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".
Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while
amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or principles.
I see teaching children about Power similarly to how they are taught evolution and natural selection. They're not topics for young children and require a certain degree of maturity to digest. However it's imperative that children learn about these fundamental laws that govern our existence so they don't grow in ignorance and superstition. Similarly,
the concept of Power should be introduced to the children gradually - first through play and simple plans for improving themselves.
This is in fact what is already been done, but without any clear, detailed plan about how children can best be introduced to self-improvement and the realities of power acquisition, power distribution and different power structures. The concept itself is so self-explanatory that there's no need for in dept theoretical education - student counselors would help students to make individual power acquisition plans and give them guidance when they need it.
Now, to the point that I think we need to focus on in our discussion.
You seem to imply that power acquisition is always either immoral or amoral in a contemporary Western society.
Why? Why cannot children be taught power acquisition within the social boundaries of a society? As I mentioned in a previous post, people control their behavior and their impulses all the time to better adapt to their social environment. Power acquisition can very well function within boundaries that a society deem adequate and desirable.
Another thing to consider.
Does a society benefit from powerful citizens? Or does it benefit more from powerless citizens? What then should be the goal of our educational system? Do we need to produce citizens that have Will to Power or ones that are apathetic, content, passive?
The key point I want to make: everyone desires power.
Power acquisition and usage is either the meaning of life or very closely tied to it (we could start a whole other thread about this topic).
A society can either try to suppress this inbuilt desire or try to benefit from it. I have been born and raised in a society that believes in empowering it's citizens and I tend to believe this is the right approach for creating a healthy and strong society.
Originally Posted by
Maxcady10001
If you include morality, your theory is no different than the motivation techniques and theories that are already in existence. The contemporary example of the terrorist does not work, because once he became a criminal he lost his rights, he had equal rights before he became a criminal.
I agree the terrorist was a bad example, as you rightly pointed out. We could perhaps replace it with a better example, of which there are plenty.
In medieval feudal societies, where no one thought that all people should be equal. Would you still suggest that societies in medieval Europe had no morality? The ideal of the equality of men is only a couple of hundred year old concept in it's contemporary form - it cannot be basis for an universal concept of morality.
I agree that motivational and self-help books often focus on power acquisition and therefore they are very desirable read for individuals. I'm not quite sure why they are not utilized at all in Western educational system. Perhaps because they are often written by amateurs that don't base them on scientific data. However this is not always the case. There's a lot of scientific data about people's habit formation, for instance. A great book about habit formation is
Charles Duhigg's The Power of Habit, whcih you could call a self-help book that's based on scientific data.
Is my theory of Power just another self-help guide? Perhaps it is. I don't care what kind of labels we use, as long as the concept is understood and used in practice.
I also found a rather recent video dealing with this topic. You can check it here if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2tlif59E1E
Originally Posted by
Maxcady10001
The rights of criminals are not a good example of the rights of all democratic society. On the other example using Greece, you've said women and non-citizens did not possess the same rights as male citizens. This is not analogous to a modern democracy, where women and non-citizens do possess these rights, and morality is equally applied. If you are advocating for the kind of democracy of ancient Greece in your theory of power that is something different, and is in conflict with your current theory of power that includes morality, because now you're taking away rights.
Why should we only focus on contemporary Western morality? Why is it any better or any more relevant than any other form of morality that have been adopted by societies throughout history?
I don't view morality as something that cannot coexist with individual's Will to Power. Morality is a communal power structure whereas Will to Power is a force that drives individual's behavior.
Individual's pursuit for Power is sometimes compromised for the good of the community,
but this is merely a transition where individual power is traded for social power. There can be some loss of Power in this process, but that's the reality of communal living. But as I mentioned before, the benefits of belonging to a community far outweigh it's disadvantages.
Is there really any reason why morality and Will to Power cannot coexist? Not theoretically, but in practice. I want to keep our discussion in practical reality.
Originally Posted by
Maxcady10001
Nietzsche did read Darwin, and the way you apply social Darwinism to Nietzsche I don't believe works, as Nietzsche thought the most prevalent and most mediocre types survived.
I read online that all of
Nietzsche's knowledge of Darwin came from second hand sources - he never read a copy of The Origin of Species.
Originally Posted by
Maxcady10001
You also say something contradictory when you say a person with Christian values can become powerful. I know you would give me the example of the politician, however the politician is anti-christian in their power grabs. In running for office the so-called christian is essentially renouncing christian virtues, they are the antithesis of a christian. They are ambitious, prideful, vengeful (do christian campaigners not act as though their religion has been wronged), hateful (against those not of their faith), and wealthy. Politicians are anti-christian. The nature of one's values matter very much, in terms of power acquisition. Consider a person who is raised valuing intelligence, pride, strength, versus the person who is raised valuing intelligence, humility, morality. Who will be stronger?
Actually, either one could be more powerful than the other. I presume you believe that a person that values pride and strength will always be more powerful and a person who values humility and morality? To me this is not necessarily the case. There are moral views that will lead to very undesirable results in terms of power acquisition, but most of the time I see different moral values as different power acquisition strategies. If you are considered to be a person of high moral character and humility, you will be a valued member in almost any kind of contemporary society. A person with that values strength and pride might be in a disadvantage in these kind of social contexts, but he might have a stronger desire to become respected and admired, which could work in his advantage.
Actually I see strongly devout Christians as people with the strongest Will to Power even though they also adhere to the most highest moral principles and value humility, abstinence and even self-sacrifice. They are very passionate and goal-oriented. They care very little of earthy pleasures, so they are not distracted from their pursuit for more thorough control over their internal and external reality. The key word here is
self-discipline, which is the most desirable character trait for anyone who desires Power.
You have to understand that selfishness is not a necessity for a strong Will to Power. At least not in my definition of the concept. Nietzsche might disagree with me here.