Power - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15153923
One of my favorite Greeks, Plato, once stated, that "the measure of a man is what he does with power." Based on various interpretations of this quote from Plato, it is said that Plato meant character by "the measure of a man." Power takes away our inhibitions and reveals to the world who we really are in our true character. We can act as who we really are without fear of punishment. When we do not possess power, we do not always act as who we really are because we could face punishment for doing so. Thus, our true character is not shown when we do not possess power. But those with power, don't have to worry about this, hence, why their true character comes out and the world can see who they really are. So, if you really want to see somebody's true character, according to interpretations of Plato's quote, then give that person power to see how he acts and what he does with it and he or she will reveal their true character they otherwise would not.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15153936
Power is the most important but least talked about part of human relations. Power is everywhere and in everything in life. No matter what you do, someone's going to have more power than someone else. You cannot consider anything that happens without considering POWER. Power, according to the woman in this video can be aggressive, oppress you, help you or liberate you.

By annatar1914
#15153937
Politics_Observer wrote:One of my favorite Greeks, Plato, once stated, that "the measure of a man is what he does with power." Based on various interpretations of this quote from Plato, it is said that Plato meant character by "the measure of a man." Power takes away our inhibitions and reveals to the world who we really are in our true character. We can act as who we really are without fear of punishment. When we do not possess power, we do not always act as who we really are because we could face punishment for doing so. Thus, our true character is not shown when we do not possess power. But those with power, don't have to worry about this, hence, why their true character comes out and the world can see who they really are. So, if you really want to see somebody's true character, according to interpretations of Plato's quote, then give that person power to see how he acts and what he does with it and he or she will reveal their true character they otherwise would not.


@Politics_Observer

If I remember correctly, Plato's Socrates was speaking about the story of King Gyges of Lydia and his magic ring of invisibility, how Gyges became worse as he went on, with a ring that gave him absolute impunity to do whatever he wished, when invisible.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#15153938
I just want to build giant infrastructure projects. That's all I would do with unlimited power. Try to build a dyson-swarm and maximize energy output for the sake of maximizing energy output then use that energy to build more dyson swarms around more stars until the entire galaxy is one giant reactor.

I want to see exponential conversion of matter into energy. Where does this innate desire come from and why am I drawn to generating pure energy? What would Plato think about this unbridled blood lust for energy?
By Patrickov
#15153945
Politics_Observer wrote:So, if you really want to see somebody's true character, according to interpretations of Plato's quote, then give that person power to see how he acts and what he does with it and he or she will reveal their true character they otherwise would not.


This statement is correct, but with a pre-condition -- most of us have limited or even no power.

A person's "true character" consists of both the personality without (unlimited) power, and the personality with power. Giving the person power only enables one side of it, just the same as how suppressing that person's power keeps the said person's personality to that particular (other) side.

In other words, I think giving power to a person will also result in a twisted display of a person's character, just in the different direction from what we usually perceive.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15153976
@Igor Antunov

Igor Antunov wrote:I just want to build giant infrastructure projects. That's all I would do with unlimited power. Try to build a dyson-swarm and maximize energy output for the sake of maximizing energy output then use that energy to build more dyson swarms around more stars until the entire galaxy is one giant reactor.

I want to see exponential conversion of matter into energy. Where does this innate desire come from and why am I drawn to generating pure energy? What would Plato think about this unbridled blood lust for energy?


Well, Plato felt that those who did not seek power (or energy) are the ones who are most qualified to hold it. Anyone who has seen the good "outside the prison" so to speak have no interest in ruling the prisoners inside the prison. Many who seek power, do so because of their own short comings or to compensate for their own short comings (case in point, Donald Trump). Therefore, in most cases (though not necessarily in all cases) those best suited to rule are the ones least likely to want to and those less suited to rule are more inclined to desire power due to their own shortcomings.

@Patrickov

Patrickov wrote:This statement is correct, but with a pre-condition -- most of us have limited or even no power.

A person's "true character" consists of both the personality without (unlimited) power, and the personality with power. Giving the person power only enables one side of it, just the same as how suppressing that person's power keeps the said person's personality to that particular (other) side.

In other words, I think giving power to a person will also result in a twisted display of a person's character, just in the different direction from what we usually perceive.


Well, there was Stanford Prison Experiment was a study conducted on power and human nature. When guards were given power over the prisoners the guards were pretty mean and cruel towards the prisoners. This can also be seen in other power dynamics in human relations as well. At least I have seen this in other power dynamics involving human relations. I actually think the results of this study were pretty accurate as to how power dynamics works in many cases of human relations. Here is a video that explains who the Stanford Prison Experiment went.



Here is an article that discusses the experiment.

Sarah Gopaul of Digital Journal wrote:‘The Stanford Prison Experiment’ is an accurate and unsettling re-enactment of the 1971 study that recreated a prison environment with student volunteers to alarming effect.

Particularly following the complicity of normal citizens during World War II, psychologists have been fascinated by the effects of power and authority on people’s behaviour. In many cases, those who have it become sadistic even though they’ve never exhibited comparable qualities previously. On the other hand, those without it become submissive in even the worst circumstances. Numerous experiments have been conducted, but the results of some are better known than others. The Stanford Prison Experiment is one such study that got out of hand rather quickly.

In 1971, Dr. Philip Zimbardo (Billy Crudup) and his team of graduates placed an ad in a local newspaper offering young men $15/hour to take part in a two-week prison simulation during the summer. They interviewed 75 applicants and selected 24 participants who were than randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards, though the latter would be told they were chosen because they possessed particular qualities. By the end of the first day almost everyone has settled into their roles with some of the guards even appearing a little overzealous. It’s not long before the guards begin abusing their authority and the prisoners start to break under the pressure. The escalation of the mock-up is astounding as is Zimbardo’s tolerance for their exchanges.


http://www.digitaljournal.com/a-and-e/e ... z6l936mP1z

It is my belief that the Stanford Prison Experiment nailed a lot of aspects accurately when it comes to power dynamics in many human relations. Humans when given power can become very cruel because they are no longer inhibited as Plato stated. You can learn a lot about a man's character by giving him power.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15153984
@annatar1914

annatar1914 wrote:If I remember correctly, Plato's Socrates was speaking about the story of King Gyges of Lydia and his magic ring of invisibility, how Gyges became worse as he went on, with a ring that gave him absolute impunity to do whatever he wished, when invisible.


That's interesting and an analogy can be drawn to the Standford Prison Experiment and what you mentioned above in your post given how the guards became worse as they went on. It's amazing how insightful the ancient philosophers were in their time and how much of what they taught then still very much applies today. Another thing was that Plato was wary of democracy. So, the birth place of democracy, namely Greece, was also very wary of democracy. The reason is because an uneducated mob could easily be manipulated by a demagogue and tyranny and oppression can come from democracy (case in point, Trump again).

Plato felt that only well educated and well informed people should be allowed to vote and not just any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street who might not be well educated and informed. It would be like taking a brick layer who only knew how to lay a brick and suddenly making him a surgeon conducting the surgery of somebody in great medical need. The brick layer is not qualified to be a medical surgeon and would probably end up killing the poor fellow he is operating on given he is not qualified to be a surgeon. Same concept with just taking any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street and allowing them to vote without making sure they meet the qualifications to be a wise voter who will choose the best person to govern for the greatest benefit for the common good of society.

So, the case can be made, that in order for democracy to succeed we MUST HAVE A VERY WELL EDUCATED POPULACE. If only a small segment of the population is well educated, it does no good, because then it makes the rest of the population who are not well educated susceptible to manipulation and to not vote for the person best qualified to govern. So, I think Plato was right. For democracy to succeed, ALL the population must be well educated (and not just a small portion of the population). So, part of fixing our democracy here in the U.S. is strengthening our education system to ensure that ALL members of the public are very well educated and can make better decisions in choosing who is qualified to govern for the common good. The problem, is that we only have a small segment of the population that is well educated here in the U.S. A key component to safeguarding democracy is ensure access to a top notch education to the poorest segments of society and ensuring everybody is well educated so they can vote more responsibly.

You have to consider, Nazi Germany came from the ashes of a democracy. I also think economics can play a role in the rise of tyranny and the destruction of democracy as well as an ill informed and not well educated populace. Another thing to consider in the context of the Stanford Prison Experiment is the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal that took place during the Iraq War. You can see the parallels between the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal and the Stanford Prison Experiment as if the Stanford Prison Experiment of the 1970s had predicted the result of what happened in the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal during the Iraq War.

By annatar1914
#15154031
Politics_Observer wrote:@annatar1914



That's interesting and an analogy can be drawn to the Standford Prison Experiment and what you mentioned above in your post given how the guards became worse as they went on. It's amazing how insightful the ancient philosophers were in their time and how much of what they taught then still very much applies today. Another thing was that Plato was wary of democracy. So, the birth place of democracy, namely Greece, was also very wary of democracy. The reason is because an uneducated mob could easily be manipulated by a demagogue and tyranny and oppression can come from democracy (case in point, Trump again).

Plato felt that only well educated and well informed people should be allowed to vote and not just any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street who might not be well educated and informed. It would be like taking a brick layer who only knew how to lay a brick and suddenly making him a surgeon conducting the surgery of somebody in great medical need. The brick layer is not qualified to be a medical surgeon and would probably end up killing the poor fellow he is operating on given he is not qualified to be a surgeon. Same concept with just taking any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street and allowing them to vote without making sure they meet the qualifications to be a wise voter who will choose the best person to govern for the greatest benefit for the common good of society.

So, the case can be made, that in order for democracy to succeed we MUST HAVE A VERY WELL EDUCATED POPULACE. If only a small segment of the population is well educated, it does no good, because then it makes the rest of the population who are not well educated susceptible to manipulation and to not vote for the person best qualified to govern. So, I think Plato was right. For democracy to succeed, ALL the population must be well educated (and not just a small portion of the population). So, part of fixing our democracy here in the U.S. is strengthening our education system to ensure that ALL members of the public are very well educated and can make better decisions in choosing who is qualified to govern for the common good. The problem, is that we only have a small segment of the population that is well educated here in the U.S. A key component to safeguarding democracy is ensure access to a top notch education to the poorest segments of society and ensuring everybody is well educated so they can vote more responsibly.

You have to consider, Nazi Germany came from the ashes of a democracy. I also think economics can play a role in the rise of tyranny and the destruction of democracy as well as an ill informed and not well educated populace. Another thing to consider in the context of the Stanford Prison Experiment is the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal that took place during the Iraq War. You can see the parallels between the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal and the Stanford Prison Experiment as if the Stanford Prison Experiment of the 1970s had predicted the result of what happened in the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal during the Iraq War.



@Politics_Observer ;

I think that much more than education is required. Namely, virtue, morality is what is required of a society that has a politically active citizenry.

However, I do not believe that this is possible, unfortunately, what would be required is a change in consciousness.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15154036
Interlude!

User avatar
By Unthinking Majority
#15154046
Politics_Observer wrote:Power is the most important but least talked about part of human relations. Power is everywhere and in everything in life. No matter what you do, someone's going to have more power than someone else. You cannot consider anything that happens without considering POWER. Power, according to the woman in this video can be aggressive, oppress you, help you or liberate you.

Politics is relationships of power between people or groups of people.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15154048
@annatar1914

annatar1914 wrote:@Politics_Observer ;

I think that much more than education is required. Namely, virtue, morality is what is required of a society that has a politically active citizenry.

However, I do not believe that this is possible, unfortunately, what would be required is a change in consciousness.


So, you bring up morals which I think is an important aspect to consider when discussing power. I would say moral philosophy is the study of how human actions that affect beings capable of being harmed in some way (both humans and animals) and the principles that people appeal to when they act. People with power make decisions and some of those decisions have moral implications. A populace educated in the principles of moral philosophy can better choose leaders who will make decisions that have positive moral implications. But how would you define what is moral? How would you define an act that has positive moral implications? What exactly is it about that decision that makes that decision have positive moral implications? What makes an act or decision permissible or impermissible? Obligator? Or supererogatory? Should morals be also duty based?
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15154050
@Unthinking Majority

Unthinking Majority wrote:Politics is relationships of power between people or groups of people.


I agree and I think you hit the nail on the head with your claim. It's also important to bear in mind that politics is everywhere and not just in the halls of Congress or Parliament or the Duma or in elections. Politics is everywhere in every day life. In order to navigate the every day politics of the work place for example, you have to understand power. Otherwise, you won't be taken seriously or won't survive.
By annatar1914
#15154053
Politics_Observer wrote:@annatar1914



So, you bring up morals which I think is an important aspect to consider when discussing power. I would say moral philosophy is the study of how human actions that affect beings capable of being harmed in some way (both humans and animals) and the principles that people appeal to when they act. People with power make decisions and some of those decisions have moral implications. A populace educated in the principles of moral philosophy can better choose leaders who will make decisions that have positive moral implications. But how would you define what is moral? How would you define an act that has positive moral implications? What exactly is it about that decision that makes that decision have positive moral implications? What makes an act or decision permissible or impermissible? Obligator? Or supererogatory? Should morals be also duty based?


@Politics_Observer ,

Well, these are indeed good questions, but with morality and it's origins and definitions, I ground them ultimately in trust and faith in God, that is a Being that is both All-Powerful and All-Good and All-Knowing...

Plato had Socrates and Thrasymachus I believe, have a conversation about this;

''Is Good, Good, because the gods ordered it to be so, or do both the gods and men adhere to a standard that is independent of what the gods wish?'' It's really a kind of foolish question though, if I trust my Maker then of course I know that He wills what is best for His creatures anyway.

But that is my answer about morality, that it comes from revealed religion and that philosophy is inadequate to answer the questions that you ask. Your millage may vary.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15154057
@annatar1914

So your value system is based on religious teachings. I think when thinking in terms of morality you have to consider what is permissible. Permissible acts have no positive or negative moral implications. Impermissible acts violate an obligation or some rule that has determined the act to be immoral. Obligatory actions are those that it would be wrong not to perform (we can think of this as morality that is duty based) and supererogatory actions are permissible actions that are morally good but not obligatory. For example supererogatory actions would be like giving to charity or jumping a stranger's dead battery. Moral claims can also be thought of as normative which means there is some obligation associated with them, regardless of whether we acknowledge it. For example "do no harm" or "you should not murder" or "you should tell the truth" are moral claims intended to apprise a person of his obligation to act a certain way.
By annatar1914
#15154068
Politics_Observer wrote:@annatar1914

So your value system is based on religious teachings. I think when thinking in terms of morality you have to consider what is permissible. Permissible acts have no positive or negative moral implications. Impermissible acts violate an obligation or some rule that has determined the act to be immoral. Obligatory actions are those that it would be wrong not to perform (we can think of this as morality that is duty based) and supererogatory actions are permissible actions that are morally good but not obligatory. For example supererogatory actions would be like giving to charity or jumping a stranger's dead battery. Moral claims can also be thought of as normative which means there is some obligation associated with them, regardless of whether we acknowledge it. For example "do no harm" or "you should not murder" or "you should tell the truth" are moral claims intended to apprise a person of his obligation to act a certain way.


@Politics_Observer , and hardly to mention, written in the human heart.

Or, let me put it another way. Our Maker, having made us, knows us better than we know ourselves and therefore knows what is best of us, and thus has it written into our programming whether we have tried to remove that programming from our being or not.

So yes, commands and obligations but also positive affirmations as well. How does this relate to power, by the way? The more power we possess, theoretically more power to help ourselves and others carry out the Good. But also and more commonly, the more ability to pervert and distort the Good also, to rationalize our desires and passions into being ''good'' instead of evil.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15154127
@annatar1914

annatar1914 wrote:How does this relate to power, by the way? The more power we possess, theoretically more power to help ourselves and others carry out the Good.


The reason this relates to power is because society should be educated in moral philosophy so as to give power to those who will use that power for the moral good. You wouldn't want to give power to somebody who would use that power to do immoral things. This could cause great damage to society and perhaps the world if you give power to somebody who would use that power to commit immoral acts. Make sense?
By annatar1914
#15154151
Politics_Observer wrote:@annatar1914



The reason this relates to power is because society should be educated in moral philosophy so as to give power to those who will use that power for the moral good. You wouldn't want to give power to somebody who would use that power to do immoral things. This could cause great damage to society and perhaps the world if you give power to somebody who would use that power to commit immoral acts. Make sense?


@Politics_Observer ;

Sure, that's the Platonic Greek Ideal, having ''the Best'' rule for the benefit of all. But consider also that this is like the Greek Myth of the ''Judgement of Paris'' or ''Apple of Discord'', where he had to judge the beauty of three goddesses after the apple inscribed with the words ''for the fairest'' was thrown to them. Or Alexander the Great's words on his deathbed when asked who should rule; ''the strongest'' (plunging his kingdom into war for decades and rending it into pieces).

It is a recipe for continual strife, endless conflict.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15154159
@annatar1914

To clarify, what the Greeks meant by "the best" is the best qualified to govern. Plato felt that only a well educated populace in a democracy would elect the "the best" qualified to govern. The notion of "the best" is NOT "the strongest" in the same context as you placed in your above post. "The best" merely means the best qualified to govern. This is why I say the Greeks were right and it makes sense. The Greeks didn't advocate a Darwanian notion of only having "the strongest" or "fittest" to govern. They advocated having "the best qualified" to govern.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15154160
Moral education comes about from living a moral life and can't be instilled in the way a lot of abstract information is taught. And the issue of creating such virtuous people is not so simple, let alone to be confined to a a ruling class. The is an issue or concern for the state of modernity and its pluralism of values and tendency to reject universals as false due to a kind of nominalism that comes from the unreality of abstract universal (sameness between things). The state of modernity isn't one to be wished away by the appeal to universality either as that simply ignores the present situation.
The creation of an ethical life upon conditions of modernity is a great difficulty though there might be some prospect for it: https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/collaborative-ethics.htm
Spoiler: show
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=rel_fac_pub
The important thing to realize is that the Enlightenment Project didn't simply happen to fail , it had to fail. What doomed the Enlightenment Project from its inception was its loss of the concept of telos. The word telos is borrowed from classical Greek and means "end" or "purpose." When applied to human morality the term signifies the answer to the question, "What is human life for?'' In Aristotle's day (fourth century BC), moral reasoning was an argument consisting of three terms. The first term was the notion of the untutored human nature that so desperately needed moral guidance. The second term was human nature conceived in terms of having fulfilled its purpose or achieved its te/os. The third term, moral imperatives, was that set of instructions for moving from the untutored self toward the actualized telos. In this way moral precepts weren't snatched out of thin air but got their "punch" or their "oughtness" from the concrete notion of what human life was for. 5

The wristwatch is a good example of how this works. If we ask, "What is the wristwatch for?" the usual answer is that watches are for timekeeping. 6 To put it more technically, we could say that the purpose or telos of the watch is timekeeping. Or, to put it in still other terms, we can say that the watch is functionally defined as a mechanism for keeping time. Knowledge of this telos enables us to render judgment against a grossly inaccurate watch as a "bad" watch. Furthermore, our functional definition also allows us to identify the functional imperative for watches: "Watches ought to keep time well."

Because the Enlightenment rejected the traditionally shared concept of what human life is for and started, as it were, from scratch by inventing the idea of humans as "autonomous individuals," the concept of telos, so very central to morality, was lost. Having rejected the received account of telos, the only remaining option upon which moral principles might be grounded was the untutored human nature-the very thing in need of guidance and, by nature, at odds with those guiding principles!


https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1926/educational-psychology/ch12.htm
All attempts at moral education, at moral sermonizing, must, for these reasons, have to be seen as quite futile. Morality has to constitute an inseparable part of education as a whole at its very roots, and he is acting morally who does not notice that he is acting morally. Just like health, which we notice only when it is disturbed, like the air which we breathe, so does the way we behave in terms of morality arouse in us a whole series of concerns only when there is something seriously wrong with it. Herbart’s rule, “not to teach too much,” is nowhere as applicable to this extent as in moral education.

It is for this reason that we feel it is pointless to teach morality. Moral precepts, in and of themselves, will, in the student’s mind, seem like a collection of purely verbal responses that have absolutely nothing to do with behavior. At its best, such a system is like a motor that has not started up some device and which is doomed to remain idle. At its best, therefore, it may cause some conflict between the child’s behavior and the moral precepts. There can be no doubt whatsoever that, for example, the struggle of Tsarist pedagogics against certain childish vices associated with sexual behavior not only did not lead to useful results, but, on the contrary, turned out to have harmful effects, in that it created complex and agonizing feelings in the child’s soul. The child who did not feel capable of dealing with his own desires, who did not know how to counter them, suffered from the consciousness of his own guilt, his own fears, and his own shame, and, as a result, things that were, in and of themselves, not so terrible, were transformed into severe mental and nervous shocks under the influence of such unwise education.

Not only does education in morality seem pointless and harmful, but every form of moral education already seems to attest to a degree of abnormality in this realm. Moral education should be dissolved entirely imperceptibly into all those general modes of behavior that may be established and regulated by the social environment. Neither student nor teacher should think special instruction in morality is called for.

https://epochemagazine.org/a-problem-based-reading-of-nussbaums-virtue-ethics-4cacfa3e74d6
It is not enough for me, when this problem arises, to remind myself of the maxim ‘be generous’, which I then interpret to universally mean ‘give away the thing that I want’, because excellence of conduct vis-à-vis this problem in this situation may not call for ‘generosity’ to be interpreted in this way (for example, in the distribution of attention and time between multiple people). In fact, from this perspective, this style of rational deliberation is entirely back to front. ‘Generosity’ is not a form of conduct I consult to match with my action when I encounter a problem, the form of conduct to be called ‘generosity’ is engendered by my overcoming of this problem excellently (and only I and those involved here in this predicament ultimately know what this consists in exactly). I don’t need the name of the virtue, or what others or I believe it entails (though this may provide assistance), merely intuit, when greeted with a problem, that there is some maximally ideal solution (notice, not necessarily “perfect”), given the situation, and things and actors within it. And, such an intuition is cooked into the very idea of encountering a problem as problem in the first place.

This is why the principlist objection that virtue ethics does not give a clear indication of what to do in moral test cases misses the mark. Not only is it not offering simple principles of the kind “be virtuous, be generous”, but it rejects the feasibility of the moral test cases as ‘false problems’. These moral test cases, stripped of all particularity, and with their assumption there must be some, one, clear solution, seemingly conflates the kinds of problems worthy of moral consideration (the problems of life) with ‘problems’ in the sense of a ‘math problem’ set for homework. Furthermore, as Annas has pointed out (2013), ‘flattening out’ the problems of life to the simplicity of a math-like homework problem is in itself a kind of attitude or pattern of conduct that can be evaluated by a more holistic virtue ethical approach. Towards what problems and when and where is it an ‘excellent response’ to flatten out the issue itself in this way? And when is doing so a vice? What does a Utilitarian buy for their spouse on their birthday, for example?
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]