Will To Power As Individual Action

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?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
PublicCola6
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: June 10th, 2017, 12:07 pm

Will To Power As Individual Action

Post by PublicCola6 » March 31st, 2018, 1:13 pm

The existential individual contains a paradox within himself. The individual, as individual, is not reducible to a set of rational truths."A man outside of the city is either a beast or a god".

The road to radical individualism: the keys to the self, can only be experienced or realized while one is alone. While the herd man follows 'rational' conventions which dilutes individuality, there is no harmony between "truth" and the existential individual.

The discovery of the self is an irrational and dangerous process.

In Nietzsche there is an equivalence between the existentially existing self (the development of violent energies and action in the potential promise of the human will) on the one hand, and what can be described as a metaphysical form of flux on the other hand. 'Will' is the Dionysian composition of metaphysical flux connected to the inner soul of the philosopher.

For Nietzsche the intense generation of a violent will to power on a cosmic scale is not amenable by rational argument but is a condition of human individuality,

If the universe is ultimately a changeless, eternal, universal realm of immutable reason then the individual, because he is individual, must act out the disunity of universal reason. There is no choice. He must defy the 'order of nature' in order to exist as himself.

--

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Will To Power As Individual Action

Post by Namelesss » March 31st, 2018, 9:43 pm

PublicCola6 wrote:
March 31st, 2018, 1:13 pm
If the universe is ultimately... changeless, eternal

Then there can be no;
act(-ing) out...
In a 'changeless' Universe/Reality, there can be no 'motion' other than as a 'mirage'.
No act-ing. The only '-ing' that is possible, is 'Be-ing'! *__-

User avatar
PublicCola6
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: June 10th, 2017, 12:07 pm

Re: Will To Power As Individual Action

Post by PublicCola6 » April 1st, 2018, 9:21 am

Yes, you are right. Sorry about that. There seems to be two choices: either truth is unchanging or it is fluid. Both carry philosophical difficulties.

The question for me is: is original action possible? If it is, then the individual actually destroys; actually will destroy the present orders in due course.

Do we resolve that paradox by taking the side of individual actuality or do we rest on faith?

Do you believe that you can actually be destroyed?

-

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Will To Power As Individual Action

Post by Namelesss » April 1st, 2018, 9:14 pm

PublicCola6 wrote:
April 1st, 2018, 9:21 am
Yes, you are right. Sorry about that. There seems to be two choices: either truth is unchanging or it is fluid. Both carry philosophical difficulties.
By it's very nature Truth must be unchanging (unconditional, transcendental)!
Truth is ALL inclusive!
I see no valid philosophical difficulty with 'unchanging', at all.
'Fluidity' is (conditional, relative) completely untenable, scientifically and philosophically.
The question for me is: is original action possible?

You know those 'rotoscopes' (I think that's what they are called)?
They are circular with a number of photos or drawings on frames within. When viewing from a static position (Perspective), and spinning the scope, motion and time and 'fluidity' appears.
To which of those photos would you attribute "originality"... or "action"?
Those photos are these moments of existence.
Those photos all exist simultaneously, just as these moments do!
Unchanging! *__-
Do you believe that you can actually be destroyed?
Depends what you mean by 'you'.
I (We) manifest existence with the Universe, and will become unmanifest with the Universe! *__-
We transcend the moment of existence.

User avatar
PublicCola6
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: June 10th, 2017, 12:07 pm

Re: Will To Power As Individual Action

Post by PublicCola6 » April 2nd, 2018, 12:06 pm

Just because you think something is 'valid' doesn't make it true. It could be merely a 'fairy' world of empty ideals. Logical propositions cannot be 'grounded'; truth can never be 'proven'. This is what makes philosophy possible.

You think that out of the infinity of space and the eternities of time you can prove that you hold the truth? You will be the first such person in such a history! And, as I have said, if you do prove the truth it would be the end of philosophy!

You know those 'rotoscopes' (I think that's what they are called)?
They are circular with a number of photos or drawings on frames within. When viewing from a static position (Perspective), and spinning the scope, motion and time and 'fluidity' appears.
To which of those photos would you attribute "originality"... or "action"?
Those photos are these moments of existence.
Those photos all exist simultaneously, just as these moments do!
Unchanging! *__-
That is a charming metaphor! But it says nothing about metaphysical truth or the apparently organic nature of the Cosmos. Sub-atomic particles are more basic, scientifically speaking, and they do not comprise, as individuals, a realm of Platonic Forms. Nominalism, or Heraclitus-ism, whatever you wish to call it, will never be disproved.

-

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Will To Power As Individual Action

Post by Namelesss » April 3rd, 2018, 1:58 am

PublicCola6 wrote:
April 2nd, 2018, 12:06 pm
Just because you think something is 'valid' doesn't make it true.

I have already noted, all over this site, that 'Truth!' is ALL inclusive!
When discussing a topic in a philosophical context, then our limitations on 'validity' fall within the boundaries of science and philosophy.
That is why the lists of 'logical fallacies', to keep us within 'rational/logical context.
Want fallacies, go speak with 'believers'! There is no place for the psychologically symptomatic pseudo-logic of belief validation in a philosophical discussion.
This is not the place for fallacy.
Logical propositions cannot be 'grounded'
They can within a logical context.
; truth can never be 'proven'.

Neither science nor philosophy 'prove' anything!
There is no difference between a personally "accepted proof/facts" and a 'belief infection';

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216551?from=rss
You think that out of the infinity of space and the eternities of time you can prove that you hold the truth? You will be the first such person in such a history! And, as I have said, if you do prove the truth it would be the end of philosophy!
I really don't know what you are on about.
Why does it bother you so much that I might have an 'answer', to which you have yet to address and refute.
I couldn't care less that you don't 'like' what I might write, if you are capable of logical and evidential refutation, then you'll have my attention, but whining about how I might 'sound' to you is not what this discussion is about.
And attacking the person (credibility or otherwise) is called an ad-hom fallacy. An idiot virus in a rational discussion.
Now, what is it, exactly, that has your panties all in a twist?

You know those 'rotoscopes' (I think that's what they are called)?
They are circular with a number of photos or drawings on frames within. When viewing from a static position (Perspective), and spinning the scope, motion and time and 'fluidity' appears.
To which of those photos would you attribute "originality"... or "action"?
Those photos are these moments of existence.
Those photos all exist simultaneously, just as these moments do!
Unchanging! *__-
That is a charming metaphor! But it says nothing about metaphysical truth

Yes, it is a charming metaphor, but your response indicates that you know nothing of any metaphysical Reality/Truth.
Your inability to comprehend is not my problem.

"All 'meaning' exists in the eye/thoughts/ego of the beholder!"
or the apparently organic nature of the Cosmos.

So, a chunk of quartz is, according to you, 'organic'?
Perhaps you want to look up the word.
There is not anything "apparently organic" about the Universe, other than little bitty bits, and, ultimately, metaphysically, there is not anything 'organic' about Us!

Dachshund
Posts: 412
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Will To Power As Individual Action

Post by Dachshund » April 11th, 2018, 6:13 am

PublicCola6 wrote:
March 31st, 2018, 1:13 pm
In Nietzsche there is an equivalence between the existentially existing self (the development of violent energies and action in the potential promise of the human will) on the one hand, and what can be described as a metaphysical form of flux on the other hand. 'Will' is the Dionysian composition of metaphysical flux connected to the inner soul of the philosopher.

For Nietzsche the intense generation of a violent will to power on a cosmic scale is not amenable by rational argument but is a condition of human individuality,

You need to go back to the drawing board buddy; because it is clear that you don't understand what Neitzsche actually meant by his famous thesis of "The Will to Power".

The german translation of "The Will to Power" is "Der Wille zur Macht".

The german work "Macht" does not mean "power" in the sense that term is used in classical physics where power is directly related to force; i.e; in the context of things like: engine power, jet power, horsepower, a powerhouse, electrical power or lots of what you refer to as "violent energies". The German term for the kind of "power" you are talking about is " Kraft".

But I'm not going to do your homework for you. It's up to you to do some research and work out for yourself the nature distinction Nictzsche is making between power as "Macht" and power as "Kraft". That is what's the difference Nietzsche had in mind between "Der Wille zur Macht" ( which is what he actually wrote) and "Der Wille zur Kraft" ( which he did not) ?

Regards

Dachshund

Post Reply