The Will to Power

[Morality Games]

According to (my interpretation of) Nietzchean metaphysics, the will to power is a fundamental force permeating all existence. It drives bodies to fully express their natures in their relations with one another, that is, to actively engage in an eternal (?) power-struggle within the dynamic of objects called ‘the world’. Through this process, bodies gradually merge with other bodies, acquiring newer, stronger forms, or if unable to assimilate or be assimilated, coordinate their movements with that of other bodies. In this way, the will to power is the underlying essence of reality, the mechanism which causes the activity of being.

As far as metaphysical ideas go, the will to power is a fine one, worthy of contemplation, partially because it explains the motions of physics without recourse to another reality. Nonetheless, we must never mistake it for a scientific idea. As far as our experience goes, the best we can say about the will to power is that it appears logically consistent with the general estimations of the sciences.

[stardust]

Interesting. Define "will to power" though.

[Jack]

Quote by: stardust Interesting. Define "will to power" though.

Several selections from Nietzsche's writings that might shed some light on the concept can be found here: http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche/nwill.html

and here: The Will to Power

[Morality Games]

Two excerpts from my philosophy notebook that I think function as pretty good descriptions of the ontology of the will to power.

A Battle of Wills between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer Nietzsche's 'will to power' must not be understood as a force underlying reality. That would contradict his assertion that the world is nothing but the will to power and bring him uncomfortably close to the metaphysics of Schopenhauer, who he opposed. Instead, the world must be considered the body of the will, nature as a cosmic display of power, and the particulars within it as expressions of strength. Schopenhauer's 'will to live' is presented as more primary than the world, whereas the will to power is presented as the world itself, with nothing being more primary than that. A key tenet of Nietzsche's philosophy is saying, "Yes," to being in the world (and therefore to the will to power), welcoming the desires intrinsic to the existential condition as opportunities to set goals and grow stronger through the effort spent on reaching them, whereas Schopenhauer denies the world, claiming the 'unending' cycle of desires accompanying life is a burden (and thereby rejecting the will to live).

The Will to Power at Work All of the particulars in existence, from planets to living organisms, are 'powers' under Nietzchean metaphysics. As powers, each is compelled to expand its 'size', use of this term being partially figurative with reference to living organisms. Physical activity is not the work of anything behind the world, but rather, it is the world and the world's movement is its own drive. The consequence of this compulsion to grow is the breaking and re-arrangement of objects to better suit the requirements of one's power drive (including one's own self and self-identity if need be). The 'energies' discharged during this process either strengthen an object (by increasing its capability to acquire and exercise power) or weaken it (by exhausting too little or too much power at the wrong time, and in doing so reversing its growth). In effect, the essence of reality is an ongoing power struggle, with 'self-preservation' as a secondary concern (if it is a concern at all). The metaphysics of the will to power are not that hard to understand. It is the psychology which frustrates and makes people reject its usefulness as a truth, but if one gives it a chance, there is both beauty and merit in Nietzsche's assessments of the mind and soul. Everything is will to power, so the words 'my power' and 'myself' represent the same object.

It suddenly occurs to me I used the term 'underlying' in my first post, inappropriate considering the differentiation my first excerpt makes between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. That was badly written. You should disregard it.

[stardust]

*disregards first post*

[loser]

I think it's pretty safe to disregard both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and banal philosophical soliloquies.

The will to power...the will to live...bah!

It's the will to won't...or is it want?

[grandpa]

Quote by: loser I think it's pretty safe to disregard both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and banal philosophical soliloquies. The will to power...

Well, hell and high water shall come before I stop my philosophical soliloquies. I hope they're not too banal, though.

Grandpa h.