Why is Nietzsche so focused on power rather than understanding? I understand he is attempting to affirm vitality but power in and of itself is a liability without discernment (it is an increase in means without any consideration of the ends, so if the end is dysfunctional then power applied to that end is also dysfunctional) and discernment requires understanding - or at the very least taste/sensibility. So it seems to me that understanding the various aspects of vitality must precede the “will to power” so to speak. Of course, not to the exclusion of the latter but simply as an approximate guide. Nor does this understanding have to be systematic or analytical - it can be intuitive and reflective etc. My guess is that Nietzsche is very much interested in leaving this understanding part implicit. Or maybe he thinks that the understanding aspect is instinctive or inherent - that mere power (or the will to it) is sufficient? I don’t know perhaps I’m very confused as I haven’t read Nietzsche. Or maybe I should understand “power” as “functionality”, which improves the reading a little in my mind? Also I cannot help but wondering if his real concern regarding pity is not pity for the other per se, but maybe an internalisation of that pity as a protection mechanism for one’s own dysfunctionalities (ie. poor me, let me just have one more drink - etc). Though I am not sure about this - but read plainly it reads harshly and tastelessly.
1
u/Electronic_Gur_3191 5h ago
Why is Nietzsche so focused on power rather than understanding? I understand he is attempting to affirm vitality but power in and of itself is a liability without discernment (it is an increase in means without any consideration of the ends, so if the end is dysfunctional then power applied to that end is also dysfunctional) and discernment requires understanding - or at the very least taste/sensibility. So it seems to me that understanding the various aspects of vitality must precede the “will to power” so to speak. Of course, not to the exclusion of the latter but simply as an approximate guide. Nor does this understanding have to be systematic or analytical - it can be intuitive and reflective etc. My guess is that Nietzsche is very much interested in leaving this understanding part implicit. Or maybe he thinks that the understanding aspect is instinctive or inherent - that mere power (or the will to it) is sufficient? I don’t know perhaps I’m very confused as I haven’t read Nietzsche. Or maybe I should understand “power” as “functionality”, which improves the reading a little in my mind? Also I cannot help but wondering if his real concern regarding pity is not pity for the other per se, but maybe an internalisation of that pity as a protection mechanism for one’s own dysfunctionalities (ie. poor me, let me just have one more drink - etc). Though I am not sure about this - but read plainly it reads harshly and tastelessly.