Friedrich Nietzsche - The Will to Power - A response and Critique - Part 1

Friedrich Nietzsche — The Will to Power A Response and Critique Part 1 I have just finished reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s ‘The Will to Power’ . This book is drawn from his notebooks in which he raises questions and presents his thoughts. It is above all a very clear statement of right wing ideology. It helps to make clear the bases of their thinking. There is no doubt that Nietzsche was a very intelligent man and was able to make some very shrewd observations about human behaviour. In reading his notes I found much that made me think. Needless to say my interpretation is diametrically opposed to that which he seeks to advocate. Early on he writes ‘Christianity, revolution, the abolition of slavery, equality, philanthropy, pacifism, justice and truth — all these big words bear but little relation to reality, they are of little worth except as battle cries and banners, as grand words for something different (indeed for their opposite)’ (Page 28) There is, in this statement a confusion in that he confuses concrete events such as the abolition of slavery with aspirations like justice. All leading politicians use these terms or similar but in their hands they are of little worth unless made concrete and situated in reality. In broad terms, he outlines the difference between my views and his. But context is all important. Concepts, such as justice and truth have to be seen in terms of justice for whom and how truth is assessed. With the exception of Christianity (of which I was once a believer, but no longer) I place value upon all of the other ideas but within my own understanding of what the words imply, the practical outcome of these concepts. Philanthropy being a partial exception because in the society I seek, it would not be a necessary concept. His concept of the ‘three centuries’ (page 65) with the age of aristocratism, upholding the supremacy of reason, the sovereignty of the will (Descartes); the age of feminism, upholding the supremacy of feeling, the sovereignty of the senses (Rousseau); and the age of animalise, upholding the supremacy of the appetite, the supremacy of animality (Schopenhauer) is a simplification and a one sided approach which hides a development and a regression. Nietzsche discusses these ideas but as observations, his view of what each century had as its prevailing idea, but he makes no attempt to suggest the dynamics that led to the change from one to the next. This despite his view that becoming was basic and that being could never be described. Nietzsche’s theme throughout the book is ‘The Will to Power’. In section 274 (page 170) he asks the question ‘What is this will to power on the part of moral values, which has played itself out in three enormous developments on earth?’ The answer he gives is that three corresponding powers lie behind it: ‘1) the instinctive opposition of the herd to the strong, independent men 2) the instinctive opposition of the suffering and unfortunate to the fortunate 3) the instinctive opposition of the mediocre to the exceptional’ In this passage we see the basic elements of what Nietzsche believes. It is simply the fact of power. He does not ask the question ‘Why?’. Throughout the book there is no reference to the economic structure that underlies the whole of society. The concept within Marxism of ‘Base and Superstructure’ is missing. Nietzsche refers to the herd, the suffering, the mediocre, in opposition to what he counts as the elite. His attack here is upon what he considers as the attempt ‘ since Socrates’ to make ‘moral values supreme’ We will see later that ‘power’ is the only quality that he recognises. Those with the power become an elite. At this point he makes no attempt to discuss why this should be or how power is acquired. Nietzsche examines the relationship between consciousness and thinking, feeling and willing. He considers that ‘each event which becomes conscious is a terminal phenomenon, a conclusion, that causes nothing; every successive phenomenon in consciousness is completely atomistic.’ He opposes this with the thought that ‘we have tried to understand the world with the concept that nothing is effective or real, save thinking , feeling and willing’. (Page 285). Later he goes on to say that ‘consciousness extends only so far as it is useful.’ He considers ‘that, without doubt, all our sense perceptions are thoroughly permeated by value judgements (useful, harmful — and consequently pleasant or painful.’ (Page 295). This leads on to the idea that ‘the prohibition on conceptual contradiction is based on a faith that we are able to form concepts, a faith that concepts not only indicate but capture the essence of a thing.’ To this he responds that ‘ logic (like geometry and arithmetic) only pertains to fictitious beings which we have created. Logic is the attempt to comprehend the real world according to an ontological scheme we have postulated, or to put it more accurately to render the world expressible and calculable.’ ( page 301). Nietzsche begins this paragraph with the concept of ‘usefulness’, but the question is ‘ useful to whom?’. Our perceptions/conceptions are based on the ideas of our time. Is not the opposite true, geometry and arithmetic are fictitious beings which arise from our experience of real life. They are useful in, for example, constructing a roof. There is a dynamic relationship between ideas and actions. In this section he condemns idealism, but does not move towards materialism, he moves towards his main philosophy of nihilism. He denies that we can have any knowledge of the real world and the ability of the human mind to move from observation to understanding. Karl Popper put forward the idea that, in science, nothing can actually be proven to be true, only that they have the possibility of being proven untrue. Nietzsche would argue that the concept of truth does not exist. Popper’s position is a better one, although he tends to use this as a way of undermining science rather than recognising the development of science. If in moving from observing to understanding we believe that when we do A the B will follow. This is true but C might happen as well. But we may not see or understand C. Understanding is dynamic. This is the strength of the approach of Hegel and Marx. Hegel’s approach, through the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, as developed by Karl Marx, demonstrates how the evident reality of the Earth (and its position within the universe) can lead to a structure of thought which provides an explanation, though partial, but continually expanding. Nietzsche contrasts the ideas of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ . He considers that becoming and knowledge are exclusive’ (page 301). He notes that ‘if we believe that all is becoming, then knowledge is only possible on the prior basis of a belief in being’ .(Page 302) He goes on to write ‘We should not interpret this compulsion to imagine concepts, species, forms, purposes, and laws — ‘a world of identical causes’ — as if we were able to determine anything about the world of truth, but as a compulsion to arrange for ourselves a world in which we can exist — we therefore create a world which is predictable, simplified, comprehensible, etc for us. This very same compulsion is expressed in the functions of the senses, which support the understanding — through simplification, exaggeration and invention, processes upon which all ‘recognition’, all ability to make oneself understood rests. Our needs have made our senses so specific in operation that the ‘same apparent world’ always returns, and has this acquired semblance of reality’. (Page 303). It is interesting to note that Nietzsche was writing between the time (1861/2) when Maxwell was publishing his equations on electromagnetism which challenged the prevailing Newtonian paradigm which had seemed to unite the basic concepts of time and space and Einstein’s earth shaking ideas of Relativity (1905) which replaced that earlier paradigm with an entirely different approach. These developments, allied to the later development of Quantum Theory, do not suggest that we seek to create a world that is predictable, simplified or comprehensible. However, these developments have led to many practical developments which at least suggest some truth in these ideas. Scribar January 2025