What his "will to power" means?

Yourself included.

>i dont think he meant your post was abhorrent as in morally abhorrent and the fact that you instantly jump to that assumption is telling
What could a "what an abhorrent post" be motivated by if not an offense to one's morals? Sure you can consider other possibilities, but i just went with the most probable--very hard to believe someone finds an argument to be "logically incorrect" if they just go out and say dogmatically that you are wrong and use the word "abhorrent", it's a very emotional thing to do.

>the man is completely submitting to demands that make him attractive for someone else, constructing his whole life over it
I wouldn't call it "submitting". If we take this logic to an extreme we could say that Sato from NHK or any other lazy NEET is the most powerful of all men, since they "don't submit to any demands that you need to get money or women or etc.", while powerlifters and bodybuilders are the least powerful of men, since they live all their days in "submission" to the need to become physically strong. See how it doesn't make sense? That's why when you say...
>it could be, if every part of it is enjoyable
...it's a complete misunderstanding of the entire "power" thing. Power isn't about doing what you want. Power is the ability to shape reality according to one's will anons in this thread have used the definition "ability to overcome resistance" to define power--i believe the word "strength" fits better for that. In the Antichrist he says "What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome." So this "ability to overcome resistance, and that increases power" isn't power in itself, and another word is better fitting for that.. Being able to do something pleasurable doesn't make you powerful. Being able to do something pleasurable few other men are strong enough to be able to achieve to do, THAT'S power (as in, more power than that posessed by those not able to do it).
>but if it's drudgery a lot of the time, then it's just exchange
You're exchanging time, effort and resources for power, yes.
[1/2]

>So, what's the will if it's not at all related to your desires? Just some meaningless blob that's meant to excuse this undeveloped conception of power?
In a certain way, almost that. I should have made more clear in my post that by "will" here i mean simply will as we know it, not "will to power" or other more elaborate philosophical concepts. So, explaining my conception of power in simpler words: "the ability to shape reality according to one's will" can also be said as: power is "if you wish to do a thing, you CAN do it". So when you ask why i can't entertain the idea of Satou from Welcome to the NHK being powerful and a powerlifter being weak, the answer to that question is very simple: A powerlifter has an aesthetic and physically strong body, which grants him advantages in what comes to realizing your will. Women see him as attractive, so if he wants to get sex, he can. Men see him as mighty and intimidating, and this is not even just an advantage in the case he gets in a physical altercation: a strong looking man will inevitably (most of times) be taken more seriously than a weak one, and since this leads to the ability to influence others, it necessarily implies in power. If this strong powerlifter wants to frick a woman, win a fight, or influence men, can he? Yes, he has the power to do so. If Sato from NHK wants to do any of these things, can he? Anyone who knows about that show also knows that this would be almost impossible--he doesn't have the ability to do so: he is much less powerful than the powerlifter.

In other words, that concept of power you refer to as a "valid interpretation" is not an ideal concept of power in my opinion--it implies things like "just don't want to do anything you can't and you will be the most powerful of all". This is not shaping reality according to your will, this is shaping your will according to your limited reality.

>> What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome
>That's an increase of power, not the same thing as power in a static sense. That would just be a formulation of his principle of will to power, which is for obvious reasons not synonymous to power, or else his thought really falls into the depths of incoherency.
By using that quote i was just trying to point out the difference when i use "power" and "strength", i don't really address will to power in my post.

>Women see him as attractive, so if he wants to get sex, he can.
Prostitute goer can get sex if he wants, no years of routine and work at gym required.
>a strong looking man will inevitably (most of times) be taken more seriously than a weak one, and since this leads to the ability to influence others, it necessarily implies in power.
Again, there's so many counter-examples. Most world leaders aren't fit. So many fit guys on the other hand stuck in incel forums. Simple stuff.
>If this strong powerlifter wants to frick a woman, win a fight, or influence men, can he? Yes, he has the power to do so.
In most modern societies, cameras are everywhere, and engaging in physical assault actaully has the potential of severely limiting lets say your ability to influence your surroundings (to detract from the contentions about nietzsches usage of power for a while). So it's not that big of a benefit in the current context. However, if you're training for a MMA fight, or a weightlifting competition or other sports, then absolutely, it is crucial. But there are many contexts in which it isn't crucial.
>If Sato from NHK wants to do any of these things, can he?
On the other hand, Sato doesn't have to go to work. He doesn't have to socialize with boring people. He doesn't have to lift weights day after day. Similarly, a prostitute goer doesn't have to socialize, doesn't have to workout, doesn't have to care what women think about him. But he probably needs a job though, but you have to do work to get what you want(note the distinction from working to get power).That Sato in that series is depressed doesn't mean a person in his shoes necessarily is.
>This is not shaping reality according to your will, this is shaping your will according to your limited reality.
What if someone doesn't want to do the activity of lifting weights every day? How can you talk for other people that their will must involve lifting weights or otherwise it's not their will at all.

>Prostitute goer can get sex if he wants, no years of routine and work at gym required.
Can the exclusive prostitute goer get sex with a very attractive, very "hard-to-get" woman if he wants to? Most probably not--he does not have power for that. Making myself more clear: it's not about the sex itself, it's about the resistance that's necessary to be overcame for that sex. Dating to full success requires power that a prostitute goer does not necessarily have.
>Again, there's so many counter-examples. Most world leaders aren't fit. So many fit guys on the other hand stuck in incel forums. Simple stuff.
This entire line (which is a misinterpretation--i never stated that the ABSOLUTE truth for ALL men in the utmost GENERAL is this) can be countered by just how many people on this very board you can see saying that Nietzsche was just a hypocrite since he was talking all of these things about might being good while he himself was weak and sickly.
>In most modern societies, cameras are everywhere, and engaging in physical assault actaully has the potential of severely limiting lets say your ability to influence your surroundings (to detract from the contentions about nietzsches usage of power for a while). So it's not that big of a benefit in the current context. However, if you're training for a MMA fight, or a weightlifting competition or other sports, then absolutely, it is crucial. But there are many contexts in which it isn't crucial.
Jesus christ, anon... i was not referring to the consequences or non-consequences of winning a fight or not. I was talking about ability to do so if one wants. I'll give a better example, hope i make myself more clear: if the current president of the US got very high some day and decided to nuke russia, he would probably get outright murdered by the counter-attack in retaliation (and so would most of us), so this is a decision that would reduce his power to literally zero. But is the ability to drop an atomic bomb at someone not a form of power? Of course it is--it's a huge potential to shape reality according to one's will (even if said will is unwise).
>On the other hand, Sato doesn't have to go to work. He doesn't have to socialize with boring people. He doesn't have to lift weights day after day.
"Doesn't have to" or "doesn't do any of these things because of his psychological issues and/or laziness, which stand in the way of him doing these things and make him unable to do them if he wants to"? That's the very opposite of having power.
>Similarly, a prostitute goer doesn't have to socialize, doesn't have to workout, doesn't have to care what women think about him.
But if he were to want to date a woman and achieve her by fulfilling these requirements, could he? Same point that i made in the first lines of this post--it's not about the sex.
[1/2]

>That Sato in that series is depressed doesn't mean a person in his shoes necessarily is.
Sato in the series has considerably, considerably less power than the average self-adjusted person does. Whether he is depressed or not has nothing to do with power (which is, sorry, very apparently a concept you misunderstand). Be he happy or sad with it, Sato has few power.
>what if someone doesn't want to do the activity of lifting weights every day? How can you talk for other people that their will must involve lifting weights or otherwise it's not their will at all.
It's not about their will. It's about the ability. "If one wishes to do something, then he can do it"--power. You're seeming to go by a definition that would make Diogenes of Sinope the most powerful of all men, since he simply did not desire anything. This is an interesting concept, but not compatible with power in the Nietzschean sense at all.

>You're exchanging time, effort and resources for power, yes.
So it's exchange, not power. It only becomes will-to-power if you're embracing these difficulties inherently as a test for power without a future goal of power: though that wouldn't exclude your will-to-power trying to find new challenges.
>So, my reply to this specific point being: men who date women are already all doing it with "will to power attitude". This is what makes them different from both homosexual men and heterosexual men who exclusively go out with prostitutes.
I don't think it's so absolute on either of those counts. Sure, it's possible they do it with a will-to-power attitude, but it's also easy to pretend that your fixations on gaining the approval of women for consensual sex is automatically a power-thing. You can interpret anything as a power thing. Ultimately, the person can only know his motivations from the inside, nobody else can judge whether he's actually doing it based on the will--to-power attitude or based on some other form of clinging. But the previous sections of your comments suggest to me that you haven't even really understood will-to-power in the full terms of Nietzsche's response to actual nihilistic thoughts he had: you think there is a metaphysical object power, which you can get with hard work, even though that hard work is part of the process and that requirement means the overall activity is devoid of power, inherently. What Nietzsche meant with will-to-power, in his more advanced moods, is that you want that sensation of overcoming for its own sake, for constant change, not in favor of of some state of being influential or powerful, but simply: moreness, not just a state of being powerful in some contextual regard. The way you say
>you exchange work for power
is misguided in that it essentializes power and is still in the exchange-economy: what nietzsche attempts isa concept of a motivational drive that is non-exchange oriented, where the process of constant overcoming is "everything".

>I'd like you to elaborate on this
I put it a bit confusingly, I admit, but what I was trying to say is that the exchange is a part of the power process and thats what the will is also directed to: it is directed to more overcoming, more work, more. So, yes, in a sense it's tied to a future but without illusions of getting thing x, only for the sake of constant overcoming. Or actually, that is like the übermensch thing (but thats the only area where i find this concept has any value, otherwise its just "boo all men want power" when thats just one way to explain every situation.Like that Antichrist passage you quoted doesn't seem like a statement of fact but rather some kind of principle of transcendence etc. because anyone can imagine a feeling of happiness without overcoming.)

Basically, I think it's helpful to remember that Nietzsche said in ecce homosexual that his model for übermensch was cesare borgia. Spartan soldiers weren't mentioned.

>All men in the end want power because power, even if a tiny little fraction, is required for man to realize any of his wills
Yes but thats not the really will to power as such, rather than will to gain something, in achieving of which i need power(money, status, whatever). I think this is atleast very distant from the constant overcoming and the úbermenschian themes in Nietzsche. But the constant overcoming doesn't require buffness, as we see from many machiavellian world leaders.

>Quite a few men were cited by Nietzsche along with the implication of them being Übermensch, so i think it's unwise to limit ourselves at looking at just one--i can recall Napoleon being mentioned in Genealogy of Morals, for instance.
Fair, but Napoleon fits the bill, like really all conquerors.

It seeks to maintain an ideal equilibrium that doesn't exist. All willing is seeking a state of perfection which is never achieved, for once that perfection is achieved, all willing ceases and the decay of strength sets in. All power is active, it is movement , or "rajasik" as hinduism puts it, dynamic, propulsive, energetic, conflictive.

>This conversation will be sterile in this way.
Or until the power of my posts overcome you.

Power is defined by seeking, it is nothing but seeking and finding and overcoming that which hides, restricts, or resists.
That seeking for perfection is like a "moonshot." “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." Seeking a state of perfection in which power negates its own necessity by removing all obstacles has two possibilities. It strengthens the opposition, who again, are seeking to maximize their power principle as well, thereby weakening or limiting its own power. Or it improves itself indefinitely by obtaining more power by defeating the obstacles put in front of it. Power must have a problem for it to be the solution.

Power is goal-directed, and that goal is a state in which all goals are achieved. Since life is defined by its restlessness, by its motive drives, by its need to feed and satisfy its deficiencies, this ideal state of power is merely theoretical . It's a kind of mathematical abstraction, an irrational number that does not exist on the number line but which is necessary for counting to occur, if you will. It is the emptiness which gives shape to fullness, just as how a figure is defined by its background. There is no figure without an edge to contrast with it.

I think I see what you're saying. But this is two sides of the same coin. A power's internal contradiction is the same as there being a opposing power that offers insurmountable resistance. Power is arises through a process of accumulation in which it triumphs over obstacles. It exists only in opposition, only in perpetual conflict. An unresisted power would spread throughout the entire universe until it became one with it. This can never happen because it stops as soon as it is met with a force that subordinates it as it seeks to subordinate the "Other."

This perspective is a kind of relationism, the view that everything only exists relative to another, and that their network of contrasts is what gives them form and content. Nietzche's own words

>“The properties of a thing are effects on other 'things': if one removes other 'things', then a thing has no properties, i.e., there is no thing without other things, i.e., there is no 'thing-in-itself.”

Power is continual becoming, but it never "becomes". It is a "dynamic quanta" existing only in a continuous shifting relation in proportion to other dynamic quanta. It is measured to the extent that it proves its own efficacy by effecting another power inferior to it. There are no winners without losers.
>“If we eliminate these [illusory] additions [number, thing, cause and effect, motion], no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect" upon the same.
The will to power not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos – the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge”

Another way of putting this is that power's internal contradiction is its own insufficiency. It's the fact that it can never be "all-powerful" but must eventually be checked by a greater power . Without this resistance, power is like an athletic body which ceases to exercise. It loses power without an opposing force, without something tugging and pulling at it. It must exist in a dynamic relation to a tendency to pull back on it. That is where it strength appears and it exists only in that dynamic activity

>A power's internal contradiction is the same as there being a opposing power that offers insurmountable resistance
Yes, I'd say this insurmountable resistance is internal to power qua power.

>Power is continual becoming, but it never "becomes"
Yes, good way of putting it.

>Another way of putting this is that power's internal contradiction is its own insufficiency.
Yes.

I just found it werid that the first posts of yours seemed to say something not in line with it. We are agreeing now.

Don't you see though, you're falling into the rationalistic trap? Rationalism itself is a metaphysics. For after all what is all this talk of facts, provability, objectivity? What's really factual, provable, or objective in relation to what? Wittgenstein realized this about logical positivism, that behind its facade of scientific objectivity it hid a metaphysics . Then he walked away from that and abandoned any sort of systematized thought at all, preferring a kind of clinical, descriptivist behaviorist approach.

Nietzche touches upon this too in his critiques of rationalism and logic. The epistemic goals of these pursuits are essentially to master reality in the conscious mind. Truth is that of which we are conscious. But the conscious mind, according to Nietzche, is a superficial thing. It's a secondary appendage, and it distorts and lies. This is at the crux of his Dionysian mentality. The "animal functions" the necessities of the body, are the true source of truth. Truth is felt in the body, in the blood. This isn't so much fanciful romanticism as it is a plausible explanatory position. He's asking before 20th psychologists got around to it, what is the value of the unconscious? Consciousness is a piss poor "proof mechanism" because it is inherently fallible. Instinct cannot lie. Hence why he advocates for an uninhibited, semi-primal "earthly existence" as the authentic mode of human existence.

>The animal functions are, as a matter of fact, a million times more important than all beautiful states of the soul and heights of consciousness: the latter are an overflow, in so far as they are not needed as instruments in the service of the animal functions. The whole of conscious life: the spirit together with the soul, the heart, goodness, and virtue; in whose service does it work? In the greatest possible perfection of the means (for acquiring nourishment and advancement) serving the fundamental animal functions: above all, the ascent of the line of Life.

>That which is called "flesh" and "body" is of such incalculably greater importance, that the rest is nothing more than a small appurtenance. To continue the chain of life so that it becomes ever more powerful—that is the task.

>But now observe how the heart, the soul, virtue, and spirit together conspire formally to thwart this purpose: as if they were the object of every endeavour! ... The degeneration of life is essentially determined by the extraordinary fallibility of consciousness, which is held at bay least of all by the instincts, and thus commits the gravest and profoundest errors.

Even if Nietzche uses rational analysis to critique the limits of rational analysis, it doesn't mean he is a rationalist. What other choice does he have if he is to think? All he is saying is that what makes perfect sense to us is not necessarily true. All thinking is subsumed by a deep confirmation bias in which conscious lucidity is the condition by which all propositions are checked for truthfulness. Mathematics and logic make the fundamental "Platonic error" of believing that observable phenomena are imperfect deviations from "ideal forms", that reality conforms to a rational schema.

There's a quote about the "unreasonable accuracy of math at describing nature" or something like that. But how often does math misrepresent nature? How tempting is it to craft a superficially truthy world model in theoretical physics that is utterly detached from reality? Nietzche is simply saying that if we question the basic assumptions of science, cause and effect, objectivity, realism, we can see how much our thoughts are held captive by these metaphysical prior notions.

Abandon notions of accuracy. Thought is a paintbrush. Ideas are paintings. They are creations that we fashion and which stand on their own.

There is no "theory" of instinct. There is just the instinct. Immediate, direct pathos, vital creative force, the motive drives. These speak for themselves by the sheer weight of their assertive affirmation.

First of all, i highly recommend that you read The Ego and His Own. A lot of these ideas you wrote there correlate a lot (like, a fricking lot) with Max Stirner. If you haven't read it already, i'm sure you would find it interesting.

Back to Nietzsche tho...

>You claim you don't puff up this gym pua guy myth as above others, but still you distinguish the gym guy here from Sato, somehow?
Oooh, i see what you're trying to say now. You think that by saying the gymbro is more powerful, i'm somehow implying that he is inherently "better"--i'm not. What i mean to say here is that he has more ability to shape reality according to his own will, taking care to avoid making any judgement whatsoever on whether this is good or bad (a task that appears impossible--some concepts are just too ingrained as "good" in most people's conceptions and it can be hard to detach yourself from these values). Of course, when talking about Nietzsche's philosophy, the gymbro dude would be mighty and virtuous and our poor guy Sato would be something akin to the "last man" (from Zarathustra), but that's just Nietzsche saying, not necessarily me.

>If we appeal to goals, Sato's situation is terrible if he wants the same lifestyle as the gym bro, the same routines, same work, same reward, but if he doesn't want that, he is only right to be free of such a burden to do something else. And there is nothing objectively more powerful in one situation compared to the other here.
First of all, i'm not talking about "terrible" or "good" situations here. Not talking "right" or "wrong" either. I'm talking about power. If he doesn't care at all about his current situation and is perfectly fine with his lack of power, then good for him, who am i to judge--but he's still very, very not-powerful (remember the definition).

>In a will-to-power sense, if Sato has picked defying society's expectations as his form of grasping/overcoming, he is succeeding at that overcoming more than if he was a gymbro. However, if he has picked the attainment of maximum attractiveness for women as his form of overcoming, then he is doing his will-to-power also better with gym and related stuff(i talked always of the total lifestyle here). One's not better than the other, main thing would seem to be more-ness and increasing becoming(for sato, increasing ignorance of social standards, for gymbrochadincreasing the attractiveness)
Interesting idea, but i'm not using power as a relative concept here--it's something objective, the ability to shape reality according to your will. Sure you can just not be willing to do anything outside the boundaries of your strength, but that does not change your power, otherwise as i said--Diogenes of Sinope would be the most powerful man who's ever lived. And that doesn't fit a Nietzschean concept of power.
And you used the word "better" more than once here--i shall repeat, i'm not arguing "better" or "worse" here, that's subjective. I'm talking about objective power.

Wrong. It doesn't take all this babbling. You can sum it up in one or two sentences.

>You still seem to be attached to the misconception that "if your will wants few, then you being able to attach that few means you have great power"--it doesn't fit with the definition.
There isn't a distinction here between the few and the many: there's just distinction between different things. And there's nothing inherently more powerful about having a big muscle mass or being attractive to females, it all depends on perspective.
>But the ability or non-ability to realize that will is.
yes and a sato-like person may realize his will too

As for your Elon Musk, you again assume that similar things imply "more" for similar people. Sato can start working on becoming a gym goer pua if he wants, the gym goer pua can start working on becoming a sato if he wants, both of their lifestyles will change as a result of these new goals. There's nothing inherently more powerful in the loop of go to gym-have social interactions-be attractive to females in comparison to dont go to gym-dont have social interactions-use the time that you gain by not slaving away for others for self-contained entertainment (or something).

>These are both wrong: having good, well-established social circles, an influence over people, is an extremely efficient way of shaping your will into reality.
What will?
>Not if his will lies outside of the boundaries set by his lack of power: his lack of money, lack of social skills, lack of good mental health, etc.
the gym pua lacks free time, freedom to eat whatever whenever, freedom to go on a drinking binge, freedom to not care about trends, freedom to not have to talk to boring people etc. whats your point?

>Incorrect. He can do all of these things if he wants to. Nothing is stopping him.
If he wishes to maintain his lifestyle, these are the things he has to do. Similarly, Sato could at any time become a gymbro-pua.
>A person with strong social influences, especially among important people, has the ability to achieve MUCH more desires
But he has to take the time to form relations with the important people, kiss their ass, watch for their opinion etc. Is this power? Sato would still have much more freetime to play games to a beastly level, if we're talking will-to-power overcoming, learning and whatnot.
>: Power is the "if i want to do something, then i can".
But any choice comes with limitations. If you decide to gain a lot of important friends, you HAVE to act in certain ways, propound certain opinions, flatter the right people, dress the certain way. But if you don't want those important friends, the necessity for certain actions doesn't exist, thus your argument that the other would be higher in poisition with regards to complete freedom of ability is misguided, if only already due to the limitations of freetime.

>He couldn't. He is socially awkward and lacks sufficient motivation to face his awkwardness.
the gymbro pua couldnt. he's too brainwashed by social pressure to ever consider another way of life than the vapid socialization and routine his life consists of. it can be turned around this way too.
>be strong and subject yourself to chores and challenges in order to attain it.
By that definition, everyone working a boring garbage job is powerful because they overcome the resistance of getting through the workday. Ok, I can see how one might interpret it that way: but couldn't it also be powerful to just say no to all the jobs and dedicate yourself to freetime. We could imagine a situation where a person did even these gymbro routines just out of routine and due to not being able to influence events to a completely opposite direction. It is only in the will in the will to power that the principle forms into the absurdity you described

>Wrong. It's because he wants to.
Well, how can you then claim of our Sato-like character that he does not want to do whatever he does, but he just can't do some other stuff? You're being incoherent.

>The ability to shape reality according to one's will.
Again, your definition of power includes what you claim it precludes: the willpart. If the processes necessary for some activity aren't inside one's will, the shape of reality by definition wouldn't be according to his will. Thus, we need will to power(imagine what that implies: will to shape according to one's will which will to shape...)
>An ultra-powerful person can do that, but so can a person with almost no power at all.
That person would have the power to shape reality according to one's will, though, if he was able to reject the social standard of jobs or violate some other social codes. Why are you changing definitions? With will to power you come to moreishness, which wasn't yet present in power itself, as I showed: but as ive repeatedly said, that moreishness can express itself in any area from chess to business. I believe most chess players have a pretty strong will-to-power in a Nietzschean sense, I mean it's almost like the only thing that explains their behaviour. But that doesn't mean theyre necessarily doing their will-to-power on other areas, where their life might be very modest.

>Our Sato-like character does have such problems tho. Or are you perhaps one to not believe in mental health?
No, he doesn't, necessarily. As I mentioned before, we can imagine the character with the same behaviours re:jobs and routines and him not being depressed or mentally ill.

>The point you're trying to make over and over again is that will is the ONLY thing that matters in the concept of power somehow, despite me stating the definition several times
you just said yourself its the ability to shape reality according to one's will and i made some astute criticisms of your other points in light of that definition

Adding to my point, i repeat: the ability to shape reality according to one's will WHATEVER BE that will. Therefore it doesn't matter if you do want something or not, all that matters is: "if i willed for this, could i realize it"? And THAT'S how you know if someone has or not power.

>Then you have to admit that your examples about gymbro PUAs don't have power, since they can't shape reality according to the one possible will where say socializing with boring people is anathema
But they can? It's not outside of their capability. This has been stated before and this same point has been made.
>So, in your view, should I consider people with missing limbs powerful because I'm physically unable to hack my limbs due to instinctual bias?
No. Power is the ability to shape. If something is already shaped, then it does not apply.
It has to be stated tho that it would take a FRICKTON of strength in order to be able to hack your own limb without passing out tho, so, as crazy as it may seem, yes, if someone was able to hack off their foot like in Saw, this could be considered a form of power.
>I can't, for example, get a job in the car industry, as i have no education in the field. I can't will what they do. Does that mean I consider them more powerful than me?
YES. Definitely yes. You're starting to get it.

>If, on the other hand, you mean something that i could will in the future, that would include everything, save for stuff by birthright.
If you manage to acquire some power in the future, then it is like this: the you of now is not powerful, the you of the future is powerful. Pretty simple although i have a feeling that i didn't quite understand this last part very well so if i got it wrong feel free to elaborate on your point.

>makes no sense
Nope. You just fail to grasp what's a very simple concept.
But thanks for conceding, now i can finally go to sleep i'm tired.

>"Therefore it doesn't matter if you do want something or not, all that matters is: "if i willed for this, could i realize it"? And THAT'S how you know if someone has or not power.
So, in your view, should I consider people with missing limbs powerful because I'm physically unable to hack my limbs due to instinctual bias? If you mean only what I could realize in the current moment: I can't, for example, get a job in the car industry, as i have no education in the field. I can't will what they do. Does that mean I consider them more powerful than me? If, on the other hand, you mean something that i could will in the future, that would include everything, save for stuff by birthright. So it doesn't make any sense.

try coming up with something new