I always like Schopenhauer mainly cause of a saying he said “That human life must be some kind of mistake is sufficiently proved by the simple observation that man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy; that their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition in which he is only given over to boredom . . .” I always loved that
This quote by Cus D’Amato on the nature of overcoming really helped me understand the will to power. “When a fighter gains the ability to keep his head up thereby exposing his chin in effort to maintain clear view of the opponent, he overcomes his nature for survival. He overcomes himself. Whereas his will to win, transcends his will to survive.” In my book I’m working on I figured out a cool narrative to dive into the will in relation to the spirit of creativity and architecture of the soul. Essentially, I’m walking through the park and I see Darwin and Duchenne studying a male bower bird building a decorative nest to attract a mate. When the bowerbird steps back to take in his work. They pose the question - What is the difference between the bower bird assessing the design of his nest, and Michelangelo staring at a block of marble before striking it with his chisel? What is Michelangelo’s intellect striving to express that separates him from the bower bird? 🤓 I don’t get into Nietzsche vs Schopenhauer. I just muse on Neoplatonism. I’m trying to walk before I run lol
That's a really interesting question. Have you thought of the answer? I don't see a major difference between the two insofar as they both are driven by the same drives. One is just more sophisticated than the other (perhaps that's your point?). The same impulses are at work in Michelangelo and the bower bird but have been sublimated in Michelangelo. To put it metaphysically, the will is imposing form on itself, or rather, the will is expressing itself; to answer your question. This is fundamentally what Nietzsche was trying to say with his analysis of the Apollonian and the Dionysian drives. Apollonian (form) imposes meaning and structure on the intrinsically meaningless and formless; Dionysian. The interplay between the two is the display of creation and destruction which we could call the 'aesthetic.' This was just a comparison. Putting it in this format makes it more appealing on TH-cam. Again its all just the will overcoming itself and giving birth to new forms.
@@TheMachiavellians Thanks man. Oh I have thought about it. Truth is, I have no clue and tbh in my entire project I don’t bite off more than I can chew. This idea is the second scene of book 1 and I really just use it to introduce humanistic themes. So I put Neech to the side and just hit some Neoplatonic levels to get the ball rolling. It’s a quick and dirty 2 page dialogue. Nothing major. Man is the measure type stuff. However, I do get into the psychology and metaphysics of chaos and order later on. The goal of the project is to just finalize something so I can launch the pod and discuss it all with anyone who digs my ideas and has something to contribute to the convo. I would consider myself an artist. I basically provide an interplay between Greco Roman thought, eastern philosophy, psychology, existentialism, art history, poetry, comedy and psychedelics. So my interests are super broad but my themes are tight as a whistle at this point. Anywho. Would be honored if you cracked open my project and I will let you know when it’s finalized.
as far as i can tell, your understanding of Hitlers will is based entirely on what his enemies say about his will.im sure you realize that the victors wright the history books. obviously they paint themselves in a positive even heroic light while making the enemy out to be a monster
My point was only that we aren't all motivated to become tyrants. People interpret Nietzsche's will to power too narrowly and I was drawing attention to that.
@@TheMachiavellians fair enough. I love your channel and appreciate the content. I felt the need to say something because it's a subject that is near and dear to my heart. The way the Germans were treated before during and after the war is incomprehensibly horrific
I suspect mankind is divided in some proportion between will to life and will to power, according to different personality types. I myself tend toward will to power, and am constantly striving to grow and dealing with the frustration that comes with that. There are others who have advised me to just sustain and take it easy and can't seem to understand my point of view that there is no sustaining and one is either growing or decaying at any moment. These people I think would agree that the fundamental drive is will to life, but myself along with other people I've met would say it's will to power. I just think it's a personality thing, although in my experience I've run into people who follow a will to power far less frequently. Idk how accurate this is, but it seems like employees tend toward will to life and entrepreneurs tend toward will to power.
NOOOO!!! Shop-an-hour says it is all about will to life! Neat-she says that the living is already there, so it's all about will to powa. Huge difference broda!
It's wrong to say consciousness is not explored in nietzche's philosophy, Nietzche says consciousness is conscious conceptually articulated content(like a poet who consciously writes a poem ) and unconscious is unconsciously articulated content (only difference is known here just like when you look at some chinese letters and you can say its letters and cannot know it's meaning)
I always like Schopenhauer mainly cause of a saying he said “That human life must be some kind of mistake is sufficiently proved by the simple observation that man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy; that their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition in which he is only given over to boredom . . .” I always loved that
There's definitely some truth to that.
Great channel. Keep it up
This quote by Cus D’Amato on the nature of overcoming really helped me understand the will to power.
“When a fighter gains the ability to keep his head up thereby exposing his chin in effort to maintain clear view of the opponent, he overcomes his nature for survival. He overcomes himself. Whereas his will to win, transcends his will to survive.”
In my book I’m working on I figured out a cool narrative to dive into the will in relation to the spirit of creativity and architecture of the soul.
Essentially, I’m walking through the park and I see Darwin and Duchenne studying a male bower bird building a decorative nest to attract a mate.
When the bowerbird steps back to take in his work. They pose the question - What is the difference between the bower bird assessing the design of his nest, and Michelangelo staring at a block of marble before striking it with his chisel?
What is Michelangelo’s intellect striving to express that separates him from the bower bird? 🤓
I don’t get into Nietzsche vs Schopenhauer. I just muse on Neoplatonism. I’m trying to walk before I run lol
That's a really interesting question. Have you thought of the answer? I don't see a major difference between the two insofar as they both are driven by the same drives. One is just more sophisticated than the other (perhaps that's your point?). The same impulses are at work in Michelangelo and the bower bird but have been sublimated in Michelangelo. To put it metaphysically, the will is imposing form on itself, or rather, the will is expressing itself; to answer your question. This is fundamentally what Nietzsche was trying to say with his analysis of the Apollonian and the Dionysian drives. Apollonian (form) imposes meaning and structure on the intrinsically meaningless and formless; Dionysian. The interplay between the two is the display of creation and destruction which we could call the 'aesthetic.'
This was just a comparison. Putting it in this format makes it more appealing on TH-cam. Again its all just the will overcoming itself and giving birth to new forms.
@@TheMachiavellians
Thanks man. Oh I have thought about it. Truth is, I have no clue and tbh in my entire project I don’t bite off more than I can chew.
This idea is the second scene of book 1 and I really just use it to introduce humanistic themes. So I put Neech to the side and just hit some Neoplatonic levels to get the ball rolling.
It’s a quick and dirty 2 page dialogue. Nothing major. Man is the measure type stuff.
However, I do get into the psychology and metaphysics of chaos and order later on.
The goal of the project is to just finalize something so I can launch the pod and discuss it all with anyone who digs my ideas and has something to contribute to the convo.
I would consider myself an artist. I basically provide an interplay between Greco Roman thought, eastern philosophy, psychology, existentialism, art history, poetry, comedy and psychedelics. So my interests are super broad but my themes are tight as a whistle at this point.
Anywho. Would be honored if you cracked open my project and I will let you know when it’s finalized.
Will to power
Nietzsche all the way.
Glad to see other fellow Indian st this channel
Do you acknowledge how true what Schopenhauer says just to reject the bulk of it because it isn't empowering? Me too.
@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 Haha
Nice, thanks.
as far as i can tell, your understanding of Hitlers will is based entirely on what his enemies say about his will.im sure you realize that the victors wright the history books. obviously they paint themselves in a positive even heroic light while making the enemy out to be a monster
My point was only that we aren't all motivated to become tyrants. People interpret Nietzsche's will to power too narrowly and I was drawing attention to that.
@@TheMachiavellians fair enough. I love your channel and appreciate the content. I felt the need to say something because it's a subject that is near and dear to my heart. The way the Germans were treated before during and after the war is incomprehensibly horrific
25:11 Isn’t t this Jacobi lol?
Amazing content!
I dunno, I think Schopenhauer is more right overall here.
I suspect mankind is divided in some proportion between will to life and will to power, according to different personality types.
I myself tend toward will to power, and am constantly striving to grow and dealing with the frustration that comes with that.
There are others who have advised me to just sustain and take it easy and can't seem to understand my point of view that there is no sustaining and one is either growing or decaying at any moment.
These people I think would agree that the fundamental drive is will to life, but myself along with other people I've met would say it's will to power.
I just think it's a personality thing, although in my experience I've run into people who follow a will to power far less frequently.
Idk how accurate this is, but it seems like employees tend toward will to life and entrepreneurs tend toward will to power.
IT'S♾️IMMORTAL🗣️SOUL🪽POWER 🎺🎸✨🎶!
I mean.. it is very much similar to each other
NOOOO!!!
Shop-an-hour says it is all about will to life!
Neat-she says that the living is already there, so it's all about will to powa.
Huge difference broda!
cool stories, bros
I change Schopenhauer's "Will" to Causal Determinism.
It' is really the Will to a Powerful LIFE=mc2 that doesn't need any other🗣️further🎺power🕯️🎶
It's wrong to say consciousness is not explored in nietzche's philosophy,
Nietzche says consciousness is conscious conceptually articulated content(like a poet who consciously writes a poem ) and unconscious is unconsciously articulated content (only difference is known here just like when you look at some chinese letters and you can say its letters and cannot know it's meaning)
A🪽COMMANDING🗣️PRESENCE=mc2🎺🎶is far greater than🫦Commanding💪Obedience😂!
The differences are far from subtle unless this is your first time reading any philosophy book 😂