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/Buddhism-Without-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. :)

[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.



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.


Also, why do you say your thoughts are not who you really are? They seem to be exactly who you are.

I borrow this idea from Echart Tolle's book The Power of Now. It's central thesis is that our consciousness does not have anything to do with our thoughts. In other words,You are not your mind. Our minds are merely something created by our egos - the artificial character we create to ourselves in our ignorance. Ego is like a disease - it tries to take over our existence by taking over our existence by filling our heads with thoughts about work, school, relationships, injustices we have encountered and so on. However, according to Tolle, these thoughts are not who you really are.

Instead, you are the silent watcher who perceives your thoughts.

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.


It would also not be wise to tell people to control their desires. Our bodies do not work that way.

I don't refer only to sexual desires here. I refer to all desires - gluttony, hatred, impulses to hurt or gamble, impulses to humiliate or degrade, impulse to betray your spouse with a younger woman etc. We all have countless desires that we suppress all the time. Our society demands us to suppress countless impulses - we cannot cut lines, walk naked on the street, randomly kill people we don't like etc. Controlling our impulses is not only something we do every day, but it's also extremely healthy and good for our well-being. Of course it shouldn't be taken too far. Occasionally we need sexual relief, for instance. However, if you don't control your sexual impulse at all, you will either watch porn all day long or end up in prison for sexually assaulting someone on the street. To me it's self-explanatory that sexual and other desires need to be controlled.

The point that I was trying to make was that if we desire power above everything else (as we should), we have to gain control of our desires. Otherwise they will control us. A drug addict is someone who cannot control his/her desires. Do you consider a drug addict to be someone who is in charge - who is powerful?


Also, why does your theory of power not have the limits of power? Meaning there is a heirarchy, certain people can only be so powerful. Your theory assumes equal potential, why is this, when there is clearly not equal potential?

I don't recall stating that my concept of power assumes equal potential for power. On the contrary, power is very unevenly available to people.

In my view power is of course limited, but at the same time it's almost infinite. Would you say that the universe has limits? It certainly does, but we will never be able to comprehend those limits. It's the same way with power. There are always new ways of either increasing or decreasing one's power. You might say an inconsidered word to someone and make him like you less as a result - a decrease of power. You might forget to close lights in your toilet before you go to bed, wasting precious electricity - a decrease of power. Etc etc. Everything we do every moment of our lives is connected to our use of power. I write to you to convey my thoughts using an artificial system of symbols that I have used years to learn, which suggests that I'm using massive amount of power from different sources to make these changes happen in my external reality.


And when you say forget everything that separates you from another person, you contradict yourself. Why does power matter, if there are no differences between people? Differences should be at the forefront of the mind of the most powerful. They must always recognize the strengths and weaknesses of others, to assess their own power.

This is merely a strategy to becoming more powerful socially. Our social relationships are among our greatest sources of power, since we alone have very limited resources, but together we can accomplish much greater things. Our ability to convince others to cooperate with us is crucial for our survival and our ability to thrive and become more powerful.

By focusing on the things that we have in common with people instead of focusing on the things that separate us from them is the foundation of making friends. If you can find even one thing that you and your bitter enemy have in common, you might be able to use that one thing to make peace with him instead of waging a wasteful war.

Of course there will always be differences between people. Power is not equal and has no conscience. It's a force of nature, much like gravity. Your job is not to get crushed by it, but to use it to your advantage.

[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/forums/viewtopic.php?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.

A quote on the golden rule:

"...here an equivalence of value between my actions and yours is presupposed; here the most personal value of an action is simply annulled (that which cannot be balanced or paid in any way--). "Reciprocity" is a piece of vulgarity; precisely that something I do may not and could not be done by another, that no balance is possible (--except in the most select sphere of "my equals," inter pares--), that in a deeper sense one never gives back, because one is something unique and does only unique things--this fundamental conviction contains the cause of aristocratic segregation from the masses, because the masses believe in "equality" and consequently in equivalence and "Reciprocity." "(The Will to Power, pg.489)

There, is the hatred of anything equalizing, such as the golden rule of do unto others as you would have dine to you. Later on he asserts that which we would not have done to ourselves, is exactly what we should do to others first, to prevent it from happening to ourselves.

Nietzsche believed in a new master race comprised of men of the higher type from different races. He believed in an aristocracy of higher men that would rule the masses of the world. Contrary to what many people have said, Nietzsche was not a nationalist, or at all for nationalism, he actually hated Germans, and believed they were the reason for the end of the renaissance period. Because of Martin Luther, the church was able to return to its traditional values, instead of continuing on its path during the enlightenment period. He also hated Kant, who was German, and any kind of idealism. I remember him calling Kant a theologian in disguise.

A quote on the master race he described:

"From now on there will be more favorable preconditions for more comprehensive forms of dominion, whose like has never yet existed. And even this is not the most important thing; the possibility has been established for the production of international racial unions whose task will be to rear a master race, the future "masters of the earth"; --a new, tremendous aristocracy, based on the severest legislation, in which the will of philosophical men and artist-tyrants will be made to endure for millenia-- a higher kind of man who, thanks to their superiority in will, knowledge, riches, and influence, employ democratic Europe as their most pliant and supple instrument for getting hold of the destinies of the Earth, so as to work as artists upon "man" himself. "(The Will to Power, pg. 504)

He wanted to subjugate all of Europe to this aristocracy of the master race. He believed Europe to be the place of the most intelligent masses, and so the best to be subjugated to the will of these aristocrats. More on these higher types, he believed them to be incommunicable, nothing in common with the herd, always sees other people (in Nietzsche's eyes, lesser people) as tools upon which to exert his will. The higher type would have no desire for the approval of others, because of their distance. "There is a solitude within him that is inaccessible to praise or blame, his own justice is beyond appeal." (The Will to Power, pg. 505)

Something Nietzsche says about Schopenhauer:

"Schopenhauer's interpretation of the "in-itself" as will was an essential step; but he did not understand how to deify this will: he remained entangled in the moral-christian ideal. Schopenhauer was still so much subject to the dominion of christian values that, as soon as the thing-in-itself was no longer "God" for him, he had to see it as bad, stupid, and absolutely reprehensible. He failed to grasp that there are an infinite variety of ways of being different, even of being god."(The Will to Power, pg. 521)

More on the Will to Power:

"that the will to power would is the primitive form of affect, that all other affects are only developments of it" (The Will to Power, pg.366)

"that all driving force is the will to power, that there is no other physical, dynamic or psychic force except this."(The Will to Power, pg.366)

"It can be shown most clearly that every living thing does everything it can not to preserve itself but to become more--"(The Will to Power, pg.367)

He goes on to cite the relationship between the total organic process and nature so far. For him, the will to power is a becoming, it is appropriating, and dominating. Every feeling of pleasure is the registering of growth in consciousness. He calls life the will to the accumulation of force. He says this on displeasure:

"The measure of failure and fatality must grow with the resistance a force seeks to master; and as a force can expend itself only on what resists it, there is necessarily an ingredient of displeasure in every action. But this displeasure acts as a lure of lufe and strengthens the will to power!"(The Will to Power, pg.369)

On life:

"Life is only a means to something; it is the expression of forms of the growth of power."(The Will to Power, pg.375)

He also mentions that eventually strength fades and comparison of former feelings of overcoming and growth weaken the present feelings and capacity for pleasure.

There is alot more that he deals with, i've omitted what he said in the book on artists and knowledge, which is an important part, but I will post another comment adding this to what I have here. So far, how close do you believe his theory is to yours?

[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/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=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.



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.

Here’s one fundamental point where I find Nietzsche’s theory lacking. He doesn’t seem to put any value to communal and social power structures. To me they are among people’s greatest sources of power. I think this might be the reason why he suggests that the higher men should lead like omnipotent oligarchy without caring about the desires or opinions of the masses. Obviously Nietzsche never lived to witness the horrors of 20th century and the great men who ruined nations in their omniscience and omnipotence.

I agree with Nietzshche that in terms of Power, men can never be equal. However this doesn’t lead me to conclude, like Nietzsche does, that society needs to be structures so that the powerful can become increasingly more powerful and everyone else’s ability to obtain power is limited. I think Nietzsche believed that the main goal of human species was to aim to accomplish great feats and he believed that the best possible way to accomplish greatness was to let few extraordinary geniuses use all collective power resources to realize their dreams. I can see and appreciate his trail of thought here, but I simply don’t believe his approach is practical. Even if our ultimate goal was to, say, colonize Mars, it might be actually more effective to inspire the masses to undertake and support such a task on their own free will instead of forcing them to work against their will to accomplish this goal. Think of all the rage against “The 1%” or “The Illuminati”. The masses will always use their collective power to oppose oppression and therefore oligarchy is not a “power efficient” way to govern. Modern Western models of government might not be perfect, but their way of dividing Power to multiple independent institutions leads to better lives for everyone and gives plenty of room for everyone to accumulate Power, within certain restraints. I guess I don’t agree with Nietzsche about concentrated Power being preferred over a more broadly spread out Power.

However, I have to stress that even the most charitable and humble individual has to amass Power if he wants to help others or to make a society more equal. Power is a necessity to anyone who wants anything other than simply to cease to exist.



"that the will to power would is the primitive form of affect, that all other affects are only developments of it" (The Will to Power, pg.366)

I think Nietzsche might be referring to Spinoza or some later philosopher when he writes about affects. Spinoza defined them as all the stimuli that change one’s capability to sustain their existence. Spinoza’s concepts ponatus and potentia actually come very close to Nietzsche’s concept of Will to Power, although he has a really weird definition of how individuals can become more powerful – by embracing everything that give them pleasure. So his conclusion is pretty much the exact opposite to that of Nietzsche’s.



Nietzsche especially despised morality.

I think he mainly despised Christian moral values, which he correctly identified to be in complete opposition to the fundamental driving force of nature, Will to Power. But was Nietzsche really against all morality? To me that kind of philosophy can lead a society into uncontrolled anarchism, which is obviously not preferred by any rational person. I refuse to believe Nietzsche to be a proponent of anarchism. Besides, wouldn’t Nietzsche’s own utopian society also have morality – a collective aspiration for great deeds, for instance? I think your other quote actually answers this question:



And even this is not the most important thing; the possibility has been established for the production of international racial unions whose task will be to rear a master race, the future "masters of the earth"; --a new, tremendous aristocracy, based on the severest legislation, in which the will of philosophical men and artist-tyrants will be made to endure for millennia - -

This quote reminded me somewhat of Plato’s ideal society in The Republic. Although Nietzsche’s superman leaders wouldn’t perhaps have been philosophers in Plato’s sense of the word.



Nietzsche believed in a new master race comprised of men of the higher type from different races. He believed in an aristocracy of higher men that would rule the masses of the world. Contrary to what many people have said, Nietzsche was not a nationalist, or at all for nationalism, he actually hated Germans, and believed they were the reason for the end of the renaissance period. Because of Martin Luther, the church was able to return to its traditional values, instead of continuing on its path during the enlightenment period. He also hated Kant, who was German, and any kind of idealism. I remember him calling Kant a theologian in disguise.

I remember Bertrand Russell writing something similar in his “History of Western Philosophy”. Russell treated Nietzsche very unfavorably in that book though, which is a shame, since otherwise it’s a great book. But obviously it was written during the second world war, which made it difficult for Russell to sympathize with “the Nazi philosopher”.



"that all driving force is the will to power, that there is no other physical, dynamic or psychic force except this."(The Will to Power, pg.366)

This is pretty much my view of Power as well. Life is Power.



"It can be shown most clearly that every living thing does everything it can not to preserve itself but to become more--"(The Will to Power, pg.367)

This is where Nietzsche diverges from Schopenhauer. And I think he’s correct with his perception.



For him, the will to power is a becoming, it is appropriating, and dominating.

This is where I can see the influence of Schopenhauer, although Nietzsche’s Power always aims to accumulation whereas Schopenhauer’s Will is focused preserving what already exists.



Every feeling of pleasure is the registering of growth in consciousness.

I’m very surprised that Nietzsche would write something like this. I thought Nietzsche didn’t value pleasure. Now, somehow, he seems to suggest we should seek pleasure to grow our consciousness? Or did I misunderstand you here?



He says this on displeasure:
"The measure of failure and fatality must grow with the resistance a force seeks to master; and as a force can expend itself only on what resists it, there is necessarily an ingredient of displeasure in every action. But this displeasure acts as a lure of lufe and strengthens the will to power!"(The Will to Power, pg.369)

I completely agree with this view.



"Life is only a means to something; it is the expression of forms of the growth of power."(The Will to Power, pg.375)

I agree with this view as well, but with some reservations. As I mentioned in OP, to me the ultimate meaning of life is development. The meaning of an individual’s life is to accumulate power and to affect desired change in his internal and external reality. This can be called development. Life is an endless chain reaction of Power transforming and accumulating. When all living entities strife to accumulate Power, the total amount of Power grows as well. There is no finite amount of Power available, but it can grow as far as there’s enough resources for all life forms to sustain themselves and to continue accumulating Power. Lack of resources can of course become an issue and as a matter of fact this is what is currently happening in the world. This is where the “desirable change” comes in. When mankind is running out of resources, the desired change that people should strife for would be to either create more resources, to find new forms of resources, to decrease the number of entities consuming the resources or to decrease the use of resources.



He also mentions that eventually strength fades and comparison of former feelings of overcoming and growth weaken the present feelings and capacity for pleasure.

Nietzsche might be right about this as well. After one has accomplished all of his most important goals, the feeling of accomplishment can become harder to achieve. But I’m not sure why he puts so much emphasis on feelings. To me they seem inconsequential. Maybe he is referring to Spinoza here, since he also puts a lot of emphasis on feelings.

[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/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15226&sid=541af36b32ee4a42ac1a71b94fd7c032&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)

He goes on to repudiate concepts of reward and punishment, because he believes this race is undisciplined, and is most susceptible to the least bit of stimuli, so because these criminals act on impulse reward and punishment mean nothing. He then mentions dealing with rebels, saying they are suppressed not punished. Nietzsche also says the criminal is, in a way, a man of courage, and should not be looked upon with contempt by society. He then repudiated punishment as a purifier or penance. Saying there'sno relationship between guilt and punishment and "punishment does not purify, for crime does not sully." To him, punishment began with religion and what he called contemptible men (e.g., slaves).

There is also this criticism of society's punisment:

"My rather radical question mark set against all modern penal codes is this: if the punishment should hurt in proportion to the magnitude of the crime---and fundamentally that is what all of you want!---you would have to measure the susceptibility to pain of every criminal. Does that not mean: a previously determined punishment for a crime, a penal code, ought not to exist at all? But considering that one would scarcely be able to determine a criminal's pleasure and displeasure, wouldn't one have to do without punishment in practice?"(The Will to Power, pg. 394)

He mentions more Schopenhauer here:

"Schopenhauer wanted rascals to be castrated and silly geese to be shut up in convents: from what point of view would this be desirable? The rascald have this advantage over many other men, that he is not mediocre; and the fool has this advantage over us, that he does not suffer at the sight of mediocrity."(The Will to Power, pg. 394)

Quotes on previous statements:

"Basic principle: only individuals feel themselves responsible . Multiplicities are invented in order to do things for which the individuals lack courage." (The Will to Power, pg. 382)
The way this is accomplished is through a division of labor, and using virtues that are only beneficial to society. Virtues, such as obedience, duty, patriotism, and loyalty.
The individuals also believe in the pride, severity, strength, hatred and revenge of the group.
"None of you has the courage to kill a man, or even to whip him, or even to---but the tremendous machine of the state overpowers the individual, so he repudiated responsibility for what he does (obedience, oath, etc.)" (The Will to Power, pg. 383)

He believed even striving to leave legacy behind, was the result of enslavement by society.

"That something longer lasting than an individual should endure, that a work should endure which has perhaps been created by an individual: to that end, every possible kind of limitation, one-sidedness, etc, must be imposed upon the individual. By what means? Love, reverence, gratitude, toward the person who created the work helps; or that our forefathers fought for it; or that my descendants will be guaranteed only if I guarantee this work (e.e., the polis). Morality is essentially the means of ensuring the duration of something beyond individuals, or rather through an enslavement of the individual." (The Will to Power, pg. 387)

A quote on society vs the will to power:

""The will to power" is so hated in democratic ages that their entire psychology seems directed toward belittling and defaming it. The type of great ambitious man who thirsts after honor is is supposed to be Napoleon! And Caesar! And Alexander!---As if these were not precisely the great despises of honor!" (The Will to Power, pg. 397)

A quote on governments:

"According to whether a people feels "right, vision, the gift of leadership, etc., belong to the few" or "to the many"--there will be an oligarch or a democratic government.
Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly superior, a leader, savior, demigod.
Aristocracy represents the belief in an elite humanity and higher caste.
Democracy represents the disbelief in great human beings and an elite society: "Everyone is equal to everyone else." "At bottom we are one and all self-seeking cattle and mob.""(The Will to Power, pg. 397)

Nietzsche on why the individual is better than the herd:

"Basic error: to place the goal in the herd and not in single individuals! The herd is a means, no more! But now one is attempting to understand the herd as an individual and to ascribe to it a higher rank than to the individual---profound misunderstanding! ! ! Also to characterize that which makes herslike, sympathy, as the more valuable side of our nature!"(The Will to Power, pg. 403)

"The individual is something quite new which creates new things, something absolute; all his acts are entirely his own. Ultimately, the individual derives the values of his acts from himself; because he has to interpret in a quite individual way even the words he has inherited. His interpretation of a formula is at least personal, even if he does not create a formula: as an interpreter he is still creative."(The Will to Power, pg. 403)

He also believes freedom is essentially the will to power. He says this:

"The degree of resistance that must be overcome in order to remain on top is the measure of freedom, whether for individuals or for societies---freedom understood, that is as the will to power. According to this concept, the highest form of individual freedom, of sovereignty, would in all probability emerge not five steps from its opposite, where the danger of slavery hangs over existence like a hundred swords of Damocles. Look at history from this viewpoint: the ages in which the "individual" achieves such ripe perfection, i.e., freedom, and the classic type of the sovereign man is attained---oh no! they have never been humane ages! One must have no choice: either on top---or underneath, like a worm, mocked, annihilated, trodden upon. One must oppose tyrants to become a tyrant, i.e.,free."(The Will to Power, pg.404)

I listened to Bertrand Russell on Nietzsche, in a YouTube video, and I think a question of his, was how it would be ascertained that someone else is of the higher type once the aristocracy was established, how would they get to elite status, if they weren't already. Nietzsche's answer is they would become the elite through force and barbarism, or any other means. I don't know I listened to it a few months ago.

I think this stuff answers your government questions. As for his plan's of government, Nietzsche thought the herd or masses should have a rigorous military polytechnic education, and should treat work as soldiers do, while these higher types used them as means. Thinking about your idea of colonizing Mars, do you believe the masses would be able to put an like that idea forward, or would it be an individual?

Nietzsche's section on knowledge as the will to power, consists of his refutation of metaphysical principles. He took on cause and effect, the thing-in-itself, "true" worlds, and a priori judegements. He was against any kind of metaphysics or idealism, anything that confused nature, or the will to power.
Here are a few of these refutations:

"A judgement is synthetic; i.e., it connects different ideas.
It is a priori; i.e., every connection is a universally valid and necessary one, which can never be given by sense perception but only through pure reason.
If there are to be synthetic a priori judgements, then reason must be in a position to make connections: connection is a form. Reason must possess the capacity of giving form."(The Will to Power, pg. 288)

"The properties of a thing are effects on other "things": if one removes other "things," then a thing has no properties, i.e., there is no thing without other things, i.e., there is no thing-in-itself."(The Will to Power, pg. 302)

"The apparent world, i.e., à world viewed according to values; ordered, selected according to values, i.e., in this case according to the viewpoint of utility in regard to the preservation and enhancement of the power of a certain species of animal. The perspective therefore decides the character of the "appearance"! As if a world would still remain over after one deducted the perspective! By doing that one would deduct relativity!............But there is no "other," No "true," No essential being---for this would be the expression of a world without acting and reaction---"(The Will to Power, pg.305)

I don't know why I included this part, you never proposed anything metaphysical, I just thought it was important. Thank you for providing those details on Spinoza, I'd never read Spinoza abd did not know what Nietzsche was talking about by affects.

[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/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15226&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.

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.

I can’t get over the fact that Nietzsche didn’t put any value to social and communal power – that’s a huge flaw in his approach. Society is an excellent framework in which people can strife to obtain more power. If you want power, you shouldn’t be trying to destroy the rules - you should be the one making the rules. That’s how you get the best of both worlds.



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.

I heard somewhere that Nietzsche’s approach to Power was inspired by Lamarckism. Nietzsche never read Darwin and learned about The Theory of Evolution only from second hand sources. So basically Nietzsche believed that nature always favored the strong and that strength could be inherited. This is why he speaks about “the race of supermen” – he believed that someone could accumulate enormous amount of physical and mental strength during his life and then pass on all this strength to his offspring. This is basically what Lamarckism (and Social Darwinism) implies. Nietzsche failed to see that natural selection is not driven by some universal power but rather is based on random mutations that sometimes give individual organisms advantage over others. In terms of evolution, the strong don’t always survive over the weak. So basically, whatever you think about Nietzsche, you have to accept that he didn’t have access to all the knowledge we possess today and that his theory has to be re-interpreted and improved so fit the contemporary world.



He goes on to repudiate concepts of reward and punishment, because he believes this race is undisciplined, and is most susceptible to the least bit of stimuli, so because these criminals act on impulse reward and punishment mean nothing. He then mentions dealing with rebels, saying they are suppressed not punished.

I cannot really follow Nietzsche’s reasoning here. I think he might be limited by his idea about morality being tied to Christian moral values here. To him a criminal is powerful because he is strong enough to venture beyond morality and to reject the social contract that binds a society together. So basically he’s powerful because he’s not mediocre. But to me this doesn’t make someone powerful. The mere act of rejection only shows an increased willingness to break society’s norms. This can either benefit the criminal or lead to persecution and punishment. We all break norms occasionally, but we know when breaking these norms can lead us into trouble, and we restrict ourselves to avoid punishment. Criminals are unable to see these limits or don’t care about them and are therefore more susceptible to punishment.



Nietzsche also says the criminal is, in a way, a man of courage, and should not be looked upon with contempt by society.

A rebellious person who shows exceptional courage is often admired even in contemporary societies. However a criminal is someone who breaks society’s rules and is therefore undermining it’s very foundation. Therefore Nietzsche’s suggestion can only work in a society without a rule of law. A complex society is not possible without some manner of rules and laws, so Nietzsche’s approach could not work in practice.



There is also this criticism of society's punisment:

"My rather radical question mark set against all modern penal codes is this: if the punishment should hurt in proportion to the magnitude of the crime---and fundamentally that is what all of you want!---you would have to measure the susceptibility to pain of every criminal. Does that not mean: a previously determined punishment for a crime, a penal code, ought not to exist at all? But considering that one would scarcely be able to determine a criminal's pleasure and displeasure, wouldn't one have to do without punishment in practice?"(The Will to Power, pg. 394)

This is just banal. Maybe he is joking?



The way this is accomplished is through a division of labor, and using virtues that are only beneficial to society. Virtues, such as obedience, duty, patriotism, and loyalty.
The individuals also believe in the pride, severity, strength, hatred and revenge of the group.

"None of you has the courage to kill a man, or even to whip him, or even to---but the tremendous machine of the state overpowers the individual, so he repudiated responsibility for what he does (obedience, oath, etc.)" (The Will to Power, pg. 383)

These virtues are also beneficial to the individual. These virtues aim to make a society more cohesive and strong. A strong society lends it’s strength to its members.



Nietzsche believed even striving to leave legacy behind, was the result of enslavement by society.

"That something longer lasting than an individual should endure, that a work should endure which has perhaps been created by an individual: to that end, every possible kind of limitation, one-sidedness, etc, must be imposed upon the individual. By what means? Love, reverence, gratitude, toward the person who created the work helps; or that our forefathers fought for it; or that my descendants will be guaranteed only if I guarantee this work (e.e., the polis). Morality is essentially the means of ensuring the duration of something beyond individuals, or rather through an enslavement of the individual." (The Will to Power, pg. 387)

If he truly means here that the human strife for reproduction is exclusively tied to society and its morality, it's rather far-fetched. Society certainly plays an important part in creating a model for an individual's life as a member of a society, but the need to reproduce is first and foremost an inbuilt instinct rather than a mere product of socialization.



A quote on society vs the will to power:

""The will to power" is so hated in democratic ages that their entire psychology seems directed toward belittling and defaming it. The type of great ambitious man who thirsts after honor is is supposed to be Napoleon! And Caesar! And Alexander!---As if these were not precisely the great despises of honor!" (The Will to Power, pg. 397)

What does Will to Power have to do with honor? Maybe it’s a product of great deeds? To me honor is fairly inconsequential. Power itself should be our goal, it ultimately leads to being perceived as honorable as well.



Democracy represents the disbelief in great human beings and an elite society: "Everyone is equal to everyone else." "At bottom we are one and all self-seeking cattle and mob.""(The Will to Power, pg. 397)

The Elite has always found a way to operate within democratic societies. They are always highly valued members of societies. Even if the society sets limits to their power, they can still find ways to make themselves more powerful. But I agree that powerful individuals often want to distort undermine democracy to further their own interests.



Nietzsche on why the individual is better than the herd:

"Basic error: to place the goal in the herd and not in single individuals! The herd is a means, no more! But now one is attempting to understand the herd as an individual and to ascribe to it a higher rank than to the individual---profound misunderstanding! ! ! Also to characterize that which makes herslike, sympathy, as the more valuable side of our nature!"(The Will to Power, pg. 403)

Again Nietzsche deals only with absolutes. Is there no medium between individual’s pursuit for power and being a member of a society? At least he refers here to the fact that herd can be a means to an end. Why can’t he embrace this idea and give practical ideas how to live in a society in a way that maximizes individual’s power?



"The individual is something quite new which creates new things, something absolute; all his acts are entirely his own. Ultimately, the individual derives the values of his acts from himself; because he has to interpret in a quite individual way even the words he has inherited. His interpretation of a formula is at least personal, even if he does not create a formula: as an interpreter he is still creative."(The Will to Power, pg. 403)

Individual can either adopt society’s values or create them himself. In my view, the nature of one’s values don’t actually matter that much in terms of Power acquisition. You can believe in Christian moral values and become an extremely powerful individual nonetheless. Or you can be an atheist sociopath and succeed all the same. As long as individual has a strong will to make changes to his internal and external reality, he has the capability to become powerful. Only if one’s values are somehow in contrast with a person’s will to initiate change can values be a hindrance to power acquisition.



He also believes freedom is essentially the will to power. He says this:

"The degree of resistance that must be overcome in order to remain on top is the measure of freedom, whether for individuals or for societies---freedom understood, that is as the will to power. According to this concept, the highest form of individual freedom, of sovereignty, would in all probability emerge not five steps from its opposite, where the danger of slavery hangs over existence like a hundred swords of Damocles. Look at history from this viewpoint: the ages in which the "individual" achieves such ripe perfection, i.e., freedom, and the classic type of the sovereign man is attained---oh no! they have never been humane ages! One must have no choice: either on top---or underneath, like a worm, mocked, annihilated, trodden upon. One must oppose tyrants to become a tyrant, i.e.,free."(The Will to Power, pg.404)

Here I agree with Nietzsche: power brings freedom to the individual. I also agree that freedom is will to power, since the lack of will to power means a slow and steady decline towards death. Power gives an individual the ability to choose, the lack of power means the inability to choose (in other words, slavery).



I listened to Bertrand Russell on Nietzsche, in a YouTube video, and I think a question of his, was how it would be ascertained that someone else is of the higher type once the aristocracy was established, how would they get to elite status, if they weren't already. Nietzsche's answer is they would become the elite through force and barbarism, or any other means. I don't know I listened to it a few months ago.

I think this stuff answers your government questions. As for his plan's of government, Nietzsche thought the herd or masses should have a rigorous military polytechnic education, and should treat work as soldiers do, while these higher types used them as means.

This might only be Russell's interpretation of Nietzsche though. Although I highly respect Russell's views in general, he might not have been completely impartial in his criticism of Nietzsche.



Thinking about your idea of colonizing Mars, do you believe the masses would be able to put that idea forward, or would it be an individual?

It would certainly be an individual, but in a democratic society individuals can come up with such ideas and convince others to join the cause. The individual doesn’t need to be a member of the elite to come up with such an idea. Again I think Nietzsche’s idea of the elite is that a handful of elite individuals would be both physically and intellectually superior to all the billions of individuals of the masses due to their genetic superiority. This would unlikely be true – it’s much more likely that the best possible candidates for financing, planning and executing the hypothetical Mars expedition would be found among the most accomplished and resourceful individuals from all around the world and from all social classes. I understand that his elite class would be international collection of supermen, but his supermen would still be products of genetic cultivation rather than simply a group of accomplished individuals.



Nietzsche's section on knowledge as the will to power, consists of his refutation of metaphysical principles. He took on cause and effect, the thing-in-itself, "true" worlds, and a priori judgments. He was against any kind of metaphysics or idealism, anything that confused nature, or the will to power.

Here are a few of these refutations:

"A judgement is synthetic; i.e., it connects different ideas.
It is a priori; i.e., every connection is a universally valid and necessary one, which can never be given by sense perception but only through pure reason.

If there are to be synthetic a priori judgements, then reason must be in a position to make connections: connection is a form. Reason must possess the capacity of giving form."(The Will to Power, pg. 288)

"The properties of a thing are effects on other "things": if one removes other "things," then a thing has no properties, i.e., there is no thing without other things, i.e., there is no thing-in-itself."(The Will to Power, pg. 302)

I can’t really comment too much about his thoughts on metaphysics, but I’d love to hear someone more versed in metaphysics to dissect his statements here. I want to keep a practical approach to the question of Power, since metaphysics rarely offer insights that affect everyday lives of individuals. You could say that there's very little Power to be acquired through the study of metaphysics. Power on the contrary is a concept that’s profoundly significant to people’s everyday lives and that’s why we should learn about it’s true nature.

[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/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15226&start=15




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.



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



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.




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.



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.

[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/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=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