History of Philosophy: Meaning vs. Power

Dermot Griffin

I personally think that one can break the history of philosophy into two categories. These categories are the will to meaning and the will to power; Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were known for putting a focus on these, but I think the roots themselves go back to antiquity. To quote Pierre Hadot in What is Ancient Philosophy?, "Ancient philosophy proposed to mankind an art of living. By contrast, modern philosophy appears above all as the construction of a technical jargon reserved for specialists." I don't take this as Hadot saying that modern philosophy is bad and that the ancients got it all right. I do believe strongly that the whole of the Socratic tradition is focused on the search for meaning and that is eudaimonia, happiness, blessedness, human flourishing, or simply, "the good life." Similarly in China and India we have the teachings of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism that provide a similar cure to the illness of nihilism, focusing on the search for meaning in ones life. However, there are people that went against this train of thought. The Sophists focused on the making of money and teaching what they thought was good; We know Socrates didn't like them very much. In China Yang Zhu founded Yangism, a school of ethical egoism. This would be an example of the will to power in the sense that there is an inflated intellectual ego amongst people. This is kind of like how I view Ayn Rand and Noam Chomsky; Two drastically different socio-political poles, one very similar intellectual ego.

I am not, of course, saying that people shouldn't read Rand and Chomsky or the Sophists and Yangists. It is precisely through reading them in comparison to a different school of thought that dialogue can happen. Even within specific schools of thought there is room for dialogue. For example, there are big differences between an existentialist like Nikolai Berdyaev, a pious member of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Jean-Paul Sartre, who introduced humanistic existentialism. Within ancient philosophy we have similar debates; The Stoics did not unanimously agree on a conception of God. The Greek Stoics, like Cleanthes and Chrysippus, believed in a pantheistic god while later Roman Stoics, depending on who you read, believed in a god that tended to be more panentheistic or classically theistic.

In short, when philosophy (and the humanities in general) is broken down to the advocacy of the position of meaning or power, a very interesting conversation can begin.

Fooloso4

The Sophists focused on the making of money and teaching what they thought was good; We know Socrates didn't like them very much. — Dermot Griffin

With the exception of money making, and it should be pointed out that Socrates accepted financial help from his friends, what distinguishes Socrates from the Sophists? Doesn't Socrates teach what he thought was good? It is worth noting that Socrates, at the time he lived, was regarded as a sophist. In Plato's dialogue Sophist the distinction is made questionable.

Socrates was accused at trial of making the weaker argument the stronger. This is taken up in the Republic where the strength or power of an argument to persuade is of central importance. Also of central importance is political power - the question of who should rule. This extends to the question of the politics of the soul - what holds power over the soul. The power of persuasion is not limited to the power of argument. The stories of the poets/theologians play an important role as well. Only those stories that are approved and invented by the philosopher kings are allowed. A decisive power grab.

It is simply not true that:

... philosophy (and the humanities in general) is broken down to the advocacy of the position of meaning or power ... — Dermot Griffin

They are not separable. For most of us, both ancient and modern, the art of living is not something that can be practiced cloistered and removed from the demands and necessities of life.

Philosophim

The reliance on excessive vocabulary and technical jargon is the desperate cry for relevance and convincing others of its own importance. The more one relies on esoteric vocabulary, the more unnecessarily complex the idea becomes. This can give the illusion of complexity and intelligence where it does not exist. Many new people fall into this trap as they try to learn the lingo, but those with insight see through all the bs.

I would argue this has come about because back then philosophy was a way of life, while today it has become a profession. Universities require that philosophy professors publish 'something'. As such the profession does not drive people towards meaningful discussions or discoveries, but production for its own sake. When one does not have anything meaningful to say, an easy way out of this is to write something that 'sounds' meaningful. Perhaps something that shows mastery over someone without a Phd.

I say this as someone who has participated in philosophy with the one time intent to become a professor. The institution of philosophy is a bunch of people desperate to justify their own job, all the while pushing people to learn 'the art of publishing' which is not about new ideas, but learning to find what publishers are looking for as well as modern trends. Original ideas that are not forcibly tied to some other famous philosopher are discouraged and rejected. It is not a place of open thought, but stifled institutionalism.

180 Proof

... philosophy (and the humanities in general) is broken down to the advocacy of the position of meaning or power ...
— Dermot Griffin

They are not separable. For most of us, both ancient and modern, the art of living is not something that can be practiced cloistered and removed from the demands and necessities of life. — Fooloso4

:100: :up:

jgill

The institution of philosophy is a bunch of people desperate to justify their own job, all the while pushing people to learn 'the art of publishing' which is not about new ideas, but learning to find what publishers are looking for as well as modern trends. Original ideas that are not forcibly tied to some other famous philosopher are discouraged and rejected. It is not a place of open thought, but stifled institutionalism. — Philosophim

Illuminating. Publishing in math seems to be much more nuanced. Or it was during my time. Still, ArXive.org receiving over 150 math research articles each day of the year makes one wonder.

Wayfarer

In short, when philosophy (and the humanities in general) is broken down to the advocacy of the position of meaning or power, a very interesting conversation can begin. — Dermot Griffin

You're being too nice. What you're actually referring to is close to what Adorno and Horkheimer describe in the dialectics of the Enlightenment: the subordination of Reason to mere utility. Finding things out, getting things done, having a better life. Philosophy proper has its sights set on a higher goal - which you of course know. But I get that you're making concessions for the sake of conversation, and your interests really lie elsewhere ;-)

For most of us, both ancient and modern, the art of living is not something that can be practiced cloistered and removed from the demands and necessities of life. — Fooloso4

But then, most of us are not renunciates, sages, separated from the masses. Most of us are 'the they', das man, the man in the street. That's why traditional philosophy is extremely non-PC.

Joshs

↪Dermot Griffin

I personally think that one can break the history of philosophy into two categories. These categories are the will to meaning and the will to power; Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were known for putting a focus on these, but I think the roots themselves go back to antiquity — Dermot Griffin

.

Nietzsche didn’t speak of will to meaning but will to truth, a subset of will to power. His notion of power wasn’t some kind of concentrated energy possessed by certain individuals or institutions to be used for good or evil. He believed that all meaning is the effect of differential relations within a system of values. Each individual psyche is organized as such schemes, gestalts, matrices of inter-affecting vectors of drives competing with and altering each other. Social power works the same way, as differential forces flowing though and between persons in a culture, so that each of us in our practices reciprocally affect each other to form social systems and institutions shaped in certain ways, producing and changing the meanings that they have for us. Power exerts its effects bottom up rather than top down, through all kinds of complex feedback mechanisms.

Joshs

↪Philosophim

The reliance on excessive vocabulary and technical jargon is the desperate cry for relevance and convincing others of its own importance. The more one relies on esoteric vocabulary, the more unnecessarily complex the idea becomes. This can give the illusion of complexity and intelligence where it does not exist — Philosophim

Do you have any famous philosophers in mind here, or just the hoi polloi?

Fooloso4

For most of us, both ancient and modern, the art of living is not something that can be practiced cloistered and removed from the demands and necessities of life.
— Fooloso4

But then, most of us are not renunciates, sages, separated from the masses. Most of us are 'the they', das man, the man in the street. That's why traditional philosophy is extremely non-PC. — Wayfarer

And yet, some of us take seriously philosophy as practice and do not think it beyond us. We are capable of thinking about the kind of life we should lead and doing what we can to live that way.

The root of the distinction between ancient and modern philosophy can be found in Francis Bacon's proclaiming "ipsa scientia potestas est", knowledge itself is power. In Hobbes "scientia potentia est", knowledge is power. In Descartes' provisional moral code. What is at issue is the power to change the world.

While some might reflect on the meaning of suffering, they worked to diminish or eliminate suffering through the power of science or knowledge.

Added: Machiavelli's grounding political power on necessity rather than on questions of the good also plays a role.

Number2018

Nietzsche didn’t speak of will to meaning but will to truth, a subset of will to power. His notion of power wasn’t some kind of concentrated energy possessed by certain individuals or institutions to be used for good or evil. He believed that all meaning is the effect of differential relations within a system of values. Each individual psyche is organized as such schemes, gestalts, matrices of inter-affecting vectors of drives competing with and altering each other. Social power works the same way, as differential forces flowing though and between persons in a culture, so that each of us in our practices reciprocally affect each other to form social systems and institutions shaped in certain ways, producing and changing the meanings that they have for us. — Joshs

This interpretation closely follows Foucault’s perspective on the Nietzschean theory of will to power. Thus, it assumes a strong correlation between the organization of an individual psyche and social self-arrangements. Power functions as a primarily and autonomous hinge between both levels.
Deleuze disagrees with Foucault on the ontological and strategic status of power. “There is heterogeneity, a difference in the nature between micro and macro, which in no way excludes the immanence of the two. Is the notion of power applicable at the level of micro-analyses? If I talk about assemblages of desire, it is because I am not sure that micro-arrangements can be described in terms of power. Desire is one with a determined assemblage, including power arrangements that would not assemble or constitute anything” (Deleuze, ‘Desire and Pleasure. Two Regimes of Madness’ pg. 125)
Deleuze asserts that the pre-individual, saturating, and intensive field of the micro level is reciprocally interconnected with the social level behind the arrangements of power and the grid of intelligibility. Differently, for Foucault, the most intimate affects (pleasures), penetrating all meaning, are the derivatives of power.

Arne

modern philosophy appears above all as the construction of a technical jargon reserved for specialists — Dermot Griffin

Richard Rorty suggested to the effect that modern philosophy is more about "skillful" conversation and less about "interesting" conversation.

Lionino

The reliance on excessive vocabulary and technical jargon is the desperate cry for relevance and convincing others of its own importance. The more one relies on esoteric vocabulary, the more unnecessarily complex the idea becomes. This can give the illusion of complexity and intelligence where it does not exist. — Philosophim

I disagree. There is no word in any language that expresses "epiphenomenalism". From this fact, it is evident that there is a need for new words to be coined. Those new words quickly become jargon.

Do you have any famous philosophers in mind here, or just the hoi polloi? — Joshs

Although this phrase right here is an example that validates Philosophim' claim.

Philosophim

Do you have any famous philosophers in mind here, or just the hoi polloi? — Joshs

Just the general industry. Famous philosophers are typically famous for a good reason.

I disagree. There is no word in any language that expresses "epiphenomenalism". From this fact, it is evident that there is a need for new words to be coined. Those new words quickly become jargon. — Lionino

I'm more going by George Orwell's six point of writing.

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

If epiphenomenalism is the the most clear and simple way of communicating an idea, use it. I'm not stating use of vocabulary should be restricted. It should be used as needed for clarity, not to pad a sentence with jargon when it could be stated more simply.

Gnomon

In short, when philosophy (and the humanities in general) is broken down to the advocacy of the position of meaning or power, a very interesting conversation can begin. — Dermot Griffin

Meaning is personal, and Power is communal. So, the pursuit of Meaning is Philosophical, while the pursuit of Power is Political. :smile:

History of Philosophy: Meaning vs. Power

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions