/lit/ - Literature

>>6825988
did he?
sauce

>>6825988
Nietzsche was smart as fuck but on some things he just didn't read enough to make a sensible judgement. Evolution theory is one of them. For example, Nietzsche wrote this criticism of what he think constituted Darwinism:

>Anti-Darwin. — As for the famous "struggle for existence," so far it seems to me to be asserted rather than proved. It occurs, but as an exception; the total appearance of life is not the extremity, not starvation, but rather riches, profusion, even absurd squandering — and where there is struggle, it is a struggle for power. One should not mistake Malthus for nature. Assuming, however, that there is such a struggle for existence — and, indeed, it occurs — its result is unfortunately the opposite of what Darwin's school desires, and of what one might perhaps desire with them — namely, in favor of the strong, the privileged, the fortunate exceptions. The species do not grow in perfection: the weak prevail over the strong again and again, for they are the great majority — and they are also more intelligent. Darwin forgot the spirit (that is English!) ; the weak have more spirit. One must need spirit to acquire spirit; one loses it when one no longer needs it. Whoever has strength dispenses with the spirit ("Let it go!" they think in Germany today; "the Reich must still remain to us"). It will be noted that by "spirit" I mean care, patience, cunning, simulation, great self-control, and everything that is mimicry (the latter includes a great deal of so-called virtue).

Which is an obvious demonstration of embarrassing misunderstanding. Rather than concluding that the 'weak' are obviously the 'fittest' in this scenario, he concluding Darwin was wrong in championing the 'strong'. Which he didn't.

>>6826003
My understanding is that Nietzsche was trying a little too hard to be aesthetic here and misread it to his favor.

>>6826003
but most social darwinists did, and at the time most darwinists were social darwinists. in fact, Darwin himself was probably a social darwinist.

Darwin was just parroting his grandfather's beliefs with his theory of evolution. Evolution as a concept exists, but the Darwinian conception of it is held with far too much certainty.

>>6826003
>The species do not grow in perfection: the weak prevail over the strong again and again, for they are the great majority — and they are also more intelligent.

That is a common misreading of evolutionary theory that I still often see (here on /lit/ too)

I think he made a mistake many Germans made (including Hitler), as in the German translation of Darwin's stuff "survival of the fittest" (in terms of reproductive success) was often equated with "survival of the strongest" (in terms of physical fitness)

>>6826118
I forgot: Hitler often quoted Darwin's laws as "das Recht des Stärkeren", "the law of the stronger"

>>6826118
>>6826135
yeah it's a translation issue, and a misunderstanding that is often made even within english.

>>6826145
I would guess the majority of people misunderstand evolution theory in fundamental ways.

>>6826109
Darwin hated Social Darwinism actually.

>>6826145
lol, translation issue.

http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/

N wrote during a time when Darwin was paraded about by social darwinists & eugenics supporters. Darwin is disconnected from this context for understandable reasons..

>>6826118
>>6826145
>>6826165
I think it's you guys that have the misunderstanding here. Darwin absolutely had an agenda with his theory of evolution, and it absolutely was for humanity to guide it's own evolution and create a superior race.

>>6826169
sauce? .
I fear your apologetics are based on wishful thinking.

>>6826186
Would be interested in a source.

>>6826199
Fucking google it you retard.

>>6826169
>he feared that efforts such as small-pox vaccinations and welfare programs for the poor were counteracting natural selection and leading to the destruction of the human race: “No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man... hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

= social darwinism by darwin

>With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168); emphasis added]

Aww shit, did not know this.

>>6826186
I take it you've never read his work

>>6826221
I've read his grandfather's, which is what he was looking to prove with his work.

He made a couple of off-hand remarks about it, but I don't think he ever studied evolution seriously.... he clearly didn't understand the concept very well.

>>6825988
the reason why Darwin is being disconnected from his historical past is because contemporary biologists need Darwin in their work, but don't want the whole SJW nonsense political correctness train driving all over their work and shitting upon it for political reasons. So there has been a historiographical push to sanitize the true Darwin and make him appear anti-socialdarwinist.

>>6826230
this said, i believe there are some serious issues with Darwinist theory and neodarwinist theory. they're already beginning to discover non-random non-bottleneck anomalies and the theory will probably be changed in our lifetime.

so yeah...fuck darwin

>>6826228
What is it that he missed about it anon?

>>6826186
lolwut

Because Darwinian evolution is rarely taken with a grain of sand.

>>6825988

No 19th century thinker was completely right about anything. Darwin was a renowned naturalist, but I believe science owes more to Gregor Mendel, for he is the one to establish a mathematical relationship to heredity, without which the theory of evolution has no practical application.

As for N&D, they never read Mendel's work, and therefore can be excused for lack of information.

>>6826234
>in favor of the strong, the privileged, the fortunate exceptions.

He is arguing against something here, but it's not evolution. The fit != the strong, let alone the privileged or fortunate exceptions.

>The species do not grow in perfection

Again he argues against something that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is not a teleological process. What does "perfection" even mean in an evolutionary context?

You could read it as if he's prefiguring "group selection" arguments but it's a stretch. And none of this is central to Nietzsche to we can just throw it away and enjoy the rest.

>>6826186
[citation needed]

>>6826243
Charles Darwins grandfather Erasmus Darwin was one of the most influential philosophers in the Enlightenment movement. He was part of the circle of new pioneering thinkers outside of the royal circle of power in England that sought to create a state of their own and institute new social mores. He and his friends were Deists, which was a religious movement that held the belief that God could be proven from rational observation of the natural world and didn't need any sacred texts to be proven. These many were likely atheists, but couldn't claim they didn't believe in God in that time for obvious reasons. Erasmus in his writings detailed the idea of evolution and the relatedness of all life, most notably in his poem the Temple of Nature, which is a flowery epic poem detailing the journey of life from a single celled being to what it is now as some kind of almost heroic journey.

In any case, these men sought to dismantle the religious authority of the ruling elite by taking away the power the claimed through the Bible. Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution was published with this agenda, born in the heart of the age of Enlightenment

>>6826291
Does that make evolution theory any less right, though?

>>6826255
Anon, you aren't thinking of evolution in the context of it still being an active process that is occurring now. It's the self appointed intellectual elite that determine what is perfection and who the fit are. That's the key agenda of this theory. To put the future evolution of the human race in the hands of these philosophers.

>>6826299
The concept of evolution had existed for thousands of years before Darwin anon. Erasmus wasn't the first to suggest that man progenerated himself. That's one of the key ideas of hermeneutics.

Evolution obviously is real, but without understanding spiritual evolution in addition to physical evolution, it is incomplete.

>>6826327
What do you mean by spiritual evolution?

>>6826305

>It's the self appointed intellectual elite that determine what is perfection and who the fit are.

By definition that would not be natural selection.

The thing about evolution is, its principles are best applied when nobody is considering them. Otherwise you introduce cognitive bias into a system that works best autonomously.

I mean the comparable analogy is the direct selection of seed crops for higher yield, which has the secondary result of the crops being very difficult to grow except in prime conditions.

>>6826327
>Evolution obviously is real, but without
>obviously
lmao

Nietzsche had a problem with darwinism since it contradicts his philosophy concerning the superman. In darwinism an individual has to adjust to its surroundings. The superman does no such thing; it's rather the surroundings of the superman that adjust to him.
That's also why it's a big misconception, when people compare Nietzsche's philosophy to the ideology of nazism, since Nietzsche's philosophy is based on individualism rather than collectivism (nazism).

>>6826339
The evolution of the soul. I refer to the soul by its conception in Greek thought, where it's known as psyche. The soul is our inner unconscious mind, literally the seat of our very being from which our understanding of ourselves as individuals eminates from. Our spiritual evolution is what makes us different from all else on this planet

>>6826349
Our continued evolution leads us to the point where we actively have the power to shape and guide it's future. That's what spiritual evolution is. We reach a point where it's no longer a random force we have no say in. Our self awareness allows us control.

>>6826357
>tfw the last man is more evolutionarily sound than the übermensch

>>6826356
What's funny here anon?

>>6826375
>Empiricism

>>6826381
You should contribute more fully written posts to this conversation than green texts and reaction abbreviations. It's fun to discuss things

>>6826199
"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin."

>>6826369

But can they truly design a more optimal algorithm than the one already in place? There's a positive benefit to all this redundancy of diversity, retards may be carrying around important mutations in their junk DNA.

Carriers of traits may not individually have fitness, but they increase the aggregate fitness of the population overall, by compensating for factors we may not even be away of.

Spirituality is an individual quality, and the laws of rationality break down at the individual level. We can only make qualified assertions about populations, and populations are smarter than any expert.

>>6826431
Absolutely they can. You're just thinking in a very limited context.

>>6826431
>But can they truly design a more optimal algorithm than the one already in place? There's a positive benefit to all this redundancy of diversity, retards may be carrying around important mutations in their junk DNA.
>Carriers of traits may not individually have fitness, but they increase the aggregate fitness of the population overall, by compensating for factors we may not even be away of.
These are sound points tbh.

>>6826291
>In any case, these men sought to dismantle the religious authority of the ruling elite by taking away the power the claimed through the Bible. Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution was published with this agenda, born in the heart of the age of Enlightenment
Biggest bullshit ever, have you even read a single biography of Darwin? The man shied away from all discussions related to religion - his wife was a fervent catholic and always in fear of her husband not being allowed to heaven. There was no agenda behind any of his publications, you're full of shit.

>>6826476
There absolutely was anon. He was greatly influenced by his grandfather

>>6826489
Well if you assume so, please don't let me stop you in your weird special conspiracy theory, please also don't post any facts or sources for your claim

just go ahead and shitpost

>>6826489
proofs?

>>6826496
I mean, do you really believe that Charles wasn't at all influenced by his grandfather?

>>6826431
>Spirituality is an individual quality
>Laughing idealists.jaypeg

>>6826506
Look at the work both of them did

>>6826509
Do you really believe Hume wasn't at all influenced by Berkeley? Clearly, Hume was a hardcore Christian.

>>6826509
Of course he was! But to see some kind of agenda with the goal to dismantle religious authority behind Darwin's work you'd have to find some good sources

>>6826450

How will they get around the problem of standardization of genetics techniques? Everyone who gets the same DNA alteration will have the same genetic vulnerabilities.

I mean we haven't yet figured out how to code optimally for nonessential tasks, how the hell are they going to tautologically account for any and all potential future difficulties.

Once you introduce something into the germ line, you've got to be liable for every single generation proceeding from it, unto infinity. Keep in mind the code degrades over time, recombination might break your mechanism, unless you keep re-patching.

Furthermore, what are you gonna do when lifespan extension results in a Malthusian nightmare. We shouldn't prolong our lifespans until we've at least got interstellar travel down pat. There's no where to fucking go.

>>6826370
wasn't the deal with the last man that he is the most durable out of all human life

>>6826514
>name is literally "Gentile"
>objects to persecution of Jews
JUST

>>6826526
I believe so. The last man is like a glorious ant while the Übermensch is more of a sad arrogant condor wondering why his snowflake ways don't thrive so good.

>>6826521
It's not something that's going to have sourced documentation anon. You have to use your intuition. I mean, Erasmus and the Lunar Society of Birmingham actively had this goal.

>>6826544
>>6826526
The last man is one that willingly plugs himself into the matrix so he can just be comfy, without a care in the world. The last man is every beta that is unwilling to climb the mountain of greatness.

>>6826522
>Everyone who gets the same DNA alteration will have the same genetic vulnerabilities.
You're oversimplifying genetics - just because you have a mutation doesn't meant that you'll have the phenotype.

There are very few "Mendelian" diseases in humanity - the ones that are caused by a single gene or mutation - most of your diseases linked to genetics are caused by a multitudes of genes interacting, like gears. If one misses you may or may not get the phenotype. Furthermore, you're forgetting the environment, a huge role in the expression of genes. With the recent advances in epigenetics you're also forgetting the parental environment.

>Keep in mind the code degrades over time, recombination might break your mechanism, unless you keep re-patching.

You're assuming that the organism doesn't have an interest in keeping genes working, and that selection doesn't work on these genes

For a good recent read try Wagner's "Arrival of the fittest"

>>6826551
Wait, you have no sources, yet you keep on spouting this? "Use your intuition"? What next, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams, use your intuition"?

>>6826003
>>6826102
>>6826118
That isn't misunderstanding. Nietzsche just pointed out that life is not a will to survive, it is a will to power, which is completely correct.

>>6826522
You're thinking far too mechanically like we're machines to be programmed. Your entire mentality is dehumanizing and soulless. You aren't thinking in a spiritual context. This isn't a process I which difficulties and challenges are done away with, but instead are met each time. Life would be considered open ended rather than having an arbitrary end point. There is no finish line to this.

It's not about extending lifespans or any of these vain ideas you have of evolutionary success. It's about acquiring knowledge, wisdom and understanding for the sake of itself and knowing the truth.

>>6826580
How exactly would you like something like this to be sourced anon?

>>6826558
Define greatness.

>>6826604
b8

>>6826585
"life is a will to survive" is not a darwinian concept. darwinism is not metaphysical. freddy is strawmanning like a motherfucker.

>>6826608
>last man detected

>>6826608
everything you're not

>>6826613
please explain then, what Freddy should have replaced "life is a will to survive" with?
for example,
did Darwin imagine life to be some kind of an instinctual robotic drive? a perpetuum mobile adaptating for the sake of adapting?

We are the last man.

Nietzsche believed in Darwinian evolution

>122
>The terrible consequence of Darwinism (which, by the way, I consider to be true): all of our admiration is related to qualities which we consider to be eternal—moral qualities, artistic qualities, religious qualities, etc.
>One does not advance a single step toward explaining purposiveness when one attempts to do so in terms of instincts. For even these instincts are only products of processes which have been going on for an endlessly long time.
>The will does not objectify itself adequately, as Schopenhauer said it did. This becomes apparent when one begins with the most perfect forms.
>Even this will is a highly complicated end product of nature. It presupposes nerves.
>And even the force of gravity is no simple phenomenon, but is, in turn, an effect of the movement of a solar system, of the aether, etc.
>And mechanical impact is also something complex.
>The universal aether as the primal matter.

https://archive.org/details/StruggleBetweenArtAndKnowledge

>>6826571

>You're oversimplifying genetics - just because you have a mutation doesn't meant that you'll have the phenotype.

Except genetic engineering is very directly intended to change phenotypes, otherwise you would have a dubious claim to improvement.

>most of your diseases linked to genetics are caused by a multitudes of genes interacting, like gears

Exactly. Meaningful genetic engineering will have to deal with entire classes of genes, resulting in far more possible consequences than manipulating a single gene, and exponentially more numerous points of failure.

>Furthermore, you're forgetting the environment, a huge role in the expression of genes. With the recent advances in epigenetics you're also forgetting the parental environment.

Far from contradicting my argument, the existence of epigenetics only strengthens it. Genetic engineering when we absolutely cannot control for environment, means that any laboratory success will not always be replicable.

>You're assuming that the organism doesn't have an interest in keeping genes working

I'm assuming the average organism has no innate capability to do any of that, regardless of 'interest.' The reason our genes work is because they have been proven robust by countless generations and opportunities for failure.

>>6826613
Yes it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_for_existence

>>6826642
"Struggle for existence" as a descriptive term for competition of resources and "will to life" as a metaphysical concept are different things.

>>6826589

Let's compare knowing the truth to driving a car. Your desire to drive the car may have nothing to do with mechanics, and yet you are asking a mechanic to build the car. When he tries to explain basic principles of mechanics to you, you point out you don't care, at which point he raises your bill substantially, sucker.

>>6826634
Freddy should not have tried to think in terms of supreme universal magic forces of motivation that explain the drive behind everything with some sort of simplistic buzzword.

Luckily he generally didn't. The notion of will to power in his philosophy is barely present in the work he actually deemed fit to publish.

>>6826645
Maybe it's not exactly what Darwin said, but it is the logical conclusion of it. To even say that a struggle for existence is even relevant to natural selection or even life is absurd because it occurs much more rarely than struggle for power does, it practically never occurs.

>>6826655
Empirical observations don't logically lead to metaphysic conclusions.

>>6826620
>>6826626
I rest my case. :^)

>>6826667
>not getting the irony of asking someone to
>Define greatness.
>In a conversation about FN

>>6826675
How is that ironic?

inb4 you don't explain it because you can't properly express what you mean either.

>>6826645
>i see what you did there

but can you prove Nietzsche's description of Darwinism is a 'metaphysical concept' rather than a mere 'descriptive term'?

but even if you could, i see very little difference between both. "a descriptive term for a competition of resources" implies a metaphysical reality wherein such competitions make sense. + perhaps Nietzsche was merely using metaphysical wording to describe a competition of resources.

>>6826690
Most of his book, and most interpretations of him, have been heavily individualistic.

There's the whole death of god, his passages about the camel and the lion and the child, his paragraph against working and so on.

Asking someone else to define greatness for you it doesn't seem very in line with N's thinking. Completely counter to it in fact.

>>6826690

tl;dr greatness is subjective

greatness could probably be broken down into greatness(internal) and greatness(external).

person A can feel that they are great, and another person can perceive that person A is great, but they are not always (in fact rarely) related.

I wake up and feel great. Subjective to the individual.

I see person A and think he is great. Subjective the the individual; subjective to the group naming person A great.

I'm not making a solid claim that Greatness is subjective, but at all levels of defining greatness you encounter astounding levels of subjective thinking.

Natural examples to this can be defined with surpassing ease, so go out and test it, as any list encompassing all or even some, or even a few, of instances where large bodies of people's perceptions of greatness are entirely subjective.

>>6826761
Except that wouldn't be ironic now, would it.

>>6826370
Actually the difference could best be expressed by referring to the old, only partially accurate R/K theory.

The Last Man thrives in his environment by having large numbers of lowly, weak offspring, of whom some inevitably survive, especially since social behavior makes them insulate each other from danger. He is akin to an R-Species like rabbits or mice.

The Over Man is more akin to lions or wolves. Small numbers of very high quality offspring.

I would say [and this isn't Nietzche this is me bastardizing for my own ends] that the true Overman IS evolutionary fitness.

Natural Selection measures how well a species can adapt to its environment, of which two things are important. Adaptability, and strength/application. Intelligence is the highest form of adaptability, and a healthy, admirable physical type is necessary for the implementation of intelligence. In addition to this, humanity is a social species [since evolution favors social behavior], and charisma grants one control over the social.

In short, an intelligent, strong, charismatic creature is the most evolutionary fit being possible [at least under the current paradigm of what qualifies as 'life']. The Last Man is a degenerate lowly creature, because he's a dead end. He's likes rats or mice or roaches. Hard as shit to stamp out, but lacking in any power of adaptability. One disaster that limits resources beyond the ability of their numbers to replenish and their entire one-trick-pony evolutionary strategy is blown the fuck out.

The Overman can be overrun by the last man, but it is ultimately the Overman who is more adaptable and powerful, and thus more fit.

>>6826661
>metaphysic
You're the only one using that word here. Neither what Nietzsche said nor what I'm saying is "metaphysical", it is completely about the physical.

>>6826729
>>6826761
But I was merely asking someone for what he meant by greatness. Even when you take into account what you lads say, certainly that isn't such a strange request.

>>6826828
I was originally responding to a person saying "life is not a will to survive, it's a will to power". Such a statement is not completely about the physical. "Life is a will to power" is a metaphysical statement and so is "life is a will to survive".

>>6826959
How is that a metaphysical statement? "Life" is literally nothing but physical, nigger. So is the will.

>>6826135
>>6826145
How would "survival of the fittest" read in German?

>>6827006
The whole existence as will thing stems from Schopenhauer's metaphysics originally.

How do you think "life is literally nothing but physical" and "life is will" are compatible?

>>6827113
The will isn't referring to anything outside of life, and life is totally physical. Meta suggests beyond the physical. Really, it's not the correct term to use when discussing Nietzsche, because he absolutely never referred to anything beyond the physical. Will exists in life, and will to power is life. "Will to power is life" means exactly as it says.

>>6827338
You realise metaphysical does not mean literal magic or something, right? To discuss the nature of things (not their form, not their arrangement, not their arrangement to each other, but 'what they are') you enter the domain of metaphysics.

Your very notion that life is totally physical is itself a metaphysical stance.

The only mentionable mention of will to power in Nietzsche's published work is a hypothetical thought experiment regarding will to power which is obviously metaphysical in nature, by the way.

>>6827377
If what I am talking about is a metaphysical statement to you, then this statement of yours:

>Empirical observations don't logically lead to metaphysic conclusions.

is wrong, because regardless of your technobabble, what was said by Darwin does logically result in what Nietzsche interpreted, whether Darwin himself or any of his followers understood this. Nietzsche put his foot down on what Darwin was ultimately trying to say. Life is will to power, not survival. A struggle for existence is not what contends living things. Such a struggle has little to no bearing on any of it. More importantly, what Nietzsche was trying to say with his passage here >>6826003
is that most selection in life is unnatural. Perhaps not literally, because all events are part of the natural flow, but in the sense that that which survives and thrives often does not deserve to in the slightest.

>The only mentionable mention of will to power in Nietzsche's published work is a hypothetical thought experiment regarding will to power which is obviously metaphysical in nature, by the way.

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....

>>6827547
>is wrong, because regardless of your technobabble, what was said by Darwin does logically result in what Nietzsche interpreted, whether Darwin himself or any of his followers understood this. Nietzsche put his foot down on what Darwin was ultimately trying to say. Life is will to power, not survival. A struggle for existence is not what contends living things. Such a struggle has little to no bearing on any of it.
Darwin is not concerned with what life is. It does not have to be a will to anything, these metaphysical explanations are beyond the point. Evolutionary theory is a theory about how life acts, what life does, not about the underlying conceptualised force that all life inherently is. Biology and metaphysics are not the same subject. You'd realise this if you wouldn't dismiss the ability to differ between them as 'technobabble'.

>More importantly, what Nietzsche was trying to say with his passage here >>6826003 (You)
is that most selection in life is unnatural. Perhaps not literally, because all events are part of the natural flow, but in the sense that that which survives and thrives often does not deserve to in the slightest.
To call natural selection unnatural because it doesn't agree with the opinion of a retired philology professor about who deserves to thrive is absurd. Nietzsche's personal preferences do not serve as a valid criticism of evolution theory any more than gravity can be dismissed by some cunt really wanting to float around instead.

>>6827547
>[...] is wrong, because regardless of your technobabble, what was said by Darwin does logically result in what Nietzsche interpreted, whether Darwin himself or any of his followers understood this. Nietzsche put his foot down on what Darwin was ultimately trying to say. Life is will to power, not survival. A struggle for existence is not what contends living things. Such a struggle has little to no bearing on any of it.
Darwin is not concerned with what life is. It does not have to be a will to anything, these metaphysical explanations are beyond the point. Evolutionary theory is a theory about how life acts, what life does, not about the underlying conceptualised force that all life inherently is. Biology and metaphysics are not the same subject. You'd realise this if you wouldn't dismiss the ability to differ between them as 'technobabble'.

>More importantly, what Nietzsche was trying to say with his passage here >>6826003 is that most selection in life is unnatural. Perhaps not literally, because all events are part of the natural flow, but in the sense that that which survives and thrives often does not deserve to in the slightest.
To call natural selection unnatural because it doesn't agree with the opinion of a retired philology professor about who deserves to thrive is absurd. Nietzsche's personal preferences do not serve as a valid criticism of evolution theory any more than gravity can be dismissed by some cunt really wanting to float around instead.

>>6827732
>Evolutionary theory is a theory about how life acts, what life does, not about the underlying conceptualised force that all life inherently is
Will to power is how life acts and what life does. Why can't you see that?

>The smartest and greatest philosopher's personal preferences (aka his philosophy) (aka someone much smarter than Darwin himself or any scientist for that matter) do not serve as a valid criticism of evolution theory
k

>>6826937
In the context of an Nietzsche thread it is. Ignoring >>6826761 being an ignoramus.
The last man needs convention to affirm his existence, the overman exists creatively. Asking the Nietzschean definition of 'greatness' is silly because he didn't give one.

>>6827781
>Asking the Nietzschean definition of 'greatness' is silly because he didn't give one.

In the first-order normative sense, no. But he certainly gave guidelines.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/#2

>>6827779
>Will to power is how life acts and what life does. Why can't you see that?
No, its a theory about what life fundamentally is. Read the screenshot in the technobabble post.

>The smartest and greatest philosopher's personal preferences (aka his philosophy) (aka someone much smarter than Darwin himself or any scientist for that matter) do not serve as a valid criticism of evolution theory
No, prescriptive theories about who are cool and should thrive do not dismiss descriptive theories regarding how things actually work.

>>6827816
>No, its a theory about what life fundamentally is.
Same exact damn thing, dude.

My most basic instinct, and the most basic instinct of all of life, is not survival. I am not here out of an instinct for survival that my entire ancestry succumbed to. I am here out of an instinct for power. The most basic instinct of life is power — that is what the will to power means. Even microorganisms function on this instinct. INSTINCT as in behavior.

Both Darwin and Nietzsche were observing life when they wrote what they did. They were making statements on the same thing. Darwin wasn't a philosopher though, so his observations only went so far. He saw life as struggling for its own sake, when that is not the case. The "struggle for existence" is an incorrect observation of life.

>>6826169

At the end of Descent of Man, he favours positive eugenic policies. His cousin Galton was among the most important early eugenicists.

>>6827879
>Same exact damn thing, dude.
It really isn't. Read up on Schopenhauer's notion of Will to see where Nietzsche was coming from.

>My most basic instinct, and the most basic instinct of all of life, is not survival. I am not here out of an instinct for survival that my entire ancestry succumbed to. I am here out of an instinct for power. The most basic instinct of life is power — that is what the will to power means. Even microorganisms function on this instinct. INSTINCT as in behavior.
This is a nice speculation regarding motives (including those of barely sentient organisms), but it's completely unfalsifiable and on the level of theories like psychological egoism and the like. Even if you have a theory that could explain theoretically all behaviour with a singular concept, it does not follow that your theory is actually the explanation behind said behaviour. The notion that all instinctive behaviour has to be united under some prime motivator is itself unwarranted, by the way.

>Both Darwin and Nietzsche were observing life when they wrote what they did. They were making statements on the same thing. Darwin wasn't a philosopher though, so his observations only went so far. He saw life as struggling for its own sake, when that is not the case. The "struggle for existence" is an incorrect observation of life.
By saying that life does a thing for a reason, even "it's own sake" is allowing unwarranted teleology to seep into your notion of evolution. Which is also what your doing with your pseudo-Nietzschean notion of will to power.

While Darwin wasn't a philosopher, Nietzsche certainly wasn't a biologist and was mostly poorly informed on the subject, as well as many other subjects.