Assess Nietzsche’s idea of the “Will to Power” Essay

Through come to the fore his works, Friedrich Nietzsche develops a fundamental foundation which forms detonate of in each his other concepts this is his entrust to strength. Being very much the centre of his philosophy, it is an extremely complex concept that has connections to all areas of his ideas, be it ethics, metaphysics or aesthetics. However, it does have some(prenominal) flaws. First of all, it goes against Nietzsches perspectivism and outright rejection of metaphysics. Suggesting that an unlesst metaphysical concept much(prenominal) as the pull up stakes to mogul exists is tantamount to admitting failure at the offset printing hurdle. Nietzsche never addresses this issue.In addition, the exit to Power as the sole part of life itself seems entirely counter-intuitive. Is it non clear that other things affect our fantasy than the desire to overcome all others? He never really explains how the go forth to Power is meant to be the ultimate moral goal, either. His philosophy here go victim to the fact-value gap. Just because life is the Will to Power, it does not necessarily go with that we ought to follow it as our hardly ambition. The Will to Power is complicated hike up by Nietzsches automatic division of people into masters and slaves. Clearly, the Will to Power toilet not apply to the slaves, as that would be a pition in terms. This make waters it extremely difficult to justify that the Will to Power in fact is life itself for everyone.The Will to Power is notoriously gravid to define on itself, as it is inherently defined by both(prenominal) its causal principles and the effect of the doctrine itself. Nietzsche describes, in Beyond Good and Evil, a hierarchy of drives which are the core of human existence. Each of these drives is attempting to gain control condition over the other. This intercourseally constituted structure is the Will to Power. Likewise, every living macrocosm is imposing their Will to Power onto others . From this, it would follow that all actions are, in themselves, products of the Will to Power, be it procreation, alimentation or any action at all. No other variables affect our judgment. This, I disagree with. How can Nietzsche explain actions performed against your indispensable instinct? Yes, I can admit that (in Nietzsches view) it is morally wrong, still there is no categorical barrier which stops me from breaking those morals. Clearly, then, all actions cannot be derived from the Will to Power.Nietzsche introduces the Will to Power primarily in contrary to the old Christian values of compassion and piety, which he believes must be reversed. According to Nietzsche, Christians reject the Will to Power and suppress it completely, which in itself seems to contradict his definition of it. Nevertheless, he posits the Will to Power as the ultimate hold back of any moral system, not just Christianity. All systems of morals are a sign-language for the Will to Power. From these, we can assume that Nietzsche believes that because the Will to Power is life itself, then obviously all morals must excessively be the Will to Power. This is erroneous.Hume famously illustrated the fact-value gap many hundreds of years sooner Nietzsches time, yet he still seems unable to escape it. It does not follow that because life is the Will to Power, we ought to follow it blindly. Nietzsche never addresses how this is meant to work as an ultimate moral goal he assumes that life would lead us there. Realistically, I dont think this is reasonable. Quite clearly, our instincts do not always tell us to follow the Will to Power religiously, veritable(a) in the animal kingdom (where perhaps we observe a more pure form of the instinct) where creatures have shown to be compassionate and willing to submit.draft from the Will to Power, Nietzsche posits his philosophical ideas. These are positive expressions of the Will to Power the rejection of objectiveness the New Philosopher wh o is the embodiment of the Will to Power the doctrine of Eternal extradite (which is the ultimate embrace of the Will to Power) and his ultimate master/slave conjunction where the WtP governs all and keeps the strong strong (whilst sluttishening the fainthearted). I accept that these can generally be inferred from the Will to Power if it is valid, but it is this conditional that causes occupations. Maudemarie Clark argued that Nietzsches whole philosophy was based on this If, but she also points out that this implies causality something which Nietzsche radically objects to several times. This picks him out as the dogmatic philosopher he spends the first part of Beyond Good and Evil criticising merely intercommunicate his own view onto others. The Will to Power, again, seems absurd.Leading on from this is Nietzsche conception of metaphysics and epistemology. Nietzsche detests the metaphysicists (Plato and the Christians in particular) and argues that they are denying the Will to Power, and, therefore, life itself, by looking for answers in other realm. They are, he states, blinded by a Will to Truth. However, isnt the Will to Power a metaphysical concept? I believe that Nietzsches description of it as all-encompassing makes this a distinct possibility.Not only does this undermine the Will to Power, but also, once again, Nietzsches entire philosophical doctrine. Another of Nietzsches problems with past philosophers, which is connected to the above point, is their obsession with an objective right. He says that all we have which we can call truths are our meter reading of our own perspectives. So how can the Will to Power be anything but an interpretation from Nietzsches perspective? It cannot possibly be objective this is against his epistemic principles It is impossible to accept this. However, another interesting point by Clark is her hypothesis of omniperspectivism, where there can be a theoretical objective truth if one was to see a situation fro m all possible perspectives. This would decease the Will to Power a theoretical grounding, but still fails to fix it as the practical device which Nietzsche advocates it as.One final point to make is about Nietzsches morality master and slave morality. He suggests that in a perfect society, the strong would live for their own existence only, exploiting the weak not only for their benefit, but also as an exertion of power. This solves the problem of the relative term power (as power only exists in relation to something less or more powerful). But, if life itself was the Will to Power, shouldnt the weak have it as well? Wouldnt they be living agree to the same rules? This illustrates clearly the practical problem of the Will to Power, even in Nietzsches own morality.These points I believe show that the Will to Power, although stir theoretically, is absurd and impossible in practice. Nietzsche does not offer enough comment for us to accept it as a serious philosophical concept, a nd it lastly displays the weaknesses of Nietzsches entire philosophy.