The Will to Power Examined
[prior to February, 2017]
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
Nietzsche scattered references to “the will to power” throughout several works and, regretfully, did not codify his views into one coherent work. Therefore, “the will to power” is little more than a catchphrase of questionable value.
The will to power must be limited to living entities, unless one suggests that inanimate objects, such as planets, are examples of the will to power. Perhaps planets are not the ideal examples of inanimate objects, yet we are certain the Gentle Reader understands our position regarding inanimate subjects not possessing the will to power.
As the will to power seems to be limited to organisms, we must inquire if all life has the will to power, or if this power is limited to man, that is, it is limited to those who have souls. Our inquiry into the will to power may be useful in determining the viability of reoccurrence [we are cautious regarding both eternal reoccurrence and combining the will to power with eternal reoccurrence, for we are incapable of distinguishing between fate, or what have been preordained, and the will to power].
Natural law allows individuals to enter into contracts. Legitimate contracts cannot be coerced, hence contracts, and notorious deals with the Devil, must have voluntary consent. Coercion can operate as a choice, and choice seems like, or has similar characteristics of, free will. We suggest that the phrasing “free will” should be limited to voluntary contracts.
When one is confronted with a situation one did not agree to, one only has the option of choice, as free will does not exist without consent. The woman finding herself in a garden is an ideal example to demonstrate our position. The woman has tradition, or second hand information, from the man concerning her origin and God's commands. Based on how events in the garden transpired, we conclude that she possessed the ability to reason, or when confronted with a contradiction, to resolve the contradiction. We note that a successful resolution of a contradiction is only possible by the proper use of reason. We conclude that the woman did not have free will, as the text does not indicate her consent to be formed from the man. Yet, she had the option, or choice, to either accept the validity of the serpent’s statements or deny the serpent’s words. We remind the reader that Adam and Eve were prevented from eating from the tree of life. In this situation, they had neither free will, as the Lord God did not offer his consent; nor choice, as the cherubim prevented their approaching the tree, in this event.
The events in the garden of delights may be understood as an allegory of the soul, immortal or otherwise. If souls consent to enter the material world of delights, then it can be stated that there is free will and evidence of a contract, cosmic or otherwise. After the consent to come into being, we cannot state that free will exists in the material world, since consent to a contract cannot be sought from inanimate entities. Therefore, after becoming human, there is no free will outside of voluntary contracts, there is only choice. The Gentle Reader may wonder why souls come into being. We suggest that eating, drinking, productivity, and creativity are powerful motivators for action. The recognition and consummation of virtues is not to be overlooked as additional motivation for coming into being. It is not good for the man to be alone, I will...
We hope that the Gentle Researcher will be pleased with our solution of creating acceptable definitions for free will, consent, voluntary consent, and choice.
Yours Truly has not attempted a systematic apology for Orthodox Christianity. However, throughout our research, one can find reasons for defending Orthodox teachings, reasons for questioning Roman Catholic dogmas, and reasons for not accepting protestant opinions concerning matters that they demonstrate profound and, on the subject of history, willful ignorance. The cautious Capricorn can be accurately described by many words, but being an iconoclast, or an innovator, is not one of those accurate words.
Nietzsche noted that Christianity’s resolution to make the world ugly and bad has succeeded. We suggest that this modern version of Christianity is the Christianity of mortifying the flesh, and of separating the soul from the body, in short, it is the Roman Christianity worldview that protestants have inherited and both eagerly promote. Fred's comments cannot be directed at Orthodoxy, as it teaches that man’s goal is to progress to divinity. Therefore, Orthodoxy cannot be properly understood as promoting man as less than what he is, and promoting the entire cosmos, or all of creation, as fallen, if not evil. Nietzsche makes no comment that could be understood as applying exclusively to the Orthodox Church. Therefore, based on both Nietzsche’s explicit commentaries and independent factual evidence, we must conclude that Fred's ire is directed entirely at the modern western churches. It is a weird and queer universe where, when Fred is correctly understood, Nietzsche and Yours Truly are apologists for Orthodox theology.
We suggest that the will to power is limited to individuals who possess the will to achieve, to accomplish. Clearly, the desire, or the want, of something is not identical to, or synonymous with, the will. Therefore, success indicates the manifestation of will to power, while isolated failures may be understood as the will to power as being incomplete. The individuals comprising the herd cannot possess the will to power; the acceptance of the mediocre and the promotion of the decadent cannot be the will to power, to nobility.
If it seems that our commentary is influenced by Crowley’s magickal definitions, then we suggest the common origin between Crowley and Yours Truly: Fred. Since Nietzsche did not clarify his views on the will to power, any discussion or commentary is fraught with misunderstanding and misinterpretations. If Crowley and Yours Truly agree upon certain points, then the Gentle Reader will know the reasons.
Modern commentary promotes the idea that ancient pagans celebrated the winter solstice with festivities and, later, Christianity “borrowed” the date for the Nativity of Christ. The story seems plausible, until one realizes that astronomers cannot determine the solstice within six days, either before or after [which is almost a total of two weeks], without an accurate clock. Since this accuracy was not available until the early modern era, this story, or explanation of supposed events, cannot be either factually based or chronologically correct.
In conclusion, we suggest the will to power can only be manifest in certain individuals who strive to achieve. We may suggest that the immortal soul may be limited to those individuals who have sufficient willpower. Speculations concerning the will to power, theosis, and the soul, immortal or otherwise, are topics that the Gentle Reader must resolve to his satisfaction.
The will to power must be limited to living entities, unless one suggests that inanimate objects, such as planets, are examples of the will to power. Perhaps planets are not the ideal examples of inanimate objects, yet we are certain the Gentle Reader understands our position regarding inanimate subjects not possessing the will to power.
As the will to power seems to be limited to organisms, we must inquire if all life has the will to power, or if this power is limited to man, that is, it is limited to those who have souls. Our inquiry into the will to power may be useful in determining the viability of reoccurrence [we are cautious regarding both eternal reoccurrence and combining the will to power with eternal reoccurrence, for we are incapable of distinguishing between fate, or what have been preordained, and the will to power].
Natural law allows individuals to enter into contracts. Legitimate contracts cannot be coerced, hence contracts, and notorious deals with the Devil, must have voluntary consent. Coercion can operate as a choice, and choice seems like, or has similar characteristics of, free will. We suggest that the phrasing “free will” should be limited to voluntary contracts.
When one is confronted with a situation one did not agree to, one only has the option of choice, as free will does not exist without consent. The woman finding herself in a garden is an ideal example to demonstrate our position. The woman has tradition, or second hand information, from the man concerning her origin and God's commands. Based on how events in the garden transpired, we conclude that she possessed the ability to reason, or when confronted with a contradiction, to resolve the contradiction. We note that a successful resolution of a contradiction is only possible by the proper use of reason. We conclude that the woman did not have free will, as the text does not indicate her consent to be formed from the man. Yet, she had the option, or choice, to either accept the validity of the serpent’s statements or deny the serpent’s words. We remind the reader that Adam and Eve were prevented from eating from the tree of life. In this situation, they had neither free will, as the Lord God did not offer his consent; nor choice, as the cherubim prevented their approaching the tree, in this event.
The events in the garden of delights may be understood as an allegory of the soul, immortal or otherwise. If souls consent to enter the material world of delights, then it can be stated that there is free will and evidence of a contract, cosmic or otherwise. After the consent to come into being, we cannot state that free will exists in the material world, since consent to a contract cannot be sought from inanimate entities. Therefore, after becoming human, there is no free will outside of voluntary contracts, there is only choice. The Gentle Reader may wonder why souls come into being. We suggest that eating, drinking, productivity, and creativity are powerful motivators for action. The recognition and consummation of virtues is not to be overlooked as additional motivation for coming into being. It is not good for the man to be alone, I will...
We hope that the Gentle Researcher will be pleased with our solution of creating acceptable definitions for free will, consent, voluntary consent, and choice.
Yours Truly has not attempted a systematic apology for Orthodox Christianity. However, throughout our research, one can find reasons for defending Orthodox teachings, reasons for questioning Roman Catholic dogmas, and reasons for not accepting protestant opinions concerning matters that they demonstrate profound and, on the subject of history, willful ignorance. The cautious Capricorn can be accurately described by many words, but being an iconoclast, or an innovator, is not one of those accurate words.
Nietzsche noted that Christianity’s resolution to make the world ugly and bad has succeeded. We suggest that this modern version of Christianity is the Christianity of mortifying the flesh, and of separating the soul from the body, in short, it is the Roman Christianity worldview that protestants have inherited and both eagerly promote. Fred's comments cannot be directed at Orthodoxy, as it teaches that man’s goal is to progress to divinity. Therefore, Orthodoxy cannot be properly understood as promoting man as less than what he is, and promoting the entire cosmos, or all of creation, as fallen, if not evil. Nietzsche makes no comment that could be understood as applying exclusively to the Orthodox Church. Therefore, based on both Nietzsche’s explicit commentaries and independent factual evidence, we must conclude that Fred's ire is directed entirely at the modern western churches. It is a weird and queer universe where, when Fred is correctly understood, Nietzsche and Yours Truly are apologists for Orthodox theology.
We suggest that the will to power is limited to individuals who possess the will to achieve, to accomplish. Clearly, the desire, or the want, of something is not identical to, or synonymous with, the will. Therefore, success indicates the manifestation of will to power, while isolated failures may be understood as the will to power as being incomplete. The individuals comprising the herd cannot possess the will to power; the acceptance of the mediocre and the promotion of the decadent cannot be the will to power, to nobility.
If it seems that our commentary is influenced by Crowley’s magickal definitions, then we suggest the common origin between Crowley and Yours Truly: Fred. Since Nietzsche did not clarify his views on the will to power, any discussion or commentary is fraught with misunderstanding and misinterpretations. If Crowley and Yours Truly agree upon certain points, then the Gentle Reader will know the reasons.
Modern commentary promotes the idea that ancient pagans celebrated the winter solstice with festivities and, later, Christianity “borrowed” the date for the Nativity of Christ. The story seems plausible, until one realizes that astronomers cannot determine the solstice within six days, either before or after [which is almost a total of two weeks], without an accurate clock. Since this accuracy was not available until the early modern era, this story, or explanation of supposed events, cannot be either factually based or chronologically correct.
In conclusion, we suggest the will to power can only be manifest in certain individuals who strive to achieve. We may suggest that the immortal soul may be limited to those individuals who have sufficient willpower. Speculations concerning the will to power, theosis, and the soul, immortal or otherwise, are topics that the Gentle Reader must resolve to his satisfaction.