4 ms·

My interpretation of that bit is that seeking power does not make you a good or a bad person, just through the act alone. There is definitely an agreed upon def

by mym1990 4y ago

My interpretation of that bit is that seeking power does not make you a good or a bad person, just through the act alone. There is definitely an agreed upon definition of 'wise' and 'loving', look it up in any dictionary...what differs is how different people project those definitions onto other people. The thing about power is that it seems to be a corrupting force more often than not. If I had to take a guess, more people have started out with good intentions and gone to the dark side than the other way around. I think for this reason a lot of "wise" people avoid power like the plague.

zmgsabst 4y ago
Adding a few thoughts, largely agreeing; Power is just the ability to effect change — energy over time. Growing rice is power; and considerably more people have obtained power, as defined by imposing their will on their immediate environment, in the pursuit of feeding their families than any other use of power I can think of. I think that’s the point here: In associating power with bad things, you’re narrowing your perception of what power is, and hence limiting your ability to accrue it towards positive ends — eg, feeding a lot of people. I think power itself is neutral; kind, manner, and use matter. To put it in a fantasy context: - Gandalf in Lord of the Rings is considered wise for refusing the One Ring and seeking to destroy it; - but there’s no doubt that Gandalf is powerful — he beats both a balrog and the Witch King in 1v1 personal combat; - and he’s okay with accepting more power — he accepted a ring of power from the elves. Personally, I think you can’t be virtuous unless you’re dangerous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE0VM61O0XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE0VM61O0XA
- mym1990 4y ago
  Social power is also somewhat logarithmic due to social structures and also things like economies of scale. The president of Monsanto has vastly more power than a single farmhand. With things like relationships, one can impact more than just the physical space around them as well. To the point about side effects, varying degrees of power bring other things with it...admiration, jealousy, competition, responsibility, etc...and most people can't and won't perform well under such pressure. While Gandalf is a good 'perfect' example, Frodo exemplifies the struggles of everyday people a bit better. We can see through the storyline how Frodo constantly struggles with the ring, and how close he comes to succumbing to it(Sam too!).
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    If we’re going for human examples, then I’d put forward Boromir as the one representing the reader. (And making your point.) Frodo is a little simpler and a little kinder than we are; in much the same way that Gandalf is wiser — and so the ring can’t truly tempt Frodo the way it does Boromir (save your family!) or Gandalf (save the world!) or Galadriel (save your people!). - - - - - And you can see the problem in the real world — people like the WEF and UN bureaucrats want to “use the ring” to solve public health and global warming. Which has brought us to the edge of global war, because their lust for power has overcome any good urges and they’re partway through a modern Four Pests program that will cause mass famines — and justify seizing family farms for their own enrichment. To save the environment. But how do you oppose that without creating opposing power structures?
Spooky23 4y ago
Power is an ability or attribute which I agree is morally neutral. But control is associated with power and that’s where the moral component applies. The trouble is that inexperienced or immature people with power gravitate toward control of others and lack self control. If you ever worked for a “straw boss”, you’ve seen what happens. In settings where organizational power and obedience is paramount, organizations usually seek to grow this ability to control oneself - military officers start as nominally in command but guided by sergeants. As officers move up the ranks, training focused on leadership and control is a core part of life. In high function professional organizations, usually leaders succeed to a point based more on the personal influential power than explicit power. People usually listen to a distinguished engineer even though they have little explicit control of anything.

zmgsabst 4y ago

Adding a few thoughts, largely agreeing; Power is just the ability to effect change — energy over time. Growing rice is power; and considerably more people have obtained power, as defined by imposing their will on their immediate environment, in the pursuit of feeding their families than any other use of power I can think of. I think that’s the point here: In associating power with bad things, you’re narrowing your perception of what power is, and hence limiting your ability to accrue it towards positive ends — eg, feeding a lot of people. I think power itself is neutral; kind, manner, and use matter. To put it in a fantasy context: - Gandalf in Lord of the Rings is considered wise for refusing the One Ring and seeking to destroy it; - but there’s no doubt that Gandalf is powerful — he beats both a balrog and the Witch King in 1v1 personal combat; - and he’s okay with accepting more power — he accepted a ring of power from the elves. Personally, I think you can’t be virtuous unless you’re dangerous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE0VM61O0XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE0VM61O0XA

mym1990 4y ago
Social power is also somewhat logarithmic due to social structures and also things like economies of scale. The president of Monsanto has vastly more power than a single farmhand. With things like relationships, one can impact more than just the physical space around them as well. To the point about side effects, varying degrees of power bring other things with it...admiration, jealousy, competition, responsibility, etc...and most people can't and won't perform well under such pressure. While Gandalf is a good 'perfect' example, Frodo exemplifies the struggles of everyday people a bit better. We can see through the storyline how Frodo constantly struggles with the ring, and how close he comes to succumbing to it(Sam too!).
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  If we’re going for human examples, then I’d put forward Boromir as the one representing the reader. (And making your point.) Frodo is a little simpler and a little kinder than we are; in much the same way that Gandalf is wiser — and so the ring can’t truly tempt Frodo the way it does Boromir (save your family!) or Gandalf (save the world!) or Galadriel (save your people!). - - - - - And you can see the problem in the real world — people like the WEF and UN bureaucrats want to “use the ring” to solve public health and global warming. Which has brought us to the edge of global war, because their lust for power has overcome any good urges and they’re partway through a modern Four Pests program that will cause mass famines — and justify seizing family farms for their own enrichment. To save the environment. But how do you oppose that without creating opposing power structures?

Spooky23 4y ago

Power is an ability or attribute which I agree is morally neutral. But control is associated with power and that’s where the moral component applies. The trouble is that inexperienced or immature people with power gravitate toward control of others and lack self control. If you ever worked for a “straw boss”, you’ve seen what happens. In settings where organizational power and obedience is paramount, organizations usually seek to grow this ability to control oneself - military officers start as nominally in command but guided by sergeants. As officers move up the ranks, training focused on leadership and control is a core part of life. In high function professional organizations, usually leaders succeed to a point based more on the personal influential power than explicit power. People usually listen to a distinguished engineer even though they have little explicit control of anything.