/lit/ - Literature

>>17487209

>>16545759
Will to power was not just a human matter for Nietzsche, it was an idea he formed in response to the will to survive which was becoming popular after Darwin. It was applied to all life. But I suspect what you're struggling with most of all is a matter of language only, the translation of "power" in the name of his idea. The point is: Ted's power process seems to just be a much narrower version of his idea, which means it is also not as great of an idea.

>>16545763
Not an argument.

>>16516284
>How on the mark do you guys think my interpretation of Will to Power is?
You're close. It isn't metaphysical, but I wouldn't call it merely psychological either, because that limits its scope to the mind, when that wasn't how he applied the idea. Everything is driven by it, much like Schopenhauer's will or Leibniz's supreme substance. It's what forms everything.

>>16516290
Dignity is part of the will to power, it's not antithetical to it.

>>15438296
It's the ontological basis from which he interprets everything. Reading Schopenhauer can help you understand will to power, but you can also understand it just by reading more Nietzsche. Will isn't merely intent; it's force. There are no bodies in the world, but forces, and will to power is THE force from which all forces stem. Think of it this way: "you" and "I" are not so simple as these singular words — we are complex organisms consisting of more parts than we are conscious of, every single property of which is defined by surrounding context, making everything intertwined in some way. The reason for it all, if there is one, as far as Nietzsche could see, is will to power, which also means will to growth.

>>15089420
I don't know, does this sound like egoism to you?

People will tell you that it was just a thought experiment, but that was clearly not true for Nietzsche himself. He very obviously wanted it to be true, and in his notebooks there are attempts at formulating a more concrete and scientifically-backed basis for it.

Basically, there is the "eternal recurrence as thought experiment" and then there's the "eternal recurrence as scientific inevitability." When Nietzsche first posed the idea, it was posed as a thought experiment; he introduces it to the reader as a hypothetical. Suppose it were the case: the way you react tells you whether you have lived properly or not, "properly" as in in accordance with your will to power. You are squandering yourself and living the lie that the church has taught you if you consider such a hypothetical and recoil in disgust, sadness, or shame. Then, there's the idea as scientific inevitability, introduced as such in his latest writings. In a world where everything the Semites have thought up is false, what could be left for the truth? What could life, the universe, be, if there are no subjects, things-in-themselves, beginnings? More and more, the eternal recurrence seems like the only possibility.

>>13345385
Tell me more.

>reads Darwin once

>>11508738
I would recommend his entire bibliography because I love Nietzsche and I find myself learning more about myself every time I read and re-read his works. You can start with The Birth of Tragedy and read him chronologically, including his unfinished Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks and Will to Power. But if you want to get to the heart of the matter, consider: The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morality, Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, and Will to Power in that order. Then you can go back and read his pre-Zarathustra works you missed if you want more insight into the younger Nietzsche's frame of mind and what lead him to his later thoughts, his post-Zarathustra works you missed if you want more Nietzsche to dig into, and Zarathustra if you want to finally tackle the book that achieves the insane balance of all his works in a format that lyrically imitates the structure of the Bible. However you choose to approach his work, I hope you have as fruitful an experience as I have had.

>>11082761
>Instead of coming from a single concept
You people really don't understand the concept of will to power, I gather. If you did, you would realize how everything he wrote correlates to this one concept which he defined as being all that is the world. A concept that he defined as being ALL THAT IS — think about that.

>>11019743
>Not remotely useful
But it contains Nietzsche's most vivid depiction of the world as will to power, among many other great observations. I agree it should be read last, but not remotely useful? Not remotely true.

>>10687884
>>10687915
>We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.
t. Nietzsche BTFO'ing metaphysicists and both you guys.

If you can't understand his eternal recurrence — that the world begins and ends with itself, eternally — then there's no hope for you. Perhaps study psychology as it may help you eventually reach his insight about the world.

>>10220724
It's the Dionysian way. This doesn't mean you have to immediately advocate for all things, like child rape — now that's the silly position.

>>9904053
You've yet to make a well drawn out case as to why an afterlife gives everything value. I'll tell you more straightforwardly why I think it strips value from everything rather than gives.

If there is an afterlife, then isn't it reasonable to ask: "what's it like?"?

You could say we don't and can't know. In which case, why does something I don't and can't know have any bearing on what I do?

If we can know, forgetting the part about there being compelling evidence, then what are the options? It's either a horrid place, a neutral place, or a beautiful place. If it's a horrid place, I don't want to shape anything in my life around it. If it's a neutral place, I still don't want to shape anything around it.

If the afterlife is a beautiful place, the next reasonable question is: "why does this first life exist then?"

If there's no rhyme or reason, then all we do here becomes pointless. Might as well kill yourself and get there faster.

BUT WAIT — there's usually a warning about doing that. If you want your soul to be light enough to measure on the scale fairly, you must live a certain way. You cannot do certain things.

So now, the afterlife is a beautiful place and this place exists to get us there, but some things in this place are forbidden. It's become a glorified waiting room with rules with all things simply paraphernalia; not very amusing. Also doesn't allow you to live the way you'd like; you need to live a certain way, otherwise, fuck off. You are eternally a child here.

There is no room for becoming an adult in this situation. Yet there's so many higher joys in life. Why can't I do them? What kind of hell is this?

"It's the Devil's trickery." That's the next explanation. A fantastic little piece of circular reasoning, that one is. Introduce yet another element that is unfalsifiable, no problem. Still doesn't resolve the issue of this being a glorified waiting room. And thus life becomes rather empty and focused on slaving over the commands of incommunicable forces. So fun.

I would rather life be the ultimate end to itself: in that world, all things are as valuable as you make it. Now that is truly liberating and something I can get down with.

>>8605105
>memory can not be trusted
Next you'll say our perception cannot be trusted. And skepticism of your perception is fine, but you might as well not try and discuss anything then if that's a point you raise in an argument.

Philosophy is analysis of life. The Overman is a philosopher king (not Plato's conception of it, but Nietzsche's). To Nietzsche, the philosopher king, the Overman, loves all of life, life understood as one giant reciprocity of energy (see pic for Nietzsche's fairly vivid description of the reality that the Overman sees). To love only fragments is to love partially which is seen as impossible when knowledge is formed from the deepest wells of philosophy.

>>8388321
Disturbance as in any kind of change at all.

What makes the liquid in a glass wave back and forth, and what makes it STOP waving, is something external to the liquid and glass itself. There is nothing outside of the universe, as per the definition of the universe. So at the level of the universe, if there is any wave (change itself), then the cause of it must be within the universe. It would require another change to make that wave stop; but if ANOTHER change within the universe is required, did the wave really stop, or did it just stop in a particular area of the universe?

Cue Nietzsche's vivid description of the world as a monster of energy, a household with no income or expenses, and life as the will to power itself.

Recommend me some life affirming literature lads. I want to feel eager again.

>>7862060
Have you actually read Will to Power, especially the very last aphorism? It's about the most genuine Nietzsche you'll ever read, and 100% fits with the rest of his books.