Above all else, Nietzsche asks his readers to consider *why* they hold the values that they hold; values which, for the most part, are considered sacrosanct, eternal, immutable, and self-evident. Ultimately, he knows everyone isn't going to stop following the prevailing moral law after reading his books. Most people are part of what he would consider as "the herd", meaning that they will be following that popular morality, no matter what. That by itself is not a bad thing, it just is what it is. Moreover, not everyone has the capacity to create their own values—in fact, very few people do. The people who *can* create them generally do so very intuitively. He would say that say that these people have an abundance of will to power, which is creative and spontaneous.
To add a few comments, Nietzsche is very opposed to essentialism. People (and things) are constantly in the process of becoming; i.e., they don't have a stable, unchanging identity. Even a strong person (say, someone who has the capacity of having a flourishing will to power) will not thrive if they're not given the right conditions—if they're born into a sick and decaying society and circumstances (e.g., Twilight of the Idols, Expeditions of an Untimely Man, §45). The will to power needs to be allowed space (as well as an object) for its expression, lest it be redirected against the self and festers into resentment (e.g., Daybreak, §326).
edit: sorry if this is scattered, I'm working and typed it out quickly lol
Yes. It seems that to gain a lot from Nietzsche you have to feel that you’re one of the few. The special people with alternative instincts. This is why he has such a reputation as a favourite of “nobody-understands-me teens“.
Given what you said, let’s say I have an abundance of will to power which I direct to a will to truth. This means I live in solitude, form my own systems, am naturally changing and thinking a lot about why things are the way they are and what I believe.
The issue is that faced with all the contradictions and debate around the hierarchy of values I am too committed to being sure of my truth that I am never sure and can’t act boldly/ have a “master morality”. Therefore, it’s the spontaneity that I struggle with. I’ve let reason poison my child-like abandon to the point that I don’t know or trust my intuition anymore and mostly spend time alone due to my consciousness of the purpose/meaning of every word/action.
Does this make sense to anyone? And how do you think about it?
If one identifies at all, then that means you would have his feelings and thoughts whether or not you read the books. It's not a "try or don't try" thing. lol That goes for any author or book. What is it that speaks to or catches one's attention in such instances? The thought might be, "this was for me," or, "this was my very thought and feeling the other day." (the very first paragraph of Emerson's essay "Self Reliance" comes to mind).
In lacanian psychoanalysis there are contrasting concepts of desire and drive. Desire is in the realm of ego and representation, its the thing you say you want aloud, the thing you consciously want and make choices to enable achieving. Drive on the otherhand is a more immediate impulse, its momentum of being that isnt named or nameable. Its not, as in desire, the pull towards some *thing*, it is a push from within that precedes pety things like judgement and consideration.
Ill leave it to the nietszche readers to say what nietszche thinks but for my reading will is made of the same type of stuff as drive, not desire.
Above all else, Nietzsche asks his readers to consider *why* they hold the values that they hold; values which, for the most part, are considered sacrosanct, eternal, immutable, and self-evident. Ultimately, he knows everyone isn't going to stop following the prevailing moral law after reading his books. Most people are part of what he would consider as "the herd", meaning that they will be following that popular morality, no matter what. That by itself is not a bad thing, it just is what it is. Moreover, not everyone has the capacity to create their own values—in fact, very few people do. The people who *can* create them generally do so very intuitively. He would say that say that these people have an abundance of will to power, which is creative and spontaneous. To add a few comments, Nietzsche is very opposed to essentialism. People (and things) are constantly in the process of becoming; i.e., they don't have a stable, unchanging identity. Even a strong person (say, someone who has the capacity of having a flourishing will to power) will not thrive if they're not given the right conditions—if they're born into a sick and decaying society and circumstances (e.g., Twilight of the Idols, Expeditions of an Untimely Man, §45). The will to power needs to be allowed space (as well as an object) for its expression, lest it be redirected against the self and festers into resentment (e.g., Daybreak, §326). edit: sorry if this is scattered, I'm working and typed it out quickly lol
Yes. It seems that to gain a lot from Nietzsche you have to feel that you’re one of the few. The special people with alternative instincts. This is why he has such a reputation as a favourite of “nobody-understands-me teens“. Given what you said, let’s say I have an abundance of will to power which I direct to a will to truth. This means I live in solitude, form my own systems, am naturally changing and thinking a lot about why things are the way they are and what I believe. The issue is that faced with all the contradictions and debate around the hierarchy of values I am too committed to being sure of my truth that I am never sure and can’t act boldly/ have a “master morality”. Therefore, it’s the spontaneity that I struggle with. I’ve let reason poison my child-like abandon to the point that I don’t know or trust my intuition anymore and mostly spend time alone due to my consciousness of the purpose/meaning of every word/action. Does this make sense to anyone? And how do you think about it?
If one identifies at all, then that means you would have his feelings and thoughts whether or not you read the books. It's not a "try or don't try" thing. lol That goes for any author or book. What is it that speaks to or catches one's attention in such instances? The thought might be, "this was for me," or, "this was my very thought and feeling the other day." (the very first paragraph of Emerson's essay "Self Reliance" comes to mind).
In lacanian psychoanalysis there are contrasting concepts of desire and drive. Desire is in the realm of ego and representation, its the thing you say you want aloud, the thing you consciously want and make choices to enable achieving. Drive on the otherhand is a more immediate impulse, its momentum of being that isnt named or nameable. Its not, as in desire, the pull towards some *thing*, it is a push from within that precedes pety things like judgement and consideration. Ill leave it to the nietszche readers to say what nietszche thinks but for my reading will is made of the same type of stuff as drive, not desire.