Relativism and the Will to Power
by John David Breen
Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas have influenced philosophy for the last two hundred years. Few of these ideas are as vague or as difficult to fully understand as the doctrine of the Will to Power. The goal of this paper is to explain fully Nietzsche’s conception of the Will to Power using examples, as well as to show that this concept—as Nietzsche viewed it—is useful for the Naturalist, but not for the Supernaturalist or the Relativist.
Nietzsche conceived of the Will to Power as a desire inherent to all living creatures. For this reason, he tells us, plants thrive by taking nutrients from the ground and from the sun that could have been used by other plants, animals thrive by killing and eating other living creatures, and human beings thrive by subjugating or otherwise manipulating other living creatures, including other humans. Of course, using the phrase “Will to Power” implies that only those beings with a will can possess a Will to Power, and in any case only beings with a will—namely, human beings—are at all likely to read this paper, so this discussion will be restricted to the human realm.
The Will to Power naturally requires the truth of two propositions: first, that such a thing exists as a will, and second, that such a thing exists as power. As for the former, one can define a will as an entity that chooses. Such an idea requires the possibility of a choice, and as Nietzsche does not believe in freedom, one must assume he chose the wrong word; rather, let us use the word “desire” to signify Nietzsche’s meaning. The idea of power, on the other hand, becomes somewhat tricky. What sort of power does Nietzsche in fact mean? The best way to understand this is to delve into Nietzsche’s idea of the individual’s perspective, from which alone the Will to Power can be expressed. In the most basic terms, two things exist—the self, and the self’s environment. Power is best expressed as the level of control the self has over his environment, as opposed to control of the environment over the self.
Examples of the manifestation of the Will to Power abound in our modern world. Several can be found in politics. Here in the United States, our two political parties both exercise the Will to Power to guarantee the votes of citizens. The Democratic Party often favors redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor; the practical implications of this are obvious. First, the act of taxing the wealthy and powerful is an assertion of power by those in government over those most likely to have the capability of uprooting them. Second, by punishing an economic elite, the less-wealthy masses are aided in their own power struggle against this elite; as a result, the votes of the masses are secured for those who propose such policies. Third, by then distributing unearned money to the poor, the poor lose the incentive to develop their strengths and establish their independence; they become dependent on the money, and thus dependent on the Democrats who provide that money.
The Republicans, too, exercise the Will to Power in their policies. The favored tactic is to oppose change and favor regression, appealing to traditional Americans who feel as if progress has caused them to lose power. Another tactic is to appeal to the sense of safety desired by Americans and cast the Democratic Party as weak on national defense. Ultimately, the Republicans try to cause the populace to fear for the social institutions that make them comfortable, and proclaim themselves the defenders of those institutions.
Individual congressmen from both parties, moreover, use spending power to increase government spending on their own states and districts, and the older congressmen have more power to do so. Thus, those dependent on the economic activity generated by that spending are also dependent on their representatives, and will vote for him even if his policies are bad.
Beyond believing in the Will to Power, Friedrich Nietzsche was also an extreme relativist. His belief was that there is no distinction between appearance and reality—that whatever appears to us is reality. This concept presents great trouble for any philosophical theory, and Nietzsche’s concept of the Will to Power is no exception. Let us assume that his idea of extreme relativism is true. So, what is real for one person has no meaning for anyone else but that person. In this case, what is real for me is that God exists, and that I have a personal relationship with Him; and not only that, but He—not I—has changed my essential character. If all that appears to me is reality, then the Will to Power, for me, is an evil desire. If God exists, and I have the desire for ultimate power, then my desire is that I should replace the Ultimate Being of the universe; such a thing is not possible. This desire would run counter to reality, and thus prove itself dishonest.
Supernaturalism also presents great problems for the Will to Power. Supernaturalism may be defined as the belief that the universe is not a closed system; that Something or Someone exists outside of and above the natural world, and that that Being created the natural world. This presents the same problem as that of relativism, the only difference being that the Almighty in this scenario is real for everyone. Once again, the hierarchical order established by that Being would be upset by action resulting from a Will to Power, and thus would run counter to true reality. This does not mean, of course, that the Will to Power could face situations in which it could not exist; what it does mean is that Nietzsche’s idea—that the Will to Power is an essential part of humanity and therefore not something to fight against—is incorrect. Not only does the existence of an Almighty Being allow for the entrance of transcendent values to vilify the Will to Power, it also means that even if the Will to Power is a part of human character, that character can be changed—by the Almighty Being Himself. This is what Christianity teaches, in fact: that while all humans have the Will to Power—which is essentially evil because it calls for the subversion of the Insubvertible—God has made a way for human character to be changed.
The last philosophical school left to examine is that of the Naturalists, and here we find a much more comfortable home for the Will to Power under Nietzsche’s terms. Naturalism can best be defined as the belief that a natural world exists and that it is the same for everyone, but that it is a closed system—there is nothing beyond what it is possible to perceive. We find that this is largely what Nietzsche proposes: that there are no transcendent values, that men created the only values that exist, that all values in existence can be explained by natural phenomena. However, we find that it rejects one major point of Nietzsche’s thought: while he believes that appearance is the same as reality, Naturalism cannot possibly teach that. The Naturalist is forced to accept the proposition that because the universe is the same for everyone, and because people often have wrong and differing ideas, not all appearances are real.
Although the Will to Power is a feasible concept in one of the three possible perspectives of the universe, Nietzsche rejects this perspective for another. His perspective undermines his thinking; even this great philosopher’s ideas are not strong enough to walk on the deep and troubled waters of relativism.
1 comment:
i like this.
Post a Comment