|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:02 am
I've always enjoyed the work of nietzsche, and this is a principle I feel strongly about that the everyday person isn't familiar with (a lot of the time even when they've been through philosophy courses >_>).
Nietzsche argued, more or less, that the motivation behind every life-force in the cosmos is the will to power. Now what this means is that every action a life-form executes is ultimately only performed to give that creature more power. Now power, in the human sense, takes a lot of forms. You have money, influence, and social hierarchies. But in nietzsche's model, EVERYTHING involves power ( except art, it is worth mentioning ). Every single activity you can involve yourself in, is only performed to gain more power.
What do you guys think about this? Do you agree, disagree, or have an alternate explanation?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:53 pm
Maeph I've always enjoyed the work of nietzsche, and this is a principle I feel strongly about that the everyday person isn't familiar with (a lot of the time even when they've been through philosophy courses >_>). Nietzsche argued, more or less, that the motivation behind every life-force in the cosmos is the will to power. Now what this means is that every action a life-form executes is ultimately only performed to give that creature more power. Now power, in the human sense, takes a lot of forms. You have money, influence, and social hierarchies. But in nietzsche's model, EVERYTHING involves power ( except art, it is worth mentioning ). Every single activity you can involve yourself in, is only performed to gain more power. What do you guys think about this? Do you agree, disagree, or have an alternate explanation? I came with a much different interpretation. The will to power is the will to power to control things. This will to control trumps the will of self-preservation (as is evident by the concept of suicide). For this reason, Art is not an exception as it is still a form of an attempt to exert control. Control over one's perspective, emotions, of one's interpretation of the world. Everything is centered around control with no exceptions. It is therefore also derived from this philosophy that chaos is simply a fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:44 am
Contagious Cure Maeph I've always enjoyed the work of nietzsche, and this is a principle I feel strongly about that the everyday person isn't familiar with (a lot of the time even when they've been through philosophy courses >_>). Nietzsche argued, more or less, that the motivation behind every life-force in the cosmos is the will to power. Now what this means is that every action a life-form executes is ultimately only performed to give that creature more power. Now power, in the human sense, takes a lot of forms. You have money, influence, and social hierarchies. But in nietzsche's model, EVERYTHING involves power ( except art, it is worth mentioning ). Every single activity you can involve yourself in, is only performed to gain more power. What do you guys think about this? Do you agree, disagree, or have an alternate explanation? I came with a much different interpretation. The will to power is the will to power to control things. This will to control trumps the will of self-preservation (as is evident by the concept of suicide). For this reason, Art is not an exception as it is still a form of an attempt to exert control. Control over one's perspective, emotions, of one's interpretation of the world. Everything is centered around control with no exceptions. It is therefore also derived from this philosophy that chaos is simply a fallacy. I think you could argue the concept of art both ways. Each seems valid. Though yes, you are demonstrating power over said materials to create whatever artwork it is, it is still control with no meaning. There is no purpose, no ambition, it's simply meaningless entertainment. I forget whether nietzsche himself thought art to be exempt. I remember earlier in his career, when he had a much different philosophy, he though of art as exempt from everyday rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:24 pm
Maeph Contagious Cure Maeph I've always enjoyed the work of nietzsche, and this is a principle I feel strongly about that the everyday person isn't familiar with (a lot of the time even when they've been through philosophy courses >_>). Nietzsche argued, more or less, that the motivation behind every life-force in the cosmos is the will to power. Now what this means is that every action a life-form executes is ultimately only performed to give that creature more power. Now power, in the human sense, takes a lot of forms. You have money, influence, and social hierarchies. But in nietzsche's model, EVERYTHING involves power ( except art, it is worth mentioning ). Every single activity you can involve yourself in, is only performed to gain more power. What do you guys think about this? Do you agree, disagree, or have an alternate explanation? I came with a much different interpretation. The will to power is the will to power to control things. This will to control trumps the will of self-preservation (as is evident by the concept of suicide). For this reason, Art is not an exception as it is still a form of an attempt to exert control. Control over one's perspective, emotions, of one's interpretation of the world. Everything is centered around control with no exceptions. It is therefore also derived from this philosophy that chaos is simply a fallacy. I think you could argue the concept of art both ways. Each seems valid. Though yes, you are demonstrating power over said materials to create whatever artwork it is, it is still control with no meaning. There is no purpose, no ambition, it's simply meaningless entertainment. I forget whether nietzsche himself thought art to be exempt. I remember earlier in his career, when he had a much different philosophy, he though of art as exempt from everyday rules. Perhaps he did, but philosophy is something that is built on, so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:29 pm
Someone on a thread in the ED submitted to me a link proving that in Nietzsche's philosophy, art is not exempt from the law of will-to-power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 7:32 pm
Maeph Someone on a thread in the ED submitted to me a link proving that in Nietzsche's philosophy, art is not exempt from the law of will-to-power. Thought so, I remember he even said inanimate and non-living objects are derived from the natural power to will, so I was quite skeptical when you said art would be exempt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:59 pm
In retrospect, I realize I had confused nietzsche's philosophy with that of schopenhauer. He believes in the will-to-live, and in his art is exempt. (:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:33 pm
I'd be comfortable saying most actions are, but there's exceptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sand From The Future(GTD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:02 am
Sand From The Future(GTD) I'd be comfortable saying most actions are, but there's exceptions. Such as?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 5:18 pm
Umm... I dunno, I think that if you accept that energy to do things, like the energy that you get from eating, is power then I'm on the fence, but I'm leaning to agreeing.. I think that there are people are, for the most part, power hungry. But I also think that there are those people that do things that do not benefit them in any way for other people, so I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:35 pm
I love this guy. I own a couple of his books and such. I do slightly agree with his theory that we exist because we will it, but also there might be more to it. Not saying he is totally wrong, but I'm not saying he is totally right either. In several of his books, one being "Why I am so Wise?", he states that there are no divine being or superior force guiding us. He states this like many athiests do. How I see it, they haven't been able to prove if there is or isn't a divine diety so one can't just assume there isn't because it hasn't been proven there is. *shrugs* Well, just my 2 cents on it. But yeah...his work is awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
