# In Nietzsche, does "power" mean power-over-others, or something else? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 20, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330 "2011-01-20T15:54:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/1 "2011-01-20T15:54:42Z")
It’s almost a year since we’ve had [a good Nietzsche thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=552956&highlight=nietzsche) In his _History of Western Philosophy,_ Bertrand Russell calls Nietzsche a “sycophant of aristocracy” – not of any established aristocracy in particular, but of the idea that human society should be ruled by strong, vigorous, arrogant aristocrats. And the idea that Nietzsche inspired the Nazis is a commonplace. And all this seems supported by a cursory reading of some of his stuff. E.g., from [_The Antichrist:_](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm) > [@](#): > > **2** > What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. > > What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness. > > What is happiness?—The feeling that power _increases_—that resistance is overcome. > > Not contentment, but more power; _not_ peace at any price, but war; _not_ virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, _virtu,_ virtue free of moral acid). > > The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. > > What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity… That sure **sounds** like an ethic for a bully who dominates others. Especially when measured against the next passages: > [@](#): > > **3.** > The problem that I set here is not what shall replace mankind in the order of living creatures (—man is an end—): but what type of man must be bred, must be willed, as being the most valuable, the most worthy of life, the most secure guarantee of the future. > > This more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but always as a happy accident, as an exception, never as deliberately willed. Very often it has been precisely the most feared; hitherto it has been almost the terror of terrors;—and out of that terror the [Page 44] contrary type has been willed, cultivated and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick brute-man—the Christian… > > **4.** > Mankind surely does not represent an evolution toward a better or stronger or higher level, as progress is now understood. This “progress” is merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea. The European of today, in his essential worth, falls far below the European of the Renaissance; the process of evolution does not necessarily mean elevation, enhancement, strengthening. > > True enough, it succeeds in isolated and individual cases in various parts of the earth and under the most widely different cultures, and in these cases a higher type certainly manifests itself; something which, compared to mankind in the mass, appears as a sort of superman. Such happy strokes of high success have always been possible, and will remain possible, perhaps, for all time to come. Even whole races, tribes and nations may occasionally represent such lucky accidents. I’m not sure exactly what Nietzsche means by this “higher type,” but it would appear to bear a far nearer resemblance to Genghis Khan than to Socrates. I.e., there can be no superman without submen, without slaves/subjects/servants to minister to him. However, I have seen some Dopers argue, or imply, that “power” is a mistranslation or suboptimal translation and that what Nietzsche was really talking about was not power over others, but **freedom** – freedom from conventional moral and social (and even esthetic, I shouldn’t wonder) traditions, freedom to create, freedom to . . . well, I’m not sure what would come after that. What exactly **did** Nietzsche mean by “power”? And, for bonus points, what exactly did he mean by “the superman”? It is no help here, that intelligent discussion of Nietzsche is a matter of obvious relevance, while, at the same time, he is such a bad writer – such a memorable but **illucid** writer – that having actually read any of his books cover-to-cover cannot reasonably be adjudged a prerequisite to participation in such a discussion. Cliff’s-Notes-level summaries will simply have to serve. From John J. Reilly’s [review](http://www.johnreilly.info/fah.htm) of _Fascism: A History,_ by Roger Eatwell: > [@](#): > > Fascism would not have been possible without Friedrich Nietzsche. There has been no lack of anti-theistic philosophers both before and after Nietzsche, but he is almost alone in honestly facing the consequences of living in a world in which everything is permitted. Most thinkers have sought to preserve some fragment of the intellectual structure that depended from the hypothesis of the Christian God, and so they appeal to reason or history or science. Nietzsche would have none of it. If the skies are really empty, then there are no imperatives. There is, however, life, which in the case of human beings expresses itself not just as biology but as the will. Now Nietzsche, unlike Schopenhauer and unlike many of his own followers, recognized the will is itself a composite entity. It is not a primary physical force, and it is not a god. It does, however, actually exist, and its exercise is all the meaning that life can ever have. > > The proposition that the meaning of life is the exercise of the will leads to two kinds of conclusions. The most obvious, and the most popular, is the cult of cruelty. Naturally, the street-fighters who normally figure in the public activities of successful fascist parties are rarely well-read in the literature of philosophical nihilism. Nevertheless, even the nihilist violence of the German SA and the Italian “squadristi” chimes with high theory. Fascism promotes ruthlessness for the same reason that it promotes conspiracy theories: for a fascist, nothing is going to happen unless some will makes it happen. One suspects this consideration is also a factor in the usual fascist suspicion of free markets. > > The other conclusion to which an ontology of the will leads is the transformation of politics into art. Whole societies become instruments for the expression of the will of elites, or often of a single great individual. In fascist theory, this is all that politics ever was, no matter what purportedly disinterested purposes the ruling elites of the past believed they served. The difference that Nietzsche made was that this reality could become conscious. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/2 "2011-01-20T15:59:22Z")
From [_An Incomplete Education,_](http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Education-Revised-Judy-Jones/dp/0345391373) by Judy Jones and William Wilson: > [@](#): > > FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE (1844-1900) > > _Best-Known Works: Thus Spake Zarathustra, The Will to Power_ (beware posthumous additions by his sister), _Twilight of the Idols, Ecce Homo_ (his auobiography). > > _Readability:_ Looks easy enough; used ordinary language, specialized in short spurts and aphorisms, pulled no punches (summed up Socrates, for instance, as “the patron saint of moral twaddle”), but style is overheated and dense; reads a little like Norman Mailer in his apocalyptic mode. > > _Qualities of Mind:_ Impetuous, irreverent, individualistic, elitist, unstable. > > _Catchphrases:_ The will to power, transvaluation of values, _Ubermensch,_ God is dead. > > _Influence:_ One of the most flamboyant and controversial philosophers ever, vehemently opposed to virtually all established culture and morality. A prophet who announced the demise of God (and, more importantly, of all absolutes), prophesied the world wars (or something very like them), warned of democracy’s tendency to promote conformity and suppress excellence; also, favored selective breeding. A cultural historian whose perceptions about unconscious human drives paved the way for Freud’s. Insisted that the dominant force of history is the “will to power,” and advocated a “transvaluation of values” in which the traditional “feminine” virtues espoused by Christianity (submission, compassion, being nice to other people) would be joined with “masculine” virtues (courage, strength, toughness) in a morality that aimed at greatness rather than goodness. Hoped for the ascendancy of the _Ubermensch,_ or superman, in whom Dionysian instinct and dynamism would be integrated with Apollonian reason and ethics (see page 258). Has been variously interpreted – and misinterpreted – as a spokesman for Fascist, Nazi, anti-Nazi, Romantic, anti-Romantic, and existentialist doctrines. > > _Personal Gossip:_ A frail, sickly boy raised in a household of pious women. Became a classics scholar. First an ardent admirer, then a bitter enemy of Wagner. Went hopelessly insane at age forty-four. His sister, who had problems of her own, later distorted some of his writings, making him sound more racist than he really was. > > _Current Standing:_ It’s no longer fashionable to call him the Antichrist, to blame him for World War II, or even to dismiss him as a brilliant but sophomoric “literary philosopher.” These days, he’s admired as a visionary theorist of language and knowledge. On the whole, however, philosophers are still busy trying to figure out exactly what he was driving at. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/3 "2011-01-20T16:09:34Z")
From Bertrand Russell’s [_A History of Western Philosophy:_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy) > [@](#): > > Nietzsche (1844-1900) regarded himself, rightly, as the successor of Schopenhauer, to whom, however, he is superior in many ways, particularly in the consistency and coherence of his doctrine. Schopenhauer’s oriental ethic of renunciation seems out of harmony with his metaphysic of the omnipotence of the will; in Nietzsche, the will has ethical as well as metaphysical primacy. Nietzsche, though a professor, was a literary rather than an academic philosopher. He invented no new techical theories in ontology or epistemology; his importance is primarily in ethics, and secondarily as an acute historical critic. I shall confine myself almost entirely to his ethics and to his criticism of religion, since it was this aspect of his writing that made him influential. > > \ > > In spite of Nietzsche’s criticism of the romantics, his outlook owes much to them; it is that of aristocratic anarchism, like Byron’s, and one is not surprised to find him admiring Byron. He attempts to combine two sets of values that are not easily harmonized: on the one hand he likes ruthlessness, war, and aristocratic pride; on the other hand, he loves philosophy and literature and the arts, especially music. . . . > > Nietzsche’s criticism of religions and philosophies is dominated entirely by ethcial motives. He admires certain qualities which he believes (perhaps rigthly) to be only possible for an aristocratic minority; the majority, in his opinion, should be only means to the excellence of the few, and should not be regarded as having any independent claim to happiness or well-being. He alludes habitually to ordinary human beings as the “bungled and botched,” and sees no objection to their suffering if it is necessary for the production of a great man. Thus the whole importance of the period from 1789 to 1815 is summed up in Napoleon: “The Revolution made Napoleon possible; that is its justification. We ought to desire the anarchical collapse of the whole of our civilization if such a reward were to be its result. Napoleon made nationalism possibe; that is the latter’s excuse.” Almost all the higher hopes of this century, he says, are due to Napoleon. > > \ > > True virtue, as opposed to the conventional sort, is not for all, but should remain the characteristic of an aristocratic minority. It is not profitable or prudent; it isolates its possessor from other men; it is hostile to order, and does harm to inferiors. It is necessary for higher men to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendencies of the age, for in all directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters. “Everything that pampers, that softens, and that brings ‘the people’ or ‘woman’ to the front, operates in favor of universal suffrage – that is to say, the dominion of ‘inferior’ men.” The seducer was Rousseau, who made women interesting; then came Harriett Beecher Stowe and the slaves; then the Socialists with their championship of workmen and the poor. All these are to be combated. > > Nietzsche’s ethic is not one of self-indulgence in any ordinary sense; he believes in Spartan discipline and the capacity to endure as well as inflict pain for important ends. He admires strength of will above all things. "I test the _power_ of a _will,"_ he says, “according to the amount of resistance it can offer and the amount of pain and torture it can endure and know how to turn to its own advantage; I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been.” He regards compassion as a weakness to be combated. “The object is to attain that enormous _energy of greatness_ which can model the man of the future by means of discipline and also by means of the annihiliation of millions of the bungled and botched, and which can yet avoid _going to ruin_ at the sight of the suffering created thereby, the like of which has never been seen before.” He prophesied with a certain glee an era of great wars; one wonders whether he would have been happy if he had lived to see the fulfillment of his prophecy. > > He is not, however, a worshipper of the State; far from it. He is a passionate individualist, a believer in the hero. The misery of a whole nation, he says, is of less importance than the suffering of a great individual: “The misfortunes of all thse small folk do not together constitute a sum-total, except in the feelings of _mighty_ men.” (In these terms, I suppose the truest heirs of Nietzsche now living are not neo-Nazis, but [LaVeyan Satanists.](http://www.churchofsatan.com/)) > [@](#): > > Nietzsche is not a nationalist, and shows no excessive admiration for Germany. He wants an international ruling race, who are to be the lords of the earth: “a new vast aristocracy based upon the most severe self-discipline, in which the will of philosophical men of power and artist-tyrants will be stamped upon thousands of years.” > > He is also not definitely anti-Semitic, though he thinks Germany contains as many Jews as it can assimilate, and ought not to permit any further influx of Jews. He dislikes the New Testament, but not the Old, of which he speaks in terms of the highest admiration. In justice to Nietzsche it must be emphasized that many modern developments which have a certain connection with his general ethical outlook are contrary to his clearly expressed opinions. > > \ > > Nietzsche’s objectio to Christianity is that it caused acceptance of what he calls “slave morality.” It is curious to observe the contrast between his arguments and those of the French philosophes who preceded the Revolution. They argued that Christian dogmas are untrue; that Christianity teaches submission to what is deemed to be the will of God, whereas self-respecting human beings should not bow down before any higher Power; and that Christian churches have become the allies of tyrants, and are helping the enemies of democracy to deny liberty and continue to grind the faces of the poor. Nietzsche is not interested in the metaphysical truth of either Christianity or any other religion; being convinced that no religion is really true, he judges all religions entirely by their social effects. He agrees with the philosophes in objecting to submission to the so-called will of God, but he would substitute for it the will of earthly “artist-tyrants.” Submission is right, except for these supermen, but not submission to the Christian God. As for the Christian Churches’ being allies of tyrants and enemies of democracy, that, he says, is the very reverse of the truth. The French Revolution and Socialism are, according to him, essentially identical in spirit with Christianity; to all alike he is opposed, and for the same reason: that he will not treat all men as equal in any respect whatever. > > \ > > What are we to think of Nietzsche’s doctrines? How far are they true? Are they in any degree useful? Is there in them anything objective, or are they the mere power-phantasies of an invalid? > > \ > > [T]here is a great deal in him that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac. Speaking of Spinoza he says: “How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!” Exactly the same may be said of him, with the less reluctance since he has not hesitated to say it of Spinoza. It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not they whip” – but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks. > > He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear: I am afraid my neighbour may injure me, and so I assure him that I love him. If I were stronger and bolder, I should openly display the contempt for him which of course I feel. It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His “noble” man – who is himself in day-dreams – is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, cruel, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: > > I will do such things > What they are yet I know not – but they shall be > The terror of the earth. > > That is Nietzsche’s philosophy in a nutshell. > > \ > > It must be amitted that there is a certain type of Christian ethic to which Nietzsche’s strictures can be justly applied. Pascal and Dostoevsky – his own illustrations – have both something abject in their virtue. Pascal sacrificed his magnificent mathematical intellect to his God, thereby attributig to Him a barbarity which was a cosmic enlargement of Pascal’s morbid mental tortures. Dostoevsky would have nothing to do with “proper pride”; he would sin in order to repent and to enjoy the luxury of confession. I will not argue the question how far such aberrations can justly be charged against Christianity, but I will admit I agree with Nietzsche in thinking Dostoevsky’s prostration contemptible. A certain uprightness and pride and even self-assertion of a sort, I should agree, are elements in the best character; no virtue which has its roots in fear is much to be admired. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/4 "2011-01-20T16:15:54Z")
Russell next considers the main ethical problem raised by Nietzsche: “should our ethic be aristocratic, or should it, in some sense, treat all men alike?” (Unreflectingly sexist language – Russell, remember, is writing in 1945.) Russell notes in passing that an aristocratic **ethic** is not the same as an aristocratic political theory: A Benthamite might hold that an aristocratic form of government best promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number; but Nietzsche’s ethic discounts the happiness of the common people. “All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.” Russell sums Nietzsche’s sociopolitical ethic as follows: “Victors in war, and their descendants, are usually biologically superior to the vanquished. It is therefore desirable that they should hold all the power, and should manage affairs exclusively in their own interests.” Russell analyzes this to show that “desirable” in this context means only “desired by Nietzsche” and “this is not a philosophy; it is a biological fact about a certain individual.” > [@](#): > > . . . The word “desirable” is not synonymous with “desired by me”; it has some claim, however shadowy, to legislative universality. A theist may say that what is desirable is what God desires, but Nietzsche cannot say this. He could say he knows what is good by ethical intuition, but he will not say this, because it sounds too Kantian. What he can say, as an expansion of the word “desirable,” is this: “If men will read my works, a certain number of them will come to share my desires as regards the organization of society; these men, inspired by the energy and determination which my philosophy will give them, can preserve and restore aristocracy, whith themselves as aristocrats or (like me) sycophants of aristocracy. In this way they will achieve a fuller life than they can have as servants of the people.” Russell sees a practical objection to this, that as nowadays the idea of aristocracies of birth are discredited, the only practicable form of aristocracy is something like the Fascist or Nazi party, which must arouse opposition and turn into “a police State, where the rulers live in terror of assassination, and the heroes are in concentration camps. In such a community faith and honour are sapped by delation, and the would-be aristocracy of supermen degenerates into a clique of trembling poltroons.” But this is a modern objection; practically all governments of large states before the American and French Revolutions were aristocratic, and the principle unquestioned. The more important objection Russell sees is ethical, as to sympathy. “Sympathy, in the sense of being made unhappy by the sufferings of others, is to some extent natural in human beings; young children are troubled when they hear other children crying. But the development of this feeling is very different in different people. Some find pleasure in the infliction of torture; others, like Buddha, feel that they cannot be completely happy so long as any living thing is suffering.” Russell concludes with an imaginary debate between Nietzsche and Buddha, before God, trying to persuade him as to what sort of world He should create, one based on love or strife. Nietzsche accuses Buddha of having a purely “negative” ideal, the absence of suffering, which is the stuff of boredom and death; while Nietzsche loves life, and excitement, and the beauty of predatory beasts like the tiger, and positive heroes like Alcibiades Emperor Frederick II and Napoleon. Buddha responds that he does have his own heroes – Jesus and saints and scientists and “the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men who have ever lived.” Nietzsche, he charges, loves pain, and his purported love of life is a sham. > [@](#): > > For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their inning, but we may hope that is coming rapidly to an end. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/5 "2011-01-20T17:42:58Z")
BTW, check out the [_Nietzsche Family Circus:_](http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/) Random _FC_ toons captioned with random Nietzsche quotes. The effect is surreal. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/6 "2011-01-20T18:54:34Z")
I think I accidentally stumbled upon your personal diary **BrainGlutton**. There are only posts by you in a thread started by you :). ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/7 "2011-01-20T19:07:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m not sure exactly what Nietzsche means by this “higher type,” but it would appear to bear a far nearer resemblance to Genghis Khan than to Socrates. I.e., there can be no superman without submen, without slaves/subjects/servants to minister to him. > > However, I have seen some Dopers argue, or imply, that “power” is a mistranslation or suboptimal translation and that what Nietzsche was really talking about was not power over others, but **freedom** – freedom from conventional moral and social (and even esthetic, I shouldn’t wonder) traditions, freedom to create, freedom to . . . well, I’m not sure what would come after that. > > What exactly **did** Nietzsche mean by “power”? > > And, for bonus points, what exactly did he mean by “the superman”? The Superman was not (a) a guy in red underwear from another planet who fights crime or (b) a caveman who wandered the earth crushing skulls or (c) a Conan-style barbarian king who rules his subjects with an iron rod. All of those are pop-cultural representations that missed the point. Nietzsche imagined the superman as one who had shed all of the moral constraints and baggage of his civilization and his heritage and lives by a new order. Nietzsche did seem to believe that all old, ethical systems would have to die out. However, a reader shouldn’t leap from there to the conclusion that he was in favor of murder, rapine, and carnage. His most famous character, Zarathustra, is a loner who lives on a mountain and talks with animals more than with other humans. Aloof and indifferent to the lives of other humans, but not actively seeking to harm them in most cases. Nietzsche poured at least as much of his attention into aesthetic doctrine as moral. In other words, he was at least as much concerned with overthrowing what he perceived as western society’s artistic pretensions as ethical and religious ones. One of the few pop culture references that does get Nietzsche correct is in Woody Allen’s _Bullets over Broadway_: “I’ve told you before a thousand times that guilt is a petty, bouregois emotion. The artist creates his own reality.” That’s something that Nietzsche might actually have said, though not a direct quote. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/8 "2011-01-20T19:40:56Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Nietzsche imagined the superman as one who had shed all of the moral constraints and baggage of his civilization and his heritage and lives by a new order. But how, exactly? I mean, the earliest Christian saints did exactly that and Nietzsche never approved of them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/9 "2011-01-20T19:49:16Z")
Then we have the “Nietzscheans” from Gene Roddenberry’s [_Andromeda,_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_(TV_series)) who destroyed the old tri-galactic Systems Commonwealth. > [@](#): > > Tyr Anasazi: What would you like, Jaguar? > > Charlemagne Bolivar: The usual. Hundreds of grandchildren, utter domination of known space and the pleasure of hearing that all of my enemies have died in terrible, highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me. And you? > > Tyr Anasazi: [Laughs] The usual. **Is** that really Nietzschean thinking, or is it not? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/10 "2011-01-20T23:25:14Z")
Reading the ancient Greek myths, one carries away the impression that the ancient Greek ideal of godliness was to be (as far as humanly possible) as powerful and beautiful as gods. That the goal was to realize in the physical world the perfect and eternal. Hence a loathing for the imperfect, especially the ugly and the weak. Were the ancient Greeks proto-Nietzscheans? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/11 "2011-01-21T00:52:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But how, exactly? I mean, the earliest Christian saints did exactly that and Nietzsche never approved of them. Well, there’s the rub. For Nietzsche, the will is supreme. Christianity, ethics, intellectual activity, science, psychology, charity work, and almost everything else has been set up as an obstacle to those with a truly strong will. But what exactly should those few individuals strong-willed enough to break free from these constraints do with their will? That’s not entirely clear. As you’ve already said, it’s very difficult to get anything definite out of Nietzsche’s works. I’ve read most of _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ and the impression I got was that the author was hovering right on the border between sanity and insanity, sometimes straying a small distance in one direction and sometimes in the other. As best I can tell from biographical sketches, this impression is accurate. In the early 1880’s, when he wrote that and his other famous works, he suffered from a number of maladies and often wasn’t lucid for days at a time. By the end of the decade he was well and truly insane. (Incidentally a fair number of his best-known followers also went nuts.) Nietasche’s writings–the more sane parts, that is–have a certain intensity. They mix powerful images, vivid word choice, allusions to obscure works of literature and mythology, and a definite sense of fire. Perhaps because of these properties, many people simply assume that he must have concealed some brilliant meaning in everything he wrote. But we should remember that not everything written with memorable style necessarily contains great meaning. (Think about _Jabberwocky_, for instance.) Take this quote: > [@Nietzsche](#): > > Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that sea; in him can your great contempt be submerged. > > What is the greatest thing ye can experience? It is the hour of great contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becometh loathsome unto you, and so also your reason and virtue. > > The hour when ye say: “What good is my happiness! It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself!” > > The hour when ye say: “What good is my reason! Doth it long for knowledge as the lion for his food? It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!” > > The hour when ye say: “What good is my virtue! As yet it hath not made me passionate. How weary I am of my good and my bad! It is all poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!” > > The hour when ye say: “What good is my justice! I do not see that I am fervour and fuel. The just, however, are fervour and fuel!” > > The hour when ye say: “What good is my pity! Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loveth man? But my pity is not a crucifixion.” > > Have ye ever spoken thus? Have ye ever cried thus? Ah! would that I had heard you crying thus! > > It is not your sin–it is your self-satisfaction that crieth unto heaven; your very sparingness in sin crieth unto heaven! > > Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated? > > Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that lightning, he is that frenzy!– So, that’s as clear an answer as you’ll ever get from him. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/12 "2011-01-21T00:53:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > BTW, check out the [_Nietzsche Family Circus:_](http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/) Random _FC_ toons captioned with random Nietzsche quotes. The effect is surreal. Then again [sometimes the captions seem quite appropriate.](http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/perm.php?c=165&q=33) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/13 "2011-01-21T00:55:53Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Reading the ancient Greek myths, one carries away the impression that the ancient Greek ideal of godliness was to be (as far as humanly possible) as powerful and beautiful as gods. That the goal was to realize in the physical world the perfect and eternal. Hence a loathing for the imperfect, especially the ugly and the weak. Were the ancient Greeks proto-Nietzscheans? Greek gods were perfect **only** in their power and beauty. They were very humanlike beings, and **not** anything like Greek philosophers. They acted pretty much like half-civilized Bronze Age royalty would act if they had supernatural powers. They were greedy, vain, wrathful, jealous, lecherous, spiteful, vindictive, occasionally stupid, and in all ways bad role-models. Would a Nietzschean superman be like that? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/14 "2011-01-21T04:46:05Z")
To briefly answer the thread title, Nietzsche’s concept of power definitely involved power over the _self_. It could include power over others as well, but that wasn’t really the point. I don’t think “freedom” is quite what he was getting at, but it was more “the power to do…” than “the power to make someone else…” Defining a Nietzschean Übermensch is difficult, but an Übermensch would have used his power to mold himself into something greater. He’s called the “Over-man” because he has overcome himself, or overcome human nature. An Übermensch doesn’t need to surround himself with inferior people just so he’ll look good in comparison. He’d look good all on his own, because he’s an Übermensch. Nietzsche talked about treating yourself/your life like a work of art, and an Übermensch would have made himself into a great work of art. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then we have the “Nietzscheans” from Gene Roddenberry’s [_Andromeda,_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_(TV_series)) who destroyed the old tri-galactic Systems Commonwealth. > > **Is** that really Nietzschean thinking, or is it not? I’m not sure what you mean by that. It could be inspired by Nietzsche’s work in the sense that it sounds like Nietzsche’s description of “master morality”. However, it’s important to recognize that while Nietzsche considered master morality preferable to “slave morality”, it was not his ideal. Master morality was part of his description of human history, and the conflict between “masters” and “slaves” was how we wound up with 19th century Western morality. Nietzsche’s Übermensch is not the man of the past though, he’s the man of the future. IIRC, Nietzsche did not believe that anyone who had ever lived qualified as a true Übermensch. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/15 "2011-01-21T05:07:44Z")
Oh, as far as the actual word Nietzsche used then I believe it’s the German “Macht” that’s being translated as the English “power”. “Macht” is related to the English “might”, as in strength or authority, so “power” is a reasonable translation. However, it’s my impression that “Macht” is also related to the German verb “machen”, which means “to do” or “to make”, and thus may have different connotations than the English “power”. I hope someone who speaks German better than I do can ring in on this. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/16 "2011-01-21T06:22:39Z")
[G.K. Chesteron meets the Superman.](http://www.davidszondy.com/future/man/chesterton.htm) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/17 "2011-01-21T06:29:21Z")
From [_Man and Superman,_](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3328/3328-h/3328-h.htm) by George Bernard Shaw: > [@](#): > > THE STATUE. [calling after him] Bon voyage, Juan! [He wafts a final blast of his great rolling chords after him as a parting salute. A faint echo of the first ghostly melody comes back in acknowledgment]. Ah! there he goes. [Puffing a long breath out through his lips] Whew! How he does talk! They’ll never stand it in heaven. > > THE DEVIL. [gloomily] His going is a political defeat. I cannot keep these Life Worshippers: they all go. This is the greatest loss I have had since that Dutch painter went—a fellow who would paint a hag of 70 with as much enjoyment as a Venus of 20. > > THE STATUE. I remember: he came to heaven. Rembrandt. > > THE DEVIL. Ay, Rembrandt. There a something unnatural about these fellows. Do not listen to their gospel, Senor Commander: it is dangerous. Beware of the pursuit of the Superhuman: it leads to an indiscriminate contempt for the Human. To a man, horses and dogs and cats are mere species, outside the moral world. Well, to the Superman, men and women are a mere species too, also outside the moral world. This Don Juan was kind to women and courteous to men as your daughter here was kind to her pet cats and dogs; but such kindness is a denial of the exclusively human character of the soul. > > THE STATUE. And who the deuce is the Superman? > > THE DEVIL. Oh, the latest fashion among the Life Force fanatics. Did you not meet in Heaven, among the new arrivals, that German Polish madman—what was his name? Nietzsche? > > THE STATUE. Never heard of him. > > THE DEVIL. Well, he came here first, before he recovered his wits. I had some hopes of him; but he was a confirmed Life Force worshipper. It was he who raked up the Superman, who is as old as Prometheus; and the 20th century will run after this newest of the old crazes when it gets tired of the world, the flesh, and your humble servant. > > THE STATUE. Superman is a good cry; and a good cry is half the battle. I should like to see this Nietzsche. > > THE DEVIL. Unfortunately he met Wagner here, and had a quarrel with him. > > THE STATUE. Quite right, too. Mozart for me! > > THE DEVIL. Oh, it was not about music. Wagner once drifted into Life Force worship, and invented a Superman called Siegfried. But he came to his senses afterwards. So when they met here, Nietzsche denounced him as a renegade; and Wagner wrote a pamphlet to prove that Nietzsche was a Jew; and it ended in Nietzsche’s going to heaven in a huff. And a good riddance too. And now, my friend, let us hasten to my palace and celebrate your arrival with a grand musical service. > > THE STATUE. With pleasure: you’re most kind. > > THE DEVIL. This way, Commander. We go down the old trap [he places himself on the grave trap]. > > THE STATUE. Good. [Reflectively] All the same, the Superman is a fine conception. There is something statuesque about it. [He places himself on the grave trap beside The Devil. It begins to descend slowly. Red glow from the abyss]. Ah, this reminds me of old times. > > THE DEVIL. And me also. > > ANA. Stop! [The trap stops]. > > THE DEVIL. You, Senora, cannot come this way. You will have an apotheosis. But you will be at the palace before us. > > ANA. That is not what I stopped you for. Tell me where can I find the Superman? > > THE DEVIL. He is not yet created, Senora. > > THE STATUE. And never will be, probably. Let us proceed: the red fire will make me sneeze. [They descend]. > > ANA. Not yet created! Then my work is not yet done. [Crossing herself devoutly] I believe in the Life to Come. [Crying to the universe] A father—a father for the Superman! ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/18 "2011-01-21T11:50:01Z")
I quite agree that if one looks at Nietzche, one can find his descendant in LaVey. And, therefore, theoretically, in Scientology. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/19 "2011-01-21T12:04:57Z")
Macht could be translated as “power” or “force”, but also as “strength” or “might”. The latter has less of the hierarchical dynamic, of “power-over-others”, we usually associate with Will-to-Power. Personally, I lean to the “Power-over-Oneself” interpretation, but without sinking into the Crowleyesque sense that “Do as thou wilt” being the whole of the Law (of the Overman). The Overman still answers to a higher power, in a sense, but that power is aesthetic rather than moral. I don’t know, I put that badly… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330/20 "2011-01-21T14:36:01Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > I think I accidentally stumbled upon your personal diary **BrainGlutton**. > There are only posts by you in a thread started by you :). You have your Will to Power, I have mine. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-nietzsche-does-power-mean-power-over-others-or-something-else/568330.md?page=2)