# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  The Definition of Power

## Freudian Monkey

Hello everyone,

I would like to discuss the concept of power and it's relation to how we should live.

A simple and yet still pretty accurate definition in my opinion is "The ability to cause or prevent change." What do you think about this definition?

However, I would like to go a bit further and propose that power is a pretty profound concept that is closely tied to the meaning of life. I will now proceed to express some ideas I have developed about the nature of power and how it's tied to a meaningful life.

To me the meaning of life is development. We should constantly develop ourselves, learn more, acquire more resources, so that we can influence your surroundings and gain control of your own mind and desires. Either a man determines his own fate or others will determine his fate for him. You have to have desire for life. In my view, this is exactly what Nietzsche calls POWER. Power is simply a being's ability to influence it's internal and external reality. Every living being has power since life itself is power - plants reach out to sun and drain water from the soil because they too have will to live, they too have will to power. They want to spread and fill the earth, just like we do. As long as your heart beats, you have the potential to influence the world, you have power, but when you draw your last breath, you no longer can affect your surroundings. Therefore life itself is power.

All relationships are based on power. There is no unconditional love. A mother loves her children because the child satisfies a need that is based on power. Acts of self-sacrifice and self-denial are not really selfless, because they're motivated by moral values or evolutionary motives that are also manifestations of power.

Once you understand the real nature of power and realize that it's a fundamental and unchanging force of nature, you will immediately understand how you should live:

1) You cannot be indifferent towards life. You either take control or your will be at the mercy of others more powerful than you. Or you will be corrupted and spoiled by desires that you cannot control.

2) You need to gain control of your inner reality. Transform your habits and your routines so that you're not wasting time but that your routines make you into a better person, step by step. Transform your thinking, gain control of your thoughts - don't be a slave of your thoughts, they're not who you really are. Step outside your thoughts and look at them critically. Then take control. Decide who you want to be and start thinking like the person who you want to become. Your thoughts will slowly transform you into this person. If you have bad habits, get rid of them. Otherwise they will always drag your down and prevent you from reaching your true potential.

3) You need to take control of your external reality. Train your body so that it will not fail you. Become more attentive and loving towards your loved ones, since your friendships and family ties are among your greatest sources of power. Develop good social skills and always try to find things that you have in common with other people and forget all the hundreds of things that separate you from one another. Learn to do your job better than anybody else. Become the person everybody relies on when they need something done - to do this, learn skills that people appreciate and require. Become involved in various social projects so that you develop strong social networks. Keep setting new goals for yourself and make sure you keep track of how far you've come for reaching them.

Power gives you everything you want in life. Other people like you more when you are powerful, since your social skills and ability to make people like you are also power - they're your ability to make changes to your external reality. You can be charitable and helpful since you have power to influence other people's lives. Knowledge is power, so you should always pursue knowledge and also to use the power of your knowledge to cause change you desire. When you have resources, you can make your dreams become reality. When you have control of your internal reality, you're not a slave to your desires, addictions and other weaknesses of the mind.


So what do you think about all this? Is this philosophy too heartless or too calculative? Is power not everything we all are after? If not, then what is?

----------


## YesNo

I don't see the connection with Nietzsche, but I think the three steps are good advice. Why do you think this is "heartless or too calculative"?

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Well I don't think it's heartless or calculative, but it might seem so to someone. Maybe some might feel that power somehow negates the importance of our love for others and humanitarian acts, which it of course doesn't. That power as a guiding principle of life is just a form of Social Darwinism, which I don't think it is. I think the word "power" in itself has so negative connotations these days that it would be better to invent another term to describe such an important concept. And I'm sure someone has invented another term for it and I'm just ignorant for not knowing it. 

So what do you think about whether this power can indeed be the underlying driving force of men, animals, plants and all life? That we all have an inbuilt drive to control our internal and external realities? That death can be defined as the end of our ability to influence our surroundings?

----------


## Dreamwoven

I would agree with your view of power, FM and the way it determines so much in everybody's life.

----------


## YesNo

> Well I don't think it's heartless or calculative, but it might seem so to someone. Maybe some might feel that power somehow negates the importance of our love for others and humanitarian acts, which it of course doesn't. That power as a guiding principle of life is just a form of Social Darwinism, which I don't think it is. I think the word "power" in itself has so negative connotations these days that it would be better to invent another term to describe such an important concept. And I'm sure someone has invented another term for it and I'm just ignorant for not knowing it. 
> 
> So what do you think about whether this power can indeed be the underlying driving force of men, animals, plants and all life? That we all have an inbuilt drive to control our internal and external realities? That death can be defined as the end of our ability to influence our surroundings?


I've been looking at "socionomics" recently. These people study what they call "social mood" in humans especially as measured in market behavior. For them a chart of the Dow Industrials is a "sociometer" measuring this "social mood". This social mood would be like an "underlying driving force". It is not the social mood that we normally think of. It flips causality on its head. A market drop does not cause people to have negative social mood. People with negative social mood cause the market to drop. They describe it as "unconscious", but something an individual can recognize and get of out of the way of or participate in very much like you are suggesting various ways to "control" or exercise "power". It also moves in a spiral form rather than cyclically which helps explain evolutionary progress.

The big question is: Does social mood _exist_? Does the underlying driving force you refer to exist? Those who don't want social mood to exist say that a market chart is a "random walk" or that evolutionary change is a random mutation of genes not something caused by the existence of a "species". Or everything is determined by something or other and there is no point in you trying to get any power in the first place. Why would someone introduce randomness (or determinism)? With randomness (and its pair, determinism) they do not have to assume the existence of social mood or your driving force. 

So, I agree with you that such driving forces exist. They are "overlying" rather than "underlying", top-down rather than bottom-up, holistic rather than mechanistic, and that is why some people don't want them to exist. Their existence reminds them too much of angels, demons, muses or gods. It is a step in the direction of theism.

I am looking for ways to get this "power" as well and they are similar to the ones you mention. You mention "train your body". I think habitual good posture, that is, back straight, shoulders back, sitting or walking tall, is the first step toward that physical or somatic training. You mention "gain control of your thoughts". I think habitual use of short sayings or mantras keep the mind in line as well as paying attention to what is going on right now rather than getting lost in one's mind. Some call this mindfulness and it grounds your suggestion to "Become more attentive and loving towards your loved ones".

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> I've been looking at "socionomics" recently. These people study what they call "social mood" in humans especially as measured in market behavior. For them a chart of the Dow Industrials is a "sociometer" measuring this "social mood". This social mood would be like an "underlying driving force". It is not the social mood that we normally think of. It flips causality on its head. A market drop does not cause people to have negative social mood. People with negative social mood cause the market to drop. They describe it as "unconscious", but something an individual can recognize and get of out of the way of or participate in very much like you are suggesting various ways to "control" or exercise "power". It also moves in a spiral form rather than cyclically which helps explain evolutionary progress.
> 
> The big question is: Does social mood _exist_? Does the underlying driving force you refer to exist? Those who don't want social mood to exist say that a market chart is a "random walk" or that evolutionary change is a random mutation of genes not something caused by the existence of a "species". Or everything is determined by something or other and there is no point in you trying to get any power in the first place. Why would someone introduce randomness (or determinism)? With randomness (and its pair, determinism) they do not have to assume the existence of social mood or your driving force. 
> 
> So, I agree with you that such driving forces exist. They are "overlying" rather than "underlying", top-down rather than bottom-up, holistic rather than mechanistic, and that is why some people don't want them to exist. Their existence reminds them too much of angels, demons, muses or gods. It is a step in the direction of theism.
> 
> I am looking for ways to get this "power" as well and they are similar to the ones you mention. You mention "train your body". I think habitual good posture, that is, back straight, shoulders back, sitting or walking tall, is the first step toward that physical or somatic training. You mention "gain control of your thoughts". I think habitual use of short sayings or mantras keep the mind in line as well as paying attention to what is going on right now rather than getting lost in one's mind. Some call this mindfulness and it grounds your suggestion to "Become more attentive and loving towards your loved ones".


Social mood is indeed a very interesting concept and maybe it could in some way relate to the concept of power as well. I need to study social mood a bit more before I can really fully grasp the concept. But as you said, it's a overlying force that is something very profound, almost like a force of nature.

I'm not sure whether or not the concept of power is compatible with the view that everything in nature is the result of randomness. To me this question seems inconsequential, since as long as there is life, the life will always try to gain control of it's internal and external reality, or else it will perish. So even if life is a result of fully random mutations, it doesn't negate the fact that life will try to flourish in any environment. So the will to live is still there. I don't think determinism contradicts the concept of power either - as long as a being has the means to make changes to it's internal and external reality, it will continue to do so under the law of causality. I'm not entirely sure if you meant something entirely different with your fine remarks and I apologize if I misunderstood you completely.

Mindfulness is a way to power, yes. It's a very good way to gain control, becoming aware of the superficiality of thoughts and that underlying silent watcher that is your true essence. Gaining control of one's thoughts is thus a way of living in the now, which is the most powerful state of mind. Being able to silence the distracting voices in your head let's you work and socialize more efficiently, and thus become more powerful.

I personally stress the importance of habit creation. Most things we do in our everyday lives are habitual activities. Therefore, but transforming our habits, we transform our whole lives. We need to become aware of our habits and make conscious effort to gain control over them. Habits can be changed, so why not change them on purpose? Want to become more productive? Create a habit of planning your daily schedule before hand by writing a to-do lists every day. Develop a habit of starting your most important tasks first thing in the morning. Start going jogging every morning before going to work until it becomes a habit. If you want to get rid of a bad habit, simply replace it with a good habit that uses the same cues - if you usually went for a smoke during a lunch break, develop a habit of sending a message to your wife during your break. Good habits are a tremendous source of power, bad habits drain your power like sponges.

----------


## YesNo

I don't understand social mood either, but it is the word socionomists use. I am reading some of their works now. I finished Robert Prechter's "Prechter's Perspective" a couple weeks ago. It is mainly about trading, but the underlying justification for Elliott Waves is what interests me. These waves are not random walks which implies something, call it social mood or whatever, is behind the non-randomness.

I think we agree with how to get power and why one should get it. It makes our communities stronger.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

*I would go as far to suggest that power is also through which we achieve happiness.* Here I think many people will disagree with me, since power is completely against religious and spiritual virtues like modesty, self-denial and the tendency to look for rewards in the afterlife. The belief in miracles and other magicks is a way to trick oneself to believe that one is in control, that one has power, even though this is not the case. This is why children are so keen to magicks and super heroes, because through such concepts they can imagine being powerful before they're developmentally ready enough to acquire real power. Even children grave for power, even though they mostly understand that great power is too much for them to handle. But it's their end goal, to become powerful one day.

Spiritual practice can be either a way to acquire more power or a way to turn away from power. So it can be either something that embraces life or a life-denying practice. As long as spiritual practice is aimed towards gaining control over one's internal and external reality, it's a life-affirming practice, however if the practice ceases to pursue to maintain or increase control, it becomes merely a waste of time.

If we look at something like *Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs*, we see immediately, that all of these desires can be acquired through power. Physiological needs, safety, love and belonging, esteem and respect as well as self-actualization are all things that require power to acquire and that can be easily acquired by achieving greater control over one's internal and external reality. Something like need for spirituality and altruistic values are a bit more complex to relate directly to power, but they're not contrary to people's drive to acquire power either - as long as an altruistic act can increase one's social influence or any other form of power, it can be a life-affirming act. But to sacrifice one's life for others? A miscalculation, at least from power acquisition perspective. Although sacrificing oneself for one's children or a pregnant wife could be seem as a way to guarantee the continuation of your family line, which could also be a way to preserve one's power over generations - your seed fills the earth, which is in the end what life is all about. This need to preserve one's power over generations is also seen in people's desire to built monuments and great tombs for themselves, or to have their names carved into the pages of history, so that their name will be remembered and that their influence and control doesn't completely disappear after their death.

*But what is the true nature of power transference? Is it in our nature to let go of power in our old age? Is it "meant to be" that way? Does it really matter whether my power survives after my death?*

I don't claim to know the answer. I need to keep on working on it.

----------


## YesNo

I agree that through power _we_ achieve happiness. Anything I do affects a community, even if it is a single monk meditating in an Himalayan hideaway. We are not individuals. We are in social contexts. What we discuss here does not just affect us. It goes another level and affects those we know who have not read what we posted. I think it has been verified to go even another level. (See Nicholas A. Christakis: "Connected: the surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives") This is some evidence for "social mood" and our responsibility in how we handle it.

The one thing I don't like about meditation or mindfulness practices at least as I have heard them explained is they seem too individualistic providing an individualistic solution for the goal of avoiding reincarnation. The goal should be to make our communities stronger and more powerful and happier.

As far as survival after death goes, we have enough examples of near-death experiences to not have to worry about that. I am not worried about hells any more than I am worried about reincarnating. I just want to make the present incarnation a heaven. 

The spiritual practices that I find most valuable are mindfulness, mantra recitation and good posture.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I agree that the mindfulness movement is way too focused on individuals. I have only read a couple of books dealing with the matter and at least someone like Echart Tolle does not put much emphasis on reincarnation, which I think is the right approach. Living in the now means that we don't have to put any thought to life after death or reincarnation, since those things are only "byproducts" of personal growth, which is the true goal. A person who tries to improve himself to avoid reincarnation has completely missed the point.

I'm not yet sure how power relates to the mindfulness teachings. Ultimately I don't think they're entirely compatible, since mindfulness mainly emphasizes the importance to control one's internal reality and does not emphasize the importance of working towards gaining more power to take control over the external reality. In fact it often emphasizes the importance of letting go of worldly pursuits and sees them as something irrelevant to a person's growth.

I also believe in existence after death, but at the moment I'm mainly interested whether power can be transferred over generations and whether it's actually meaningful or desirable to try to transfer power to one's offspring, for instance. Of course you can offer your children good education, teach them everything you know, give them a lot of resources to get started with their own pursuit of power etc. But does this process of preparing your offspring for their future journey have a deeper, metaphysical meaning? For the sake of argument let's assume that there is a God - does he/she/it care how we use our power?

----------


## Dreamwoven

Only for those who believe in God.

----------


## YesNo

I don't think one has to believe in God for any of this to make sense. A belief in God is already too specific because the word "God" implies some theology which is sometimes accompanied by an imperialistic political movement. Rejecting that theology and politics is a natural correction. However, we can all acknowledge that we are conscious because our awareness gives us empirical evidence of that. Acknowledging our subjectivity is all that is needed. Our subjectivity is the door to mindfulness. God can take him or herself.

I remember liking Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now", but not liking Stephen Bachelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs" http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Budd...ut-Beliefs.pdf however it has been a while since I looked at them.

As I see it how we live in our now is important for the present and the future of those around us. We can mess it up. That implies we have the ability to choose and there is some flexible value system on which we can assess how much we messed it up or got it right. To ask whether God cares opens up the question of whether there is some subjectivity outside of our own that might care what our participation in subjectivity does. Well, these subjectivities do exist. There are other humans. There are species around us. There may even be more non-material "forces" that have subjectivity, species in general come to mind. The subjective other-than-us, subjectivities that are capable of caring, may include everything.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

You're right, using term like God is counterproductive since it carries a lot of baggage that taints the discussion. I was merely referring to the meaning of life and whether it could be connected to some definite purpose or "plan" that might be tied to the concept of power.

If other people are our only source of moral compass, increasing power can almost always be seen as a moral act - at least as long as we don't use our power directly against other people within our society. Mostly the moral dilemma that we encounter with power is related to the phrase "With great power comes great responsibility". When people perceive you as someone powerful, they expect you to use your power in a "fair" way - which mostly means that you should help people like them as much as you can. In other words, people always want to benefit from the power of others. I don't think this is a controversial statement, we all have experiences of others wanting to take advantage of our power - someone asking for help, wanting to borrow money, wanting a ride home etc. The more power an individual has, the more people expect them to share their power.

I would put _The Power of Now_ into the same category with Freud's writings - most of it is complete garbage, but there are nuggets of truly profound insights there as well. The core concept, that we're not our thoughts but silent watchers of our thoughts, is a very important realization and makes a lot of sense.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

A little update: I think Adam Smith might have a lot to teach us about the nature of power. I will start to go through _The Wealth of Nations_ today, I will write about whether I discovered something significant afterwards.

Smith seems to suggest that acquisition of power doesn't have to happen at the expense of others. He uses the language of economics, but I think most of his concepts can be transferred to a broader context.

----------


## YesNo

I like panentheism as a view of reality, so I don't mind the use of the word God. I don't want to alienate others such as Dreamwoven who might have problems with the concept. 

I haven't read Adam Smith but Prechter's discussion of Elliott Waves is rooted in his earlier trading of markets. He doesn't think economists are able to predict anything of value and by predicting value he means identifying when something will likely change. Predicting a trend is looking only at the past and expecting it to continue. However, economics would be a good way to view how people, by exercising their choices in how to make a living, ultimately help their larger communities. From a non-economic perspective, sometimes power is just contagious happiness that mindfulness facilitates.

----------


## Dreamwoven

I think YesNo is right, I am not sure what the concept of God adds to our understanding, as long as we respect that those who believe in God may have their own ideas about that.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

After looking into The Wealth of Nations, I realize that Adam Smith was actually very concerned about the equality of men, although he saw free market capitalism to be the best way to enrich the entire nation. He puts a strong emphasis on the responsibility of the powerful - he is against the corporatism of his time. Large corporations always want to eliminate competition to ensure unhindered growth. Smith sees monopolies created by large corporations as something that perverts the natural flow of the free market.

So what I get out of this is that Smith is strongly concerned with people's liberty and providing opportunities to as many as possible. The powerful should share their power, not to use their power to crush anyone who oppose their interests. Smith's idealistic view of the free market is however a product of his time - a time before industrialization and global marketplace. His ideas can't really be adjusted to deal with the massive challenges that arise with trade between nations that have radically different labor laws and GDPs. Perhaps he would be more accepting of protectionist policies after seeing the unemployment and poverty his ideas of free trade have created.

----------


## Dreamwoven

This is an interesting angle on Smith, F.M.

----------


## YesNo

I have not read Smith, but I suspect a current economic libertarian position would be similar to what you describe, Freudian Monkey. Today there is globally a lot of debt which threatens the world economy since the debt may not be able to be repaid. My own view as an individual would be to avoid debt as the best way to protect those around me. That would be a very negative, bearish social mood position.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Can you recommend any other thinkers who would have interesting angles to the concept of power? I mainly basing my thoughts on personal experiences, practical life management guides like The Power of Habit & No Excuses!: The Power of Self-Discipline, as well as philosophy of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. But I'm sure the concept has been explored by a horde of other thinkers.

----------


## YesNo

This may be more of an indirect reference, but I think Will Johnson's "The Posture of Meditation" may be related to power in some way. It is not going to appear to be related on the surface. He is mainly interested in how to sit for meditation. The back has to be straight. The knees are lower than the hips. The shoulders should be back for deeper breathing. This leads into postures for walking and regular sitting at a computer. There may be some videos on YouTube about this to try if you can't find the book.

The reason I think it relates to power is because it helps clarify the mind and deepen the breathing which would be the basis for power.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Thank you for the suggestion! Power is very tightly connected to physical well-being, so things like proper breathing and good posture are extraordinarily important for developing power. Regular meditation on the other hand is a good practice to gain more thorough control over one's internal reality.

----------


## YesNo

I don't meditate as much as I should. It wasn't until I read Johnson's book that my problems with sitting on the floor were resolved. I was doing it wrong. Depending on one's body one needs to sit on something to raise one's body enough to keep the back straight and the breathing deep. My body needed something to sit on like a pillow to get into the proper posture. And then I could sit there comfortably for a long time. 

What I have mainly tried is Eknath Easwaran's "passage meditation" where one memorizes a text and repeats it slowing for a period of time. This is different from focusing on the breath and incorporates words into the process.

Another thing I am looking into now is HeartMath. They emphasize the communal nature of our positive emotions and thoughts, but mainly our emotions. In a sense this could be a test of the "power" behind such practices because they collect data from those using their heart monitoring tools. I haven't tried it yet.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I think I will do some practical research on the nature of Power during the coming weeks and months. I will travel on a business trip to Bangladesh and India, both of which I've never visited before. I've already noticed how building a social network of local business associates can solve many problems I first thought were huge obstacles. To me it's fascinating to see how people willingly share Power with each other - how it's not a zero sum game at all. Also, I really want to delve into the institutional power structures and how they can be used to increase rather than hinder one's own power. What are the cogs one has to grease or the valves one has to turn to get to power engines running?

----------


## YesNo

I hope you are successful with your research.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Visited a mid-sized Bangladeshi garment factory yesterday. I saw a lot of very young children working there, maybe 10-15 year old girls. However now that I've gotten to know some locals and have began to understand the realities of a third world country like Bangladesh a little bit, I can't get myself to be disgusted or appalled like a true Westerner should. These girls are children of families living in extreme poverty, with no chance to go to school or do any other type of work. So it's either that they will sit at home, watching their grand parents starve in front of their eyes, or they can work in a factory and collect at least some money that can help the family survive a little better. 20 years ago women were mostly staying at home and they didn't have any job opportunities at all. They couldn't even try to achieve financial independence back then.

The ideal scenario of course is that these children could go to school just like children of wealthy families. However there doesn't seem to be enough NGO funded schools for all these children. Dhaka is full of street children. A couple of days ago I met a local representative of a large international charity organization. He made it clear that there's no way all these children can be reached without an extensive, government-driven educational reform. Bangladesh is actually progressing very nicely - the infrastructure is getting better every day, the country is becoming more prosperous. 

Here there's no room for Western entitlement mentality. You either work hard from childhood or you and your family suffer. People here are extraordinarily entrepreneurial - everyone seems to have a small business: many own real estate, others purchase land, some sell sugarcane juice on the side of a dusty road. 

I can't but be impressed by all the life energy that surrounds me here. Everyone is struggling to improve, to gain control over their chaotic external reality. Everyone is hospitable and friendly. I love it here.

----------


## Dreamwoven

So there are no publically-funded schools in Bangladesh? Or there are such schools but the 10 year olds feel pressured to go to work by their families? 

My mother had to do this in 1930s Hungary, though not at the age of 10, after the period of compulsory school. Her father, who was a chronic alcoholic, quite simply insisted that she leave school and begin work to support the family, alongside her mother. She was the eldest child in the family with several younger brothers and sisters. 

She decided to move to England and work as a maid to support her father's alcohol consumption. Which she did. She was good at school, she showed me her latest school results which were all excellent.

----------


## Magnocrat

Power in human terms is greatly connected to wealth. If you are desperate to survive you are powerless driven by need and there are millions in that position. If you have to work long hours to pay your rent and feed your family you are locked into work bondage and have no power. If you have an average or low IQ you may fine !ow paid work and your power to earn is small you are bound by circumstances.
In India 200 million people defacate outside they haven't even the power to sit on a toilet seat.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I discussed about education today with a local friend and he told me that education is free up until 8th grade for girls, boys maybe until 5th grade. But there are a lot of problems with fulfilling this promise, since teachers get paid so little that they often don't bother to show up to work. This obviously increases the dropout rates and makes successful completion of end-of-year exams next to impossible for the unfortunate students. But I don't really know the whole truth about education in Bangladesh, or why so many young girls end up working in garment factories. I took a lot of photos and video and can say with 99% certainty that many girls working in the factory were under age. But as I said before, I can understand that education is a luxury in certain parts of the world and not all families can afford this luxury. It might be better for a child to go to work and help the family than to try to attend a school where he/she doesn't get proper education.




> Power in human terms is greatly connected to wealth. If you are desperate to survive you are powerless driven by need and there are millions in that position. If you have to work long hours to pay your rent and feed your family you are locked into work bondage and have no power. If you have an average or low IQ you may fine !ow paid work and your power to earn is small you are bound by circumstances.
> In India 200 million people defacate outside they haven't even the power to sit on a toilet seat.


I agree. One of the most important developmental programs in India is definitely to increase the availability of toilets and to increase the quality of waste management in general. Building a hygienic toilet is actually rather labor intensive work and therefore slums rarely have any kind of toilets. Also, building toilers isn't very catchy theme for charity fundraising - they rather focus on education or nutrition that are more likely to appeal to a broad audience of donators. No one wants to tell their friends at work that he donated to charity to build a toilet in Jamnagar.  :Smile:

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I'm still very much fascinated by this topic. If anyone has further comments or opinions on it, I would like to discuss more about it.

----------


## desiresjab

The first power of education that any third world country needs is figuring out how to deal with their feces. The smell tells you this. Powerful is the word. The next is birth control. If they can figure these out, their chances with further education are considered better. I hope your business is to sell them septic tanks or birth control tablets. So far, none of their chances with education look great. I am rooting for any third world country to deal successfully with their feces so I can help found a university there. Then we can get to work on the multiplication table. Once they know long division we will hand out the bachelor of science degrees.

* * * * *

Did Archimedes deal powerfully with his feces, or did he merely bury it down at the beach? 

Filthiness is one of the earliest problems that has to be solved. Until then, hope one of them does not drop something in front of you he has to bend over and retrieve. And of course they will never go wrong having fewer children.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I would actually prefer to chat about the concept of power as I defined it in OP, not take part in racist degradation of other ethnic groups.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I've been having conversation about the same topic on another forum. I'll post some of the things we've covered there. Maybe these ideas will spark a new conversation here as well. 




> Originally Posted by Maxcady10001
> 
>  I wouldn't want to make this a discusson of free will, but controlling your inner reality does not seem realistic. A person cannot control the thoughts they have.
> 
> 
> By taking control of your inner reality I mean merely the act of becoming aware of your thoughts and desires. You can certainly inspect your thoughts in a critical fashion, correct? It's not difficult to take a critical look at what's going on inside your own mind. Of course we cannot know everything, but we know enough to know what our major strengths and weaknesses are. We might lack persistence or self-discipline that would allow us to achieve our full potential. So we need to build more persistence and self-discipline by exercising self-denial and learning to postpone gratification, among other similar exercises. Also, I believe one *can* control one's thoughts by choosing an environment that enforces desired thinking habits. For instance, if you go to study in a university, your way of thinking will be different compared to if you merely work at a grocery store and spent your evenings watching TV.
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Freudian Monkey

*I'm really amazed that this kind of concept of power is not talked about anywhere. I think this stuff should be taught in schools. Every child should write a personal power acquisition plan as a part of their yearly school orientation.*

----------


## Dreamwoven

I suspect this approach to power would be agreed to by Erving Goffman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman 

"To me, this is a profound realization. My crude description here doesn't really do it justice. If you're not familiar with this concept, I recommend you read or listen to first 2-3 chapters of The Power of Now. The later chapters are not that great, but the first chapters are nothing short of brilliant."

----------


## freaky

I agree with your idea that power is dynamic. This means either you take action or are acted upon by others. 

I've formed the idea from experience that being powerful means being able to disregard at at least some rules 
with no worries for consequences. 

Do you think it's true? 

In what ways do you think the powerful can be challenged?

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> I suspect this approach to power would be agreed to by Erving Goffman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman 
> 
> "To me, this is a profound realization. My crude description here doesn't really do it justice. If you're not familiar with this concept, I recommend you read or listen to first 2-3 chapters of The Power of Now. The later chapters are not that great, but the first chapters are nothing short of brilliant."


I will have to study his approach, I'm not currently familiar with his theories. What does he call this concept? Power or something else?




> I agree with your idea that power is dynamic. This means either you take action or are acted upon by others. 
> 
> I've formed the idea from experience that being powerful means being able to disregard at at least some rules 
> with no worries for consequences. 
> 
> Do you think it's true? 
> 
> In what ways do you think the powerful can be challenged?


Power can be challenged in a multitude of ways, although they all are also manifestations of power. *There is no such thing as "the powerless bringing down the powerful"*. It just doesn't happen. To be powerless is to be sick, blind, def, crippled or dead. Life itself is power. So in short, you need to be powerful to bring down the powerful. Often it's the combined effort of a large crowd of less powerful people that can bring down one immensely powerful individual.

*It's certainly true that the powerful can disregard laws and other rules of societies*, to a certain extent at least. However we have to take into consideration that all nations have different internal power structures. Western nations have a relatively broad division of power, which is one of the core requirements of democracy. Third world countries have very crude power structures where power is mainly concentrated in military and usually one oligarchic group of powerful people who basically control the whole nation. *In third world countries, the powerful have basically no limits and they don't need to abide to any laws. In Western nations even the powerful have to step carefully so as to not cause a scandal that could harm their financial or other interests.*

*I notice that I ventured from individual forms of power to collective forms of power. But I honestly don't see any dramatic difference between the two. Even if power is communal, it still functions within the same framework. Communities can strife to make changes in their internal or external realities - depending on their power, and possible opposing powers, they can either succeed or fail. There's really nothing else to it, as far as I'm concerned.*

----------


## Freudian Monkey

*I took some time to become more familiar with Schopenhauer's concepts of Will and Will-To-Live*. Schopenhauer's concept is Will seems very similar to what we've been talking about on this thread: his concept of Will is a similar universal force that drives all life in the universe. 

*However there are also some key differences:*

1) *Schopenhauer sees our desires as the manifestation of Will.* So he associates Freud's Id with Will. I firmly disagree. To me desires are distractions from our Will. He also believes that we are slaves to Will and therefore our life is restless struggle to manifest more and more Will. He has adopted the Eastern philosophical approach of "Life is suffering". This has lead him to believe that we need to get rid of our goals and desires, go live in a monastery and give ourselves thirty lashes every time we think of boobs. To me this approach only tries to deny the true state of affairs instead of trying to find a meaningful response to it. The world is still going to be out there even if you go to live in a monastery and try to ignore all the horrors that our collective Wills manifest. 

2) *Schopenhauer states that it's impossible for people to live meaningful lives by setting and accomplishing life goals.* I could not disagree more. Everyone with a fraction of common sense understands that a person who has a happy family, a flourishing social life, a satisfying sexual life and an inspiring job lives a much more satisfying life than a homeless drunkard with syphilis. Will (or Power) brings happiness, since everything we could ever desire can be accomplished through power. *A meaningful life derives from one's desire for life.* One has to have passion for life, a passion to accomplish great things and to cause desirable change in one's internal and external reality. We will all die one day and therefore we will ultimately lose all our Power (or Will), but that doesn't mean that a life that celebrates life instead of denying it is a much more satisfying and meaningful one.

I personally think Schopenhauer was too limited by a religious discourse and framework of thinking. He sees everything so miserable and pointless because philosophy was undergoing a change to adapt to the more materialistic worldview and he simply was not ready to embrace a philosophy without the religious framework. He simply couldn't handle the inevitability of death. I, on the contrary, see death as nothing more than just another change in an endless chain of changes that we go through in our lives. It's nothing to be feared. 

Death is not a tragedy - frankly, it's rather childish to think so.

I really hope I can find a better philosopher to satisfy my curiosity about the nature of Power.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Here's some excellent points about Nietzsche's book _Will to Power_ from another forum:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/foru...hp?f=1&t=15226




> In trying to provide a view of Nietzsche on The Will to Power, I found myself rereading a lot of pages because not a lot is clearly defined, but I guess that is understandable considering his book Will to Power was made from his journal entries. I jump around a lot.
> 
> To describe his views, I'd start with his *idea of the herd and the higher man*. He called the herd, the mediocre, the weak, sick (ironic, considering he spent most of his life sick), and unfortunate. The higher man is the opposite, what is healthy, and strong. But he divides the higher man into two types: the shepherd and the master. The shepherd works for the preservation of the herd and its values. However, the master uses the herd as a means to whatever his chosen end. To Nietzsche, any action commanded of the herd by the higher man was justified because he was the higher man. He believed this higher man (master type) should rule over the herd. A few quotes:
> 
> "Main consideration: not to see the task of the higher species leading the lower (as, e.g.,Comte does), but the lower as a base upon which higher species performs its own tasks--upon which alone it can stand." (The Will to Power, pg.479) 
>  
> "On the sovereign types.-- The "shepherd" as opposed to the "master" (--the former a means of preserving the herd; the latter the end for which the herd exists)." (The Will to Power, pg.479)
> 
> Nietzsche would have his higher men (master types) rule, in an aristocracy, over the herd. *He did not believe people were equal*, and he loathed anything that meant otherwise. He loathed everything he called herd virtues, what he believed subjected the higher types to the lower herd, anything that reduces the distance between men. Namely morality, humility, chastity, poverty, obedience, and equality. *Nietzsche especially despised morality*. Nietzsche thought these were attempts to make everyone equal, which he thought was impossible. 
> ...

----------


## Dreamwoven

What forum is this from? Do you have a link to it? or is it not public? However, I am not sure it is helpful to come with alternative theories of power. Perhaps we should stick to your definition of power? Though I am not sure what I can say about it more than I have already.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> What forum is this from? Do you have a link to it? or is it not public? However, I am not sure it is helpful to come with alternative theories of power. Perhaps we should stick to your definition of power? Though I am not sure what I can say about it more than I have already.


I added the forum link to the previous post.

Well, my definition of Power is not set in stone. *The post I quote from the other forum is simply quoting and analyzing Nietzsche's book Will to Power*. My definition of Power very close to Nietzsche's definition, but I don't agree with everything Nietzsche concluded, especially about the social implications of the realization that all living organisms are driven by Will to Power. So I'm happy to discuss my definition - as a matter of fact, that's really the reason I started this thread.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I add my response from the other forum here as well to see if it can spark some conversation here.

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/foru...15226&start=15




> I find myself agreeing with Nietzsche with most of what he writes about the nature of Power. However I don’t agree with the social implications he draws from the realization that all living organisms are driven by will to power. But I will get to that later. Maybe I will go through some of your quotes and give my thoughts on each separately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Maxcady10001
> 
> ...

----------


## Dreamwoven

I had a look at Nietzsche, but I am not familiar with political theory. Bertrand Russell, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, so I guess I will just bow out at this point.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Some more *analysis of Nietzsche's book* _Will to Power_:

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/for...7c032&start=15




> I don't believe he gave much creedence to *social power structures* because he believed they *were fulfillment of the power instinct of the herd, and limitation for the individual*. I mentioned Nietzsche believed *morality*, *and all other Christian values* were herd virtues, but I forgot to say he thought they *were the herd's attempt to fulfill their will to power*. How else should those that are weak attain power, but to invent and spread values that make them equal to the powerful. Nietzsche was opposed to all kinds of morality, not only Christian morality, because he believed it was anti-natural. 
> 
> He believed the powerful should be able to enact their will on the less powerful. On *anarchism*, I believe he thought enabling the people to act out their will to power would eventually lead his aristocracy lead by his higher man. Most likely through horrific acts. I don't believe he thought it would be anarchism, because anarchism implies a kind of equality. He thought socialism was the jesuit based counterpart of anarchism. On your theory of power, doesn't morality get in the way of people inflicting external or internal change? It must, as morality says everyone is equal and restricts action and doesn't allow for all of the potential for change.
> 
> However, on the social power structures and the herd, Nietzsche thought society forced individuals to act in a way beneficial to the herd in fulfillment of the herd's will to power. Consider what he called the herd, the weaker members of the species, groups of these weaker individuals would act as a strong one. Together they act in a way that is contradictory to their nature as a weak herd type. For instance, in society responsibility is abolished, one individual would not take responsibility for executing or punishing a man, but he is absolved of responsibility when the state tells him to do this. The state also contains justice and equality before the law, in order to abolish the tension, enmity and hatred between people. However, he says it is an error to suppose happiness will result from this. 
> 
> He also goes into criminals, he remarks on how criminals have been treated. *He mentions that criminals have made up the greatest men in history so far*.
> "we resist the idea that all great human beings have been criminals (only in the grand and not in a miserable style), that crime belongs to greatness (---for that is the experience of those who have tried the reins and of all who have descended deepest into great souls---). To be free as a bird from tradition, the conscience of duty---every great human being knows this danger. But he also desires it: he desires it and therefore also the means for it."(The Will to Power, pg.390)
> 
> ...

----------


## freaky

You say that "To be powerless is to be sick, blind, def, crippled or dead."

Consider, for instance, that a blind person enjoys more allowances than the non-blind. Social pressure is not so cruel on her in the sense that even if this person is unsuccessful in whatever pursuit, she is forgiven because of being blind. "I'm cannot see" becomes an excuse that she can pull out whenever need be. If being blind gives one the ability to disregard some rules, don't you think that's power too?

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> You say that "To be powerless is to be sick, blind, def, crippled or dead."
> 
> A blind person enjoys more allowance than the non-blind. Social pressure is not so cruel on her in the sense that even if this person is unsuccessful in whatever pursuit, she is forgiven because of being blind. "I'm cannot see" becomes an excuse that she can pull out whenever need be. If being blind gives one the ability to disregard some rules, don't you think that's power too?


That'a actually exactly why Nietzsche hated morality. It's only because of social norms like morality that weak individuals can acquire power that they can't get "naturally". Check the previous post's first paragraph.

I agree with you that in Western societies power is distributed often to make weak people's lives more bearable, and there's nothing wrong with that. But being blind in itself doesn't hold any advantage over being able to see. And to be honest, the social advantage is not really equal to the disadvantage of not being able to see.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Here's some more discussion about Nietzsche's book _Will to Power_:

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/for...15226&start=15




> Originally Posted by Maxcady10001
> 
> I don't believe he gave much creedence to social power structures because he believed they were fulfillment of the power instinct of the herd, and limitation for the individual. *I mentioned Nietzsche believed morality, and all other Christian values were herd virtues, but I forgot to say he thought they were the herd's attempt to fulfill their will to power*. How else should those that are weak attain power, but to invent and spread values that make them equal to the powerful. Nietzsche was opposed to all kinds of morality, not only Christian morality, because he believed it was anti-natural. He believed the powerful should be able to enact their will on the less powerful. *On anarchism, I believe he thought enabling the people to act out their will to power would eventually lead his aristocracy lead by his higher man*. Most likely through horrific acts. I don't believe he thought it would be anarchism, because anarchism implies a kind of equality. He thought socialism was the jesuit based counterpart of anarchism. On your theory of power, doesn't morality get in the way of people inflicting external or internal change? It must, as morality says everyone is equal and restricts action and doesn't allow for all of the potential for change.
> 
> 
> *Im not sure if morality by definition implies that everyone has to be equal.* This was never the case in Ancient Greece that we consider to be the womb of democracy  women and non-citizens didnt possess the same rights are citizens and therefore the same moral principles didnt apply to them. As a matter of fact, for instance individual rights almost never apply to all the members of a society even though theyre at the heart of Western morality. A more contemporary example: if a person is labeled to be a terrorist, he often loses the basic human rights other members of society naturally possess. So I dont think morality always aims to make everyone equal.
> 
> Morality indeed does get in the way of individuals pursuit of gaining power. However I see morality is a safeguard that prevents individuals of openly fighting each other for power, which drains a lot of resources and ultimately weakens everyones chance of survival. Society benefits everyone who seeks power is countless ways  it makes finding friends and wives/husbands much easier, it gives a guarantee of safety, it increases the availability of resources that are hard to come by etc. 
> 
> ...

----------


## freaky

I've been thinking about your theory in fragments. Let me propose another idea



> However, I would like to go a bit further and propose that power is a pretty profound concept that is closely tied to the meaning of life. 
> ...
> You cannot be indifferent towards life. You either take control or your will be at the mercy of others more powerful than you. Or you will be corrupted and spoiled by desires that you cannot control.


Is it really true that simply by taking control of your life you can bypass the various forces and those of people who're more powerful than you? Each person exists in a context that influences him or her and is influenced by him or her. A dictator perhaps can avoid any kind of forces, but the question is can you become a dictator? Even if you take control of your life as much as you can, are you not still at the mercy of forces over which you have no control?

----------


## Dreamwoven

Yes, i'm convinced. Power is everywhere, you can ignore it but it won't go away.

----------


## freaky

I wonder what you mean by ignoring forces! 
Let's say if the prime minister of a country abuses power in a way that has serious consequences, her higher authority can take over. 
But she can get away with enjoying unjust services and favours from her underlings, raising ethical questions.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> I've been thinking about your theory in fragments. Let me propose another idea
> 
> Is it really true that simply by taking control of your life you can bypass the various forces and those of people who're more powerful than you? Each person exists in a context that influences him or her and is influenced by him or her. A dictator perhaps can avoid any kind of forces, but the question is can you become a dictator? Even if you take control of your life as much as you can, are you not still at the mercy of forces over which you have no control?


It is as Dreamwoven said - power structures are always going to exist in one's internal and external reality whether or not he accumulates more Power. Power acquisition is a goal in itself - it's not a means to and end. Or perhaps you could say that it's the ultimate means to any and all ends. So I don't see power as something that we need to always view exclusively as a tool for getting rid of our competition. Instead we should focus on building strong social relationships that are one of our most significant sources of Power.

People often don't take power structures into consideration while making their life choices. It would be highly beneficial for a nation to teach their citizens to make individual power acquisition plans. This way the whole society would benefit, since a focused and goal-oriented individual is always a more productive member of a society than a citizen who has no goals and no meaning to his/her life. Power acquisition leads to a meaningful and satisfying life.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

We continue our conversation, this time mostly about Power's relation to evolution and society.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/for...15226&start=15




> Originally Posted by Maxcady10001
> 
> I understand why you are against including immorality as part of your theory of power. If you're planning to teach this, it would be impossible to be approved for a lesson plan that included *immorality as essential to obtaining power*. However, I find it contradictory to have a theory of power and allow for morality. It is like telling students to conquer the world with their hands tied behind their backs. Eventually someone else would point out this contradiction of encouraging the exertion of will and change while limiting it through morality.
> 
> 
> I think our discussion might benefit from us defining the term morality, since that seem to be at the heart of our conversation right now. Here's a *definition from Wikipedia*:
> 
> *Morality* (from the Latin moralis "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
> 
> ...

----------


## Freudian Monkey

In a way I think I might be barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe philosophy is not where we should be looking for answers about the nature of Power.

I've read some theory of *pedagogy* and *developmental psychology* recently and I've stumbled upon some theories that deal very closely with the concept of Power. Many recent developmental psychologists like *Roy Baumeister* see willpower (not self-esteem or good parenting or any of that crap) as the main contributor to a person's well-being and happiness. It seems to be a pretty commonly accepted fact that self-regulatory skills and willpower are the foundations of a successful and happy life and this is already been taught to children starting in primary schools. Some of the books even use the same terminology I came up with on my own while pondering about the nature of Power - they mention a child's need to control his internal and external reality as one of the fundamental factors affecting his learning. *A child that doesn't get the experience of being able to affect his internal and external reality through school activities is likely to adopt an apathetic and disinterested approach to studying*. These are not my thoughts, but those presented in a pedagogy lecture series I attended recently (I can list some books if someone is interested). In other words, a child becomes more interested in learning when he sees it as an avenue to Power acquisition.

So it seems my approach to the concept of Power isn't in anyway controversial any longer, which I still find a bit surprising.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Some more conversation from another forum:

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/for...15226&start=15




> I think that the discussion has kind of gone off on a hyper-individualistic sidetrack, hasn't it? 
> 
> To me - and here I'm happily revealing my prejudice - *Nietzsche and all the philosophies subsequent to his work, boil down to Calvinism without Redemption*. 
> 
> The moral problems with that notwithstanding, the philosophical problem is that Nietzsche's analysis proceeds from the same overwhelming concern with the individual without the justification that Calvin took from Christianity. In other words, Calvin's views were necessarily focused on the individual because they were arguments about the redemption of an individual SOUL, but absent a Divine justification for such a focus, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to think on a social, cultural and species level. 
> 
> The idea that a human's "Will To Power" should be in conflict with Homo sapiens "Will To Power" as a species makes as much sense - at a first approximation - as the idea that a single bee's "Will To Power" should be different from the hive's WTP. 
> 
> *We're a social species, and that completely undermines* (but doesn't necessarily disprove) *the arguments that build from a question of individual "Power", doesn't it?*


Thank you for your contribution and interesting ideas Dlaw.

Maybe you could elaborate your argument a bit further, since I might be missing some important nuances you're trying to communicate. What would you suggest are the features that Nietzsche and other philosophers after him have adopted from Calvinism? Why do you believe that Calvin of all philosophers has had such profound influence on Nietzsche/Western thought?

You seem to suggest that human beings are equally hive-minded creatures as bees, at least in relation to Will to Power. Well, I don't believe this to be the case. To quote Jonathan Haidt *"people are 90% chimp and 10% bee"*. Only under exceptional circumstances we can overcome our selfish individualism and sacrifice our own selfish interests for the common good. Bees do this pretty much 100% of the time. Societies and other groups try to encourage bee-like behavior in men, but this kind of manipulation has it's limits. Chimps, our closest mamal relatives, cannot cooperate with each other even if their lives depend on it. For instance you will never see two chimps carrying a log together to get a treat. This has been thoroughly tested over the years. According to Haidt, people only really care about appearing to be team players rather than actually caring about their social group's well-being over their own well-being. *We are hypocrites by nature*.

I don't quite understand why our social nature would somehow undermine individual Will to Power or the concept of individual Power. Could you perhaps clarify this point a bit further? If you for instance disagree with some of our previous posts on this thread, perhaps you could point them out and we could continue the discussion from there.

I agree that we have perhaps moved to a more individual-centered approach in our conversation, but I don't view Power or Will to Power as exclusively applicable to individuals. On the contrary I have mentioned a lot of examples of external power structures on this thread. Ultimately I see Power as a force of nature, much like Schopenhauer. Life itself is Power. Death is the absence of Power. I know this is not Nietzshe's definition, but there are certainly areas where our theories overlap. See some of my previous posts if you're interested to discuss these concept further, since I've already elaborated them quite a bit on this thread.

----------


## svejorange

Power is what' moves one's

----------

