Because Schopenhauer and Nietzsche both talked about the Will to Power does not mean the concept was consolidated or even finished. I hear lots of lecturers talking about Nietzsche but very few dare to continue from where he left off and because of that, the human being is walking to a destination it doesnt fully understand. There is so much talk of human progress but have we really fathomed what Nietzsche was doing or better said, have we worked out where Nietzsche was going. Nietzsche fundamentally believed that we as humans have an ability to reach a psychological height in our existance. Individually we all have that innate desire, Nietzsche called it 'power' but I will challenge that expression and submit that he actually referred to 'reaching potential' in life. The term 'power' suggests tyranny, suppression, domination, but that is NOT what Nietzsche discovered, he discovered an inner ability, an awakening, a discovery. The human being is of divine quality, a supreme attribute in this universe. Despite operating in isolation, each human being is intricately connected on every level of life and existance, therefore dominating others would mean dominating myself, and tyranny toward others is tyranny toward myself. Nietzesche was not limited, he just wasnt finished. His Will to Power represents that natural process of psychological growth to the peak of man's ability, Nietzsche made reference to that peak with his Ubermensche concept. It's a spiritual process of growth, awakening, and realisation which Nietzsche was referring to although he chose not to use any expression which associated itself with a God. The Will to Power is in fact our innate, biological, physiological, and psychological not desire, but NEED to connect our physical realm with our spiritual one. With what aim, to sacrifice who we are in esssence? No, rather to atrain to the Ubermensche level as a human being, to awaken to our divinity. Its a shame this lecturer although very well presented, chose to assume what Nietzsche was actually saying. Simply put - Nietzsche saw the church an authority over our lives, that dictated what we must do, how we must behave, but in actual fact that was an erroneous assumption, had Nietzsche come to see Christianity as an enabler to that supreme super psychological construct characterised by the Ubermensche, then these lectures would be a touch more complete and actually take us somewhere more afield than the pleasant convenient garden at our doorstep, it would take us to where Nietzsche himself was going.
Thank you for for shedding some light on this content.. honestly reading Nietzche's books didn't make a lot of sense to me but this makes it more comprehensible
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="419">6:59</a> He tells us that the greatest moment that we can experience is the moment of great contempt, when we feel disgust for our own happiness, our own virtue, our own reason. And in that one sentence he repudiates the utilitarians, the deontologists, and the virtue ethicists. Because we have felt for so long that happiness should justify our existence. If I can just achieve some standard of happiness or power, or reasonableness or virtue, then I have arrived. Nietzsche ultimately thinks that when we establish any value above the value of human existence and its continuation, we are destroying ourselves. So, he calls for, a so called transvaluation of values.
NZ connected many points together further than most of us. But that doesn’t means he’s right. We need to approach from point of unknown first. Knowing what you don’t know like he said we don’t know ourself. The game of life is rigged in a way the uncontrollable numbers of participants are competing for limited resource. You must kill first to survive as the first priority. But you can’t do it alone. So you must rely on companionship because nature requires it. So you have compassion against the backdrop of suffering. When you pity other with less ability, is it possible that you actually pity yourself? That you don’t want to be in a weak position. So compassion is actually a form of self preservation. May be NZ did not see that.
"life feeds on death. creation always involves destruction. we must be open to death experience, willing to die many times to become more than we were yesterday - self-surpassing ('over-man')"
Perhaps you should consider that Nietzsche understood the word "schlecht" (=bad) in the original sense, namely as "common, modest, mediocre" instead of evil or bad as it is meant nowadays. The former meaning has survived in the term "schlicht" (note: i instead if e) which means in fact plain or modest.
