This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
So I understand he doesn't believe in it, but what replaces it?
From my understanding it is like: "You have your main will, your will to power, and it's like a triangle, and will to power is at the top. Your will to power is made up of many smaller wills, the rung below in this triangle analogy. So these wills 'debate' and whichever has the most agreement is what you will do for your decision". But I don't think that's right because he says "men were thought of as 'free' so that they could become guilty: consequently, every action had to be thought of as willed..." So i'm just having trouble grasping this... Thank you in advance
Right, so N is not addressing free will from the point of determinism, but from a moral view. He doesn't care so much about the ontological status of the will but more so its ethical implication. But somehow that doesn't seem right? I'm not well versed in the history of philosophy so I dont know if detreminism and causality had been hot topics before Good and Evil?
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 1 year ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/c...
Well I might have this completely wrong but according to N, having a strong (/free) will is the ability to do the "right" thing so to speak. Whereas contemporary free will deniers rely on the logical impossibility of uncaused action under determinism. I don't know if that is developed enough, I'm not sure its that clear in my head either haha.
There may be a battle of the wills going on in our minds at any moment, but we ultimately have no bearing on which will guide our actions, I guess.