ecide if the will to power and the social Darwinism of people is the inclination to self-egotism is the right, or if the act of immortality is unredeemable is the most interesting. Can one who kills with respect to order be healthier than on who accepts the killing?In fact, the exploitation of the Will to Power and the acceptance of the Tao Te Ching is modern society. Some people are caught up in the whir of business and finance, and others become art teachers. Some are presidents and lawyers, others underage and on welfare. How one approaches the world is how one see the truth, both men claim to see it, but what really pertains is anyone’s guess. Relatively speaking, Nietzsche’s was speaking in response to the conflicts of the late eighteen hundreds and the social structures of learned experience his era provided, where as Lao Tzu’s contemporary were possible 551-479 BCE, Confucius! It could be seen that Taoism is a resolved, complete in thought. The cycles of Tao’s pluralistic ideas satisfies the problematic gaps in Nietzsche’s goal and conquest, power as freedom as the means to a resolution (conclusion). His will to power, and assertion of man psyche, is a well articulated and psychologically sound but limited explanation that works in microcosmic perspective, though in comparison is far more detailed than the undeterminable Tao. The cosmic and ever changing Toa that though complete remains still unclear and attempts through poetic ambiguity, flowery imager, and moral to imply meaning. Unfortunately the Tao too is unable to answers questions of the universe, ying and yang a valiant attempt in describing change but not why the change, why the flux and void, perhaps because it too cannot reach resolution, the Tao in fact was not made to reach one. Both theses are particularly interested in God, or rather the absence of it. Tao does not even approach the subject, and Nietzche, an avid atheist rep...
