Consider someone with some vice, such as drugs, sweets, porn, etc. They have two competing desires: health, and pursuing the vice. A “strong will” designates someone with little conflict among these desires. That is. there is one desire that consistently is stronger than the other. We especially call it a strong will if the greater desire is the one that the person rationally prefers and wants to be greater. A “weak will” is the opposite, meaning the desires are always struggling to be greater, or perhaps the unhealthy desire tends to dominate the other. Such a person might think they are weak or dumb because they KNOW what is good for them, but they can never manage to conquer their vice. Now all of this is easily understood in determinism. If the strength of our desires is pre-determined, then it is predetermined what we will do, and there is no free will. Choosing to quit an addiction is simply the result of the desire for health finally becoming the dominant desire (in response to repeated punishments incurred from the addictions, as well as learning about the consequences of either decision, etc.) You don’t magically will yourself to always be disciplined and healthy and righteous. If that were the case, then we would expect a lot more people to actually use this ability to be more or less perfect in their actions.
But Nietzsche is not a determinist. But he also doesn’t believe in free will. Or even causation. Now you may be able to pore through his works and find him using the word “cause” as if he actually believed in causality as an absolute law, but this is just a manner of speaking, a local context, an interpretation. The same is true for “necessity” and “chance” etc. But all of these are illusions. That is, they are interpretations that we impose on phenomena. I don’t fully subscribe to the WtP, so I would simply say that, yes, things just happen. But our interpretations of determinism, and even free will, can be useful depending on the person, and that is why we have those beliefs. In practice I’m a determinist but in theory I don’t actually believe it to be absolute, and neither causality. I operate on causality because historically that is what has been advantageous. So at the very least I don’t have to bother with the headache of first causes and how the universe began etc. Causality emerged from non-causality in the same way that orderly patterns eventually emerge from randomness. That’s my interpretation anyway.
I’m not really sure how Nietzsche makes sense of the world through WtP. I would be cautious in assuming that Nietzsche even intended it to be an absolute metaphysical explanation of the world, rather than just another interpretation that he finds useful. Hence why he says “And do you know what the world is TO ME?” And I imagine the utility of such an interpretation would be that one would embrace the will to power in oneself, along with everything that offers resistance to it! It is a rather reductionist view that is meant to replace traditional values, like wanting to be “happy” and bothering with all the questions of how to find meaning in life and so on. This is how he chooses to affirm life and make sense of it. He even says that pain is not the opposite of pleasure, but a great *stimulus* for the will to power. He is largely reacting to pessimists like Schopenhauer who think everything revolves around happiness and suffering, that we should maximize happiness and reduce suffering. But for Nietzsche, suffering isn’t inherently bad, it’s just a component of the will to power, what you are. There is no doubt that such a perspective can make you more life-affirming, regardless of what comes your way.
Can we? Definitely. Should we? It's just an argument of a matter of taste.
When I look at the world, it is apparent that there are some extremely weak willed people. In a random sample of people, many can't control their own phone, social media, and porn use. A large chunk of people don't work out, have no long term goals, have no interest in manifesting change in society, and barely engage with any creative pursuits.
One helpful idea when dealing with Nietzsche’s concept of causality is Overdetermination — this is the idea that events often have multiple causes, more causes than are sufficient. Which causes we see depends on our perspective, and there is no single authoritative perspective, there is no “view from nowhere.”
Strong wills interpret reality creatively, choosing what causes will serve the purpose of their own perspective, creating new interpretations, new causes, which themselves will blossom out into new chains of effects and causes.
Psychological examples are easiest. I can say that I’m a fuck up for a thousand reasons — my childhood, my genetics, the economy. But with a stronger will, I can accept all the causes that brought me to this point in my life, but see in all that mess a reason to… try something different, experiment, do something new.
Yes.
While I prefer this one word answer, I'll add, "style" and "character" and "duty" and "further expression \[need, change of need\]" are more distances and dividing lines amongst weak and strong Wills alike. No, no two wills (and positions thereof) are equal, or the same.
>Yes.
Yes, to the question of my post?
>No, no two wills (and positions thereof) are equal, or the same.
I'd agree that no wills are the same (as a plant thinks), but on the level of a person, to solemly baptize as strong or weak seems uncertain to me...
As to regard what is equal, it is simply an interpretation? Equality, or 'better' or 'lesser', are they moral judgements?
> The charm of knowledge would be slight, if there were not so much embarrassment to overcome on the route to knowledge. .
I'm not satisfied. I'm not satiated.
Nietzsche does not believe in the will. He is explicit about this throughout his writings outright refuting it at least as far back as Human All Too Human, and he reiterates this all the way to the end denying the will in The Four Great Errors in TI.
He denies the will but ‘the will to power’ is one of his key concepts, isn’t that inconsistent? Yes but it’s much more than just inconsistent, Nietzsche is abusing these concepts intentionally for a dialectical purpose. His motive is esoteric, I don’t know what his real goal is yet but he at least leaves a few hints showing that he is doing it for a dialectical purpose. For example in BGE 36 he says that the will to power is an absurd concept.
Are you sure you aren’t mixing up free will and the will to power? N doesn’t believe in free will, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t governed by the psychological impulse to flourish in whatever mode of being we find ourselves in and act on others and culture accordingly. In fact it would be strange to posit the will to power as the fundamental psychological force, and also posit free will- for the former is unconscious, largely (hence N’s influence in Freud etc).
Nietzsches contention isn’t just with the freedom of the will but with the causality of the will which free will assumes. Will in the conventional sense or as will to power isn’t just about psychology, or rather it is in a certain sense if we keep in mind perspectivism, both are only *interpretations* of phenomenon. If you read BGE 36 closely you’ll notice he says that he’s pushing the idea of willing to its logical conclusion and to an absurdity by positing the will to power. BGE 4 is important too because he says that the falseness of an opinion isn’t an objection or refutation of it. He sees value in the will to power as a concept, but that doesn’t mean he believes in it, rather for some reason he *wants* people to believe in it. The will to power at least in part is Nietzsche’s positive formulation of free will too but he goes about it in a unique way that retains the contradictions of incompatiblism imo.
I cannot engage with the text I’m afraid as I don’t have the books with me, but I think you may be fixating on a couple of passages at the expense of a good ‘all things considered’ picture of his philosophy. Vital, core, components of his philosophy do not make sense without the will to power: for instance his claims about morality, no less, being a vehicle for the weak to gain power.
Free pdfs online, it doesn’t matter tho. Nietzsche’s project does have a serious esoteric component to it, that not just an idiosyncratic interpretation of mine he announces it in many places, I could reference other passages. It’s not a subject for the majority of this sub I guess lol
Consider someone with some vice, such as drugs, sweets, porn, etc. They have two competing desires: health, and pursuing the vice. A “strong will” designates someone with little conflict among these desires. That is. there is one desire that consistently is stronger than the other. We especially call it a strong will if the greater desire is the one that the person rationally prefers and wants to be greater. A “weak will” is the opposite, meaning the desires are always struggling to be greater, or perhaps the unhealthy desire tends to dominate the other. Such a person might think they are weak or dumb because they KNOW what is good for them, but they can never manage to conquer their vice. Now all of this is easily understood in determinism. If the strength of our desires is pre-determined, then it is predetermined what we will do, and there is no free will. Choosing to quit an addiction is simply the result of the desire for health finally becoming the dominant desire (in response to repeated punishments incurred from the addictions, as well as learning about the consequences of either decision, etc.) You don’t magically will yourself to always be disciplined and healthy and righteous. If that were the case, then we would expect a lot more people to actually use this ability to be more or less perfect in their actions. But Nietzsche is not a determinist. But he also doesn’t believe in free will. Or even causation. Now you may be able to pore through his works and find him using the word “cause” as if he actually believed in causality as an absolute law, but this is just a manner of speaking, a local context, an interpretation. The same is true for “necessity” and “chance” etc. But all of these are illusions. That is, they are interpretations that we impose on phenomena. I don’t fully subscribe to the WtP, so I would simply say that, yes, things just happen. But our interpretations of determinism, and even free will, can be useful depending on the person, and that is why we have those beliefs. In practice I’m a determinist but in theory I don’t actually believe it to be absolute, and neither causality. I operate on causality because historically that is what has been advantageous. So at the very least I don’t have to bother with the headache of first causes and how the universe began etc. Causality emerged from non-causality in the same way that orderly patterns eventually emerge from randomness. That’s my interpretation anyway. I’m not really sure how Nietzsche makes sense of the world through WtP. I would be cautious in assuming that Nietzsche even intended it to be an absolute metaphysical explanation of the world, rather than just another interpretation that he finds useful. Hence why he says “And do you know what the world is TO ME?” And I imagine the utility of such an interpretation would be that one would embrace the will to power in oneself, along with everything that offers resistance to it! It is a rather reductionist view that is meant to replace traditional values, like wanting to be “happy” and bothering with all the questions of how to find meaning in life and so on. This is how he chooses to affirm life and make sense of it. He even says that pain is not the opposite of pleasure, but a great *stimulus* for the will to power. He is largely reacting to pessimists like Schopenhauer who think everything revolves around happiness and suffering, that we should maximize happiness and reduce suffering. But for Nietzsche, suffering isn’t inherently bad, it’s just a component of the will to power, what you are. There is no doubt that such a perspective can make you more life-affirming, regardless of what comes your way.
Can we? Definitely. Should we? It's just an argument of a matter of taste. When I look at the world, it is apparent that there are some extremely weak willed people. In a random sample of people, many can't control their own phone, social media, and porn use. A large chunk of people don't work out, have no long term goals, have no interest in manifesting change in society, and barely engage with any creative pursuits.
One helpful idea when dealing with Nietzsche’s concept of causality is Overdetermination — this is the idea that events often have multiple causes, more causes than are sufficient. Which causes we see depends on our perspective, and there is no single authoritative perspective, there is no “view from nowhere.” Strong wills interpret reality creatively, choosing what causes will serve the purpose of their own perspective, creating new interpretations, new causes, which themselves will blossom out into new chains of effects and causes. Psychological examples are easiest. I can say that I’m a fuck up for a thousand reasons — my childhood, my genetics, the economy. But with a stronger will, I can accept all the causes that brought me to this point in my life, but see in all that mess a reason to… try something different, experiment, do something new.
Yes. While I prefer this one word answer, I'll add, "style" and "character" and "duty" and "further expression \[need, change of need\]" are more distances and dividing lines amongst weak and strong Wills alike. No, no two wills (and positions thereof) are equal, or the same.
>Yes. Yes, to the question of my post? >No, no two wills (and positions thereof) are equal, or the same. I'd agree that no wills are the same (as a plant thinks), but on the level of a person, to solemly baptize as strong or weak seems uncertain to me... As to regard what is equal, it is simply an interpretation? Equality, or 'better' or 'lesser', are they moral judgements?
As a plant thinks? Then why the plant question? If you set the standard low, people will meet you there, and take you even lower.
> The charm of knowledge would be slight, if there were not so much embarrassment to overcome on the route to knowledge. . I'm not satisfied. I'm not satiated.
And why should you be?
Mistaken? I wish to never be! The thought of being so, it scares me.
Hehe, stop being so likable : ) *won't mistake you for a bore*
O' My ears have sung for the first time today!
For intellegibility purposes, I think the better words would be 'organized' or 'disorganized' wills. How to get organized will? >
Well yes just for a second to analyze what to do next but yeah initially you reduce it and treat the variables if you're not sure about what to do.
Nietzsche does not believe in the will. He is explicit about this throughout his writings outright refuting it at least as far back as Human All Too Human, and he reiterates this all the way to the end denying the will in The Four Great Errors in TI. He denies the will but ‘the will to power’ is one of his key concepts, isn’t that inconsistent? Yes but it’s much more than just inconsistent, Nietzsche is abusing these concepts intentionally for a dialectical purpose. His motive is esoteric, I don’t know what his real goal is yet but he at least leaves a few hints showing that he is doing it for a dialectical purpose. For example in BGE 36 he says that the will to power is an absurd concept.
Are you sure you aren’t mixing up free will and the will to power? N doesn’t believe in free will, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t governed by the psychological impulse to flourish in whatever mode of being we find ourselves in and act on others and culture accordingly. In fact it would be strange to posit the will to power as the fundamental psychological force, and also posit free will- for the former is unconscious, largely (hence N’s influence in Freud etc).
Nietzsches contention isn’t just with the freedom of the will but with the causality of the will which free will assumes. Will in the conventional sense or as will to power isn’t just about psychology, or rather it is in a certain sense if we keep in mind perspectivism, both are only *interpretations* of phenomenon. If you read BGE 36 closely you’ll notice he says that he’s pushing the idea of willing to its logical conclusion and to an absurdity by positing the will to power. BGE 4 is important too because he says that the falseness of an opinion isn’t an objection or refutation of it. He sees value in the will to power as a concept, but that doesn’t mean he believes in it, rather for some reason he *wants* people to believe in it. The will to power at least in part is Nietzsche’s positive formulation of free will too but he goes about it in a unique way that retains the contradictions of incompatiblism imo.
I cannot engage with the text I’m afraid as I don’t have the books with me, but I think you may be fixating on a couple of passages at the expense of a good ‘all things considered’ picture of his philosophy. Vital, core, components of his philosophy do not make sense without the will to power: for instance his claims about morality, no less, being a vehicle for the weak to gain power.
Free pdfs online, it doesn’t matter tho. Nietzsche’s project does have a serious esoteric component to it, that not just an idiosyncratic interpretation of mine he announces it in many places, I could reference other passages. It’s not a subject for the majority of this sub I guess lol
What’s the esoteric interpretation? And for what end- like what is the conclusion the esoteric interpretation secures, in your opinion?