Fenomén moci a jeho všudypřítomnost

The analysis poses the main question: "How can we evaluate the approach of Machiavelli and Nietsche?" Machiavelli was an enormously pragmatic man who saw reality in the worst possible light. He tries to "follow what people live like". He watches things what they are, not what they should be. In his conception, the power is something belonging to the right person, something connected with the immense ability to lead and chaose the right means to reach goals but it is not a pure ruthlessness anyway. It is about placing higher interests before one's own benefits, denying one's ego and putting through "the good" in the name of the state. The ruler decides what "the good" means - and he is right only for his virtue which determines him for this mission.

When talking about Nietsche, it is much more neccessary to chaose the proper words. Anyway, one difference is immediately evident and comprehensible. If Machiavelli considers only the individual in a question of gaining the power, then Nietsche and his concept of will for the power concerns all people. Not everyone is strong enough to reach the power, not everyone is able to gain a control of one's intelect for creating the good with its help. Therefore not everyone is allowed to become a superman. It consists only in the strength of the will for setting oneself free from everything that cripples true human nature. It is about the power to become what man truly is. So far the majority of us is still weak, the superman is supposed to be a star which we look up in our belief and conviction about the good and the right.