10-18-2023, 05:41 PM
(10-18-2023, 03:12 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]He is a scientist observing the world but beyond what we now think as science, because he is willing to take science to "morality".
A scientist searches for empirical evidence. Nietzsche makes vague assertions about will to power. Never even makes an argument for its primacy.
(10-18-2023, 03:12 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]All philosophies necessarily have presuppositions. Nietzsche made the will to power his. By consequence, all experience, thought and appearance is determined through it. He escapes from the circle that appears by observing that only those with great will to power will be capable of such a Weltanschauung.
It is possible to make an axiom of anything, but whether it is prudent is another question. A true axiom is something irreducible, inexplicable. Inductive reasoning, for example, or the principles of deductive reasoning. Will to power is a claim about a force that exists in the world. It either does or does not exist in the world. It is not self-evident. So it cannot be an irrefutable axiom.
The difficult thing about self-evidence is that anything can be claimed to be self-evident, and the only counterargument is basically "it is self evident that it isn't", because things that are self-evidenced cannot be explained. However, there are actually things that are not self-evident, even if claiming that they are self-evident can be rhetorically discourse stopping. It's obvious if you don't LIE or think UNCLEARLY ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER that a physical force of "will to exert control over space" is not self-evident, even if it might be true. It isn't true though, because it is neither self evident nor plain evident.
(10-18-2023, 03:12 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]The kind of justification you would like, would not be possible in his system.
Let us be more particular than to use the vague word "system". Nietzsche makes claims. Those claims stand up to the laws of logic and the empirical study of reality or they do not. They do not. So you're right. The totality of all claims that he makes, which you call a "system", may be internally consistent, sure, but if its internal consistency is against logic and without evidence then it is false.
You can be PSYOPed into believing as self-evident a system that is not self-evident, and thus accept "will to power" or whatever as your standard of evidence, above the standards that are actually obvious. But all you have to do is stop FUCKING LYING, in order to default to the proper understanding; that claims must be logical and evidenced by observances in the world.
I know you are playing devil's advocate. Speaking to the devil, so to speak.