Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 3:40 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 2:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 5:12 am
But worse than that: Nietzsche interpreted "the life force" as being expressed as "the will to power," not morality. So to "affirm" your own "life force" by going "beyond good and evil" and becoming an "overman," seizing and exercising power over others, was the only point of life Nietzsche could imagine. In other words, his philosophy affirms the totalitarian impulse and amorality.

no, no, no

Nietzsche never suggested seizing and exercising power over others

Freddy was about overcoming oneself

-Imp

Oh? I don't believe so. As I read Nietzsche, I see his claim as very broad, ubiquitous, and pertaining to several realms: the psychological, the natural world, the social and the political. In fact, I'm unaware of any such restricted meaning as you suggest here. Nietzsche, I think, really thought he'd invented a sort of universal key to the struggle inherent in "life" itself, construed in the broadest possible terms.

This is, in fact, the way readers of Nietzsche have taken it. For example, all sources I've been able to find explain "will to power" as an assumed universal explanation for human motivation, and associate it with the imposition of the will of the individual on the external world, whether natural, social or political. He saw it as irrational, rather than rational and cognitive, and characteristic of all biological life, not of human beings alone. For example, he has Zarathustra say: “Wherever I found a living thing, I found there the will to power.” And Lawrence Hatab, a Nietzsche scholar, insists that the concept is by no means "apolitical" and is rather "an agonistic structure of social life." (words his, emphasis mine) There are many more such sources, you'll find.

In later practice of Nietzsche's theories, we also find this broader biological, social and political reading. We need not refer merely to, say, Hitler, who definitely saw the Nietzschean proposal as quite literal and political; we could consider people like Foucault, who took it as a universal explantion of human social motivation, and thus sought both to indict society as sexually oppressive and to de-moralize sexuality completely. Whatever we guess that Nietzsche might have intended, he failed to put any suitable safeguards on his theorizing. He opened a pandora's box of resentment, conflict and hostility that has never since been restricted to "overcoming oneself" in some merely personal or psychological struggle.

I suggest that with Nietzsche, you have a situation like that with the Islamists and their "jihad." For public approval, they'll tell you that "jihad" means "struggle within the self," or something similarly benign, not "shooting people at the Bataclan," or "flying planes into buildings," or "marching children into minefields." But the reality is that they know "jihad" encompasses all these things, being a much larger concept. And likewise with Nietzsche's "will to power." That's not restricted to some inner, purely-personal struggle. That's a larger concept, not narrowed to the self, and thus too easy to take in a larger and more external way.

However, the countercase is surely yours to make. If you know of some safeguards that limit Nietzsche's claims to the merely psychological, then I'd be interested in seeing them. I haven't found them in my readings of him. It would certainly be helpful for us to have such things, as it would perhaps give us a rationale for resisting the some of the worst implications of Nietzsche's theorizing, as they have been subsequently practiced.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 9:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 3:40 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 2:21 pm

no, no, no

Nietzsche never suggested seizing and exercising power over others

Freddy was about overcoming oneself

-Imp

Oh? I don't believe so. As I read Nietzsche, I see his claim as very broad, ubiquitous, and pertaining to several realms: the psychological, the natural world, the social and the political. In fact, I'm unaware of any such restricted meaning as you suggest here. Nietzsche, I think, really thought he'd invented a sort of universal key to the struggle inherent in "life" itself, construed in the broadest possible terms.

This is, in fact, the way readers of Nietzsche have taken it. For example, all sources I've been able to find explain "will to power" as an assumed universal explanation for human motivation, and associate it with the imposition of the will of the individual on the external world, whether natural, social or political. He saw it as irrational, rather than rational and cognitive, and characteristic of all biological life, not of human beings alone. For example, he has Zarathustra say: “Wherever I found a living thing, I found there the will to power.” And Lawrence Hatab, a Nietzsche scholar, insists that the concept is by no means "apolitical" and is rather "an agonistic structure of social life." (words his, emphasis mine) There are many more such sources, you'll find.

In later practice of Nietzsche's theories, we also find this broader biological, social and political reading. We need not refer merely to, say, Hitler, who definitely saw the Nietzschean proposal as quite literal and political; we could consider people like Foucault, who took it as a universal explantion of human social motivation, and thus sought both to indict society as sexually oppressive and to de-moralize sexuality completely. Whatever we guess that Nietzsche might have intended, he failed to put any suitable safeguards on his theorizing. He opened a pandora's box of resentment, conflict and hostility that has never since been restricted to "overcoming oneself" in some merely personal or psychological struggle.

I suggest that with Nietzsche, you have a situation like that with the Islamists and their "jihad." For public approval, they'll tell you that "jihad" means "struggle within the self," or something similarly benign, not "shooting people at the Bataclan," or "flying planes into buildings," or "marching children into minefields." But the reality is that they know "jihad" encompasses all these things, being a much larger concept. And likewise with Nietzsche's "will to power." That's not restricted to some inner, purely-personal struggle. That's a larger concept, not narrowed to the self, and thus too easy to take in a larger and more external way.

However, the countercase is surely yours to make. If you know of some safeguards that limit Nietzsche's claims to the merely psychological, then I'd be interested in seeing them. I haven't found them in my readings of him. It would certainly be helpful for us to have such things, as it would perhaps give us a rationale for resisting the some of the worst implications of Nietzsche's theorizing, as they have been subsequently practiced.

his sister and the Nazis bastardized his works

So this is simply a myth. It is not the case that Theism is a major cause of wars, or even a significant cause of wars.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 10:18 pm

So this is simply a myth. It is not the case that Theism is a major cause of wars, or even a significant cause of wars.

The history is quite clear.

Yes, it is. So it's hard to imagine how the myths about "religious wars" have persisted, except they serve the myth-making purpose of the enemies of Theism. There is simply not adequate historical support for such an allegation. War is the product of other forces, and supremely, of the Atheist ideology of Marxism. That's statistically clear.

But why would we give Atheism a free pass?

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 10:35 pm

Yes, it is. So it's hard to imagine how the myths about "religious wars" have persisted, except they serve the myth-making purpose of the enemies of Theism. There is simply not adequate historical support for such an allegation. War is the product of other forces, and supremely, of the Atheist ideology of Marxism. That's statistically clear.

Funny how you manage to find atheists responsible for wars but not theists.

But why would we give Atheism a free pass?

Sounds like you are giving theists a free pass.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 11:02 pm Your post was whitewash nonsense. You made up 8%.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 11:12 pm A Catholic and a Protestant fight a piece of land not big enough to bury the dead and you will say it's a war about land.

An atheist and a skeptic fight over the same land and you will say that atheists and skeptics are violent and immoral. That atheism is the cause.

But in making my statements, I was generous to your side, actually

I didn't raise the issue of war

And while you're at it, can you answer Henry's question? Or at least acknowledge that he asked it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 11:21 pm And while you're at it, can you answer Henry's question? Or at least acknowledge that he asked it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 10:17 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 9:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 3:40 pm
Oh? I don't believe so. As I read Nietzsche, I see his claim as very broad, ubiquitous, and pertaining to several realms: the psychological, the natural world, the social and the political. In fact, I'm unaware of any such restricted meaning as you suggest here. Nietzsche, I think, really thought he'd invented a sort of universal key to the struggle inherent in "life" itself, construed in the broadest possible terms.

This is, in fact, the way readers of Nietzsche have taken it. For example, all sources I've been able to find explain "will to power" as an assumed universal explanation for human motivation, and associate it with the imposition of the will of the individual on the external world, whether natural, social or political. He saw it as irrational, rather than rational and cognitive, and characteristic of all biological life, not of human beings alone. For example, he has Zarathustra say: “Wherever I found a living thing, I found there the will to power.” And Lawrence Hatab, a Nietzsche scholar, insists that the concept is by no means "apolitical" and is rather "an agonistic structure of social life." (words his, emphasis mine) There are many more such sources, you'll find.

In later practice of Nietzsche's theories, we also find this broader biological, social and political reading. We need not refer merely to, say, Hitler, who definitely saw the Nietzschean proposal as quite literal and political; we could consider people like Foucault, who took it as a universal explantion of human social motivation, and thus sought both to indict society as sexually oppressive and to de-moralize sexuality completely. Whatever we guess that Nietzsche might have intended, he failed to put any suitable safeguards on his theorizing. He opened a pandora's box of resentment, conflict and hostility that has never since been restricted to "overcoming oneself" in some merely personal or psychological struggle.

I suggest that with Nietzsche, you have a situation like that with the Islamists and their "jihad." For public approval, they'll tell you that "jihad" means "struggle within the self," or something similarly benign, not "shooting people at the Bataclan," or "flying planes into buildings," or "marching children into minefields." But the reality is that they know "jihad" encompasses all these things, being a much larger concept. And likewise with Nietzsche's "will to power." That's not restricted to some inner, purely-personal struggle. That's a larger concept, not narrowed to the self, and thus too easy to take in a larger and more external way.

However, the countercase is surely yours to make. If you know of some safeguards that limit Nietzsche's claims to the merely psychological, then I'd be interested in seeing them. I haven't found them in my readings of him. It would certainly be helpful for us to have such things, as it would perhaps give us a rationale for resisting the some of the worst implications of Nietzsche's theorizing, as they have been subsequently practiced.

his sister and the Nazis bastardized his works

Yes, that's established. However, it's not the case that they grossly misrepresented him, except they downplayed his distaste for National Socialism. What doesn't seem to have changed is his portrayal of "will to power," which was wide open to such an interpretation -- that is, unless you've found something that most Nietzsche scholars are still unaware of. For they continue to read his "will to power" as including the biological, the social and the political, not merely the personal and psychological.

And if you have, I'm sure the world of Nietzsche scholarship would be interested.

Have you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 1:16 amBut worse than that: Nietzsche interpreted "the life force" as being expressed as "the will to power," not morality. So to "affirm" your own "life force" by going "beyond good and evil" and becoming an "overman," seizing and exercising power over others, was the only point of life Nietzsche could imagine. In other words, his philosophy affirms the totalitarian impulse and amorality.