{"id":2061,"date":"2015-09-01T06:00:37","date_gmt":"2015-09-01T10:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/?p=2061"},"modified":"2015-08-31T07:02:14","modified_gmt":"2015-08-31T11:02:14","slug":"the-will-to-power-168","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/?p=2061","title":{"rendered":"<i>The Will to Power<\/i>"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote>\n<p><i>Book Two: A Criticism of the Highest Values That Have Prevailed Hitherto<\/i><br \/>Concluding remarks concerning the criticism of morality<\/p>\n<p><b>&#0167;401<\/b> &#0160; Which values have been most valued hitherto.  Morality as the leading value in all phases of philosophy (even with the Sceptics).  Result: this world is no good, a \u201ctrue world\u201d must exist somewhere.<\/p>\n<p>What is it that here determines the highest value?  What, in sooth, is morality?  The instinct of decadence; it is the exhausted and the disinherited who take their revenge in this way and play the masters &#8212;<\/p>\n<p>Historical proof: philosophers have always been decadents and always in the pay of Nihilistic religions.  The instinct of decadence appears as the will to power.  The introduction of its system of means: its means arc absolutely immoral.<\/p>\n<p>General aspect: the values that have been highest hitherto have been a special instance of the will to power; morality itself is a particular instance of immorality.<\/p>\n<p><center>* * *<\/center><\/p>\n<p>Why the Antagonistic Values always succumbed.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<p>How was this actually possible?  Question: why did life and physiological well-constitution succumb everywhere?  Why was there no affirmative philosophy, no affirmative religion?<\/p>\n<p>The historical signs of such movements: the pagan religion.  Dionysos versus the Christ.  The Renaissance.  Art.<\/p>\n<li>\n<p>The strong and the weak: the healthy and the sick; the exception and the rule.  There is no doubt as to who is the stronger &#8212;<\/p>\n<p>General view of history; Is man an exception in the history of life on this account?  An objection to Darwinism.  The means wherewith the weak succeed in ruling have become: instincts, \u201chumanity\u201d, \u201cinstitutions\u201d\u2014.<\/p>\n<li>\n<p>The proof of this rule on the part of the weak is to be found in our political instincts, in our social values, in our arts and in our science.<\/ol>\n<p><center>* * *<\/center><\/p>\n<p>The instincts of decadence have become master of the instincts of ascending life &#8211;.  The will to nonentity has prevailed over the will to life.<\/p>\n<p>&#8212; Is this true?  Is there not perhaps a stronger guarantee of life and of the species in this victory of the weak and the mediocre?  Is it not perhaps only a means in the collective movement of life, a mere slackening of the pace, a protective measure against something even more dangerous?<\/p>\n<p>&#8212; Suppose the strong were masters in all respects, even in valuing: let us try and think what their attitude would be towards illness, suffering and sacrifice!  Self-contempt on the part of the weak would be the result: they would do their utmost to disappear and to extinguish their kind.  And would this be desirable?  Should we really like a world in which the subtlety, the consideration, the intellectuality, the plasticity in fact, the whole influence of the weak was lacking?  <\/p>\n<p><center>* * *<\/center><\/p>\n<p>We have seen two \u201cwills to power\u201d at war (in this special case we had a principle: that of agreeing with the one that has hitherto succumbed and of disagreeing with the one that has hitherto triumphed): we have recognised the \u201creal world\u201d as a \u201cworld of lies\u201d and morality as a form of immorality.  We do not say \u201cthe stronger is wrong\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>We have understood what it is that has determined the highest values hitherto and why the latter should have prevailed over the opposite value: it was numerically the stronger.<\/p>\n<p>If we now purify the opposite value of the infection, the half-heartedness and the degeneration with which we identify it.<\/p>\n<p>We restore Nature to the throne, free from moralic acid.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Book Two: A Criticism of the Highest Values That Have Prevailed HithertoConcluding remarks concerning the criticism of morality &#0167;401 &#0160; Which values have been most valued hitherto. Morality as the leading value in all phases of philosophy (even with the &hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/?p=2061\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2061"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2061"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2061\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2063,"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2061\/revisions\/2063"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.bobfelton.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}