You have 10 minutes to refute Nietzsche's will to power. Good luck, no one has done it yet

You have 10 minutes to refute Nietzsche's will to power. Good luck, no one has done it yet.

God is the will with the most power insurmountable, inescapable, irrefutable, and if you use your will to power on earth wrongly you will experience the negativitys of your unjust transgression in its purest form

Oh boy here we go again her round of nietzsche shitposting from people who skimmed the wikipedia article on him
Stop making these threads op

Refutes nothing. Doesn't even address it.

I'm moderately well read with Nietzsche. No harm done in having this thread.

Neither you know OP has read more than 8 sentences from this man.

The will to power (alongside perspectivism of course, it's rather meaningless without it) is a reasonable conception because it can be "observed" (more like conceptualized) by the resonances of various perspectives along with the entirety of connections, resonances which are not reducible to said perspectives. Drives interpret the world as they do what they can do and bring about connections (desires, images, thoughts, acts, environments, etc.), but the act of connecting, the "reason" (form) that describes what each drive possesses (content) is on a different level than what it describes. Therefore reason is more fundamental than the will to power of each drive because, far from being a secondary [language] effect / epiphenomenon, it is what makes them possible to begin with. Or have I cheated?

I believe its in the process of being refuted every day by the majority of common people under the age of 40 around the world

Why does reason as a faculty not originate from the drives itself? You don't explain why reason is on another level from the drives.

Refute what now?

...

Reason as a faculty is a result, but the connections, the syntheses, that make the drives possible must be reasonable in the sense of having a law that permits them to come about. This law is universal and therefore reasonable in the sense of intelligible through the use of the contingent faculty of reason, thus it is more fundamental than the "use of the faculty of reason" itself which is different for every drive (and thus "unreasonable" and conflicted).

...

D&G were Leftist Nietzscheans. How did they refute the WtP?

A true God does not sustain itself by a means outside itself, therefore it has nothing to attain to. The will to power, therefore, is not a true path to immortality. A being which wills to power, can only do so by some power which is outside itself, or exterior to its identity, therefore the power will always be greater than the will.
The will to value, on the other hand, leads to immortality, because it works in the opposite way. The being that wills to value seeks to free itself from all contingencies it might rest upon. It becomes valuable in that it is an end in itself, not merely the vehicle for some exterior power. In the former, it is the true will that is expressing itself; in the latter, it is the power which is expressing itself, and the will is merely a vessel.
The will to power is actually the will to enslavement. The will to value is the will to freedom.

Desiring machines.

>but the connections, the syntheses, that make the drives possible must be reasonable in the sense of having a law that permits them to come about. This law is universal
Can we know a universal law if our reason originates from these drives in us? Why doesn't all this thought and ordering of reality originate from those drives as well? How do we know the universal law, which may be unknowable, is truly reasonable?

My quantum of power, my ability to measure, my ordering of things: that I know, that I can observe. But a universal law of reason that "transcends" this? At what point does our thought and reasoning no longer originate from the drives in us and what we talk about becomes something "universal"?

>refute-

Will to value is will to power.

How do they refute it? If anything they seem to embody it.

Reflecting on the drives and the very possibility of creating the concept of drive involves them having something in common. In order for us to posit that reason comes from the drives there must be drives there to begin with, but in order for there to be drives in the plural there must be something that they have in common.

>My philosophy aims at an ordering of rank: not at an individualistic morality. The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd-but not reach out beyond it: the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally different valuation for their own actions, as do the independent, or the "beasts of prey," etc.

p.s. he didnt mean jews

I don't know who that is.

noble savage detected

is this ciara?

I always got the vibe that Nietzsche was just interpreting his masculine anger drive as a will to power. Yeah, of course the drive exists, but interpreting it as a need for power is just one interpretation. Just about anything fills it. I think it's real I just think it's poorly titled, which still means he was wrong and probably ate soy

It all becomes ressentiment at the end. His philosophy generates no superman, only ressented people.

>His philosophy generates no superman
Hitler wasn't resentful. icycalm isn't.