But I wasn't talking about that.

The 'problem' as I've posed it is wrapped in its meaning and usage rather than having anything to do with good or bad. I was arguing that to define 'power' based mostly (if not purely in some cases) on 'evil' or whatever is a little myopic and prevents us from understanding what power is beyond a mere item for declaring something as possessing differing levels of corruption.

Correct me if you think I'm wrong but I do see the term 'power' as meaning a whole lot more than this and it has drawn the attention of philosophers like Schopenhauer and Neitzsche.

The will to power isn't really about how to be evil or bad is it. I was trying to relate power to choice and freedom and what, underneath all the 'politicking,' 'power' is build on.

I find the term 'power corrupts' to be a little trite. It sounds dismissive. Tom Storm's post showed me that this wasn't just in my imagination as I've seen such remarks before put forward as the be all and end all of any discussion about 'power'.

What is this power you’re talking about? Is it the ability to influence others or something entirely different. — I like sushi

Power has many definitions. I'm not interested in all variations. I was feeding back a few thoughts about leadership and those in an elevated position of authority who might abuse that status. I am not saying that this is always the case. Remember Lord Acton's quote - I was at pains to reinstate the word "may".

Dishonesty doesn’t necessarily have be external. I’m pretty sure the dishonesty towards oneself is a greater problem than dishonesty towards other (as it appears to be the seed of the later). — I like sushi

Can you explain this with an example? I can't make out the point.

Then there is being dishonest towards what one believes to be a ‘corrupt’ individual in order to do any with perceived ‘corruption’. See my point? — I like sushi

No.

The question isn't defining power, it is trying to determine where the line is between stewardship and authoritarianism and how to prevent the former from becoming the latter.

Power can be described as having control, a mandate, influence, authority and autonomy. It can come in absolute forms or it can be tempered by checks and balances.

Thomas Jefferson was less optimistic than Acton.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

I actually think the various uses of the term power are dishonest. I think the term has been corrupted to the point that anyone seeking out power is deemed ‘evil’. I think that is a very sad thing for society at large because people are giving away future choices to appeal to others and their regard towards power as something negative.

Can you explain this with an example? I can't make out the point. — Tom Storm

People are dishonest with themselves all the time. This dishonesty is for personal gain - in the form of avoidance. Long term, not short term, this is often detrimental. This is corruption as you’ve framed it and I’m saying this is due to a lack of power.

So having too much or too little power causes poor judgement to the detriment of self/others.

The question isn't defining power, it is trying to determine where the line is between stewardship and authoritarianism and how to prevent the former from becoming the latter.

Power can be described as having control, a mandate, influence, authority and autonomy. It can come in absolute forms or it can be tempered by checks and balances. — Tom Storm

So power can prevent corruption. Which basically leads straight to the point that ‘power’ isn’t defined by corruption, yet it is a perpetual habit for people to relate power to corruption.

How power is used may or may not cause corruption. Absolute power doesn’t exist, and higher degrees of power don’t necessitate corruption. Status is a better contender for corruption because those overly concerned with the opinion of the masses will reduce themselves to gain favour/appeal/attention.

What do you think of the will to power and the different ways in which Schopenhauer and Nietzsche put this forward? Or is that not of any immediate interest to you?

↪Caldwell
What is this 'power' and 'corruption' then? Are they the only points to consider here? — I like sushi

Because you're mixing narratives. Power and corruption are both social and political terms. Why mix it with the point you're trying to make in the first place if it isn't what you mean? Don't contrast two ideas within the same context. It doesn't sound right.

Ok. I think we may be coming from different perspectives. I agree that power doesn't have to be misused. It's clear that leaders need power to be affective. As do governments. They require a mandate so they can govern without impediments.

Remember too that Lord Acton went on to say that 'great men are almost always bad men' another angle to this. I am convinced that many people who chase and attain power are psychologically damaged and ruthless individuals. So you could also say that people corrupt power. Either way, it doesn't make any difference to the end result.

People are dishonest with themselves all the time. This dishonesty is for personal gain - in the form of avoidance. Long term, not short term, this is often detrimental. This is corruption as you’ve framed it and I’m saying this is due to a lack of power. — I like sushi

Can you provide an example so we can see this in action? I'm still unclear.

Absolute power doesn’t exist, and higher degrees of power don’t necessitate corruption. — I like sushi

Contestable claims here. Can you demonstrate that absolute power doesn't exist? I think the idea here is that there is 'maximal power' which surely does exist. I would say Stalin had this and so too do the Taliban right now. Power over who gets to live and die and what people can do and wear is as close to absolute power as humans can get. Perhaps North Korean leadership has more power than this - they even control people's thoughts.

Why are you interested in this subject - what thesis are you testing out? Is there more you can add?

Nietzsche doesn't resonate with me greatly but I enjoy some of his aphorisms. It's all just a little grandiose and camp for me. I was never really clear if N intended der Wille zur Macht as an almost foundational principle behind all of nature, or as a psychological insight about human behavior. Schopenhauer is more interesting and I have read some essays (the prose is nicer) but I am not a philosopher so I don't read much philosophy.

I was arguing that to define 'power' based mostly (if not purely in some cases) on 'evil' or whatever is a little myopic and prevents us from understanding what power is beyond a mere item for declaring something as possessing differing levels of corruption — I like sushi

I like the sound of that. Power gets a bad rap not because it's in and of itself bad but because it attracts the wrong kinda crowd. One could say that the fault lies in us, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say human nature is to blame. I suppose our immediate reaction - fear, dislike - to it has a lot to do with the rather painful history we've had with tyrants, totalitarianism, and so on. Once bitten, twice shy.

I was trying to relate power to choice and freedom — I like sushi

Then you're not doing it right. If choice and freedom are your primary concern, you should've steered clear of power. It complicates the issue because power and freedom haven't always been the best of buddies if you know what I mean.

If you haven't noticed the various fields within the social sciences and political philosophy constant conflate each others ideas and and talk past each other. I am looking at the heart of 'power' and how it is used along with possible problems of conception.

I think I'm well justified because the go to response is generally power = bad and little more thought is put into it, what it means or how we could come to understand human action and intent by investigating this.

Can you provide an example so we can see this in action? I'm still unclear. — Tom Storm

If that isn't clear an example would only compound the problem because you'd seek out a hole in any particular example I would pose that has nothing to do with the thrust of the point.

Let me put it like this. When we act in a certain way and the outcome is deemed 'bad' we steer away from or deny agency, whereas when the outcome is deemed 'good' we lean hard into claiming agency for the action. This is a basic psychology example of how humans (ALL humans) react to perceived outcomes of perceived actions. We shield ourselves from the reality of the situation and claim responsibility for an action depending on the outcome compared to our predicted outcome.

This happens to everyone everyday to some degree or another. It is simply the way we are. The 'personal gain' is more often about how people feel about their status around others, or it is just a means to avoid shame or something like that (gain and/or avoidance of negativity).

Contestable claims here. Can you demonstrate that absolute power doesn't exist? I think the idea here is that there is 'maximal power' which surely does exist. I would say Stalin had this and so too do the Taliban right now. Power over who gets to live and die and what people can do and wear is as close to absolute power as humans can get. Perhaps North Korean leadership has more power than this - they even control people's thoughts. — Tom Storm

I think I mentioned before about the extension of power through time? Immediate power in the now is a physical thing (I need x amount of power to run my computer). In the human sphere, the power of individuals, it is not parceled up in moments.

Either way Stalin didn't really have the power to kill more than a handful of people here and there. I could pick up a knife and kill anyone quite easily. I have the power to take away a lot of lives if I so wished. Do you think Stalin set out to kill people? Is killing someone the same as gaining more control over your life. In some circumstances killing someone could lead to a better set of choices for the future, I won't deny that. I would deny that having the ability to kill is anything like having power.

Again, I see this habit of equating power with negativity (authoritarian rule and dictatorships). I know this is a common perception today and I'm flat out saying it is quite myopic and a very sad thing to see.

Then you're not doing it right. If choice and freedom are your primary concern, you should've steered clear of power. It complicates the issue because power and freedom haven't always been the best of buddies if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

Maybe I am assuming too much about how people are reading what I've said (not the first time!). The thing is they are the best of buddies as far as I can tell. Or rather 'choice' above 'freedom' (the later being something people pine for in an absolute sense even though they REALLY don't want it). It is perhaps the desire for 'freedom' that is more bound up in corruption than power itself. Power, as I'm looking at it, is more about choice (hence the OP title).

I should probably distinguish between 'freedom' and 'choice' again. Choice is more or less recognition of opportunity to make changes (the ability to do so is tied into this too as 'ability' in this case means having a fuller recognition of the choices rather than a superficial wishful thinking kind of 'choice'). Freedom is something we wouldn't really want in an unlimited capacity as it would mean ALL consequences of our actions would lie at our feet, we'd be to blame for what happens to ourselves and to a large degree what happens to those around us too. Freedom necessitates taking Responsibility, and our capacity for such Freedom is ideally limited by our 'power' (ie. understanding and appreciation of choices therein).

This is the thought I've been mulling over since yesterday regarding having a different look at 'corruption'. Corruption, in this thought, being the attainment of Freedom at all costs and shirking the Responsibility that necessarily comes with it. That makes more sense than viewing 'corruption' as simply wishing/wanting to attain more and more 'power'.

Maybe I am assuming too much about how people are reading what I've said (not the first time!). The thing is they are the best of buddies as far as I can tell. Or rather 'choice' above 'freedom' (the later being something people pine for in an absolute sense even though they REALLY don't want it). It is perhaps the desire for 'freedom' that is more bound up in corruption than power itself. Power, as I'm looking at it, is more about choice (hence the OP title). — I like sushi

Indeed, good people are those who follow rules/laws i.e. they willingly, with little resistance, give up (some of) their freedom for the greater good. Remember though that people only sacrifice their liberty to the extent it's fair and reasonable. Once one's autonomy is at risk, one will naturally begin to resist the oppressive force at play viz. power.

It appears that, like on many occasions, the conclusion is to avoid extremes - strike a balance between complete freedom & total power (the golden mean, the middle path). By the way, doesn't it look as thought complete freedom is total power?

If we have greater and greater freedom to act as we wish then the consequences such actions are ultimately our responsibility as our freedom to make choices increases. — I like sushi

I agree. Morality is about the use of power. The concept of mercy implies a kind of counter power: the power of the innocent to elicit pity and compassion.

There are people who seek medical attention specifically to gain narcotics. They try to access this 'power of the innocent suffering person' by the way they behave. Some healthcare workers become annoyed, but it can also bring about the opposite: pity for those who've been driven to that life by addiction. So it can be convoluted.

To become immune to pity and compassion is a dangerous road morally speaking. This sometimes happens under an umbrella of self righteousness which means it's really driven by rage.

Rage is a sign of victimization, though. It's by way of bitterness and rage that the victim takes her stand among the powerful evil-doers who create more victims who are destined to do the same.

This cycle of violence was noted by the Jews who originally created Christianity. The Christian message was about letting go of rage. Step out of the cycle and gain a different kind of freedom.