"A man is “called” to nothing, and has no “calling,” no “destiny,” as little as a plant or a beast has a “calling.” The flower does not follow the calling to complete itself, but it spends all its forces to enjoy and consume the world as well as it can - it sucks in as much of the juices of the earth, as much air of the ether, as much light of the sun, as it can get and lodge. The bird lives up to no calling, but it uses its forces as much as is practicable; it catches beetles and sings to its heart’s delight. But the forces of the flower and the bird are slight in comparison to those of a man, and a man who applies his forces will affect the world much more powerfully than flower and beast. A calling he has not, but he has forces that manifest themselves where they are because their being consists solely in their manifestation, and are as little able to abide inactive as life, which, if it “stood still” only a second, would no longer be life. " -Max Stirner Man I don't like Nietzsche, but good vids anyway. Nietzsche relates life to power, but behavior-will-want comes from lack or need. Even non living matter have a need to be more stable so it make bonds to have the electron amount it needs. Therefore, the more a thing seeks power the bigger the lack-need-weakness (That's why a creator god can't exist, because if it behaves that would mean it lacks something). Plants do not look powerful when compared to other beings but their biomass is far greater than the animals. Plants don't need or care "power" they just do their ecological niche. An example comparison would be synthesizing your own essential vitamin (plants) vs being unable to produce and dependent on other beings. My point is: the less you need to do, the more powerful you actually are. When you look at this way, what he calls "master morality" just becomes the "morality of the people with the inferiority complex" (think napoleon lol). Things like cooperation or compassion (what Nietzsche would call "slave morality") are essential behavior for survival that genetically passed down for many species including humans. In humans loneliness gives physical pain, creates a need for social interaction and bonding hence raising the chance of survival if succeeded. Life is just having an ecological niche and homeostasis, nietzsche reduces it to power and dillutes what niche can be. Nietzsche's logic would call invasive species "the most powerful" and that would just be wrong. "Will to power" is a spookified version of what Stirner says. Ubermensch is also a spook, make Stirner videos :)
@@aman11337400 English is not my primary language. I just tried to say : ecological niche =/= will to power and power =/= exploitation or using force. If you've read stirner you would know what spook meant. It's basically every belief-thought that castrates the mind, what you take as real but are actually abstract phantasms in the mind (like religion, ideology, humanism...). Saying that things are "Spook" is actually a meme that's been going on, more correct translation would be "spectre".
@@madnessphere Respectfully, I think you are wrong when you say "behaviour-will-want comes from lack or need". Unlike plants and animals, humans are aware of death. An increase in power decreases the likelihood of death. Therefore "want", power acquisition, is a way to avoid death, or at least to make it ever and ever more unlikely until...
“Well-meaning, helpful, good-natured attitudes of mind have not come to be honored on account of their usefulness, but because they are states of richer souls that are capable of bestowing and have their value in the feeling of the plenitude of life.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power
You just didn’t have the right teacher bro. Not a dull mind. Or many of us do. I doubt anyone here has a dull mind. Peterson said ‘when you are high in openness it’s hard to catalyze an identity’
Only issue with the will to power; it took me about 6 months to read. I imagine it to be very difficult to make a comprehensive video covering all the book's major themes; nigh impossible
Regarding the possibility that the contents of the book may have been compromised by his sister, consider this; do you even believe it possible to impersonate Nietzsche? There seems to be an excessive amount of criticism against christianity in chapter 2; it seems obvious to me that this was the part that was editted. Besides that I found the book very engaging
Thanks for the comment. There is much to unpack. We’ll do a video dealing with the book. Also, our latest video touches upon Nietzsche’s ideas on art in The Will to Power. Check it out if you haven’t already. Anyway, more is coming!
Nietzsche critiques scientists' "will to truth" as (itself) a metaphysical pursuit and argues that this is done in bad conscience because they appeal to total objectivity and anti-metaphysics (something, paradoxically impossible because of the dichotomy of truth/lie sits outside of scientific endeavours.) Thus the comparison between Schopenhauer and Darwin needs to be considered from Nietzsche's "critique"...perhaps the key figure here (I think) is Kant.
Excellent video. Thank you for this. I have an objection to Reginster's solution being treated as a middle road between will to power as a metaphysical concept and as a materialist explanation of human drive. Mainly because in Reginster's view it is posited as overcoming resistance in relation to the desired outcome. Arguably, desires can be reasonably ascribed to animate objects (plants, animals and humans) thus this explanation is closer to materialist view. It leaves aside inanimate objects (rocks, rivers, planets) since their "desired" outcomes are determined. So on this view Nietzsche's Will to Power is limited and not as overarching as Schopenhauer's Will to Life. Thus, I would say, it stands closer to Darwinian worldview.
Thanks for the great comment. One thing I’d counter is that for Schopenhauer, a rock, metaphysically, also has a kind of desire to exist. Metaphysical Nietzsche might say the same about its desire for power. Something to think about
I think it is perfectly coherent to see the will to power as a materialistic explanation of reality functioning. It is still metaphysics, but it doesn't have to turn to another world.
I would like to see you cover “The Will to Power”. Regardless of it being edited by Nietzsche’s sister, it contains a lot of gems worth reading and pondering.
Great Explanation! Love the in depth analysis! Just tried to sum it up under 60 seconds today on my channel, but boi was that a task! Nietzsche is too briliiatnt to fit in just one minute. Great video man!
To me, it sounds like the question presented in this brilliant analysis, is not "either or", but "and", depending on which perception discussed. It's a complete concept in itself, and also in all discussed. Also, my take of his will to power, is perhaps similar to will to autonomy, both physically but more so metaphysically. And he even seemed to go that extra mile to create (not just observe) "resistance" (as I often found from within) in order to fully utilise that "will", but without bounds of Descartes' "I " getting in the way. On that note, I realised he's more hopeful than I first read him nearly 30 years ago, to the credits of your analysis. Nietzsche is truly a pro in exploring human (perhaps uber?) potential. Sky is the limit, as they say. I'm forever grateful for such rare gift to humanity. And your sharing. xxx
In my opinion, Nietzsche destroyed Schopenhauer because he's appealing to experience when he refers to the will to power. It's the reality of man to Will to Power since it has to do with success in everything we do. The more power you reach in life, the more you have conquered yourself through obstacles in the road (resistance). On the other hand, Schopenhauer becomes too spiritual when he refers to asceticism as the most righteous way to live. This may be true for some but definitely not for everyone as he himself acknowledged. Then, Schopenhauer talks about compassion as the second most important way to live, and Nietzsche agrees with him only to the extent that this's another way that the Will to Power can also be applied. For me, Nietzsche is right.
"The more power you reach in life, the more you have conquered yourself through obstacles in the road (resistance)." So dudes like Stalin and Hitler, who gained great powers during their lifetimes, have conquered themselves? What a sick planet.
I've only recently been interested in philosophy so i tried to read Friedrich Nietzsche's work but as a none English native speaker i simply couldn't understand allot of words so i came to you
I love your videos. They always make me think. And i am a huge fan of Nietzsche, so those videos are my favorites. But you do give all your videos some measure of substance that in turn gives the listener something to ponder about. Keep up the good work.
The will to power is not so hard to understand. We develop concepts in order to manipulate the world. We manipulate the world partly to survive, but also in order to satisfy desire. On another level, for the more spiritually aware person, we develop a more universal conceptualisation which encompasses the will of others as well as ourselves, and welds them into a more or less comprehensive social narrative. In this case the will to power is clearly political. Nietzsche complained that philosophers got things the wrong way around by trying to prove a metaphysics as if it had an objective reality. But for Nietzsche, such universalism is an act of creativity, in effect a vision, and the will to power is the energy to make that vision effective in the world. The will to power is a perceptive account of how the world that we see around us works. But the problem with it as philosophy, is that Nietzsche doesn't really understand the buddhist criticism of the ego that drives it, as illusory. From a buddhist perspective, the common manifestations of the will to power arise because the ego, being a series of statements about what "I am", elides promotion of the concepts it attaches to with the promotion of its demand for a sense of its own existence. This is always very fragile because this ego self does not actually exist as any discernable entity. It is oversimplifying given the doublethink involved, but essentially the ego proposes that for example, "I believe in freedom", but acts as if it is saying "I am freedom." It is a central purpose of buddhist practice to understand this and its consequences for the will to power. The practical result is that in its efforts to prove itself, this misunderstood sense of ego seeks to and believes it controls the world but, lost in illusion, is in fact controlled by the very externalities it seeks to control. This is why power projects generally fail in their own terms. The exercise of power becomes not the implementation of the original vision, but the suppression of the will to power of others whose existence threatens the ego self. The result is that power projects all tend to look remarkably similar and behave in remarkably similar ways. Its why christians end up burning people at the stake, communists end up suppressing the workers and democratic states end up supporting autocracies. Nietzsche is not wrong about the will to power as an observation on the human tragedy, but his tendency to prefer it as a solution to nihilism has come to look increasingly naive in the 21st century, whilst the growing awareness in the west of meditation traditions looks like a much better way forward - see the work being done by John Vervaeke et al.
The overcoming of resistance reminds me of Steven Pressfields the war of art and turning pro. Where pressfield gives resistance a nature, one that negates ones ambitions, tries to stifle creative power. Pressfield almost deifies ambition itself, its pursuit with true health and joy.
The human evolves thru supported competition and engages in all things that offer advantage, while also seeking all things that avoid disadvantage. Power provides both.
New sub here. ❤ please give us more. Need it. For my own-self, I am trying to link these to my MBA assignment (IBE - Venezuela) and what Buddha taught us and analyzing around my environment. Though it is sad when I see it daily it is Very enlightening and very helpful. Thank you.
Fantastic. Thank you for co-ordinating and getting a grip of this key theme. Could I make request for the piece on the WTP Kaufman the overview of the 1067 aphorisms main points (1067 appears to summarise). Just subscribed. Thank you this is excellent.
The third in the series of philosophers of will was Polish philosopher Jan Stachniuk, who saw the Will as the Creative Will, of which humans are the evolutionary helm
What bugs my brain is that every interpretation I have stumbled over when it comes to especially Nietzsche and Kierkegaard is that they are inherently wrong and totally misses the point in my view. We are to fixated on trying to verbalize correctly what these phenomenonogical abstract concept means that we totally miss the underlying often ineffable meaning. Abstract concepts have no concrete matter they refer to therefore they will always vary in the way we manifest them as words. Look for yourselves, what are the constitutents of your mind, what are the forces you experience as living beings? There are lust, desire, fear and anxiety but there is also something else: A will, a will to power. We might will what we desire but we might also will what we hate. The will works from unconscious principle. It is our common and shared nature which guide us as beings like every other being are being guided by nature. It is the deepest voice of our selves which almost command a direction to go and it might not alway be good or bad, Hence Beyond Good and Evil!
P.S Nietzsche hated ascetisism because it is exactly that: a wage of wars against life. It is a counter reaction of the realization that chasing lust is deceitful and a lie, it makes false promises of happiness. The ascetic reaction is precisely a opposition of lust namely to follow abstinece of lust or suffering but this too in turn is fundamentally the same as the former life, namely the aesthetic. What nietzsxhe talks about is more or less a middleroad or something which is beyond or even deeper then these ephemeral drives and forces. There is a Will in us! One might will suffering in order to strengthen oneself and one might will desire in order to fullfill a vision of intimacy but the will is the key, it does not heed desire nor fear. It does not heed expectation of others or absolutt moral system, it heeds itself and it constantly reevaluates values; creation and destruction is its game. A constant adaptation to the present, a constant progression and process toward the Ubermensch. Heed my words!!!
For me it is more about layered will. The lower level is the will to survive. After this has been reasonably achieved, the will to procreate takes over. And after that, the will to power. Thus, one can also say that the will to procreate is really just a subset of the will to power, and the will to survive a subset of the will to procreate. And above the will to power, is the will to be complete, the will for unity! Love is the emotional aspect of this.
the key is to go to the even lower layer you cant survive if you dont exsist and if you dont survive you stop exsisting its the recognition of growth/existance contrasting against the non exsistance
But isn’t surviving about having power over your ability to live? It’s kinda the same thing, it could be seen as the lowest level of will to power, not necessarily the lowest level of will itself
@@furiousape7717 I wouldn't say so, no. Think about it, what is the first thing that comes to mind when you say will? Is it power? Is it desire? Or is it fear? What drives your every action, your every thought? Why do you breathe, live and eat? In my experience, because of fear. We avoid pain because it short circuits our conscious mind and confronts us with our deepest fears. And we give into habit and addiction to run away from fear.
@@Mr0nknown trying to be able to run away from fear is only trying to gain power over the emotional experience and the power it has over you. Fear is an emotion born FROM a need for power, and knowing we don’t have enough
Who said define your terms? "What is happiness" has been redefined in accordance to the chemical serotonin that is transported in the brain due to love and compassion. Pleasure has been defined as dopamine due to goal striving. Goal striving is the resistance in the will to power and the affects are necessary to continue the will to power. Love and compassions non resistance is the balance. The quote should be What is pleasure but the feeling of power, that resistance is overcome. What is pleasure but the feelings of love and compassion.
Nietzsche understood the drive power brings humans to do anything. I think He expects the The Free Spirits to redefine the ethical use of power. This in turn however could bring about the transvaluation of values.
I would argue that the Schopenhauer's concept of The Will to Life still works as a method of understanding the process of life and evolution. While it might originally be a metaphysical theory, it still overlaps quite well with the mechanical way life operates. In this interpretation, The Will is the way in which life is essentially programmed to survive and reproduce. It is not a direct energy, but rather the way the system is set up.
The will to power is the idea in the head one wants to try to achieve. When it is not realised is was just metaphysical. When it is realised the idea becames physical and the mind was in power over that what was not yet there to create. So when you eat something. It is about the idea that eating will bring you that what you think what it will give you.
Brilliant content. Thank you so much. Appreciate your effort and will of power to come to an amazing perception. The challenge for me is too now live it.
In the Latin word malus [bad] (which I place alongside melas [black]) the common man could be designated as the dark-coloured, above all as the dark-haired ("hic niger est" [this man is black]), as the pre-Aryan inhabitant of Italian soil, who stood out from those who became dominant, the blonds, that is, the conquering race of Aryans, most clearly through this colour. At any rate, the Gaelic race offers me an exactly corresponding example. The word fin (for example, in the name Fin-Gal), the term designating nobility and finally the good, noble, and pure, originally referred to the blond-headed man in contrast to the dusky, dark-haired original inhabitants. -Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche Essay 1, aphorism 5.
The way i interpret the will to power is not that it is a driving force but rather the recognition of prevelance and growth in chaos/randomness. Universe is chaos but in that chaos things that also have an affect on the things around it sometimes pulling things together causing a clump which we recognise as something growing/power but soon the winds of chaos will yet tear it apart again. You can also interpret life as despair being the part that some other clump must be ripped apart for another clump to grow. without negative space/chaos around the growing clump we cant recognize its growing border contrasting agains the chaos
survival of the fittest its not that there is some driving force for power>life>exsistance rather the opposite is weakness>death>non-exsistance which of course we dont recognise as its the backround that power contrasts against
I think the 'metaphysics versus materialism' debate on the will to power has been overwrought, but I also have my own understanding of it, so bear with me: Imagine you are a subatomic particle. Particles have no awareness theoretically, but that's a limitation on the imagination here, so try it out anyway, seeing particles as little bundles of raw awareness. You have no memory, no control over your movement, and no sensory apparatus. You are along for the ride of existence, but you also have traits. In some radically simple way, you might be able to perceive safety or completeness when bonded with other particles into atoms, because your particle state is really your only source of experienced change. You might be able to perceive charge states when the atom is ionized, and you can feel the movement in various physical states - solid, liquid, gas - as you and/or your atom move around. That movement might be perceived as seeking to bond with other atoms to form molecules, not as anything so cogent but a deep and primal instinct, like a plant growing towards sunlight but far more rudimentary. You don't make decisions, there's no hardware for something so complex as a decision, there is no consideration, only action. In physics, this is ridiculous, but physics just describes observed behavior. Physics has only tangential evidence that people are aware. It's actually possible that everything in the universe might be aware like that. It might be possible that everything is alive. And you could characterize the whole universe as a living story if you see it this way. It's all countless particles coming together and breaking apart due to forces intrinsic and external, and if you break it down further into the structure of the universe itself, even that is expanding and contracting, a fact N used when formulating the eternal recurrence. Try imagining these forces as lived-in experiences, with rudimentary things that cannot learn and that just keep repeating their simple behavioral patterns. You could imagine that everything, every particle, might WANT to be bonded in some way, while also being energetic and wanting to escape from bonds, a very primitive, paradoxical will. And as everything tries to grow and move, it expands the universe, until it collapses in an instant prior to the next big bang. When N said, 'there is the will to power, and nothing besides,' I think he was moving this way. Philosophers of science have a concept called 'supervenience' which describes the levels of natural behavior, from particles coming together and breaking apart, to life living and procreating and dying in evolving iterations, to mind and society taking on some completely different dynamics. Why does natural reality have this structure of development that can move towards this apparent complexity under certain circumstances? God is no kind of answer, and neither are underlying ideal forms, but just having a natural patterned drive of everything to form itself into more and more stable, moveable, coherent agglomerations of existence is... observable. There is no why, and there is no underlying noumena, just everything trying everything it can to stay real, and a reality which works this way for no higher reason at all except that existence wants to keep existing. It's a radical sort of material monism, but you can characterize it as metaphysics if you like. We created the concepts, after all. Anyway, I recommend John Richardson's work on Nietzsche for an interesting view. He took the will to power seriously, and he relates it to Darwin convincingly despite N's dislike of Darwin. Pretty good stuff.
Either live a life of ups and downs, or live a neutral ascetic life… either way, you are expressing the will to power. But if one can learn to love his lows as much as his highs, then he has beaten the perpetual taunting of the universe. This must be the key to escaping nihilism as Nietzsche himself expressed in amor fati… we must realize that we openly court danger and resistance in order to feed the insatiable monster, which is.. ourselves..
Keep in mind that the term "metaphysical" doesn't always mean "supernatural". The "Will", as envisioned by both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, is a universal force from which the phenomenal aspect of the universe arises. It is not something apart from the universe, any more than my DNA is something apart from my body Thus, no dualism is necessary. The Will to Power is the genotype, the source code. The universe is its outward manifestation. The Will to Power expresses itself materially, biologically, and psychologically, but precedes those expressions.
This is an old video and you may have made it already, but just throwing in a vote for doing a video on the posthumous non-canonical "The Will to Power.
There is nothing better then assume the role of a metaphysician to disagree with metaphysical systems. There is nothing better then assume the role of a objective standard to attack the supposed objective standards. I think Nietzche beat the metaphysicians at their own game.
Nietzsche never said: rocks will power over someone or something or inanimate objects will power over someone or something. The same can be said about the overcoming of resistance. Inanimate objects can overcome the resistance to not exist by existing and having mass and occupying space. But this would not be the same as saying that all life is will to power (overcoming of resistance) by animate objects. What you have mentioned in the video is a vitalist view of motivation for interacting in the world by animate beings. It could not encompass all mater. However, let us remind us that the materialistic view says that all that there is, is matter. How would this will to power apply to just animate objects?
Hello Weltgeist. Thank you very much for this thoughtful work. I have two issues with the design: the artwork changes too quickly, I can't keep up (maybe I'm just slow) and I would prefer if they didn't move as much as they do.
You're wrong in thinking saw a contradiction between materialism and metaphysics in his Will to Power. It encompasses reality, in that sense it is both. No dualism. See Grimm's book on Eternal Recurrence. And Reginster is wrong to see it as 'secondary'; it's primary. Not "a struggle against life" (as you say) but for its increase within
You know, I really think Nietzche is an incredible mind that influenced so much of the next era. However, the necessity to summarize the human drives into one universal thing seems to be shallow for even how Nietzche described humanity. He argues it’s necessity for people to really understand with the proper “grammar” of a human, but I don’t think it is necessary beyond a thought experiment. If humanity is so complex and so intricate and so unique, the will to power (as suggested in Beyond Good and Evil) is, indeed, a great thought experiment. But as he delved it into in later works, I just think it ends up culminating in a reduction of the human spirit. It even goes against some of Nietzches own practice. If someone claims they do everything to have power over someone else, Nietzche would in it us (as he did in Beyond Good and Evil) to ask “is there true self-less behaviors?” What would it mean if the answer was yes? After all, Nietzche does discuss how there is something admirable about the saints, as well as how sainthood is, indeed, a way to become “child-like” in your worldview, as he described the culmination of his own philosophical musings.
When I read his words I always think of how they will be taken by someone who has a predilection to violence due to life trauma. There was this guy Peterson talked about who had such a monstrous life that he, “‘wanted to put his hands around the neck of the world and choke it to death.”
I recall something about the depths of human psyche. The abyss is the animal drive, the suppressed emotions, perhaps the jungian unconscious (which I think it can be experienced as a different person than the ego, thus "the abyss stares back at you" part) .
I found this useful until the 3rd part where you hook up with an understanding which obviously puts an end to curiosity and thus hands the philosophical project over to one understanding rather than the more darwinian many understandings
Excellent, but spoilt, I feel, by the images which often repeat and are distracting when they are not especially relevant to what is being said. I have a solution to the problem presented. Science today is confused between two approaches that define it - the empirical, and what I would call 'self-evident'. Thus, although Darwin is praised for his great efforts to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection occurs, he need not have bothered, and the praise is misplaced. Natural selection is self-evident; it could not be otherwise. The best fitted must, on average, survive more. This is not the same as saying that it is a tautology, which it is not. In the end, is not the will to power just the consequence of atomic attraction at work? Elements come together and are 'locked in' as molecules. This 'lock in' is another self-evident mechanism of our universe. Molecules find ways of coming together and become locked in as DNA. DNA attracts other molecules ultimately resulting in proteins, and proteins come together to make organisms that make more proteins. Rocks are the result of atoms coming together - an early stage that goes no further (but wait - they fall under gravity to make planets). The 'will' is simply a self-evident mechanism; outside physics in that it needs no demonstration. In this sense iti is metaphysical. What do you think?
Frederick for sure is the TRUE guardian for all rare and noble few souls . . . craving for a NEW life . . . utterly away from the dumb crowd/flock. . .
In regards to Darwinism, Buddhism disagrees with the Theory of Evolution. According to Buddhism, the animal realm has a completely different karma. We can take the form of an animal, the mind can take any form that it likes. But we are not descended from apes. Karma and reincarnation are driving everything. The mind is doing everything.
You should Google about concept of five aggregates and dependent origination first. Karma is a meta physical concept and it's not similar to brahminism view of karma. It only confirms evolution for the material world. Nothing arises on its own is the core concept of buddhism which seems very much like evolution.
We hope you guys enjoyed this series. It's been a long time in the making. Stay tuned for more Nietzsche, coming soon.
"A man is “called” to nothing, and has no “calling,” no “destiny,” as little as a plant or a beast has a “calling.” The flower does not follow the calling to complete itself, but it spends all its forces to enjoy and consume the world as well as it can - it sucks in as much of the juices of the earth, as much air of the ether, as much light of the sun, as it can get and lodge. The bird lives up to no calling, but it uses its forces as much as is practicable; it catches beetles and sings to its heart’s delight. But the forces of the flower and the bird are slight in comparison to those of a man, and a man who applies his forces will affect the world much more powerfully than flower and beast. A calling he has not, but he has forces that manifest themselves where they are because their being consists solely in their manifestation, and are as little able to abide inactive as life, which, if it “stood still” only a second, would no longer be life. " -Max Stirner
Man I don't like Nietzsche, but good vids anyway.
Nietzsche relates life to power, but behavior-will-want comes from lack or need. Even non living matter have a need to be more stable so it make bonds to have the electron amount it needs. Therefore, the more a thing seeks power the bigger the lack-need-weakness (That's why a creator god can't exist, because if it behaves that would mean it lacks something). Plants do not look powerful when compared to other beings but their biomass is far greater than the animals. Plants don't need or care "power" they just do their ecological niche. An example comparison would be synthesizing your own essential vitamin (plants) vs being unable to produce and dependent on other beings. My point is: the less you need to do, the more powerful you actually are. When you look at this way, what he calls "master morality" just becomes the "morality of the people with the inferiority complex" (think napoleon lol). Things like cooperation or compassion (what Nietzsche would call "slave morality") are essential behavior for survival that genetically passed down for many species including humans. In humans loneliness gives physical pain, creates a need for social interaction and bonding hence raising the chance of survival if succeeded. Life is just having an ecological niche and homeostasis, nietzsche reduces it to power and dillutes what niche can be. Nietzsche's logic would call invasive species "the most powerful" and that would just be wrong. "Will to power" is a spookified version of what Stirner says.
Ubermensch is also a spook, make Stirner videos :)
Interesting comment. Stirner is definitely on the to-do list.
@@madnessphere make us understand....
@@aman11337400 English is not my primary language.
I just tried to say :
ecological niche =/= will to power and
power =/= exploitation or using force.
If you've read stirner you would know what spook meant. It's basically every belief-thought that castrates the mind, what you take as real but are actually abstract phantasms in the mind (like religion, ideology, humanism...). Saying that things are "Spook" is actually a meme that's been going on, more correct translation would be "spectre".
@@madnessphere Respectfully, I think you are wrong when you say "behaviour-will-want comes from lack or need". Unlike plants and animals, humans are aware of death. An increase in power decreases the likelihood of death. Therefore "want", power acquisition, is a way to avoid death, or at least to make it ever and ever more unlikely until...
Man what you have in your mind, this is way way beyond the masses, but, salute to your depth of understanding and outstanding.
Haha thank you!
@@WeltgeistYT super talented. Thanks 🙏🏽
read more
The WILL TO INTELLECT
He is giving the will to power to you as a test the genealogy is reversed
“Well-meaning, helpful, good-natured attitudes of mind have not come to be honored on account of their usefulness, but because they are states of richer souls that are capable of bestowing and have their value in the feeling of the plenitude of life.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power
For the first time, Nietzsche made sense to my dull mind.
This is an excellent explanation. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
You just didn’t have the right teacher bro. Not a dull mind.
Or many of us do. I doubt anyone here has a dull mind.
Peterson said ‘when you are high in openness it’s hard to catalyze an identity’
It's a blessing to have you in this generation
So much free gold! You spoil us Weltgeist!
Thank you!
Gold is born out of supernovae.
Therefore, death is das source of life itself.
Very nice. One of the manifestations of Will to Power for every individual is to exercise the Will to Power to overcome one's own Will to Power...
The book 'Will to Power' is definately worth making a video for; his chapter about art is particularly interesting
he makes a distinction between biological and moral values; between the beautiful and the good
he also talks about the ego as memory; he discusses the will as the creator, and the ego as the creation (something separate to the will)
Only issue with the will to power; it took me about 6 months to read. I imagine it to be very difficult to make a comprehensive video covering all the book's major themes; nigh impossible
Regarding the possibility that the contents of the book may have been compromised by his sister, consider this; do you even believe it possible to impersonate Nietzsche? There seems to be an excessive amount of criticism against christianity in chapter 2; it seems obvious to me that this was the part that was editted. Besides that I found the book very engaging
Thanks for the comment. There is much to unpack. We’ll do a video dealing with the book. Also, our latest video touches upon Nietzsche’s ideas on art in The Will to Power. Check it out if you haven’t already. Anyway, more is coming!
All of your videos are exceptionally good.
Thank you for the kind words
Self-mastery is das ultimate form of power-
Power itself.
I am that which wants to master my self.
Das iz gud yah!
Nietzsche critiques scientists' "will to truth" as (itself) a metaphysical pursuit and argues that this is done in bad conscience because they appeal to total objectivity and anti-metaphysics (something, paradoxically impossible because of the dichotomy of truth/lie sits outside of scientific endeavours.) Thus the comparison between Schopenhauer and Darwin needs to be considered from Nietzsche's "critique"...perhaps the key figure here (I think) is Kant.
Please share more of the Will to Power put together by his sister 🙏.
We will.
He would
And nothing would stop him.
anything altered by his siseter was symithetic to nazis, tread lightly.
@@skeletronmk6669 or it’s application of the will to power. Which it is.
Excellent video. Thank you for this.
I have an objection to Reginster's solution being treated as a middle road between will to power as a metaphysical concept and as a materialist explanation of human drive. Mainly because in Reginster's view it is posited as overcoming resistance in relation to the desired outcome. Arguably, desires can be reasonably ascribed to animate objects (plants, animals and humans) thus this explanation is closer to materialist view. It leaves aside inanimate objects (rocks, rivers, planets) since their "desired" outcomes are determined. So on this view Nietzsche's Will to Power is limited and not as overarching as Schopenhauer's Will to Life. Thus, I would say, it stands closer to Darwinian worldview.
Thanks for the great comment. One thing I’d counter is that for Schopenhauer, a rock, metaphysically, also has a kind of desire to exist. Metaphysical Nietzsche might say the same about its desire for power. Something to think about
I think it is perfectly coherent to see the will to power as a materialistic explanation of reality functioning. It is still metaphysics, but it doesn't have to turn to another world.
I would like to see you cover “The Will to Power”. Regardless of it being edited by Nietzsche’s sister, it contains a lot of gems worth reading and pondering.
Me 2
Thank you so much for this most excellent content.
You’re very welcome
This is definitely the most thorough explanation of The Will to Power that I've found on RUclips. Thanks.
Great Explanation! Love the in depth analysis! Just tried to sum it up under 60 seconds today on my channel, but boi was that a task! Nietzsche is too briliiatnt to fit in just one minute. Great video man!
Very clear. The best constructed video about this topic.
Thank you very much. Have a great day.
Thank you
Very useful, thank you. Expecting "Zarathustra"
To me, it sounds like the question presented in this brilliant analysis, is not "either or", but "and", depending on which perception discussed. It's a complete concept in itself, and also in all discussed.
Also, my take of his will to power, is perhaps similar to will to autonomy, both physically but more so metaphysically. And he even seemed to go that extra mile to create (not just observe) "resistance" (as I often found from within) in order to fully utilise that "will", but without bounds of Descartes' "I " getting in the way.
On that note, I realised he's more hopeful than I first read him nearly 30 years ago, to the credits of your analysis.
Nietzsche is truly a pro in exploring human (perhaps uber?) potential. Sky is the limit, as they say. I'm forever grateful for such rare gift to humanity. And your sharing. xxx
He’s a very articulate philosopher
In my opinion, Nietzsche destroyed Schopenhauer because he's appealing to experience when he refers to the will to power. It's the reality of man to Will to Power since it has to do with success in everything we do. The more power you reach in life, the more you have conquered yourself through obstacles in the road (resistance). On the other hand, Schopenhauer becomes too spiritual when he refers to asceticism as the most righteous way to live. This may be true for some but definitely not for everyone as he himself acknowledged. Then, Schopenhauer talks about compassion as the second most important way to live, and Nietzsche agrees with him only to the extent that this's another way that the Will to Power can also be applied. For me, Nietzsche is right.
"The more power you reach in life, the more you have conquered yourself through obstacles in the road (resistance)."
So dudes like Stalin and Hitler, who gained great powers during their lifetimes, have conquered themselves? What a sick planet.
Really great work. The more I read these guys, the more I uncover the subtleties in Jung.
I've only recently been interested in philosophy so i tried to read Friedrich Nietzsche's work but as a none English native speaker i simply couldn't understand allot of words so i came to you
I love your videos. They always make me think. And i am a huge fan of Nietzsche, so those videos are my favorites. But you do give all your videos some measure of substance that in turn gives the listener something to ponder about. Keep up the good work.
I would like to see the overview of Will to Power discussed before the conclusion; if you find the time. Thank you and great work.
I second this!
The will to power is not so hard to understand. We develop concepts in order to manipulate the world. We manipulate the world partly to survive, but also in order to satisfy desire.
On another level, for the more spiritually aware person, we develop a more universal conceptualisation which encompasses the will of others as well as ourselves, and welds them into a more or less comprehensive social narrative.
In this case the will to power is clearly political.
Nietzsche complained that philosophers got things the wrong way around by trying to prove a metaphysics as if it had an objective reality. But for Nietzsche, such universalism is an act of creativity, in effect a vision, and the will to power is the energy to make that vision effective in the world.
The will to power is a perceptive account of how the world that we see around us works. But the problem with it as philosophy, is that Nietzsche doesn't really understand the buddhist criticism of the ego that drives it, as illusory. From a buddhist perspective, the common manifestations of the will to power arise because the ego, being a series of statements about what "I am", elides promotion of the concepts it attaches to with the promotion of its demand for a sense of its own existence. This is always very fragile because this ego self does not actually exist as any discernable entity. It is oversimplifying given the doublethink involved, but essentially the ego proposes that for example, "I believe in freedom", but acts as if it is saying "I am freedom." It is a central purpose of buddhist practice to understand this and its consequences for the will to power.
The practical result is that in its efforts to prove itself, this misunderstood sense of ego seeks to and believes it controls the world but, lost in illusion, is in fact controlled by the very externalities it seeks to control.
This is why power projects generally fail in their own terms. The exercise of power becomes not the implementation of the original vision, but the suppression of the will to power of others whose existence threatens the ego self. The result is that power projects all tend to look remarkably similar and behave in remarkably similar ways. Its why christians end up burning people at the stake, communists end up suppressing the workers and democratic states end up supporting autocracies.
Nietzsche is not wrong about the will to power as an observation on the human tragedy, but his tendency to prefer it as a solution to nihilism has come to look increasingly naive in the 21st century, whilst the growing awareness in the west of meditation traditions looks like a much better way forward - see the work being done by John Vervaeke et al.
The overcoming of resistance reminds me of Steven Pressfields the war of art and turning pro. Where pressfield gives resistance a nature, one that negates ones ambitions, tries to stifle creative power. Pressfield almost deifies ambition itself, its pursuit with true health and joy.
The human evolves thru supported competition and engages in all things that offer advantage, while also seeking all things that avoid disadvantage. Power provides both.
Thank you for all great videos.
Thank you for this contribution.
New sub here. ❤ please give us more. Need it. For my own-self, I am trying to link these to my MBA assignment (IBE - Venezuela) and what Buddha taught us and analyzing around my environment. Though it is sad when I see it daily it is Very enlightening and very helpful. Thank you.
Welcome!
Fantastic. Thank you for co-ordinating and getting a grip of this key theme. Could I make request for the piece on the WTP Kaufman the overview of the 1067 aphorisms main points (1067 appears to summarise). Just subscribed. Thank you this is excellent.
It’s coming, but it’s a big video that will take a while. Thanks for the sub!
High quality work and very helpful - thank you 🙏
Please do a video on Nietzsche’s sisters will to power. I have read it and would be interested in what you think.
Excellent analysis 👏
i appreciate you and i enjoyed all of your videos, it will be great if you also make series videos about "the will to power" book.
I am so happy I found this channel, a very interesting and great explanation!
The third in the series of philosophers of will was Polish philosopher Jan Stachniuk, who saw the Will as the Creative Will, of which humans are the evolutionary helm
What bugs my brain is that every interpretation I have stumbled over when it comes to especially Nietzsche and Kierkegaard is that they are inherently wrong and totally misses the point in my view. We are to fixated on trying to verbalize correctly what these phenomenonogical abstract concept means that we totally miss the underlying often ineffable meaning. Abstract concepts have no concrete matter they refer to therefore they will always vary in the way we manifest them as words. Look for yourselves, what are the constitutents of your mind, what are the forces you experience as living beings? There are lust, desire, fear and anxiety but there is also something else: A will, a will to power. We might will what we desire but we might also will what we hate. The will works from unconscious principle. It is our common and shared nature which guide us as beings like every other being are being guided by nature. It is the deepest voice of our selves which almost command a direction to go and it might not alway be good or bad, Hence Beyond Good and Evil!
P.S Nietzsche hated ascetisism because it is exactly that: a wage of wars against life. It is a counter reaction of the realization that chasing lust is deceitful and a lie, it makes false promises of happiness. The ascetic reaction is precisely a opposition of lust namely to follow abstinece of lust or suffering but this too in turn is fundamentally the same as the former life, namely the aesthetic. What nietzsxhe talks about is more or less a middleroad or something which is beyond or even deeper then these ephemeral drives and forces. There is a Will in us! One might will suffering in order to strengthen oneself and one might will desire in order to fullfill a vision of intimacy but the will is the key, it does not heed desire nor fear. It does not heed expectation of others or absolutt moral system, it heeds itself and it constantly reevaluates values; creation and destruction is its game. A constant adaptation to the present, a constant progression and process toward the Ubermensch. Heed my words!!!
But he admires them and loves Jesus Christ
Power comes from. Saying yes to aestheticism
Imagined as a war ongoing between Freuds ID and his superego, a mental war that slowly drove Nietzsche insane.
For me it is more about layered will. The lower level is the will to survive. After this has been reasonably achieved, the will to procreate takes over. And after that, the will to power. Thus, one can also say that the will to procreate is really just a subset of the will to power, and the will to survive a subset of the will to procreate. And above the will to power, is the will to be complete, the will for unity! Love is the emotional aspect of this.
the key is to go to the even lower layer you cant survive if you dont exsist and if you dont survive you stop exsisting
its the recognition of growth/existance contrasting against the non exsistance
But isn’t surviving about having power over your ability to live? It’s kinda the same thing, it could be seen as the lowest level of will to power, not necessarily the lowest level of will itself
@@furiousape7717 I wouldn't say so, no. Think about it, what is the first thing that comes to mind when you say will? Is it power? Is it desire? Or is it fear? What drives your every action, your every thought? Why do you breathe, live and eat? In my experience, because of fear. We avoid pain because it short circuits our conscious mind and confronts us with our deepest fears. And we give into habit and addiction to run away from fear.
@@Mr0nknown trying to be able to run away from fear is only trying to gain power over the emotional experience and the power it has over you.
Fear is an emotion born FROM a need for power, and knowing we don’t have enough
The will to power is about conquering and overcoming resistance for less suffering.
Because you will live in a better quality of life
Who said define your terms? "What is happiness" has been redefined in accordance to the chemical serotonin that is transported in the brain due to love and compassion. Pleasure has been defined as dopamine due to goal striving. Goal striving is the resistance in the will to power and the affects are necessary to continue the will to power. Love and compassions non resistance is the balance. The quote should be What is pleasure but the feeling of power, that resistance is overcome. What is pleasure but the feelings of love and compassion.
Nietzsche understood the drive power brings humans to do anything. I think He expects the The Free Spirits to redefine the ethical use of power. This in turn however could bring about the transvaluation of values.
I would argue that the Schopenhauer's concept of The Will to Life still works as a method of understanding the process of life and evolution. While it might originally be a metaphysical theory, it still overlaps quite well with the mechanical way life operates. In this interpretation, The Will is the way in which life is essentially programmed to survive and reproduce. It is not a direct energy, but rather the way the system is set up.
The will to power is the idea in the head one wants to try to achieve. When it is not realised is was just metaphysical. When it is realised the idea becames physical and the mind was in power over that what was not yet there to create.
So when you eat something. It is about the idea that eating will bring you that what you think what it will give you.
Brilliant content. Thank you so much. Appreciate your effort and will of power to come to an amazing perception. The challenge for me is too now live it.
In the Latin word malus [bad] (which I place alongside melas [black]) the common man could be designated as the dark-coloured, above all as the dark-haired ("hic niger est" [this man is black]), as the pre-Aryan inhabitant of Italian soil, who stood out from those who became dominant, the blonds, that is, the conquering race of Aryans, most clearly through this colour. At any rate, the Gaelic race offers me an exactly corresponding example. The word fin (for example, in the name Fin-Gal), the term designating nobility and finally the good, noble, and pure, originally referred to the blond-headed man in contrast to the dusky, dark-haired original inhabitants.
-Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche
Essay 1, aphorism 5.
The way i interpret the will to power is not that it is a driving force but rather the recognition of prevelance and growth in chaos/randomness.
Universe is chaos but in that chaos things that also have an affect on the things around it sometimes pulling things together causing a clump which we recognise as something growing/power but soon the winds of chaos will yet tear it apart again.
You can also interpret life as despair being the part that some other clump must be ripped apart for another clump to grow.
without negative space/chaos around the growing clump we cant recognize its growing border contrasting agains the chaos
survival of the fittest
its not that there is some driving force for power>life>exsistance rather the opposite is weakness>death>non-exsistance which of course we dont recognise as its the backround that power contrasts against
do a video on Nietzsche and the Nazis, how the misunderstood him
nice
The more I read and listen about this man the closer i get to my belive in that he was a prophet.
Agree.
I think the 'metaphysics versus materialism' debate on the will to power has been overwrought, but I also have my own understanding of it, so bear with me:
Imagine you are a subatomic particle. Particles have no awareness theoretically, but that's a limitation on the imagination here, so try it out anyway, seeing particles as little bundles of raw awareness. You have no memory, no control over your movement, and no sensory apparatus. You are along for the ride of existence, but you also have traits. In some radically simple way, you might be able to perceive safety or completeness when bonded with other particles into atoms, because your particle state is really your only source of experienced change. You might be able to perceive charge states when the atom is ionized, and you can feel the movement in various physical states - solid, liquid, gas - as you and/or your atom move around. That movement might be perceived as seeking to bond with other atoms to form molecules, not as anything so cogent but a deep and primal instinct, like a plant growing towards sunlight but far more rudimentary. You don't make decisions, there's no hardware for something so complex as a decision, there is no consideration, only action.
In physics, this is ridiculous, but physics just describes observed behavior. Physics has only tangential evidence that people are aware. It's actually possible that everything in the universe might be aware like that. It might be possible that everything is alive. And you could characterize the whole universe as a living story if you see it this way. It's all countless particles coming together and breaking apart due to forces intrinsic and external, and if you break it down further into the structure of the universe itself, even that is expanding and contracting, a fact N used when formulating the eternal recurrence. Try imagining these forces as lived-in experiences, with rudimentary things that cannot learn and that just keep repeating their simple behavioral patterns. You could imagine that everything, every particle, might WANT to be bonded in some way, while also being energetic and wanting to escape from bonds, a very primitive, paradoxical will. And as everything tries to grow and move, it expands the universe, until it collapses in an instant prior to the next big bang.
When N said, 'there is the will to power, and nothing besides,' I think he was moving this way. Philosophers of science have a concept called 'supervenience' which describes the levels of natural behavior, from particles coming together and breaking apart, to life living and procreating and dying in evolving iterations, to mind and society taking on some completely different dynamics. Why does natural reality have this structure of development that can move towards this apparent complexity under certain circumstances? God is no kind of answer, and neither are underlying ideal forms, but just having a natural patterned drive of everything to form itself into more and more stable, moveable, coherent agglomerations of existence is... observable. There is no why, and there is no underlying noumena, just everything trying everything it can to stay real, and a reality which works this way for no higher reason at all except that existence wants to keep existing.
It's a radical sort of material monism, but you can characterize it as metaphysics if you like. We created the concepts, after all.
Anyway, I recommend John Richardson's work on Nietzsche for an interesting view. He took the will to power seriously, and he relates it to Darwin convincingly despite N's dislike of Darwin. Pretty good stuff.
Either live a life of ups and downs, or live a neutral ascetic life… either way, you are expressing the will to power. But if one can learn to love his lows as much as his highs, then he has beaten the perpetual taunting of the universe. This must be the key to escaping nihilism as Nietzsche himself expressed in amor fati… we must realize that we openly court danger and resistance in order to feed the insatiable monster, which is.. ourselves..
great video. thanks.
Keep in mind that the term "metaphysical" doesn't always mean "supernatural". The "Will", as envisioned by both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, is a universal force from which the phenomenal aspect of the universe arises. It is not something apart from the universe, any more than my DNA is something apart from my body Thus, no dualism is necessary. The Will to Power is the genotype, the source code. The universe is its outward manifestation. The Will to Power expresses itself materially, biologically, and psychologically, but precedes those expressions.
please do a video on the book: will to power
This is an old video and you may have made it already, but just throwing in a vote for doing a video on the posthumous non-canonical "The Will to Power.
There is nothing better then assume the role of a metaphysician to disagree with metaphysical systems.
There is nothing better then assume the role of a objective standard to attack the supposed objective standards.
I think Nietzche beat the metaphysicians at their own game.
The aesthetic lifestyle still very much applies to the will to power. It seeks trandence over flaws that are human all too human.
I would like to see the non-canonical 'Will to Power' discussed.
Yes. A vid on w to p pls
Thank you world spirit
Awsome. Thank you!
Nietzsche never said: rocks will power over someone or something or inanimate objects will power over someone or something. The same can be said about the overcoming of resistance. Inanimate objects can overcome the resistance to not exist by existing and having mass and occupying space. But this would not be the same as saying that all life is will to power (overcoming of resistance) by animate objects. What you have mentioned in the video is a vitalist view of motivation for interacting in the world by animate beings. It could not encompass all mater. However, let us remind us that the materialistic view says that all that there is, is matter. How would this will to power apply to just animate objects?
Hello Weltgeist. Thank you very much for this thoughtful work. I have two issues with the design: the artwork changes too quickly, I can't keep up (maybe I'm just slow) and I would prefer if they didn't move as much as they do.
Thanks again!
The pure creative force of life itself
Where can I find this beautiful paintings?
Thank you very much for your work!
this is awesome
Is that galaxy rotating counter clockwise?
Oh hell yeah
Wow just wow!!!!!!!! thank you
The will to power is a being looking for the best conditions to be the best it can be.
Good videos, thanks for the efforts. But why the tone of a robot?
You're wrong in thinking saw a contradiction between materialism and metaphysics in his Will to Power. It encompasses reality, in that sense it is both. No dualism. See Grimm's book on Eternal Recurrence.
And Reginster is wrong to see it as 'secondary'; it's primary. Not "a struggle against life" (as you say) but for its increase within
nice video
Portland Trailblazers logo at 25:01
Sir, can you give us a pdf note on this topic. Please.
Subtitles might help you if you're struggling to make out what he's saying. It's the cc button.
we'd love to see it 17:11
Competition in the highway of life and overcoming all others by destroying or enslaving them, such teaches religion too (any religion).
Have we relegated to metaphysics things we just don't understand? For instance, nonduality. Time?
You know, I really think Nietzche is an incredible mind that influenced so much of the next era. However, the necessity to summarize the human drives into one universal thing seems to be shallow for even how Nietzche described humanity. He argues it’s necessity for people to really understand with the proper “grammar” of a human, but I don’t think it is necessary beyond a thought experiment. If humanity is so complex and so intricate and so unique, the will to power (as suggested in Beyond Good and Evil) is, indeed, a great thought experiment. But as he delved it into in later works, I just think it ends up culminating in a reduction of the human spirit. It even goes against some of Nietzches own practice. If someone claims they do everything to have power over someone else, Nietzche would in it us (as he did in Beyond Good and Evil) to ask “is there true self-less behaviors?” What would it mean if the answer was yes? After all, Nietzche does discuss how there is something admirable about the saints, as well as how sainthood is, indeed, a way to become “child-like” in your worldview, as he described the culmination of his own philosophical musings.
When I read his words I always think of how they will be taken by someone who has a predilection to violence due to life trauma. There was this guy Peterson talked about who had such a monstrous life that he, “‘wanted to put his hands around the neck of the world and choke it to death.”
Does anyone know who he meant? I think he was circa 1900s
So this dude once said, " When you stare into the abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you."
What does that even mean .?
Might do a video on this
I recall something about the depths of human psyche. The abyss is the animal drive, the suppressed emotions, perhaps the jungian unconscious (which I think it can be experienced as a different person than the ego, thus "the abyss stares back at you" part) .
I found this useful until the 3rd part where you hook up with an understanding which obviously puts an end to curiosity and thus hands the philosophical project over to one understanding rather than the more darwinian many understandings
The corporate formula: tell them what you will tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them.
What blocks the way becomes the way.. Marcus Aurelius
Do as the sun does 💪🏻
11:44 anyone know the name of this painting?
consecration of the herm by
fyodor bronnikov
Excellent, but spoilt, I feel, by the images which often repeat and are distracting when they are not especially relevant to what is being said.
I have a solution to the problem presented. Science today is confused between two approaches that define it - the empirical, and what I would call 'self-evident'. Thus, although Darwin is praised for his great efforts to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection occurs, he need not have bothered, and the praise is misplaced. Natural selection is self-evident; it could not be otherwise. The best fitted must, on average, survive more. This is not the same as saying that it is a tautology, which it is not. In the end, is not the will to power just the consequence of atomic attraction at work? Elements come together and are 'locked in' as molecules. This 'lock in' is another self-evident mechanism of our universe. Molecules find ways of coming together and become locked in as DNA. DNA attracts other molecules ultimately resulting in proteins, and proteins come together to make organisms that make more proteins. Rocks are the result of atoms coming together - an early stage that goes no further (but wait - they fall under gravity to make planets). The 'will' is simply a self-evident mechanism; outside physics in that it needs no demonstration. In this sense iti is metaphysical. What do you think?
THE WILL TO VALUES. SEE ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTAINENCE BY ROBERT M PIRSIG.
Frederick for sure is the TRUE guardian for all rare and noble few souls . . . craving for a NEW life . . . utterly away from the dumb crowd/flock. . .
Simply, Will to Live or Die
In regards to Darwinism, Buddhism disagrees with the Theory of Evolution. According to Buddhism, the animal realm has a completely different karma. We can take the form of an animal, the mind can take any form that it likes. But we are not descended from apes. Karma and reincarnation are driving everything. The mind is doing everything.
You should Google about concept of five aggregates and dependent origination first. Karma is a meta physical concept and it's not similar to brahminism view of karma. It only confirms evolution for the material world. Nothing arises on its own is the core concept of buddhism which seems very much like evolution.
Read René Girard
26:36 Only someone who didn't felt much pleasure in life would define it like that
Dividing humans from animals = metaphysics
Mistake: Schopenhauer is not dualist. All is will
I agree Schopenhauer is an heir of Kant and Spinoza. He is a system builder, not a dualist. He is also the intellectual ancestor of Freud and Jung.