consider. Does a society benefit from powerful citizens? Or does it benefit more from powerless citizens? What then should be the goal of our educational system? Do we need to produce citizens that have Will to Power or ones that are apathetic, content, passive?

The key point I want to make: everyone desires power. Power acquisition and usage is either the meaning of life or very closely tied to it (we could start a whole other thread about this topic). A society can either try to suppress this inbuilt desire or try to benefit from it. I have been born and raised in a society that believes in empowering it's citizens and I tend to believe this is the right approach for creating a healthy and strong society.
Maxcady10001 wrote: December 26th, 2017, 2:46 pm If you include morality, your theory is no different than the motivation techniques and theories that are already in existence. The contemporary example of the terrorist does not work, because once he became a criminal he lost his rights, he had equal rights before he became a criminal.
I agree the terrorist was a bad example, as you rightly pointed out. We could perhaps replace it with a better example, of which there are plenty. In medieval feudal societies, where no one thought that all people should be equal. Would you still suggest that societies in medieval Europe had no morality? The ideal of the equality of men is only a couple of hundred year old concept in it's contemporary form - it cannot be basis for an universal concept of morality.

I agree that motivational and self-help books often focus on power acquisition and therefore they are very desirable read for individuals. I'm not quite sure why they are not utilized at all in Western educational system. Perhaps because they are often written by amateurs that don't base them on scientific data. However this is not always the case. There's a lot of scientific data about people's habit formation, for instance. A great book about habit formation is Charles Duhigg's The Power of Habit, whcih you could call a self-help book that's based on scientific data.

Is my theory of Power just another self-help guide? Perhaps it is. I don't care what kind of labels we use, as long as the concept is understood and used in practice.

I also found a rather recent video dealing with this topic. You can check it here if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2tlif59E1E
Maxcady10001 wrote: December 26th, 2017, 2:46 pmThe rights of criminals are not a good example of the rights of all democratic society. On the other example using Greece, you've said women and non-citizens did not possess the same rights as male citizens. This is not analogous to a modern democracy, where women and non-citizens do possess these rights, and morality is equally applied. If you are advocating for the kind of democracy of ancient Greece in your theory of power that is something different, and is in conflict with your current theory of power that includes morality, because now you're taking away rights.
Why should we only focus on contemporary Western morality? Why is it any better or any more relevant than any other form of morality that have been adopted by societies throughout history?

I don't view morality as something that cannot coexist with individual's Will to Power. Morality is a communal power structure whereas Will to Power is a force that drives individual's behavior. Individual's pursuit for Power is sometimes compromised for the good of the community, but this is merely a transition where individual power is traded for social power. There can be some loss of Power in this process, but that's the reality of communal living. But as I mentioned before, the benefits of belonging to a community far outweigh it's disadvantages.

Is there really any reason why morality and Will to Power cannot coexist? Not theoretically, but in practice. I want to keep our discussion in practical reality.
Maxcady10001 wrote: December 26th, 2017, 2:46 pm Nietzsche did read Darwin, and the way you apply social Darwinism to Nietzsche I don't believe works, as Nietzsche thought the most prevalent and most mediocre types survived.
I read online that all of Nietzsche's knowledge of Darwin came from second hand sources - he never read a copy of The Origin of Species.
Maxcady10001 wrote: December 26th, 2017, 2:46 pmYou also say something contradictory when you say a person with Christian values can become powerful. I know you would give me the example of the politician, however the politician is anti-christian in their power grabs. In running for office the so-called christian is essentially renouncing christian virtues, they are the antithesis of a christian. They are ambitious, prideful, vengeful (do christian campaigners not act as though their religion has been wronged), hateful (against those not of their faith), and wealthy. Politicians are anti-christian. The nature of one's values matter very much, in terms of power acquisition. Consider a person who is raised valuing intelligence, pride, strength, versus the person who is raised valuing intelligence, humility, morality. Who will be stronger?
Actually, either one could be more powerful than the other. I presume you believe that a person that values pride and strength will always be more powerful and a person who values humility and morality? To me this is not necessarily the case. There are moral views that will lead to very undesirable results in terms of power acquisition, but most of the time I see different moral values as different power acquisition strategies. If you are considered to be a person of high moral character and humility, you will be a valued member in almost any kind of contemporary society. A person with that values strength and pride might be in a disadvantage in these kind of social contexts, but he might have a stronger desire to become respected and admired, which could work in his advantage. Actually I see strongly devout Christians as people with the strongest Will to Power even though they also adhere to the most highest moral principles and value humility, abstinence and even self-sacrifice. They are very passionate and goal-oriented. They care very little of earthy pleasures, so they are not distracted from their pursuit for more thorough control over their internal and external reality. The key word here is self-discipline, which is the most desirable character trait for anyone who desires Power.

You have to understand that selfishness is not a necessity for a strong Will to Power. At least not in my definition of the concept. Nietzsche might disagree with me here.
User avatar
Freudian Monkey
Posts: 57
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Freudian Monkey »

In a way I think I might be barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe philosophy is not where we should be looking for answers about the nature of Power.

I've read some theory of pedagogy and developmental psychology recently and I've stumbled upon some theories that deal very closely with the concept of Power. Many recent developmental psychologists like Roy Baumeister see willpower (not self-esteem or good parenting or any of that crap) as the main contributor to a person's well-being and happiness. It seems to be a pretty commonly accepted fact that self-regulatory skills and willpower are the foundations of a successful and happy life and this is already been taught to children starting in primary schools. Some of the books even use the same terminology I came up with on my own while pondering about the nature of Power - they mention a child's need to control his internal and external reality as one of the fundamental factors affecting his learning. A child that doesn't get the experience of being able to affect his internal and external reality through school activities is likely to adopt an apathetic and disinterested approach to studying. These are not my thoughts, but those presented in a pedagogy lecture series I attended recently (I can list some books if someone is interested). In other words, a child becomes more interested in learning when he sees it as an avenue to Power acquisition.

So it seems my approach to the concept of Power is in anyway controversial any longer, which I still find a bit surprising.
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Dlaw »

I think that the discussion has kind of gone off on a hyper-individualistic sidetrack, hasn't it?

To me - and here I'm happily revealing my prejudice - Nietzsche and all the philosophies subsequent to his work, boil down to Calvinism without Redemption.

The moral problems with that notwithstanding, the philosophical problem is that Nietzsche's analysis proceeds from the same overwhelming concern with the individual without the justification that Calvin took from Christianity. In other words, Calvin's views were necessarily focused on the individual because they were arguments about the redemption of an individual SOUL, but absent a Divine justification for such a focus, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to think on a social, cultural and species level.

The idea that a human's "Will To Power" should be in conflict with Homo sapiens "Will To Power" as a species makes as much sense - at a first approximation - as the idea that a single bee's "Will To Power" should be different from the hive's WTP.

We're a social species, and that completely undermines (but doesn't necessarily disprove) the arguments that build from a question of individual "Power", doesn't it?
User avatar
Freudian Monkey
Posts: 57
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Freudian Monkey »

Thank you for your contribution and interesting ideas Dlaw.

Maybe you could elaborate your argument a bit further, since I might be missing some important nuances you're trying to communicate. What would you suggest are the features that Nietzsche and other philosophers after him have adopted from Calvinism? Why do you believe that Calvin of all philosophers has had such profound influence on Nietzsche/Western thought?

You seem to suggest that human beings are equally hive-minded creatures as bees, at least in relation to Will to Power. Well, I don't believe this to be the case. To quote Jonathan Haidt "people are 90% chimp and 10% bee". Only under exceptional circumstances we can overcome our selfish individualism and sacrifice our own selfish interests for the common good. Bees do this pretty much 100% of the time. Societies and other groups try to encourage bee-like behavior in men, but this kind of manipulation has it's limits. Chimps, our closest mamal relatives, cannot cooperate with each other even if their lives depend on it. For instance you will never see two chimps carrying a log together to get a treat. This has been thoroughly tested over the years. According to Haidt, people only really care about appearing to be team players rather than actually caring about their social group's well-being over their own well-being. We are hypocrites by nature.

I don't quite understand why our social nature would somehow undermine individual Will to Power or the concept of individual Power. Could you perhaps clarify this point a bit further? If you for instance disagree with some of our previous posts on this thread, perhaps you could point them out and we could continue the discussion from there.

I agree that we have perhaps moved to a more individual-centered approach in our conversation, but I don't view Power or Will to Power as exclusively applicable to individuals. On the contrary I have mentioned a lot of examples of external power structures on this thread. Ultimately I see Power as a force of nature, much like Schopenhauer. Life itself is Power. Death is the absence of Power. I know this is not Nietzshe's definition, but there are certainly areas where our theories overlap. See some of my previous posts if you're interested to discuss these concept further, since I've already elaborated them quite a bit on this thread.
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Dlaw »

Freudian Monkey wrote: January 11th, 2018, 4:00 pm Thank you for your contribution and interesting ideas Dlaw.

Maybe you could elaborate your argument a bit further, since I might be missing some important nuances you're trying to communicate. What would you suggest are the features that Nietzsche and other philosophers after him have adopted from Calvinism? Why do you believe that Calvin of all philosophers has had such profound influence on Nietzsche/Western thought?
Because of the logical similarities and because, of course, Nietszche is German. I think all of German thought was revolutionized by the Protestant Revolution and Calvinism is like a mental bacillus that feeds on German thought.
You seem to suggest that human beings are equally hive-minded creatures as bees, at least in relation to Will to Power. Well, I don't believe this to be the case. To quote Jonathan Haidt "people are 90% chimp and 10% bee". Only under exceptional circumstances we can overcome our selfish individualism and sacrifice our own selfish interests for the common good. Bees do this pretty much 100% of the time. Societies and other groups try to encourage bee-like behavior in men, but this kind of manipulation has it's limits.
In fact, there's no evidence for Homo sapiens as a successful individualistic species. Clearly, we outcompeted chimps exactly because we are more successfully social than they are. I think your example is an argument for my take
Chimps, our closest mamal relatives, cannot cooperate with each other even if their lives depend on it. For instance you will never see two chimps carrying a log together to get a treat. This has been thoroughly tested over the years. According to Haidt, people only really care about appearing to be team players rather than actually caring about their social group's well-being over their own well-being. We are hypocrites by nature.
I think any worldview so dominated by cynicism cannot be correct because it fails to predict most human behavior.
I don't quite understand why our social nature would somehow undermine individual Will to Power or the concept of individual Power. Could you perhaps clarify this point a bit further? If you for instance disagree with some of our previous posts on this thread, perhaps you could point them out and we could continue the discussion from there.
My point is that individual power is a chimera. It's far more imagined than real.
I agree that we have perhaps moved to a more individual-centered approach in our conversation, but I don't view Power or Will to Power as exclusively applicable to individuals. On the contrary I have mentioned a lot of examples of external power structures on this thread. Ultimately I see Power as a force of nature, much like Schopenhauer. Life itself is Power. Death is the absence of Power. I know this is not Nietzshe's definition, but there are certainly areas where our theories overlap. See some of my previous posts if you're interested to discuss these concept further, since I've already elaborated them quite a bit on this thread.
I think that Nietszche skips over the concept of the "will" of a species, which is clearly the most important concept of "will" in Evolution. I don't think there's anything particularly powerful about Life - miraculous, wonderful, always-new, yes, powerful, no.

Nietszche is addressing a newly atheist intelligentsia and I take his ideas as an excess resulting from that transformation. The power of God had to be addressed somehow and Nietzsche found a way, but there's little or no evidence for "Power" being anything more than a human construct, far from a force of Nature.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Freudian Monkey

Why can't children be taught power acquisition within the moral boundaries of society? Because they would inevitably wander outside said boundaries. Once the need to exert themselves is felt, boundaries will be questioned. Also, consider the quotes from Nietzsche on the greatest men being criminals. He was not alone in thinking this. If you've read Crime and Punishment, one of Dostoevsky's central idea's is that all of the greatest men in history have been transgressors of the law. Consider Julius Caesar declaring himself dictator.
Once they are taught to exert themselves to capacity, they will see what they are trying to accomplish as greater than any law. I remember a quote from Nietzsche to be something along the lines of "why teach them to be masters when you want slaves?" I believe he was referencing what he believed to be the disappearance of privilege from education. However, it applies the same in teaching someone to crave power yet never disobey society.
Also, maybe you could change the name from a theory of power to motivation, if you are going to teach them to be moral while trying to be their best. This is not any different from the many other ideas on how to be a good citizen, if you're just going to tell them to do their best within society. Perhaps you do not care so much about great human beings as you do good citizens?

On morality not being equal, have you considered these societies may have contradicted themselves, in believing in an objective morality while subjugating their "lowers" to brutal work? Perhaps that is why society has become more equal through the notice of this contradiction. Everytime an aspect of society has been called unjust, it's been done in the name of some morality, and in a call for equal rights. These equal rights are usually advocated for because the subjugated people believe in the same objective morality as their oppressors, and they see themselves as equals through this morality.

I think philosophy is the best place to discuss the nature of power, but in these other theories in pedagogy is there much regard for rules? I personally don't know. How explicit are they in speaking about the limits of power? Or is it just a kind of do your best thing?

Dlaw

I do not blame you for not reading the posts on the previous page and this one on Nietzsches Will to Power. However, Nietzsche was not saying the individual's will is in conflict with that of the species, he was saying great individuals should be determining the path of the species instead of what he called the herd.

Also, you misunderstand what Nietzsche meant by will to power. He meant the will to power as a process of becoming and of growth, not as you may think, as control over people or territory or whatever. Although those things could certainly be a part of the will to power, he did not ascribe everyone with a will to come to some kind of powerful position, but instead with the need to experience growth and to become who they are.
And when thinking about it there is no example of organic matter that does not possess this trait, Nietzsches will to power, or the need to grow and become. So the will to power as described by Nietzsche is the force of nature, that is, the need to grow in an endless process of becoming.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Dlaw wrote: I don't think there's anything particularly powerful about Life - miraculous, wonderful, always-new, yes, powerful, no.
This is definitely not what Nietzsche meant by will to power.

"It can be shown most clearly that every living thing does everything it can not to preserve itself but to become more--"(The Will to Power, pg.367)

"Life is only a means to something;it is the expression of forms of the growth of power."(The Will to Power, pg.375)
User avatar
Freudian Monkey
Posts: 57
Joined: December 7th, 2017, 3:14 am

Re: The Definition of Power and how we should live

Post by Freudian Monkey »

Dlaw wrote: January 11th, 2018, 4:23 pm
Because of the logical similarities and because, of course, Nietszche is German. I think all of German thought was revolutionized by the Protestant Revolution and Calvinism is like a mental bacillus that feeds on German thought.
Could you perhaps list some of the similarities and features of Calvinism that Nietzsche and other German thinkers have adopted? I'm sorry that I'm dealing with you on such an introductory level, but I can't comment on your arguments if I'm not sure what they consists of.
Dlaw wrote: January 11th, 2018, 4:23 pm In fact, there's no evidence for Homo sapiens as a successful individualistic species. Clearly, we outcompeted chimps exactly because we are more successfully social than they are. I think your example is an argument for my take
I'm not sure we'll be able to come to an agreement on this topic. According to Haidt (and Darwin), people are not hive-minded creatures. People form societies and other social structures because it's beneficial to them and their family. Cooperation within a family unit is common even among simple lifeforms, so it can hardly be seem as the definitive feature of homo sapiens. One of the biggest challenges societies have had to deal with has been to inspire cooperation without kindship. This kind of cooperation doesn't come naturally to homo sapiens.
Dlaw wrote: January 11th, 2018, 4:23 pm I think any worldview so dominated by cynicism cannot be correct because it fails to predict most human behavior.
I'm not sure if I would call Haidt's approach cynical since he's merely describing results gathered through empirical research.
Dlaw wrote: January 11th, 2018, 4:23 pm
My point is that individual power is a chimera. It's far more imagined than real.
Can you clarify this approach also a bit more? Do you mean that Will to Power is basically a synonym to determination? Or what do you mean by "imagined"?
Dlaw wrote: January 11th, 2018, 4:23 pm I think that Nietszche skips over the concept of the "will" of a species, which is clearly the most important concept of "will" in Evolution. I don't think there's anything particularly powerful about Life - miraculous, wonderful, always-new, yes, powerful, no.
I'm actually uncertain what Nietzsche thought about this. He seemed to base his theory of supermen on Lamarcism rather than Darwinism. So his ideas are not entirely applicable to modern understanding of Evolution. Nietzsche seemed to focus on Darwin's idea of natural selection - it seems to be his inspiration for the concept of higher men. But I don't personally agree or base my thoughts on the nature of Power on Nietzsche's thoughts alone.

Life is powerful if you agree on my definition of Power that I wrote in my original post. In a later post I rephrased it as "A being's ability to cause or prevent changes to it's internal or external reality." Do you disagree with this definition?

Dlaw wrote: January 11th, 2018, 4:23 pmNietszche is addressing a newly atheist intelligentsia and I take his ideas as an excess resulting from that transformation. The power of God had to be addressed somehow and Nietzsche found a way, but there's little or no evidence for "Power" being anything more than a human construct, far from a force of Nature.
Schopenhauer saw Will to Live as a force of nature, or as an underlying force driving all living beings. Nietzsche adopted a lot from Schopenhauer. I'm not entirely sure if he thought Power to be something similar to Schopenhauer's Will to Live, but I have thought this way so far. Can you perhaps give some references that would prove otherwise?
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