| Blogs > zulu_nation8 |
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
1.) Do you think it exists in all animals or just man? Why? 2.) Does master morality refer to any morality of the dominant or the specific morality of the pre-christian noble classes, the blonde beast? 3.) Can I describe the will to power as the fundamental, or rather only discernible nature of man in Nietzsche's philosophy? In other words, can I call it human nature? Thanks   | ||
|
ilovezil
United States4143 Posts
If you can provide a source of information, I'd like to learn. | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21247 Posts
1. Nietzsche put forth the will-to-power as something that naturally distinguished the strong from the weak, so I say yes, it is present in animals as well. You have in an animal community an "alpha male" who is "stronger" than all the rest. You have competition and natural selection which selects for the stronger, so yes, I say the will-to-power is present, though not necessarily in the same form as in humans where conscious thought plays a role. 2. Any morality I think. 3. Doesn't Nietzsche himself present it as something natural? So I'd say yes, you can call it human nature... | ||
|
ilovezil
United States4143 Posts
On March 12 2009 10:32 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Google for Nietzsche's writings, they're all available in English online. 1. Nietzsche put forth the will-to-power as something that naturally distinguished the strong from the weak, so I say yes, it is present in animals as well. You have in an animal community an "alpha male" who is "stronger" than all the rest. You have competition and natural selection which selects for the stronger, so yes, I say the will-to-power is present, though not necessarily in the same form as in humans where conscious thought plays a role. 2. Any morality I think. 3. Doesn't Nietzsche himself present it as something natural? So I'd say yes, you can call it human nature... Thank you. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21247 Posts
| ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
 Someone mentioned N is "hard to understand". Thats cuz like all philosophers he follows in a tradition. Unfortunetly, if you haven't read plato, kant, or Schopenhauer then its hard to place N. | ||
|
cunninglinguists
United States925 Posts
plato.stanford.edu http://www.iep.utm.edu/ there are several podcasts i used to listen to dedicated to philosophical questions, including philosophy bites, the philosophy podcast etc. p.s. neitzsche is fuckin' crazy, his shit is HARD to understand. only guy crazier is zizek. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
ilovezil
United States4143 Posts
| ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
1)In the Gay Science N writes that it is only “in intellectual beings that pleasure, displeasure, and will are to be found”. Animals do not desire power nor do they feel power increasing even if they dominate their peers since they are void of consciousness and memory. On of my favorite N works is On the Use and Abuse of History for Life. Read that it contains probably my favorite quote in the N cannon + Show Spoiler + Observe the herd which is grazing beside you. It does not know what yesterday or today is. It springs around, eats, rests, digests, jumps up again, and so from morning to night and from day to day, with its likes and dislikes closely tied to the peg of the moment, and thus is neither melancholy nor weary. To witness this is hard for man, because he boasts to himself that his human condition is better than the beast’s and yet looks with jealousy at its happiness. For he wishes only to live like the beast, neither weary nor in pain, and yet he wants it in vain, because he does not will it as the animal does. One day the man demands of the beast: “Why do you not talk to me about your happiness and only gaze at me?” The beast wants to answer, too, and say: “That comes about because I always immediately forget what I wanted to say.” But by then the beast has already forgotten this reply and remains silent, so that the man wonders on once more. 2) Master and Slave moralites are distinguished in that MM judges actions based on their consequences and whether they are beneficial or detrimental. So, what is helpful and increases the feeling of power is good. What decreases this feeling of power is bad. SM judges actions based on whether or not their intention is good or evil. It is reactionary and passive morality as opposed to MM. SM morality makes those who espouse it victims of oppressors ("evil doers"). MM can be any morality that has the aforementioned characteristics . For further reading consult Genealogy of Morals, Beyond good and evil, and The Antichrist (this and Twilight of the Idols are the most inspirational of N's works for me). 3)I would argue that the will to power is only discernible by the weak in the strong. In other words, if we are all overmen then morality would disappear since their would be no need for such absurdities since we would be busy doing and not making ourselves victims. For N, the fight between these two moralities happens over and over again in history. In BeyondG&E, N declares that the liberal and democratic trend in the west is the "collective degeneration of man". This is because democracy seeks to make everyone equal and with the same "rights". The slave morality takes revenge of the powerful and diverse by condemning their actions as evil (evil for christians is a negative concept which is defined by what is NOT good). He argues in the Antichrist that Democracy, like Christianity, seeks to remove the active, will to power from men and to bring them all together...as under slave morality of the good and the evil. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21247 Posts
Onward the river now carrieth your boat: it must carry it. A small matter if the rough wave foameth and angrily resisteth its keel! It is not the river that is your danger and the end of your good and evil, ye wisest ones: but that Will itself, the Will to Power- the unexhausted, procreating life-will. But that ye may understand my gospel of good and evil, for that purpose will I tell you my gospel of life, and of the nature of all living things. Wherever I found a living thing, there found I Will to Power; and even in the will of the servant found I the will to be master. | ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
On March 12 2009 11:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: 1) However, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche expands the "will to power" to encompass all things: Yes, you are correct. The will to power is present in all healthy creatures. N even goes as far to say it is their Nature (when in fact it is but an accident of their behavior), however, the will to power (as opposed to Schopenhauer's Will to Existence) as an idea and something "good" only exists for us men. I guess I should have been clearer. Animals do not have a sensible will. We, who depend on the faculty of understanding and its concepts, give them one so that we may describe their behavior. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
On March 12 2009 11:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I ask these questions because I have to write a paper which traces will-to-power primarily in Genealogy of Morals. I picked the topic pretty randomly and well, it's not easy. explain the essay question again please. traces WtP? only in the genealogy? since the WtP has different meaning in the different works...and as a whole. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it seems that the wtp is a purely phenomenological feature, much like color perception except without definite biological basis. though it is said to be features of material beings, it is actualized as particular phenomenological episodes, and then drawn into the narrative of life and existence. asking whether animals have the wtp is like asking whether bats see red in the same phenomenological impression as we do, or rather, as you do. though bats have the biological mechanism of color perception, the phenomenological understanding of that perception is not necessarily the same. in the same way, action or whatever material condition that supposedly reflect the wtp in humans do not necessarily bring the same phenomenology to other things, like animals, zombies or algorithms. we have here an other mind problem. what are we really doing when we speak of other consciousnesses, attributing to other things wills and personalities, and ultimately, what are willful agents. are they as material as doors and windows, or are they just stories, or perhaps both. in any case, the question is complex because animals are thought to have a different mental capacity, thus the relation between their behavior and their phenomenology is not clear, or rather, not as comfortably acknowledged. we have no problems with attributing reasons and wills to people, but we do have problems when we do it to animals. however, there is simply no way to know. at the very least, any claim to know whether animals have this complex ideological conception of self etc will have to produce a corresponding neuropsychology, and that task is impossible. how do you interview dogs and ants about their reasons to do what they do? it is well and fine to analyze ideas in relation to other ideas, but this airy metaphysics is far too ambitious. i dont see why there is a compelling reason to make the metaphysical leap. here we'll have to dig deeper into the nature of language and thought, but that is for another day. at some point, you have to take people to task and not merely cite them to state what they believe. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
As for his stand on will and the ubermensh, I think it was about overcoming social morals and ethics and being your own master, basically doing what you think is right and screw everyone else. As was mentioned by CS, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra he appears to say that all life has a will to power. I'm not too sure what Nietzsche has to say about human nature and will (though from the previous reference one might assume that everything including humans has the will to power) but his ideas about the ubermensh and slave morality I think hints that the true will could be obtained by no less than a superman, and as such is probably not a natural trait in all humans. Gotta give props to my humanities class this semester yo! | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On March 12 2009 11:16 omninmo wrote: "I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty - I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind." (from The Twilight of the Idols, 1888) 1)In the Gay Science N writes that it is only “in intellectual beings that pleasure, displeasure, and will are to be found”. Animals do not desire power nor do they feel power increasing even if they dominate their peers since they are void of consciousness and memory. On of my favorite N works is On the Use and Abuse of History for Life. Read that it contains probably my favorite quote in the N cannon + Show Spoiler + Observe the herd which is grazing beside you. It does not know what yesterday or today is. It springs around, eats, rests, digests, jumps up again, and so from morning to night and from day to day, with its likes and dislikes closely tied to the peg of the moment, and thus is neither melancholy nor weary. To witness this is hard for man, because he boasts to himself that his human condition is better than the beast’s and yet looks with jealousy at its happiness. For he wishes only to live like the beast, neither weary nor in pain, and yet he wants it in vain, because he does not will it as the animal does. One day the man demands of the beast: “Why do you not talk to me about your happiness and only gaze at me?” The beast wants to answer, too, and say: “That comes about because I always immediately forget what I wanted to say.” But by then the beast has already forgotten this reply and remains silent, so that the man wonders on once more. First off thanks for the quote. It's excellent. I'll break my response into two parts. I ask because of two passages, both in Genealogy of Morals. The first is in section 13 of the first essay, where N uses the relationship between birds of prey and lambs to introduce the concept of the illusion of the subject, the "doer" behind the deed. I'll type out the entire quote, "To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength, it should not be a desire to overcome, a desire to throw down, a desire to become master, a thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs, is just as absurd as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength." In his description of the birds of prey, N uses similar terms to describe their dominant instinct, which I'll assume is the will to power, as the phrases he uses to describe the noble class in the previous sections. After reading your quote, I can think of two possible explanations. The first, and what I believe right now to be the more likely interpretation, is that the example of the birds of prey and lambs is merely a metaphor. One should not deduct that the will to power applies to all animals because of this metaphor, because its purpose is to introduce a concept, the illusion of the subject, which only exists in man. The second explanation I'll actually scrap because as I'm thinking of it right now it becomes obviously wrong. As I understand N's "conscience", it appears only in the civilized man, and its original purpose is to stabilize society, or maintain power structures, in N's own words, "to breed an animal with the right to make promises." It would then follow I guess, that conscience, and the autonomous man, is required for the acting out of the will. Because an animal without the memory to make promises, without an understanding of causality, can only dominate, but not will. On March 12 2009 11:16 omninmo wrote: 2) Master and Slave moralites are distinguished in that MM judges actions based on their consequences and whether they are beneficial or detrimental. So, what is helpful and increases the feeling of power is good. What decreases this feeling of power is bad. SM judges actions based on whether or not their intention is good or evil. It is reactionary and passive morality as opposed to MM. SM morality makes those who espouse it victims of oppressors ("evil doers"). MM can be any morality that has the aforementioned characteristics . For further reading consult Genealogy of Morals, Beyond good and evil, and The Antichrist (this and Twilight of the Idols are the most inspirational of N's works for me). Agreed. So then after the judeo-christian ressentiment "won," their revaluation of all values meant that the previous SM they practiced became MM correct? Thus MM does not have any defining characteristics other than it strengthens the dominants' feeling of power? And likewise for SM, in that its only trait is that it's reactionary to the MM? On March 12 2009 11:16 omninmo wrote: 3)I would argue that the will to power is only discernible by the weak in the strong. In other words, if we are all overmen then morality would disappear since their would be no need for such absurdities since we would be busy doing and not making ourselves victims. For N, the fight between these two moralities happens over and over again in history. In BeyondG&E, N declares that the liberal and democratic trend in the west is the "collective degeneration of man". This is because democracy seeks to make everyone equal and with the same "rights". The slave morality takes revenge of the powerful and diverse by condemning their actions as evil (evil for christians is a negative concept which is defined by what is NOT good). He argues in the Antichrist that Democracy, like Christianity, seeks to remove the active, will to power from men and to bring them all together...as under slave morality of the good and the evil. So in your understanding, N sees the will to power as becoming unnecessary one day when we have overcome the struggle of man to become ubermenschs? But doesn't the will have to disappear first in order for man to create perfect values? Or is the purpose of the overman to create values which encompasses power? Or have I misunderstood the concept of the overman? I understand N's thoughts about Christianity a little differently. I would interpret his genealogy as that, the reactive, tame values of Christianity do not seek to remove the will to power, but that as you mentioned earlier, they have seeked to make men tame, and to instill guilt and the bad conscience, merely for the purposes of strengthening Christianity's own power. So in that sense it is just another expression of the will to power, it seeks to remove I guess activity, and the previous noble moralities of the Romans, through the ascetic ideal. But the ascetic ideal is undoubtedly still another expression of the will to power as N talks about in the third essay of Genealogy of Morals. The purpose and effect of Christianity after no longer being dominated is redefining all values, the values they previously held were of the herd instinct and reactionary, so it just happens that they are the predominant values of today. I don't think it has an active intent to remove the will to power, rather in the opposite, the ascetic ideals heighten the will to power inside those practice it. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
So when I first read this passage I thought this was a hint that the will to power applies to all animals, but as I reread the passage I can see how it can interpreted in that the will only applies to man since there is no active and reactive forces in animals because like you quoted, animals have no memory. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On March 12 2009 11:44 omninmo wrote: explain the essay question again please. traces WtP? only in the genealogy? since the WtP has different meaning in the different works...and as a whole. No I mean, I chose the topic, and it was basically, "to investigate the "will to power"'. And since the only N book we read in class and the only one I have read is the Genealogy of Morals, it will be the primary text from which I get my quotes and whatnot from. My professor recommended me to look at some mystical cambridge edition of the posthumous "will to power" but I have yet to understand what he means, the only thing cambridge I can find is the cambridge companion. The other editions of "will to power" are N's sister's which ofc I'll avoid and the other one by the two dudes. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On March 12 2009 12:10 oneofthem wrote: this is all rather airy. who really cares what nietzsche thinks about wtp existing in animals if there is no argument behind it to support the assertion. it seems that the wtp is a purely phenomenological feature, much like color perception except without definite biological basis. though it is said to be features of material beings, it is actualized as particular phenomenological episodes, and then drawn into the narrative of life and existence. asking whether animals have the wtp is like asking whether bats see red in the same phenomenological impression as we do, or rather, as you do. though bats have the biological mechanism of color perception, the phenomenological understanding of that perception is not necessarily the same. in the same way, action or whatever material condition that supposedly reflect the wtp in humans do not necessarily bring the same phenomenology to other things, like animals, zombies or algorithms. we have here an other mind problem. what are we really doing when we speak of other consciousnesses, attributing to other things wills and personalities, and ultimately, what are willful agents. are they as material as doors and windows, or are they just stories, or perhaps both. in any case, the question is complex because animals are thought to have a different mental capacity, thus the relation between their behavior and their phenomenology is not clear, or rather, not as comfortably acknowledged. we have no problems with attributing reasons and wills to people, but we do have problems when we do it to animals. however, there is simply no way to know. at the very least, any claim to know whether animals have this complex ideological conception of self etc will have to produce a corresponding neuropsychology, and that task is impossible. how do you interview dogs and ants about their reasons to do what they do? it is well and fine to analyze ideas in relation to other ideas, but this airy metaphysics is far too ambitious. i dont see why there is a compelling reason to make the metaphysical leap. here we'll have to dig deeper into the nature of language and thought, but that is for another day. at some point, you have to take people to task and not merely cite them to state what they believe. Thing is I wasn't sure if the will to power is a phenomenological concept like a temporal interpretation of Dasein so therefore I asked if it goes beyond humans. I'm now led to believe that it is not, its rather a quite anti-phenomenological concept in that the will to power precedes all interpretation so Heidegger can fuck off. It's not a mind problem, again the will precedes interpretation. | ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs EffOrt
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
