Thoughts on Nietzshe's "will to power"?

[Smith-Hughes]

Nietzsche observes that the "will to power" is the essence of life and is the defining characteristic of life. From this follows his philosophy in large part. How does Objectivism respond to the observation or perception that all things essentially are seeking power for the preservation and growth of their existence?

[BurgessLau]

Nietzsche observes that the "will to power" is the essence of life and is the defining characteristic of life.  From this follows his philosophy in large part.  How does Objectivism respond to the observation or perception that all things essentially are seeking power for the preservation and growth of their existence?

How did Nietzsche define "power"? (And in which of his works?)

Did he actually say "all things" are seeking power? Like rocks?

[Smith-Hughes]

I will have to verify where Nietzsche spoke about "will to power" so I am not absolutely sure what the proper definition of power would be, though I believe that he was speaking metaphorically.

I also think that he applied his belief to everything such as rocks, waves etc.

In the meantime, I hope others have some thoughts on this subject.

[Hal]

I will have to verify where Nietzsche spoke about "will to power"

Beyond Good and Evil is his most prolonged discussion of it afaik, although the idea is implicitly present in most of his work.

[y_feldblum]

Good to know that "the essence of life" and "the defining characteristic of life" pertain to "rocks, waves etc."

[Smith-Hughes]

A quote i have found in my research this morning are:

"Spencer says,'life itself has been defined as an increasingly efficient inner adaptation to external circumstances' but this is to misunderstand the essence of life, its will to power; we overlook the prime importance which the spontaneous , aggresive, expansive, re-interpreting, re-directing, and formative powers have , which adaptation follows only when they have had their effect" Nietzsche

[acapier]

What I gathered from a class on Existentialism, and some reading of "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff is that Nietzche's "Will to Power" theory was that it is man's nature to dominate everything (including nature and other men). "Power", in this sense, translates to "Dominance" or "Control".

It should be self-evident, by this, what Objectivism would say about it. In fact, I liken the character of Gail Wynand in "The Fountainhead" to that type of philosophy; read the parts of his days growing up in Hell's Kitchen and you'll discover Nietzche's "Will to Power".

[Tom Robinson]

What I gathered from a class on Existentialism, and some reading of "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff is that Nietzche's "Will to Power" theory was that it is man's nature to dominate everything (including nature and other men).  "Power", in this sense, translates to "Dominance" or "Control".

It should be self-evident, by this, what Objectivism would say about it.  In fact, I liken the character of Gail Wynand in "The Fountainhead" to that type of philosophy; read the parts of his days growing up in Hell's Kitchen and you'll discover Nietzche's "Will to Power".

Yes, Wynand is very much the model of Nietzcheanism (if we can use that term in relation to such an unsystematic thinker). From her Journals we know that Rand even once considered inserting passages from Nietzsche's work at the beginning of each section of The Fountainhead.

In this connection it is worth considering the following paragraphs from Barbara Branden’s 1962 Rand-authorized biographical essay, “Who Is Ayn Rand”:

“In her readings in philosophy, she discovered Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra. Because Nietzsche revered the. heroic in man, because he defended individualism and despised altruism, she thought that she had found a spiritual ally. But she was made uneasy by the implication that a great man would seek power, not over nature, but over other men; to rule, she thought, was an unworthy occupation for a hero; a hero would not degrade himself by spending his life enslaving others.

“As she read further in Nietzsche's writings, her hope gradually changed to disappointment. And when she discovered, in The Birth of Tragedy, an open denunciation of reason, she knew that any value she might find in his works could be only partial and selective; she saw that in their basic premises, Nietzsche and she were philosophical opposites.”

The essay implies that the discovery and rejection of Nietzsche took place during Rand’s university years. However, it is clear from the original, 1936 British edition of We the Living, that Kira, if we can take her as the author’s alter ego, is philosophically closer to Nietzsche than Locke. In an exchange with Andrei, Kira calls the masses "fuel to be burned for those who deserve it." Good thing Whittaker Chambers never got hold of that edition!

[Hal]

Yes, Wynand is very much the model of Nietzcheanism

No, not at all. He certainly represents the popularized version of Nietzsche's philosophy, but it is a grossly mistaken interpretation. Nietzsche never claimed that nobility involved the active seeking of power over others - instead he held that the relationship between the strong and the weak was one of complete apathy.

Nietzsche, like Rand, believed that there was an order of rank amongst humans in the sense that they were certainly not created equal. However he, unlike her, thought that the concept of 'equal rights for all' was a modern folly invented and perpetuated by the weak in order to persude the strong to leave them alone. Nietzsche believed (probably correctly), that the historical pattern was for the superior men in a culture to show respect and acknowlege rights when dealing with each other, while treating the inferior however they pleased - it was not that they actively sought power over the weak like Wynand did, but rather that there was no reason whatsoever for them care about those who made up the lower ranks of society. A direct analogy would be the relation between humans and animals within Objectivism. Claiming that Wynand is a Nietzschean hero would be like claiming that someone who didnt believe in animal rights secretly wished to spend their entire life hunting and killing animals for pleasure. A more proper example of someone fitting the "Nietzsche model" would be one of the people he repeatedly praised in his writings, for instance Napolean or Goethe.

Also, Nietzsche's approach to morality was generally descriptive, not normative. When he spoke about things such as slave/master morality he was normally giving his interpretation of human history and how our current ethical beliefs began and evolved, rather than saying how people 'should' act.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Hal

[BurgessLau]

The essay implies that the discovery and rejection of Nietzsche took place during Rand’s university years.  However, it is clear from the original, 1936 British edition of We the Living, that Kira, if we can take her as the author’s alter ego, is philosophically closer to Nietzsche than Locke.  In an exchange with Andrei, Kira calls the masses "fuel to be burned for those who deserve it."

Where did Kira say that? Which Part and which chapter? (I assume the page numbers are different, but you might supply that too.)

[Hal]

Where did Kira say that? Which Part and which chapter? (I assume the page numbers are different, but you might supply that too.)

Page 88 according to google (which gave me this link). This was mentioned in Sciabarra's "Russian Radical" book (which is where I read about it), so I assume he checked the source. The full quote is:

“Don’t you know, he asked, “that we can’t sacrifice the millions for the sake of the few?”

“You can! You must. When those few are the best. Deny the best the right to the top -- and you have no best left. What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it? What is the people but millions of puny, shrivelled, helpless souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words of others put into their mildewed brains? And for those you would sacrifice the few who know life, who are life? I loathe your ideals because I know no worse injustice than justice for all. Because men are not born equal and I don’t see why one should want to make them equal. And because I loathe most of them.”

Edited March 8, 2005 by Hal

[Tom Robinson]

Where did Kira say that? Which Part and which chapter? (I assume the page numbers are different, but you might supply that too.)

Ayn Rand, We the Living (London: Cassel and Company, 1936), pp. 88-89.

[Smith-Hughes]

"... the really fundamental instinct of life which aims at the expansion of power ... The great and small struggle always revolves around superiority, around growth and expansion, around power -- in accordance with the will to power which is the will of life."

(The Gay Science, Book V, section 349)

I have seen a pattern in Nietzsche's writing and it is that the will to power lies within every drive of every person; each drive strives to become master over the other drives, strives for power so that it might be expressed--when a drive becomes master, we obey, and thus life is a continuum of commanding and obeying. "Life is will to power," says Nietzsche, and it is precisely because the will to power is life, the force of life, the ongoing inexhaustible spirit of life, as a fire that never ceases to burn.

I am still not sure how this lines up with Objecivism in an epistomological way.

Let's get to the facts !!

[punk]

Nietzsche's Will to Power (WTP from now on) is not intended as part of a philosophical statement of how one ought to live, but rather as an observation of how people live in fact.

WTP is really a modification of Schopenhauer's "Will to Life" (WTL). The WTL would probably be expressed these days as "survival instinct". That is it is the very deep animalian impulse to live simply for the sake of living further.

Nietzsche felt this didn't really account for things well enough and modified it to WTP, that is that creatures didn't merely act to live, but would also strive to subject other things simply for the sake of subjecting other things. So the WTP goes beyond WTL in saying living things act not only to continue living but also to control the world around them as much as they are able *even if it doesn't really promote mere survival*.

The herdmen (basically everyone but the overmen) live their WTP in the most brutish and direct way. The overmen redirect the WTP and live it in a more refined way.

Nietzsche's philosophy is largely about this redirection.

Nietzsche intended WTP as a scientic theory of psychology, and it should be taken in the way one would take Freud's theory of the id, ego, superego, or whatever psychological theory you will. You are free to disagree with it as you would Freud but it should be grounds of empirical evidence.

Edited March 8, 2005 by punk

[BurgessLau]

Ayn Rand, We the Living (London: Cassel and Company, 1936), pp. 88-89.

Thank you. That refers to an earlier edition than I have (which is the one, I assume, that Ayn Rand revised).

What is the part number? What is the chapter number in that edition?

Knowing that will allow me to look at the new, replacement passage, in the revised edition, assuming that the parts and chapters remain the same and assuming that Ayn Rand's revision was only of particular passages, not the overall structure.

Edited March 8, 2005 by BurgessLau

[BurgessLau]

I am still not sure how this lines up with Objecivism in an epistomological way.

Why do you see this issue as an epistemological one?

[the tortured one]

I am studying Nietzsche right now in my philosophy class, and the idea that his WTP theorem means that man wants to dominate others is really only half of the story.

There are layers to the WTP theorem,

1)The first and lowest form of WTP, this is the will to dominate others. This is primarily where the foundations of Hitlerism comes from. Keep in mind that Hitler's philosophy was a patchwork of philosophies, which actually took more from Richard Wagner than Nietzsche.

2)The second level is the will to self-domination in terms of impulses, and the desire to suppress emotion.

3) the third and highest level is the will to self-domination in terms of art, or more accuratly, self-actualization.

essentially, Nietzsche broke the WTP into three hierarchal powers, the lowest WTP is the desire of brutes to dominate others. the middle WTP is the desire of the common man to control his animal instincts, the highest WTP is the desire of the superman to dominate his self-actualizational needs.

Nietzsche is a rather complex fellow.

as for Ms. Rand's differences with Nietzsche, I am going to take a trip over to my Library and try to find a book that I read which gives solid philosophical differences between Rand and Nietzsche. The guy wrote an accurate book, in relation to Brandenism and Libertarianism. For the life of me, I can't remember the title or name, but with the help of the school index, I should be able to find it

EDIT: after going over some old posts, I found the title of the book I was thinking about: "THE IDEAS OF AYN RAND" by Ronald Merrill

Edited March 9, 2005 by the tortured one

[punk]

In many ways (and with some reservations) one can profitably treat many aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy as a kind of secularized (Lutheran) Christianity.

In this way of looking at it WTP can be productively replaced with the (more Christian) expression "Original Sin".

The Overman (which in Nietzsche is normally singular) is clearly some sort of Messianic figure who will help free people from "Original Sin".

Despite all the nonsense built up around him, Nietzsche is really something of a Victorian-era prude, who is concerned that morality in European society is simply a facade. His goal is to save morality against increasing decadence (which he identified with precursors of what was to become National Socialism in Germany). In this vein the Overman is really the first genuinely moral person.

On the other hand, he is a materialist who sees WTP is a fundamental biological impulse, so it cannot be simply washed away as "Original Sin" can be in the Christian view. As a result WTP becomes a more complicated thing than Sin. He has to take the view (put in Christian terms) that sin itself must also be saved.

[Bold Standard]

I think I might see what you're getting at with this, but it seems at best a little misleading in that "to save morality" was certainly not Nietche's *explicit* goal. You can hardly read any given two passages in _Beyond Good and Evil_ without finding a renunciation of the whole concept of morality as such- ie, ANY system of morality.

Nietche was "against" philisophical "system building", and therefore against morality. And on top of that he found all existing systems of morality to be superficial.

Now, as to his "amoralism".. was that a moral system in itself? Perhaps a "higher" moral system for a higher type of man? That's possibly up for speculation, but I'd be hard pressed to find a verse in Nietche that would offer an unequivocal answer.. (to any question regarding the specific philosophy of Nietche).

His goal is to save morality against increasing decadence (which he identified with precursors of what was to become National Socialism in Germany).  In this vein the Overman is really the first genuinely moral person.

[punk]

The key phrase in Nietzsche is "Revaluation of all Values" (Umwertung aller Werte). This was to be the title of the book he was writing when he had his breakdown (He only finished the first of four parts "Der Antichrist", usually translated as "The Antichrist" though "The Antichristian" is arguably better).

Nietzsche felt that existing moralities (which are all he uses the word "morality" to refer to) were failures that were really an expression of WTP in its worst sense. Through an examination of existing values he hoped to show how and why they were wrong valuations, and there was an entirely different valuation of things to be realized.

The "morality" of the Overman is then the morality constructed from this new valuation of things. Nietzsche never talks about this explicitly, but the new values were to be the values of the Overman.

Nietzsche's great fear is a world with no values, that is to say nihilism. He sees the existing European moral order as leading inevitably to nihilism (or rather that it is already fundamentally nihilistic and no one but him has realized this). The staving off of nihilism (that is to save values and morals) is what the messianic Overman represents to him.

[Bold Standard]

Nietzsche felt that existing moralities (which are all he uses the word "morality" to refer to) were failures that were really an expression of WTP in its worst sense.

"Worst" according to which morality?

The "morality" of the Overman is then the morality constructed from this new valuation of things.  Nietzsche never talks about this explicitly, but the new values were to be the values of the Overman.

I know Neitche's style is different, but am I wrong for having some difficulty in ascribing a philosopher's entire conception of morality to something he "never talks about ... explicitly"?

[punk]

"Worst" according to which morality?

I know Neitche's style is different, but am I wrong for having some difficulty in ascribing a philosopher's entire conception of morality to something he "never talks about ... explicitly"?

"Worst" according to critical observation of the world around him and its consequences in that world.

Nietzsche didn't want there to be any "Nietzscheans" in the world. He didn't want any followers. He says so explicitly in "Also Sprach Zarathustra". So, he spends most of his time critiquing the existing order. He feels that when you understand the critique fully, then you will be free from that order and able to act independently. He didn't want people to go from being enslaved to one order to being enslaved by some system he created for them. The clearest statement he makes about this is:

"I've found my way, now you find yours."

Or maybe clearer:

"Become what you are."

This train of thought existed all through the middle period. By the late period he seemed to think more needed to be said about what the new set of values should be, hence the project of "Umwertung aller Werte". Unfortunately his breakdown prevented him from going into details. I think in the late period Nietzsche realized just how misunderstood he was going to be, and that most people were going to take his philosophy as a jumping off point into some sort of extreme immoralism of the sort Nationial Socialism was.

Nietzsche is often perhaps nearer a poet than a philosopher in the conventional Western sense. He expects the reader to bring something of themself to the project. He would be disgusted at the idea of someone taking their entire way of thought as on a platter from someone else.

[Ariana Binetta]

People probably really do have a "will to power" or natural desire to control and dominate other people. This can be seen in business, sports, art, etc. Parents and children naturally (but not necessarily viciously) compete, as do husbands and wives, and even true friends. But tyranny isn't all that fun. Ultimately it's more satisfying to control and dominate nature and your self. This is also more difficult.

[the tortured one]

Nietzsche's will to power theorem is remarkably similar to Ayn Rand's theorem about happiness as a virtue. His highest form of happinesss was self-actualization, which is achieving for your own sake. What we call self-actualization, Ayn Rand called selfishness.

In THE GAY SCIENCE Nietzsche specifically puts down the ideas that Altruism is a virtue and the idea that nobility is anything but selfishness. Being an Objectivist, I find that I have much in common with Nietzsche.

After studying his Will to Power theorem, I confronted my professor about it, and she liked the parallel I drew between that and this quote by Ayn Rand: "A creative mind is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others."

A popular example that is consistent with both Nietzsche and Rand is the Mozart/Beethoven contribution to music. Both men created wonderful music, not out of a desire to beat the other or to attain wealth or fame, but out of a sense of self-actualization. As a result, music as a whole has been inexortably enriched due to the contributions of the two men. Sure we can argue about which was the better musician, but that would be trivial.

[Tom Robinson]

Thank you. That refers to an earlier edition than I have (which is the one, I assume, that Ayn Rand revised).

What is the part number? What is the chapter number in that edition?

Knowing that will allow me to look at the new, replacement passage, in the revised edition, assuming that the parts and chapters remain the same and assuming that Ayn Rand's revision was only of particular passages, not the overall structure.

BurgessLau, the section number in the novel is "VI." If you want me to e-mail for more specific information, let me know