Was he full of shit?

Can you please read a single sentence of the Zarathustra?

Are there really brainlets in here comparing evolution to will to power

N O I C E *pop*

I don't know but he was sure btfo by Guenon, like all modern 'philosophers'

Attached: 47265384609.jpg (702x869, 232K)

Did Guénon ever explicitly comment on Nietzsche?

>he thinks the will to power amounts to the law of the jungle

>not realizing Guenon is a glownigger psyop to keep you away from true revolutionaries like Nietzsche
Laughingwhores.jpg

He started to seriously formulate the concept in response to what Darwin's readers were saying.

>Once again, the origin of the scholars.—To wish to preserve oneself is a sign of distress, of a limitation of the truly basic life-instinct, which aims at the expansion of power and in doing so often enough risks and sacrifices self-preservation. It is symptomatic that certain philosophers, such as the consumptive Spinoza, took and indeed had to take just the so-called self-preservation instinct to be decisive:—they were simply people in distress. That today's natural sciences have become so entangled with the Spinozistic dogma (most recently and crudely in Darwinism with its incredibly one-sided doctrine of 'the struggle for existence'—) is probably due to the descent of most natural scientists: in this regard they belong to 'the people', their ancestors were poor and lowly folks who knew all too intimately the difficulty of scraping by. English Darwinism exudes something like the stuffy air of English overpopulation, like the small people's smell of indigence and overcrowding. As a natural scientist, however, one should get out of one's human corner; and in nature, it is not distress which rules, but rather abundance, squandering—even to the point of absurdity. The struggle for survival is only an exception, a temporary restriction of the will to life; the great and small struggle revolves everywhere around preponderance, around growth and expansion, around power and in accordance with the will to power, which is simply the will to life.

The Gay Science, §349

Also...

>I call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is injurious to it. A history of the 'higher feelings,' the 'ideals of humanity'—and it is possible that I'll have to write it—would almost explain why man is so degenerate. Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces, for power: whenever the will to power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest values of humanity have been emptied of this will—that the values of decadence, of nihilism, now prevail under the holiest names.

The Antichrist, §6

>This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!

The Will to Power, §1067

Again, find me an alternative compulsion in nature that successfully explains why anything evolved from mere molecules. Will to power was Nietzsche's explanation.

>implying it doesn't
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It's finite even in an infinitely expanding universe. Nature is a struggle for resources.

Good job my friend.

Great, you can find lengthy quotes and give them verbatim, how about learning how to think now? Start by recognizing the two meanings of the word "compulsion" that you have conflated. Nietzsche sure as fuck didn't conflate them, it's the only original idea you've presented and you concocted it by giving Nietzsche a lazy, preconceived read.

If molecules themselves are nothing but will to power, how is it not a compulsion as far as we're concerned?

"Great, you can find lengthy quotes and give them verbatim", they were clearly providing evidence to support their initial point that Nietzsche's will to power is a response to 'the struggle for existence' which was and still is the prevailing interpretation of the purpose of evolution.

not that user, but compulsion might be the simpler way to put it

the spanish translations I've read of Nietzsche speak of a "fullness", of a plentiful God/Will overflowing with itself (TBoT) and of "forces of transgression" which burst into existence and are themselves the motors of becoming, instead of some conceived goal or end (GoM).

he was as much as a prophet as he was a philosopher.

Attached: lastman.jpg (1100x721, 323K)

If energy can't be destroyed it can't be finite you mongrel

Pretty much. All obscurantists are. He was pretty passionate about the things he wrote though, which is nice. Not a lot of philosophers are passionate about what they're doing.

It being a constant, unchanging amount makes it finite.

/thread

Please be more critical in your thinking.

>Diseased and most likely suffering from chronic depression and isolationism
>Still made good arguments

Nietzsche isn't obscure, he just thinks differently from Christian society. Christian mystics and scholars all appear full of shit to me too.

You have to know Germans and their behaviour to understand some of his criticisms.
They are very equalitarian. If you are extremely talented social pressure is more about keeping you humble than allowing you to be a star.

Yes, read "on the prejudices of philosophers", they all were full of shit, this must be accepted and moved past to properly engage philosophy