Topics (choose one) Explain and critique Nietzsche’s view that we have a will to

Topics (choose one)
Explain and critique Nietzsche’s view that we have a will to power.
Explain and critique Sartre’s view that we determine our own essences.
Explain and critique Smart’s view that we are identical to our brains.
General instructions
This paper is due by midnight, Friday 19 November 2021, on Quercus.
Late papers will be penalized at 5% for each calendar day, and papers more than one week late will not be accepted. Please see the syllabus for the policy on extensions.
The paper is to be 4 to 6 pages long, double-spaced in Calibri size 12 or in a font of equivalent size.
You may use secondary sources if you wish.
If you are citing the readings that were uploaded to Quercus, then citing the page numbers of these documents is sufficient (for Nietzsche, include the section numbers as well). For any other source, it does not matter which citation style you use, so long as it is consistent and complete.
You may invoke an objection discussed in class, though be sure to expand on the objection and to put it in your own words.
Papers uploaded to Quercus will automatically be checked for plagiarism using the Ouriginal software, which is incorporated into Quercus. Any case of academic dishonesty will be taken very seriously.
Some suggestions
Try to write in such a way that an intelligent non-philosopher could understand your paper. If you use terms that such a person probably would not know, then be sure to provide definitions.
Try to keep direct quotations to a minimum, though a few quotations are perfectly acceptable.
When explaining an argument, try to identify all premises and inferences, including premises and inferences that might be implicit. If a premise or inference is not obviously true or valid, it is often a good idea to suggest why the author might hold it.
When critiquing an argument, be as charitable as possible. You might discuss how the author could respond to any objections that you raise, even if you go on to explain why such responses do not work. It is also perfectly acceptable to end up agreeing with the author, though this would require that you explain why your initial critique is ultimately unsuccessful.
It is usually best to give one or two developed objections as opposed to a whole bunch of underdeveloped objections.