Domination, Individuality, and Moral Chaos: Nietzsche’s Will to Power

Undergraduate Review Volume 6 Article 13 2010 Domination, Individuality, and Moral Chaos: Nietzsche’s Will to Power Angel Cooper Follow this and additional works at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/undergrad_rev Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Cooper, Angel (2010). Domination, Individuality, and Moral Chaos: Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Undergraduate Review, 6, 60-65. Available at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/undergrad_rev/vol6/iss1/13 This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Copyright © 2010 Angel Cooper Domination, Individuality, and Moral Chaos: Nietzsche’s Will to Power 1 ANGEL COOPER Angel Cooper is a senior, majoring in Philosophy and English. This research began in the summer of 2009 as an Adrian Tinsley Program Summer Grant project under the mentorship of Dr. William J. Devlin. Angel has presented her research at the2009 Adrian Tinsley Summer Research Symposium and will be further presenting her research at the Undergraduate Mid-South Philosophy Conference. Angel plans to go to graduate school for Philosophy in the fall of 2010. O ne of the most well known, but deeply debated, ideas presented by the philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, is the will to power. Scholars have provided a variety of interpretations for what Nietzsche means by this concept. In this paper, I argue that, under each interpretation, Nietzsche may still face what I call, the problem of moral chaos, or the problem of endorsing the claim that immoral acts, such as murder and torture, are justifiable as they exemplify the human will towards power over others. I ultimately argue that Nietzsche’s philosophy avoids this problem: though Nietzsche proposes it is possible to harm others as a way to power, we should not direct our will to power in this manner. To illustrate this point, I investigate common interpretations of the will to power, arguing that the psychological interpretation is the most compelling. From here, I demonstrate through Nietzsche’s passages that he clearly inspires humanity to direct the will to power towards individual inner growth, and not as a form of domination. Therefore, Nietzsche does not fall into the problem of moral chaos. Part I. The Will to Power: Metaphysical, Metaphorical or Psychological? In order to understand the moral connotations of the will to power, we need to first determine what Nietzsche really means by the will to power. There are generally three different interpretations: the metaphysical, metaphorical, and psychological interpretations. In this part, I examine each of these interpretations, arguing that the psychological interpretation is the most compelling. Those who explain the will to power as a metaphysical description of nature assert that Nietzsche expresses the will to power as being the nature of reality, and of all things inorganic or organic. There are two essential components to this metaphysical interpretation: human beings and the world. Regarding human beings, the will to power is emphasized as something real in human behavior. A being is presented as different forces of energy that are constantly fighting for power (Danto 2005, 199-200). In his posthumously published notes, Nietzsche presents the will to power as a system of “dynamic quanta” (WP:635), where such quanta are in a relationship of struggling to overpower one another. This power must be commanded or balanced to promote a healthy individual. If it is not, and one force has excess power in deficient areas, then the individual is insufficient, sick, or weak (Richardson 1996, 39-43). 60 • THE UNDERGRADUATE REVIEW • 2010 BRIDGEWATER STATE COLLEGE The world is also understood as will to power. John Richardson (2006) maintains that Nietzsche characterizes all of nature as the will to power. Nietzsche introduces this idea in Beyond Good and Evil, where he states: Suppose, finally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one basic form of the will—namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it; suppose all organic functions could be traced back to this[,] […]then one would have gained the right to determine all efficient force univocally as –will to power. (BGE:36) This passage illustrates that Nietzsche was working with the theory that all things are reduced to the one underlying metaphysical substance that he calls the will to power. Nietzsche describes this substance as a “dynamic quanta” of energy and a “force” (WP:619) that is directed outward to overcome, master, or encapsulate other wills. According to Richardson, the will to power is an act of “taking power over something else, ‘incorporating’ it” (Richardson 1996, 22). All things in nature are consuming other things in an act for power and growth. As Nietzsche puts it, “This world is the will to power— and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!” (WP:1067). Thus, following this interpretation, we are a force of power. Whether power is described as an “effortful pursuit” (Richardson 1996, 22) or a drive to “overcome obstacles” (Danto 2005, 207), it is always what we are. Here, power is a drive in everything to move outward and consume space. Although the metaphysical interpretation can be supported in Nietzsche’s writings, I argue that there are several problems with this interpretation. First, it is based primarily on Nietzsche’s notes and not his originally published works and it is inadequate to base an interpretation on information arrived at through Nietzsche’s notes, as it may be the case that these ideas weren’t fully developed yet. Second, this interpretation is inconsistent with Nietzsche’s ideas in his published works because it conflicts with his view of perspectivism, the epistemic claim that we only have knowledge and understanding through our human perspective, and know nothing beyond this. According to perspectivism, we cannot see the world-initself, or the metaphysically real world, but only a world that is envisioned through our human perspective. Therefore, we can never truly know anything about nature. However, the metaphysical interpretation implies that we can know the truth about nature, since nature truly is the will to power. Thus, there is an inconsistency between this interpretation and Nietzsche’s perspectivism. Third, when we examine Nietzsche’s published accounts of the will to power, we find he primarily presents the BRIDGEWATER STATE COLLEGE will to power only in humanity, and not in nature as a whole (see, for example, GM:II:12; GM:III:18; BGE: 19; BGE:259; Z:II:2). It is only obvious in his notes that he expands the notion to nature. So, though this interpretation may be grounded in Nietzsche’s notes, it is inconsistent with his published ideas on the will to power. Finally, Nietzsche’s published passages of the will to power that seem to suggest a metaphysical interpre (...truncated)