The Higher Usefulness of Science 



easy for a student of real nature to understand why 

 Nietzsche hated Rousseau more spleenishly, if such a 

 thing were possible, than he hated people generally. 

 Probably it was because he vaguely realized that he 

 was doing just what Rousseau tried to do, i. e., make of 

 nature what he would like to have it; and then saw 

 that what Rousseau wanted nature to be was almost 

 the antithesis of what he himself wanted it to be. While 

 Rousseau wanted nature to be peaceful, gentle, benevo- 

 lent and all that, and so easily found enough in it to 

 make himself believe it to be essentially of this sort, 

 Nietzsche as easily found enough in it to convince him 

 that in its fundamentals nature is of the sort he liked, 

 that is, selfish and powerful and hard and cruel. 



Biologists ought to examine right carefully 

 Nietzsche's famous doctrine of "Will to Power." His 

 effort to make this a universal and all-sufficing principle 

 of living nature had its strict counterpart, if not, in- 

 deed, its inspiration and model, in struggle-survivalism 

 of the Weismannian type. And the doctrine has de- 

 generated into a sort of fiendish crotchet with many 

 of Nietzsche's disciples, much as strugglism has with 

 many biologists. And the reasoning, if reasoning it 

 can justly be called, is much the same by the two sets 

 of persons. "Wherever I found living matter," said 

 Nietzsche, "I found will to power, and even in the 

 servant I found the yearning to be master." (Thus 

 spake Zarathustra. ) As an illustration take an alli- 

 gator, a great hunk of "living matter," sunning itself 



