I prefer Schopenhauer’s Will to Life which Nietzsche plagiarized during his psychotic ramblings.
If Nietzsche was right about the Will to Power being the essence of life, then fascism would be justified. What is fascism besides an exercise in Will to Power devoid of empathy? Hitler loved Nietzsche. He corrupted a lot of the things Nietzsche said. Nietzsche wasn’t inherently fascist, and actually abhorred authority. But his Will to Power rhetoric did lend itself to the development of fascist ideology.
Life isn’t merely some competition between rivaling species of plants that will overwhelm the other if the other doesn’t overwhelm them first. That’s what happens when there’s an imbalance in an ecosystem, such as with the introduction of non-native plants. If that were perfectly fine as an analogy for human society and behavior, then what argument could be made against colonization and ethnic cleansing? The same argument would justify capitalistic exploitation, extractive industry, “infinite growth,” and zero-sum economic systems.
To be clear, those things are evil, but that’s why I don’t believe in the Will to Power. (True that Nietzsche didn’t mean it that way, because he personally was anti-authority, but he failed to consider what it would mean for an authoritarian figure with the intention and capability to enforce an evil Will to Power).
But in a balanced ecosystem, life isn’t a zero-sum game. Lots of species symbiotically work together to maintain the balance, a sort of ecological homeostasis. On the species level, even predator-prey relations are symbiotic (without wolves, deer overpopulate and overconsume, then they starve and experience population collapse).
So that’s why I favor Will-to-Life over Will-to-Power.
There’s also Will-to-Good, which sounds great on the surface, but “Good” is hard to define, so it’s mostly useless and can lend itself to corruption and perversity just as easily.
Okay, you can’t just mention a desire to be an agent of your own will to power and expect me not to discuss the differences between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer…
The phrase “will to power” has an origin, and it was coined by Nietzsche as an adaptation of Schopenhauer’s “will to life.”
In my view, power is a means to an end and not an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself and is an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake.
It makes sense to ask “Why do you want power?” But if you ask “Why do you want to live,” it seems kinda pointless like asking the wrong question.
This is because living is the reason for everything else that we do: work, get paid, buy food, eat. We fight for better systems because they’re more conducive to life. We might sacrifice our own lives for an ideal that makes life possible or better for others, presumably people we care about, and even then, life is the goal, just not for ourselves.
A will to power requires further justification. A will to life does not.
Yep, I am smug, hence the smug description of being smug.
Meta-smugness.
You’re assuming that I do not count myself amongst being smug.
I do.
Its also not the only of those 3 things I do, see my other comment where you decided to give a pretty good, though mostly off topic explanation of Nietzche vs Schopenhauer, totally missing the part wherr I established being smug is not the only thing that I do.
So if you can be a smug doomer about it while putting off tangible action for an indefinite period while you work on being able to do more, then why can’t everyone else?
I just don’t get the point of criticizing people for not doing the things that you’re also not doing. You’re not the only person with a disability or other socioeconomic disadvantage that might get in the way.
If someone is an able-bodied, white, hetero, cis male with generational wealth, then chances are they don’t care too strongly about changing the status quo. So who was your intended audience exactly?
Which one of those things are you doing?
At the moment, a bit of the first, and a bit of the third.
Its hard to be an agent of one’s own will to power when one is seriously crippled.
So mostly what I am doing is physical therapy so that I can get back to being a more effective agent of my own will.
I prefer Schopenhauer’s Will to Life which Nietzsche plagiarized during his psychotic ramblings.
If Nietzsche was right about the Will to Power being the essence of life, then fascism would be justified. What is fascism besides an exercise in Will to Power devoid of empathy? Hitler loved Nietzsche. He corrupted a lot of the things Nietzsche said. Nietzsche wasn’t inherently fascist, and actually abhorred authority. But his Will to Power rhetoric did lend itself to the development of fascist ideology.
Life isn’t merely some competition between rivaling species of plants that will overwhelm the other if the other doesn’t overwhelm them first. That’s what happens when there’s an imbalance in an ecosystem, such as with the introduction of non-native plants. If that were perfectly fine as an analogy for human society and behavior, then what argument could be made against colonization and ethnic cleansing? The same argument would justify capitalistic exploitation, extractive industry, “infinite growth,” and zero-sum economic systems.
To be clear, those things are evil, but that’s why I don’t believe in the Will to Power. (True that Nietzsche didn’t mean it that way, because he personally was anti-authority, but he failed to consider what it would mean for an authoritarian figure with the intention and capability to enforce an evil Will to Power).
But in a balanced ecosystem, life isn’t a zero-sum game. Lots of species symbiotically work together to maintain the balance, a sort of ecological homeostasis. On the species level, even predator-prey relations are symbiotic (without wolves, deer overpopulate and overconsume, then they starve and experience population collapse).
So that’s why I favor Will-to-Life over Will-to-Power.
There’s also Will-to-Good, which sounds great on the surface, but “Good” is hard to define, so it’s mostly useless and can lend itself to corruption and perversity just as easily.
… Ok.
I didn’t mean to get into a philosophy argument, I meant to indicate my capacity to act in the world.
Bring crippled significantly hampers that, when it comes to most kinds of physical actions.
Okay, you can’t just mention a desire to be an agent of your own will to power and expect me not to discuss the differences between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer…
The phrase “will to power” has an origin, and it was coined by Nietzsche as an adaptation of Schopenhauer’s “will to life.”
In my view, power is a means to an end and not an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake. Life, on the other hand, is an end in itself and is an inherent good worth pursuing for its own sake.
It makes sense to ask “Why do you want power?” But if you ask “Why do you want to live,” it seems kinda pointless like asking the wrong question.
This is because living is the reason for everything else that we do: work, get paid, buy food, eat. We fight for better systems because they’re more conducive to life. We might sacrifice our own lives for an ideal that makes life possible or better for others, presumably people we care about, and even then, life is the goal, just not for ourselves.
A will to power requires further justification. A will to life does not.
That’s a fed question.
It would be if the answer weren’t so obvious
You act like they’re doing any of it besides the smug moral solace
No I don’t.
I’m capable of being honest, and judging myself by thr same standards I judge others.
You just assumed that I’m not.
I didn’t “assume” that, it was indicated by the smugness of your keyboard warrior “just do such-and-such, or succumb to doomerism” argument.
No, you’re not getting it:
Yep, I am smug, hence the smug description of being smug.
Meta-smugness.
You’re assuming that I do not count myself amongst being smug.
I do.
Its also not the only of those 3 things I do, see my other comment where you decided to give a pretty good, though mostly off topic explanation of Nietzche vs Schopenhauer, totally missing the part wherr I established being smug is not the only thing that I do.
So if you can be a smug doomer about it while putting off tangible action for an indefinite period while you work on being able to do more, then why can’t everyone else?
I just don’t get the point of criticizing people for not doing the things that you’re also not doing. You’re not the only person with a disability or other socioeconomic disadvantage that might get in the way.
If someone is an able-bodied, white, hetero, cis male with generational wealth, then chances are they don’t care too strongly about changing the status quo. So who was your intended audience exactly?