5 ms·

Yes, those are the proper terms. Nietzsche was weird. He was not an idealist but he posited this transcendent idea of "will" which is basically New Thought. Bu

by api 1y ago

Yes, those are the proper terms. Nietzsche was weird. He was not an idealist but he posited this transcendent idea of "will" which is basically New Thought. But I'm not an expert on Nietzsche so maybe there is more nuance here. There is a kernel of truth to New Thought and its kindred ideas -- if you believe in your future success, you are less likely to become discouraged. In many cases success is claimed by those who are willing to fail over, and over, and over, and over again until they succeed. But that's a brain hack, not metaphysics. Your thoughts have determined your behavior, which has increased your odds of success, which can then be retroactively interpreted as magic if you are so inclined. As far as hand waving it away -- I think the burden of proof is on those who claim such an extraordinary thing as "our thoughts determine reality." I want to see someone actually bend a spoon without touching it. Then we'll talk.

daseiner1 1y ago
The Will to Power is a complicated concept that can be interpreted many different ways. And actually his whole point was attempting a purely immanent philosophy. WtP is not a transcendent.
Barrin92 1y ago
>But I'm not an expert on Nietzsche so maybe there is more nuance here. not just more nuance, that's a straight up misreading of Nietzsche. For one Nietzsche rejected any notion of transcendence, free will and was an (idiosyncratic) materialist and not a self help writer. He did not think you could manifest success by believing in it, or even that this mattered. In fact one of his central ideas, Eternal Recurrence, implies the exact opposite. He argued that you ought to imagine the worst possible state you can be in, recurring over and over and say yes to the world purely out of love of fate, Amor Fati "My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it" Will in Nietzsche is immanent, he had nothing to do with New Thought, an as far as I'm aware idealistic American religious movement, he couldnt' be farther away from it if you tried to be honest.

by api 1y ago

daseiner1 1y ago

The Will to Power is a complicated concept that can be interpreted many different ways. And actually his whole point was attempting a purely immanent philosophy. WtP is not a transcendent.

Barrin92 1y ago

>But I'm not an expert on Nietzsche so maybe there is more nuance here. not just more nuance, that's a straight up misreading of Nietzsche. For one Nietzsche rejected any notion of transcendence, free will and was an (idiosyncratic) materialist and not a self help writer. He did not think you could manifest success by believing in it, or even that this mattered. In fact one of his central ideas, Eternal Recurrence, implies the exact opposite. He argued that you ought to imagine the worst possible state you can be in, recurring over and over and say yes to the world purely out of love of fate, Amor Fati "My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it" Will in Nietzsche is immanent, he had nothing to do with New Thought, an as far as I'm aware idealistic American religious movement, he couldnt' be farther away from it if you tried to be honest.