Talk:will to power

@PUC: Could you unprotect the page. Thanks. Inqilābī 20:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Inqilabi: Protection lowered to autoconfirmed. PUC – 21:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@PUC "Naziism" needs correcting to "Nazism". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:697B:F58D:1A1C:6975 11:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February–October 2024

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

will to power, will-to-power

should not exist Word0151 (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Word0151: Why? You are challenging a well-known and famous philosophical term. You must provide an excellent reason. Equinox ◑ 04:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

will to power is an SOP actually, just like will to truth, will to stupidity. Nietzsche used this 'will to' in a similar manner as other "will to"s. Do we create the entry- will to truth to show what truth means to Nietzsche?
What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. -Nietzsche. What power means here, why create an entry for? Word0151 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep and yes, create the others. This term isn't SOP because it doesn't make sense in English. It's a calque of a German expression, which may well have been SOP in the original context, but certainly doesn't retain it's SOPness in English, where the grammatical structure is quite opaque. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does it not make sense in English?
To be succinct, will to power just means will to power. All other contemplations, what power means etc., are of no dictionary value, and doesn't add much. Word0151 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If I want to go shopping, that isn't "will to shopping" in English. This phrase is special. Equinox ◑ 06:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

=> Do you mean that since the phrase "will to" is not used colloquially, we should include it? Not an impressive refutation.
=> The phrase is special for sure and has a connotation, but what is its value here? Look at the superficial definitions given there, do they make sense. I have tried changing them. keep if my edit is not reverted 🦇 Word0151 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of shallow idiosyncrasies in philosophy whose presence in any lexicon one may be uneasy about (language game), yet this has caught on enough to require explanation and hence a dictionary entry, though our explanation will stay imperfect. Fay Freak (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not the sum of its parts, because you can't determine the meaning from the words alone. I know what each of those words means, but not what they mean together. Does it mean "the will to obtain power"? "Will that becomes power"? "The will to use power"? You can't tell what this phrase means simply by understanding the individual words—unlike, say, "go over there" or "five fat turkeys". Those are the sum of their parts. Without a definition, and perhaps the quote in context, nobody would know what "will to power" means, which is why it needs an entry in Wiktionary. P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per all of the above. PUC – 19:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to close as keep, but I noticed the nominator drastically changed the definition. I am tempted to just revert the change, but I know nothing of this kind of philosophy so was hoping for a second look. This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@PUC If you don't know what i did, why revert? I can give you reasoning for my edit though: the earlier definitions were really absurd with irrelevant expositions, i used the one which is in many dictionaries and also in the book Antichrist by Nietzsche himself. The definitions should be simple and in a fundamental manner without some opinion pieces. Word0151 (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 02:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)