Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang
yes i agree with this but i think i react to it differently than you. and this is important. it shows the difference between the two greatest philosophers ive ever read.
schopenhauer believed that the world was will and idea(a simulation) and that with complete willpower we could do anything we want. however he didnt like will because he thought willing and craving led to suffering because we werent alligned. he believed in cessation of the will. that happiness came when we werent struggling against other forces when we were completely at rest. or as yo put it alligned.
nietzsche on the other hand thought lifes purpose was will to power. that struggling and not being alligned was good. that happiness comes from every struggle and challenge we overcome. nietzsche thought that self-overcoming was the way forward. he beliebed in the destruction and creation of values. he created his concept of the ubermensch. someone who goes beyond all good and evil and transcends all values in order to create his own. he wouldve wanted someone to completely to go out of phase with the simulation. to overcome the rules of the simlation and to destroy it basicly and then create his own values. to gain complete power.
i guess t depends on the person on which direction he wants to go.
I'm somewhat familar with both these philosophers, but let me point out where I disagree with each of them to show that these aren't the only to options.
Schopenhauer appears to have a misconception of what "will" is, being that, from what you wrote, he has put it on the same level as "craving". The 2 are not the same. He is correct in saying that craving will lead to suffering as craving implies follow base desires regardless of natural law. Will on the other and the true application of it should only be seen as one being free from craving and desires in that they make the willful choice as whether to follow them or not. When there is application of the Will and one chooses to act in alignment with natural law there ceases to be suffering. This does not mean that there ceases to be struggle and challenges (this will obviously tie in when I address Nietzche) because if one observes natural law it is built on a cyclical system of Struggle -->Growth. Therefore to willfully align oneself with natural law is to willfully choose baptism by fire with the knowledge that overcoming struggle brings growth.
It is also important to not that choosing to align with natural law does not mean we pigeon hole ourselves into 1 choice of action in any given situation. I think I addressed this with you in another thread in that Natural Law is effectively like music. Natural Law plays certain chords so to speak as a guideline as to where the piece of music must go, as co-creators we would be wise to play in harmony with these chords but there are a vast, almost infinite choice of notes that can be played in harmony with the chords being played. And such is the adaptive nature of the universe that at times it will feed of the will of man and change and flow in accordance.
What I'm saying is, we have many "rights". There need not be the complete cessation of will, the cosmic dance is a back and forth interaction of all it's pieces.
Nietzche on the other hand seems to not understand that struggle and challenges is as much a part of the flow of the universe as growth and prosperity in fact they are 2 sides of the same coin. He also didn't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what we think or believe are values or rights (I assume you are using these interchangeably, correct me if I'm wrong) at the end of the day rights are inherent and cannot be created or destroyed by anyone or anything other than that which put them into place as a the Natural Order of things spoken of earlier. Neitzche is banging his head against a brick wall if he thinks he can gain "complete power" by creating his own morals/values/rights. It's impossible to do. He is but a drop of water in the ocean whilst he exists in this realm.
Lucifer fell from the heavens because he wanted to rule them. Not understanding that wanting to go against natural law is effectively going against oneself. When a kingdom is divided amongst itself how can it stand?