Which WILL is right or most important?

Question

Will to Power (Nietzsche): Proposed by Friedrich Nietzsche, this concept suggests that the primary driving force in humans is the will to power, which goes beyond mere survival or pleasure. It involves a fundamental drive to assert and enhance one's strength, influence, and mastery over oneself and one's environment. Nietzsche viewed this as a more profound and pervasive force than the will to survive.

Will to Survive (Schopenhauer): Arthur Schopenhauer posited that the fundamental driving force in all living beings is the will to survive. This concept is closely related to the biological imperative to stay alive and reproduce. Schopenhauer's view is more aligned with Darwinian ideas, where survival and reproduction are seen as the core motivations behind behavior.

Will to Pleasure (Freud): Sigmund Freud introduced the idea that humans are driven by the pleasure principle, seeking to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This concept suggests that the pursuit of pleasure, including physical and psychological gratification, is a primary motivator of human actions.

Will to Knowledge(Vivekananda): This concept emphasizes the human drive to acquire knowledge and understanding. Philosophers and scientists often highlight this will, suggesting that curiosity and the quest for knowledge are fundamental aspects of human nature. It reflects the intellectual pursuit of truth and comprehension of the world.

Will to Meaning (Frankl): Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist, proposed that the primary drive in humans is the will to meaning. According to Frankl, the quest for meaning and purpose in life is the most powerful motivator. He believed that even in the face of suffering, finding meaning in life is crucial for psychological well-being

Answer 1

There is no fixed criteria for ascertaining which WILL is right or most important. It depends on your inclination and the aspects of human existence which you find most compelling. For example- for me , the most important will is the will to give freedom. My will is such that it gives you and everyone the freedom to be. Because for me freedom is the most important aspect of life. Whereas , for others it might be the will to exert power and influence.

Answer 2

Will to meaning and witll to knowledge come to the same. How far Frankl and Vivekananda are related is a quite different question: Frankl was speaking from the space of much deeper torment — What's the meaning of all this hell? — hence the framing in terms of meaning. Vivekananda, had more "legroom" to reflect and coming from a culture where meditation on reality is synonymous with religion he expressed himself in terms of jnana — poorly translated as knowledge. Also Vivekananda is an early seminal figure in India's struggle against British colonialism. So the subtext of his will to knowledge is really will to power. See for example.

Freud is just a half corollary to Schopenhauer's will to live and procreate — What we experience individually as desire is the species' impulse to perpetuate. See Jung on the half that Freud doesn't understand.

Nietzsche is more a poet-prophet than a philosopher — This (effete 19th century) Christianity needs to be rejuvenated. Another way of saying that is that Nietzsche puts on a cognitive front — God IS dead — when in fact his message is mostly volitive — Kill your false God — and affective — I hate your weakness, sentimentality and hypocrisy! See Cognitive-Volitive-Affective.

People are too much misled by his violent fulminations like "God is dead". God was certainly not dead in the world of Nietzsche nor was he trying to kill him. He was trying to scrub a decadent religion into a robust and thriving one. Reading God is dead as a fact rather than a call is an absurd case of presentism because we today live in a secular dead-God world, that Nietzsche foretold without wishing it. It was not his world.

I do not believe that Nietzsche would push Will to Power in our world where we already have the power to blow the earth to smithereens, create killer viruses, clone super copies of ourselves and now are gleefully hurtling towards AGI that will supersede us.

That leaves Schopenhauer.

To me he is the most authentic and insightful, a true philosopher and his message is more timeless than all the others. To see this more clearly it's important to understand that Schopenhauer is channeling in clear European language the highest wisdom of Buddha and the Upanishads. The most inexorable and terrible fact is our will to live and perpetuate — tanha in Buddhist speak, moha-maya in the Hindu formulation — which drives all sorrow, dukha. And to see that with absolute clarity is the pinnacle of knowledge, meaning, power and happiness.

^{Note 1: Of course his popularity is lower than his stature for the same reason that spinach is less popular than cheesecake — people dont like bitter medicine!}

^{Note 2: I don't recommend Schopenhauer if you're young. When life has given you enough blows, you can recognize the truths he speaks in your own terms without getting knocked down by the pessimism.}

Answer 3

We probably just want to go straight back to Socrates here and say that all of these are aspects of the will to The Good. Each of the thinkers you've listed focus on a particular tool or mechanism — power, survival, pleasure, knowledge, meaning — that is either necessary or useful for achieving The Good, developed within the particular problematic of that thinker's worldview. Nietzsche saw a world of subtle, malign manipulation by social forces, so saw a need will through to self-power. Freud saw a world of fixations, inhibitions, and frustrations caused by repressed libidinal urges, and thought that willing pleasure would open up those constraints. Vivekananda saw metaphysical ignorance as the root of human problems, and saw the will to (deep) knowledge as the solution. I could go on, but you get the idea.

The Good — that ideal state of human well-being — is abstract to be sure, but all these people have their eye on it, and are searching for a path to reach it.