Do you agree with Nietzsche's statements above? Why or why not?Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.
I generally do not use moral terms like "evil", but I still agree mostly with the overall sentiment. In fact, I fully agree assuming Nietzsche would allow me to rephrase his words as follows:
When conscious will becomes gracious and manifests from the spiritual into the physical — such self-actualization I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I appreciate such free-spirited beauty as much as from those who are powerful: let your kindness be the ultimate expression of self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom). Of extreme unkindness and selfish egotistical domination, I deem you capable: therefore I most appreciate loving restraint from you, the powerful. Indeed, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves righteous because they had no claws.
Insofar as my rephrasing is essentially what Nietzsche meant, then I wholeheartedly agree.
I think other ways of expressing a similar idea would be to say either of the following:
1. Power corrupts, thus the ultimate measure of a person is the ratio between their power and their lack of corruption.
2. The religious-like doctrines of consequentialist morality, that would make the devout believer a slave to an imaginary de-personified god of supernatural moral law, fail to fully acknowledge the value of inaction (of not doing) in relation to capacity--of conscious restraint, self-discipline, and transcendence of restlessness (namely in terms of excessive outer doing due to lacking inner peace). By overvaluing mere consequences rather than valuing conscious will and intent, the consequentialist overvalues the seeming kindness of the weak, and fails to fully see the maintaining of sheathness in a sheathed sword as being a greater expression of kind conscious will--of consciousness itself--than merely lacking access to a sword, or failing to use a sword out of cowardice rather than brave self-discipline. In other words, to the consequentialist a loving kind person who does significant damage but could do even more is worse than one who is capable of little damage despite being much more slavishly selfish and unkind in intent. In other words, the consequentialist prefers weakness--for one to be selfishly or slavishly willing to do great damage and atrocities but being physically incapable--versus strength and free-spiritedness, and by extension the glorious triumph of calm peaceful beautiful spirit over insatiable restless selfish enslaved flesh.
Do you think the two different items above are accurate paraphrasing of Nietzsche's ideas on the matter? If not, why not?
Regardless, do you agree with the concepts? If not, why not?