Nietzsche's Will to Power

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

Throughout his writings, Nietzsche aims to inform his readers that we as humans can only reach our potential by following our passions and ignoring the flawed ideals of the church. Under the doctrine of the church’s morality, innate passions of its followers must be abolished in order to become proper Christians. By destroying the inner passions of its followers, the church is doing a great disfavor by using morality to rule out nature from their lives.

“As soon as a religion comes to dominate it has as its opponents all those who would have been its first disciples.” Nietzsche was one of the first modern philosophers to rebel against rationalism and when World War I came about, the revolution against religion truly became a legitimate statement. Friedrich Nietzsche strongly believed that many of those that practiced religion were led to the acceptance of slave morality. Religion had always played a fundamental role in society as it sets strict boundaries and standards of what is morally correct and incorrect. However, Nietzsche claims that, “Human nature is always driven by “ ‘the will to power’ ”, but religion will tell one otherwise, saying that one should forbid their bad desires. In Nietzsche’s

Nietzsche starts this second essay by looking at and reviewing the importance of our ability to make and keep promises. To hold yourself and others to a promise means having the need of both a good memory, the ability to remember making said promise and a strong feeling of confidence what will happen next and a long term ability to know you will be able to fulfil said promise. In order for us to make the commitment and have the confidence to do so means that on some level, we must give a feeling and make ourselves into the ideal of becoming in a way predictable, to be able to achieve this we as humans need a set of guideline to follow, certain rules that make this predictability a possibility, the certainty that a set of actions will lead to a set of reactions both internally and externally.

While Nietzsche’s standpoint of the master morality can be viewed in the lifestyle of people today, it is not a morality that need be accepted or strived for as a sense of power or accomplishment in life. The Bible teaches that as we lose our live for Jesus we will find it (Matthew 10:39). Submitting to God is not an act of weakness, rather an honor and gain as we lose ourselves in Him and find our true selves. The Bible says that we were made in God’s image and likeness, and we were given dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). Nietzsche’s master morality appears to be just that, an attempt to gain dominion. Since Nietzsche did not believe in God, which is the way to salvation and eternal life (Romans 10:9), it is safe to assume that he was serving the god of this world and his ways, which have always been to try to copy or be like God (Isaiah 14:13-14). Nietzsche had knowledge about God but decided to turn away from him. Because of this, Romans 1:28 -29 shows that he, among other things would be arrogant, boastful heartless, and invent ways of doing evil, which to me is exactly what his whole master-slave morality portrays. Had Nietzsche just turned from his wicked ways and submitted to the One and only true God, he would have found the peace, love, and true authority with out death.

According to Nietzsche’s assertions in the first two essays of On the Genealogy of Morals, human beings suffer because they have lost the ability to enjoy life to its fullest extent. A significant shift in morals occurred from the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who carried out good deeds with a surplus of energy simply because they could afford to do so, to the predominantly Judeo-Christian era of self-repression. This transition demonstrates a decline in our ability to make sense of our lives and understand our true human purpose. Nietzsche suggests that we have become out of touch with the truth – we are no longer present in our lives. He urges us to recognize the social constraints to which we sometimes unknowingly submit

Because we are so keen on learning, we are disengaged from our experiences, and therefore are not in the right place to understand ourselves (3). The words that are used to define any given concept are not to be taken at face value since the judgment of our moral values depends on their respective time periods and cultural influences, which are subject to change as everything else does. In other words, they are products of the moral projections of people’s values, which often have a multitude of dimensions that surpass the shallow fields of initial interpretation. Consequently, we need to look beyond the surface interpretation of these words by re-interpreting their meanings many times to be able to judge what we believe. As we change with time, our interpretations are subject to change, and our value systems evolve, both preventing us from establishing absolute meaning regarding anything. As a result, we cannot truly understand concepts unless we remove several historical layers from them. Many times throughout his polemic, Nietzsche hints at the necessity of asking a question from “various perspectives” (41). “Understanding the demonstrated purpose or utility of a thing, its form, its organization” is not

German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, is one of the most read, least understood- yet influential thinker who brought forth new questions for many philosophers to follow. There are many accusations and rumors around Nietzsche. In “What Nietzsche Really Said” these accusations and rumors that surrounded Nietzsche are allayed and supported by his impact and influential views. “What Nietzsche really said depends on what one reads and how one interpret what ones reads” thus, the interpretation of these accusations and rumors are either helpful or harmful about Nietzsche. Three helpful rumors about Nietzsche is that he adored power, he was a (pre) postmodernist and argued fallaciously. Although he was apolitical, people believed that his “will

Friedrich Nietzsche’s argument against Christian morality is heavily reliant on a history based (genealogical) argument. The nihilistic tendencies of Christianity are one source of Nietzsche’s antagonism. He uses nihilism and the resulting asceticism to argue heavily in favor of new and reevaluated values for the betterment of human life. Nietzsche’s argument uses history to contest the altruistic story of religion and pointedly examine the negative background of Christianity. This in turn creates a space to tear apart modern morality and promote the growth of Nietzsche’s hierarchical Roman morality. Nietzsche initially appears to have great face validity in his genealogical argument. However, closer analysis of his discussion provokes criticism

I find Nietzsche completely different from the other philosopher. His beliefs are very intriguing. I think he was an unhappy, miserable, and lonely person who hardships had some influence on how he felt about philosophy and life. If he had friends, a close family or even a positive person around him, I believe his philosophy may be different. There are some philosophers that I agreed with and some that I didn’t. His philosophy I found the same. I did not agree with his rejection of religion and God. I believe that religion does not sugar coat anything but teaches us how to truly live life virtuous. Christianity does not keep us from changing our lives for the better. It promotes improvement. It seems he had no faith. I think if he had faith

In contemplating my own beliefs of what is sought as “good” and what is “bad,” I chose to expand my ideas and compare them to Friedrich Nietzsche’s first essay in “On the Genealogy of Morals.” Nietzsche first debunks the ideas of Nietzsche sees two types of morality at play creating these original definitions of good bad and evil, master morality and slave morality. I will also use Nietzsche’s concept of “will to power” to evaluate each of these ideas. Nietzsche believes that the will to power is the force that pushes humankind. To clarify for my readers, I’m looking to separate deontology from virtue ethics to improve my own understanding of good and bad not as what is right or wrong.

In Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche’s appeal to

We judge will to power based on all about overcoming. The best way to overcome will be the most efficient. The greatest amount of power for the least amount of expenditure is what makes something efficient or inefficient. The weighing of sources against others to benefit the most creates efficiency. This is called a healthy will to power. If the will to power to behave in some way that is inefficient, then we have a sick will to power. Nietzsche looks at healthy and sick will to power from the mind, the mind is a large factor in Nietzsche philosophy. To be the healthiest man one must respond to their healthy instincts and when one does not is when a sick will to power comes about. Healthy has a relationship with strong and sick has a relationship with weakness of the body. A Basic principle of healthy expresses itself in dominance. It is a more efficient way of expressing your desire of achieving that desire. When it becomes divergent, perverted, it becomes sick. An example of this is pedophilia. Nietzsche gives another example being, nobles and aristocrats. He classifies nobles as healthy and slaves as sick, places them in different classes. He believes that aristocracy are good and healthy because they had healthy instincts which allowed them to rule unlike

One way to look at the will to power is on a psychological level. As people we have an intrinsic drive for power manifested from our independence and dominance. This is much stronger than a personal will to live. For example, ISIS suicide bomber giving up their lives for some greater cause. [show pic of isis] Nietzsche’s interpretation of the will to power has more to do with the a person's internal being, their power is revealed through their self-mastery rather than the mastery concerned with the general population. With a deeper understanding of the world is always changing around us. This will to power recognizes that change and accepts that anything fixed, such as, religion or science is denying of that will.

In Nietzsche’s examination of the will to truth, he questions the value of this will. Specifically, he wonders why it is truth that we desire instead of “untruth[,] uncertainty[, or] even ignorance[.]” Indeed, philosophers throughout the ages have attempted to investigate the exact nature of truth and construct their own conceptions of truth through rational inquiry (at least in their own minds). Despite the fact that many proposed theories regarding the truth would often contradict and negate each other, there exists one underlying sentiment that all inquisitors will share about truth. That is, the confidence that the truth is worth seeking after, because it is valuable and good. It is however, precisely this unwavering faith in the value of truth that Nietzsche is so wary of. This is why the value of the will to truth is the definitive question for Nietzsche. Instead of uncovering the actual properties of truth, he suggests that the more important task is to discern whether the truth is even worthy of such study.