As I read more of Nietzsche and Loa Tzu, there is an increasing similarity between the basic structures of both philosophical hypotheses than there is difference. Though the outcomes differ, and even the rational of both men’s thought process are plotted differently, and suggest drastically different ideal lifestyles, both works, the Tao Te Ching and the Will to Power argue for first an acceptance of an immoral world, a world with no true good nor evil, nor up nor down, but rather just man as he is and nature, connected to man, just the way it is. Originally its thought that human nature dictates a nature of man, a habit of man’s control, whereas others side with thoughts that man patterns after nature, and that nature controls both man and material. As said earlier, both theorists execute their theories differently although here the similarity paradoxically arrives by contrast. Will to Power explains man’s tendency to act in accordance to desire and, “(putting it most mildly), exploitation,” as ways of human nature. The nature belongs to man. Man becomes the creator of his own self-image; he aims to become the “creator of values,” among his subjects, and thus takes nature into his own control. He thus becomes powerful through the control of others. Power, wisdom, strength, the essence of living here is established through conquest. Now power, (though to even state such definite assertions is clearly defiant of Lao Tzu’s attempts to explain the detriment of definition) is gained, or accepted by quietism, and meekness looked down on by the Will to Power. Power, or true strength and nobility is understood through the Tao as achieved by inaction, or flow (e.g. Tao’s illusion to water), and not Nietzchian aggression or will. To will in Toa is to expect, and expectation defines both gain and loss, not power. Both gain and loss flux but pure gain comes without expectation. P...
