|
BrandonNesfieldSecondEssay 4 - 08 Jun 2016 - Main.BrandonNesfield
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
-- BrandonNesfield - 20 Apr 2016 | |
<
< | Nietzsche believed that the will-to-power is the vital, driving force inherent in all humans, the force responsible for all expressions of ambition and achievement. Man has historically placed himself above all other animals, using metaphysical conceptions that provide assurance of importance and an illusory superiority. Nietzsche decries the notion that humans possess a perfection of existence that no other animals can attain, on the contrary, he finds man to be the most flawed species in the animal kingdom due to our continual straying from our instincts; he believes that within our instincts resides our true greatness, our power as nature intended. Nietzsche conceived the will-to-power as the most basic and fundamental instinct that humans possess, describing life itself as “the instinct for growth, for durability, for an accumulation of forces, for power” (The Antichrist 572). He believed that this will-to-power was manifest in our biological fitness function and our sociocultural history. It is the unshakeable, inexhaustible instinct to dominate our surroundings, to assert our will and establish influence, to overcome challenges and revel in success. | | | | |
<
< | Nietzsche presents the will-to-power as energy capable of usurping our historical, ever-fluctuating conception of morality and asks in the Antichrist, “what is Good? —All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man” (570). From this declaration one can extract Nietzsche’s view of the will-to-power both as a challenge to the traditional dichotomy of good and evil, as well as the experiential subjectivity of the will-to-power, as a feeling that culminates differently within every individual. Nietzsche calls for a reevaluation of our contemporary conception of morality, as well as the genealogy of morality over the span of human civilization. He dismisses traditional Judeo-Christian stress on charity, pity, and mercy as debilitating and weak; such conceptions stray from our innate instinctual drives and neglect the will-to-power that strengthens us (570). Domination, exploitation, and the seizing of opportunity have historically been viewed as necessary evils in international politics and denounced as unsavory qualities in personal relationships and communication. Nietzsche, however, sees such qualities in a light congruent with his espousal of the will-to-power; they are qualities designed to condition us for life and all of its challenges and horrors, aspects that promote individualistic survival in the face of uncertain security. Nietzsche does not subscribe to the popular notion of humanity’s progression toward a utopic world of equality, rather, he believes the ultimate evolutionary goal of mankind is to become an ubermensch, or over-man. An over-man, in Nietzsche’s view, has not only recognized the ferocity of his will-to-power but has mastered it—a man who has long discarded the diseased ideals that generate shame for instinctually driven actions that do not conform to an illusory, higher standard. | | | | |
<
< | Central to Nietzsche’s understanding of the will-to-power is his view of man as an animal, one whose delusions of greatness over the full animal kingdom spawn from incorporeal notions that alleviate existential anxieties. If man is fundamentally animal, then the concept of the self is simply a mental marvel, dictated by the physiological realities of our biological composure. However, this does not render the self unimportant or devoid of meaning, as our drives and impulses, while physical driven, define our psychological experiences. The will-to-power, the most basic and most powerful of these drives, constantly directs our self-perception and actions, as nature intended. Nietzsche views the will-to-power and the human acceptance of its supremacy over meaningless ideals as the gateway into the unencumbered life. Chasing dreams, setting objectives, and reaching goals, in Nietzsche’s opinion, weakens us, separates us from life as nature intended, and fails to provide the satisfaction or consolation that we believe they bring us (Ecce Homo 710). To truly “become what one is” one must abandon the traditional goal-oriented mindset, as well as maintain a patient, passive unawareness of becoming what one is, for to do so would be oxymoronic and counterintuitive. Becoming what one is entails a joie de vivre that endures the tragic and accepts its inevitability and its mystery; one who is himself is unconcerned with the metaphysical constructions of mankind and values life simply because it is beautiful and fleeting. One who has become himself is no more than a vessel for his will-to-power—and has found life within life. | >
> | The Will to Power | | | | |
<
< | Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “The Antichrist”. The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Arnold Kaufmann (New York: Penguin, 1976. | | | | |
<
< | Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Ecce Homo”. Basic Writings of Nietzsche, ed. Walter Arnold Kaufmann (New York: Modern Library, 2000. | >
> | Nietzsche believed that in every human being existed a will-to-power, an inexhaustible, unshakeable instinct to dominate surroundings, assert will and establish influence, all while reveling in the cycle of challenge and success. If an alien onlooker were to observe patterns of human interaction and the mechanics of modern society, I have no doubt that they would posit a similar theory. Modern societies—from the capitalist exemplar of the United States to the developing island nations of the Caribbean exhibit power structures with an inherent dichotomy: the concentration of power in the ruling few over the disenfranchised many. The modalities of power—or lack of them—come in many forms on both ends: money, political influence, landed superiority in the former; sickness, poverty; mental incapacity in the latter. While we tend to fancy ourselves as the chosen species, wrapping ourselves in religious convictions of God’s place for us at the top of the animal kingdom (or scientific observations of our relative cognitive capacity), the alien onlooker would likely see us closer to true form: as animals, dressed up in silk and suede and all the other products of our collective genius, at once conforming the world and those in it to our will. They would likely note that—despite the glaring similarities of advanced human culture to the African savannah where lions kill and the herbivorous herds accept their station in the predator-prey binary—with a peculiar magic many humans convince themselves of imaginary concepts (of goodness, of graciousness, of kindness, of charity) to be subsequently used as guideposts to follow or to not follow, or to be used to admonish those who do not acknowledge them and to cherish those who do. No matter how these concepts arise, whether they are sourced from a Judeo-Christian faith or a convoluted, self-important academic’s theory on the scientific basis for altruism as a fact of the human condition, history suggests that while material conditions of the powerful/powerless struggle may change over time, the core variables—those with power and those without it—is seemingly everlasting. | | | | |
<
< | Author's Note: This is somewhat of a companion piece to my first essay. In my first essay I reflected on my own status anxiety and my inexorable desire for power/money/dominance in a context where these desirables seemed attainable, concluding in some ways that I experienced cognitive dissonance because these feelings conflicted with the WHO that I wanted to be (or thought I wanted to be). In this essay I talk about Nietzsche's conception of the "will to power" because it was one of the more intoxicating sets of ideas I've encountered (and grappled with in the process of rationalizing my own goals/thoughts/desires). I hope that my revision of this essay will see me actually grappling and even sparring with Nietzsche's ideas as I project my own experiential understanding and belief onto his theory. | >
> | Is the Lawyer a Lion? | | | | |
>
> | Nietzsche vehemently rejected Judeo-Christian principles of morality and ethical concern for the weak; he saw subscription to such altruistic fictions as a straying from the animalistic qualities of raw and ruthless intelligence, in the service of domination and control, which were bestowed upon humans. Nietzsche’s utopia was not a world of enduring equality and respect that transcended class or socioeconomic standing, rather it was a world in which the ubermensch was the exemplar: the man who has recognized the ferocity of his will-to-power but has mastered it—a man who has long discarded the diseased ideals that generate shame for instinctually driven actions that do not conform to an illusory, higher standard. Modern day lawyers, though in reality varied in practice and their impact on the world, are likely already viewed as Nietzsche’s ubermensch in the American imagination. After all, lawyers (thanks to the media and reality in equal measure) are well-connected, well paid professionals who operate within power structures that most citizens will never witness, let alone become a part of. But from my own experience, it is clear that the lawyer is not truly the ubermensch or the lion that kills to eat without remorse. Even in big law, where attorneys unblinkingly defend the coffers and reputations of the financial institutions and companies responsible for an inordinate amount of human suffering and subordination, lawyers seem to still pride themselves on the pro bono work they complete, as if such meager contributions to the God of Charity somehow absolves them of their material, negative impact on the world. One could argue that this line of reasoning is highly cynical; from a utilitarian standpoint someone who does ten ‘bad’ things and two ‘good’ things is better off than the same man who foregoes the two good things. Do motives, such as guilt or shame, negate that which is objectively ‘good’? However, one could also argue this perspective is diseased in both its reasoning and its paradoxical effect: the lion in sheep’s clothing that can convince everyone of his goodness only has a more secure platform from which he exert his evils. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Social Lubrication | | | | |
<
< | No, it's not a "companion piece," Brandon, it's reused work. In the
context of a philosophy course, where an explication of Nietzsche's
basic outlook would make a good exercise, this is fine. But here,
where one would expect at least some effort to connect the
explication of Nietzsche's thought to something we have read or
discussed, or which is relevant to your effort to become a lawyer,
the text sticks out like a sore thumb. | >
> | Perhaps where we are as a society, from the perspective of where we’ve been, denotes actual, meaningful change. After all, less than 300 years ago slavery existed in our country. Less than 100 years ago, Jews were being exterminated in the millions. These benchmarks, along with the more modern social progressive movements espousing gender and sexual equality, suggest that we are evolving toward the ubermensch singularity but instead toward the utopia of lore, where everyone is fed and watered, happy and fulfilled, and more or less equal in these regards. But sometimes it’s hard to imagine that, while the aforementioned societal ‘benchmarks’ are incontrovertible proof of monumental triumphs over despicable evils, at our societal core exists as a power dynamic that will never change, and will always serve as the generator of the misery and suffering that mark the experience of the many over the few. As we’ve discussed in class, yes slavery has ended, but when you look at income inequality in the purported land of American dreams, it becomes apparent that slavery has simply taken on new forms. The peon at the multinational corporation whose at-will employment is but a thin string of fate is a slave to the same corporation’s management class whose salaries, comforts, and luxuries are entire orders of magnitude higher. However, today the realities of slavery have been enshrouded in conspicuous compassion and brash benevolence: the ruling classes now euphemize their galas and balls by transplanting charitable endeavors into their gilded invitations, inviting the 1% to display power and money through their donations and the embittered masses to marvel at their munificence from below. The new slavery is sleek and socially lubricated; it can exist in polite company and conversation. Joan Didion’s conception of the WASP mask has found even truer form and wider reach in 2016, where bright minds (and yes I am referencing myself and many of my friends and colleagues here at Columbia) convince themselves of their “good nature” based on their polite, thoughtful ruminations on society and “the way things are”, even though these contemplations are often incommensurate with their actions, namely the careers and pastimes they bring their talents to bear on. It felt good writing the first essay for this course—I saw myself grappling with inner conflicts of morality and ethical compulsion, and I witnessed those thoughts manifest on paper. But, as my professor noted in his comments: much of my essay was but oratory that “hasn’t yet become anything but words”. The question now, for me and my colleagues, is how do we take off that mask and reconcile our actions with our beliefs? How do we forego to the immediate gratification of money and perceived status/power for ideals that seem illusory in both nature and the gifts they bestow (or don’t) upon us? This course has helped me most in providing as example of a man who has at least tried and been successful in many ways. But unfortunately the persisting cynic, standing from his little soapbox in the recesses of my mind, demands more evidence that it’ll work out in the end. | | | | |
<
< | I think I can guess why you would have reused previously successful
work here. But I need you to revise this, either by replacing it
with a wholly new essay, or by modifying this one so that the
explication of Nietzsche is a small portion of a piece that uses
Nietzsche or his ideas as a steppingstone elsewhere.
| | |
* Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrandonNesfield |
|
|
BrandonNesfieldSecondEssay 3 - 05 Jun 2016 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
-- BrandonNesfield - 20 Apr 2016 | | | Author's Note: This is somewhat of a companion piece to my first essay. In my first essay I reflected on my own status anxiety and my inexorable desire for power/money/dominance in a context where these desirables seemed attainable, concluding in some ways that I experienced cognitive dissonance because these feelings conflicted with the WHO that I wanted to be (or thought I wanted to be). In this essay I talk about Nietzsche's conception of the "will to power" because it was one of the more intoxicating sets of ideas I've encountered (and grappled with in the process of rationalizing my own goals/thoughts/desires). I hope that my revision of this essay will see me actually grappling and even sparring with Nietzsche's ideas as I project my own experiential understanding and belief onto his theory. | |
<
< | | >
> |
No, it's not a "companion piece," Brandon, it's reused work. In the
context of a philosophy course, where an explication of Nietzsche's
basic outlook would make a good exercise, this is fine. But here,
where one would expect at least some effort to connect the
explication of Nietzsche's thought to something we have read or
discussed, or which is relevant to your effort to become a lawyer,
the text sticks out like a sore thumb.
I think I can guess why you would have reused previously successful
work here. But I need you to revise this, either by replacing it
with a wholly new essay, or by modifying this one so that the
explication of Nietzsche is a small portion of a piece that uses
Nietzsche or his ideas as a steppingstone elsewhere.
* Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrandonNesfield
* Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
BrandonNesfieldSecondEssay 2 - 21 Apr 2016 - Main.BrandonNesfield
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| | | -- BrandonNesfield - 20 Apr 2016
Nietzsche believed that the will-to-power is the vital, driving force inherent in all humans, the force responsible for all expressions of ambition and achievement. Man has historically placed himself above all other animals, using metaphysical conceptions that provide assurance of importance and an illusory superiority. Nietzsche decries the notion that humans possess a perfection of existence that no other animals can attain, on the contrary, he finds man to be the most flawed species in the animal kingdom due to our continual straying from our instincts; he believes that within our instincts resides our true greatness, our power as nature intended. Nietzsche conceived the will-to-power as the most basic and fundamental instinct that humans possess, describing life itself as “the instinct for growth, for durability, for an accumulation of forces, for power” (The Antichrist 572). He believed that this will-to-power was manifest in our biological fitness function and our sociocultural history. It is the unshakeable, inexhaustible instinct to dominate our surroundings, to assert our will and establish influence, to overcome challenges and revel in success.
| |
<
< | Nietzsche presents the will-to-power as energy capable of usurping our historical, ever-fluctuating conception of morality and asks in the Antichrist, “what is Good? —All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man” (570). From this declaration one can extract Nietzsche’s view of the will-to-power both as a challenge to the traditional dichotomy of good and evil, as well as the experiential subjectivity of the will-to-power, as a feeling that culminates differently within every individual. Nietzsche calls for a reevaluation of our contemporary conception of morality, as well as the genealogy of morality over the span of human civilization. He dismisses traditional Judeo-Christian stress on charity, pity, and mercy as debilitating and weak; such conceptions stray from our innate instinctual drives and neglect the will-to-power that strengthens us (570). Domination, exploitation, and the seizing of opportunity have historically been viewed as necessary evils in international politics and denounced as unsavory qualities in personal relationships and communication. Nietzsche, however, sees such qualities in a light congruent with his espousal of the will-to-power; they are qualities designed to condition us for life and all of its challenges and horrors, aspects that promote individualistic survival in the face of uncertain security. Nietzsche does not subscribe to the popular notion of humanity’s progression toward a utopic world of equality, rather, he believes the ultimate evolutionary goal of mankind is to become an ubermensch, or over-man. An over-man, in Nietzsche’s view, has not only recognized the ferocity of his will-to-power but has mastered it—a man who has long discarded the diseased ideals that generate shame for instinctually driven actions that do not conform to an illusory, higher standard. | >
> | Nietzsche presents the will-to-power as energy capable of usurping our historical, ever-fluctuating conception of morality and asks in the Antichrist, “what is Good? —All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man” (570). From this declaration one can extract Nietzsche’s view of the will-to-power both as a challenge to the traditional dichotomy of good and evil, as well as the experiential subjectivity of the will-to-power, as a feeling that culminates differently within every individual. Nietzsche calls for a reevaluation of our contemporary conception of morality, as well as the genealogy of morality over the span of human civilization. He dismisses traditional Judeo-Christian stress on charity, pity, and mercy as debilitating and weak; such conceptions stray from our innate instinctual drives and neglect the will-to-power that strengthens us (570). Domination, exploitation, and the seizing of opportunity have historically been viewed as necessary evils in international politics and denounced as unsavory qualities in personal relationships and communication. Nietzsche, however, sees such qualities in a light congruent with his espousal of the will-to-power; they are qualities designed to condition us for life and all of its challenges and horrors, aspects that promote individualistic survival in the face of uncertain security. Nietzsche does not subscribe to the popular notion of humanity’s progression toward a utopic world of equality, rather, he believes the ultimate evolutionary goal of mankind is to become an ubermensch, or over-man. An over-man, in Nietzsche’s view, has not only recognized the ferocity of his will-to-power but has mastered it—a man who has long discarded the diseased ideals that generate shame for instinctually driven actions that do not conform to an illusory, higher standard.
Central to Nietzsche’s understanding of the will-to-power is his view of man as an animal, one whose delusions of greatness over the full animal kingdom spawn from incorporeal notions that alleviate existential anxieties. If man is fundamentally animal, then the concept of the self is simply a mental marvel, dictated by the physiological realities of our biological composure. However, this does not render the self unimportant or devoid of meaning, as our drives and impulses, while physical driven, define our psychological experiences. The will-to-power, the most basic and most powerful of these drives, constantly directs our self-perception and actions, as nature intended. Nietzsche views the will-to-power and the human acceptance of its supremacy over meaningless ideals as the gateway into the unencumbered life. Chasing dreams, setting objectives, and reaching goals, in Nietzsche’s opinion, weakens us, separates us from life as nature intended, and fails to provide the satisfaction or consolation that we believe they bring us (Ecce Homo 710). To truly “become what one is” one must abandon the traditional goal-oriented mindset, as well as maintain a patient, passive unawareness of becoming what one is, for to do so would be oxymoronic and counterintuitive. Becoming what one is entails a joie de vivre that endures the tragic and accepts its inevitability and its mystery; one who is himself is unconcerned with the metaphysical constructions of mankind and values life simply because it is beautiful and fleeting. One who has become himself is no more than a vessel for his will-to-power—and has found life within life. | | | | |
<
< | Central to Nietzsche’s understanding of the will-to-power is his view of man as an animal, one whose delusions of greatness over the full animal kingdom spawn from incorporeal notions that alleviate existential anxieties. If man is fundamentally animal, then the concept of the self is simply a mental marvel, dictated by the physiological realities of our biological composure. However, this does not render the self unimportant or devoid of meaning, as our drives and impulses, while physical driven, define our psychological experiences. The will-to-power, the most basic and most powerful of these drives, constantly directs our self-perception and actions, as nature intended. Nietzsche views the will-to-power and the human acceptance of its supremacy over meaningless ideals as the gateway into the unencumbered life. Chasing dreams, setting objectives, and reaching goals, in Nietzsche’s opinion, weakens us, separates us from life as nature intended, and fails to provide the satisfaction or consolation that we believe they bring us (Ecce Homo 710). To truly “become what one is” one must abandon the traditional goal-oriented mindset, as well as maintain a patient, passive unawareness of becoming what one is, for to do so would be oxymoronic and counterintuitive. Becoming what one is entails a joie de vivre that endures the tragic and accepts its inevitability and its mystery; one who is himself is unconcerned with the metaphysical constructions of mankind and values life simply because it is beautiful and fleeting. One who has become himself is no more than a vessel for his will-to-power—and has found life within life. | >
> | Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “The Antichrist”. The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Arnold Kaufmann (New York: Penguin, 1976. | | | | |
<
< | Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “The Antichrist”. The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Arnold Kaufmann (New York: Penguin, 1976). | >
> | Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Ecce Homo”. Basic Writings of Nietzsche, ed. Walter Arnold Kaufmann (New York: Modern Library, 2000. | | | | |
<
< | Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Ecce Homo”. Basic Writings of Nietzsche, ed. Walter Arnold Kaufmann (New York: Modern Library, 2000). | >
> | Author's Note: This is somewhat of a companion piece to my first essay. In my first essay I reflected on my own status anxiety and my inexorable desire for power/money/dominance in a context where these desirables seemed attainable, concluding in some ways that I experienced cognitive dissonance because these feelings conflicted with the WHO that I wanted to be (or thought I wanted to be). In this essay I talk about Nietzsche's conception of the "will to power" because it was one of the more intoxicating sets of ideas I've encountered (and grappled with in the process of rationalizing my own goals/thoughts/desires). I hope that my revision of this essay will see me actually grappling and even sparring with Nietzsche's ideas as I project my own experiential understanding and belief onto his theory. | | |
| |
<
< | Author's Note: This is sort of a companion piece to my first essay. In my first essay I reflected on my own status anxiety and my inexorable desire for power/money/dominance, concluding in some ways that I experienced cognitive dissonance because these feelings conflicted with the WHO that I wanted to be. In this essay I talk about Nietzsche's conception of the "will to power" because it was one of the more intoxicating sets of ideas I've encountered (and grappled with in the process of rationalizing my own goals/thoughts/desires). I hope that my revision of this essay will see me actually grappling and even sparring with Nietzsche's ideas as I project my own experiential understanding and belief onto his theory. |
|
|
BrandonNesfieldSecondEssay 1 - 20 Apr 2016 - Main.BrandonNesfield
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- BrandonNesfield - 20 Apr 2016
Nietzsche believed that the will-to-power is the vital, driving force inherent in all humans, the force responsible for all expressions of ambition and achievement. Man has historically placed himself above all other animals, using metaphysical conceptions that provide assurance of importance and an illusory superiority. Nietzsche decries the notion that humans possess a perfection of existence that no other animals can attain, on the contrary, he finds man to be the most flawed species in the animal kingdom due to our continual straying from our instincts; he believes that within our instincts resides our true greatness, our power as nature intended. Nietzsche conceived the will-to-power as the most basic and fundamental instinct that humans possess, describing life itself as “the instinct for growth, for durability, for an accumulation of forces, for power” (The Antichrist 572). He believed that this will-to-power was manifest in our biological fitness function and our sociocultural history. It is the unshakeable, inexhaustible instinct to dominate our surroundings, to assert our will and establish influence, to overcome challenges and revel in success.
Nietzsche presents the will-to-power as energy capable of usurping our historical, ever-fluctuating conception of morality and asks in the Antichrist, “what is Good? —All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man” (570). From this declaration one can extract Nietzsche’s view of the will-to-power both as a challenge to the traditional dichotomy of good and evil, as well as the experiential subjectivity of the will-to-power, as a feeling that culminates differently within every individual. Nietzsche calls for a reevaluation of our contemporary conception of morality, as well as the genealogy of morality over the span of human civilization. He dismisses traditional Judeo-Christian stress on charity, pity, and mercy as debilitating and weak; such conceptions stray from our innate instinctual drives and neglect the will-to-power that strengthens us (570). Domination, exploitation, and the seizing of opportunity have historically been viewed as necessary evils in international politics and denounced as unsavory qualities in personal relationships and communication. Nietzsche, however, sees such qualities in a light congruent with his espousal of the will-to-power; they are qualities designed to condition us for life and all of its challenges and horrors, aspects that promote individualistic survival in the face of uncertain security. Nietzsche does not subscribe to the popular notion of humanity’s progression toward a utopic world of equality, rather, he believes the ultimate evolutionary goal of mankind is to become an ubermensch, or over-man. An over-man, in Nietzsche’s view, has not only recognized the ferocity of his will-to-power but has mastered it—a man who has long discarded the diseased ideals that generate shame for instinctually driven actions that do not conform to an illusory, higher standard.
Central to Nietzsche’s understanding of the will-to-power is his view of man as an animal, one whose delusions of greatness over the full animal kingdom spawn from incorporeal notions that alleviate existential anxieties. If man is fundamentally animal, then the concept of the self is simply a mental marvel, dictated by the physiological realities of our biological composure. However, this does not render the self unimportant or devoid of meaning, as our drives and impulses, while physical driven, define our psychological experiences. The will-to-power, the most basic and most powerful of these drives, constantly directs our self-perception and actions, as nature intended. Nietzsche views the will-to-power and the human acceptance of its supremacy over meaningless ideals as the gateway into the unencumbered life. Chasing dreams, setting objectives, and reaching goals, in Nietzsche’s opinion, weakens us, separates us from life as nature intended, and fails to provide the satisfaction or consolation that we believe they bring us (Ecce Homo 710). To truly “become what one is” one must abandon the traditional goal-oriented mindset, as well as maintain a patient, passive unawareness of becoming what one is, for to do so would be oxymoronic and counterintuitive. Becoming what one is entails a joie de vivre that endures the tragic and accepts its inevitability and its mystery; one who is himself is unconcerned with the metaphysical constructions of mankind and values life simply because it is beautiful and fleeting. One who has become himself is no more than a vessel for his will-to-power—and has found life within life.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “The Antichrist”. The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Arnold Kaufmann (New York: Penguin, 1976).
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Ecce Homo”. Basic Writings of Nietzsche, ed. Walter Arnold Kaufmann (New York: Modern Library, 2000).
Author's Note: This is sort of a companion piece to my first essay. In my first essay I reflected on my own status anxiety and my inexorable desire for power/money/dominance, concluding in some ways that I experienced cognitive dissonance because these feelings conflicted with the WHO that I wanted to be. In this essay I talk about Nietzsche's conception of the "will to power" because it was one of the more intoxicating sets of ideas I've encountered (and grappled with in the process of rationalizing my own goals/thoughts/desires). I hope that my revision of this essay will see me actually grappling and even sparring with Nietzsche's ideas as I project my own experiential understanding and belief onto his theory. |
|
|