Okay. Do you mean that you view power as a something more related to problems than 'good'/'bad'?

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

What? You pretty much said it yourself right? Power is power, it isn't necessarily 'good' or 'bad'. If you think otherwise I didn't see that at all, sorry.

I don't know what that means. I haven't criticised any approach there though?

I was just making absolutely clear (so I thought) that the lines between items like 'manipulation,' 'persuasion' or 'influence' have a good degree of overlap and therefore people do have differing views as to what constitutes one and no the other.

As above from my view. It is about intention and outcome (and I agree good/bad is irrelevant).

I would still point out that generally 'power' is something that has more modern negative connotations that not due to various political views today and Critical Theory at large. That is why I'm asking what people mean by the term and whether or not they've looked at it in any great depth.

I have started to form a different way of viewing corruption now ... will share once I've mulled it over a bit more.

Which would lead to my personal take on what 'power' is. Intended action resulting in intended outcomes. I think power in this sense is both rare and almost impossible to recognise given that we have very little in the way of measuring such things.

Individuals who truly care for others will not seek to control them, will not pressure or persuade. To help someone is to bring someone to insight voluntarily, and allow them to subject your advice to all scrutiny and critical thought, and not to be satisfied with anything less. — Tzeentch

Perspective. What you may deem a kind of gentle exposure to critical thought I may view as domineering. “The road to hell …”. I think forcing someone to do something for their own good is something people will, and even should, do in their lives. We will sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong.

From what you say above I could give it the slight twist of saying people who truly care do nothing. Therein lies the problem if ‘power’ - be this knowledge, knowhow or lived experience offered in the form of advice (its persuasion is a subjective/judgement matter).

Acton was referring to government power, but it's an observation others have made. I don't need to explain to anyone here the uses and abuses of power in government. — Tom Storm

I think you need to explain what this power is though. Adding ‘government’ before the term doesn’t explain what it you’re talking about - this is the thrust of what interests me because I believe (and am observing here) something of a reluctance to explicate what power is and why it leads to said ‘corruption’.

Not sure this makes sense. Corruption is choosing to behave dishonestly in return for personal gain. So no. — Tom Storm

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). Fair enough you said ‘choosing’ which is basically where I am seeing a commonality in what we mean when referring to ‘power’.

Furthermore there is often more to gain from cooperation than from dishonesty. 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 don’t think we can discuss much if you cannot tell me with more depth what ‘corruption’ or ‘power’ is, or you can just state clearly that you believe they are one and the same thing. I wouldn’t agree but at least I could then say something more about that and we could perhaps have an interesting discussion.

Some people might think they are the same but I don't. I'm not much interested in explorations of 'power over others' in limited roles like a doctor or teacher or cab driver. I am more interested in power in connection with leadership (organisations or governments). But my interest is fairly limited. — Tom Storm

I don’t think they are the same nor would I expect anyone else to either. My point was perspective dictates the delineation between one and the other.

What is the ‘power’ governments/leaders have then? Are all leaders/governments ‘corrupt’? Not trying ti put words into your mouth, just trying to understand the what and where of the corruption you see in leadership/governments beyond siphoning off some funds here and there and helping out their buddies. I think it is fair to say some leaders/governments do a better job than others, so what are the better ones doing with their power if they are?

I’m happy to go down that route if you want.

I have no doubt that Lord Acton's quote is mostly accurate - the actual quote is 'power tends to corrupt' (the tends is important and makes the quote). From personal experience of working in diverse areas - media, the arts and health, I think Acton was on the money. The rest of the quote is, of course, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Absolutely right, which is why democracies have a separation of powers and often a bill of rights to protect people from the abuse of power. Not that this works entirely well. — Tom Storm

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

People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. Here ‘control’/‘influence’/‘manipulate’/‘help’ are hard to distinguish from each other once we strip away the subjective perspectives and goals.

Would a lack of power also be considered ‘corrupt’? Meaning lacking any ability to control or make choices for oneself or others?

Do you see my point of interest now? Also, you’ve brought corruption to the table. Is it reasonable to say you believe power and corruption are inextricably bound. I’m not sure I could agree to this but I wouldn’t dispute that they are all to often parcelled up together (which is part of what I am questioning the validity of).

If we talk about corruption without using the term power what would we say about it. Is what we’d say anything much to do with our ability to control, assess and manage our choices, and does this have a stronger relation to our sense of freedom and responsibility (or sense of authorship) rather than power.

Note: I feel the need to talk about this because I’ve seen various uses of ‘power’ in various different guises of Critical Theory.

What is this 'power' and 'corruption' then? Are they the only points to consider here?

The main thrust behind my interest is how power has different meanings yet in political circles (interpersonal or individual) it's usually viewed in a negative sense.

Well, no. The literal dictionary definition is the ability to influence others. I was framing it as 'control' because if the individual has more control it will affect others - we don't live in isolation after all right?

I can't work out what this means. Sorry. — Tom Storm

Power as in physics (physical sense and quantified). In reality the kind of power we talk about in terms of personal control and agency is often misplaced as being a quantity in the same said sense because that is just how language functions.

Less power now may mean more in the future and therefore less power is better if we're looking to increase our power - which I argue against as a dead certainty given that with power comes freedom and responsibility.

If power tends to corrupt then how much of it? My point being there isn't much meaning in the manner people throw the sentiment around (irrespective of the actual original source). People believe power is just what instigates corruption and nothing more. That is why I say it is a superficial view.

Basic survival through cooperation.

This is basically the root of the difference …

Having a comparatively large forebrain that enables counterfactual thinking, planning and predicting, human animals learn to prevent behavioral conflicts which we humans foresee and attribute blame to those who cause or exacerbate such conflicts. Nonhuman animals that are not endowed with human-level foresight, however, cannot prevent behavioral conflicts and instead, IME, by instinct, react with fear or disgust, aggression or play, immediately to corresponding behavioral cues from one another. — 180 Proof

Might help to think about cold water having a certain solid state and asking why it is solid when other water is liquid. At base it’s still ‘water’.

Empathy is a feature of more social animals and ‘morals’ require forward thinking and planning (not instinctual habit for survival - burying nuts etc.,.).

I’d also say that I think stating we ‘need’ ethics/morals is like saying we need ‘arms’. We don’t, but they are pretty useful don’t you agree?

How are morals/ethics useful? How can ethics/morals cause problems and be a burden? Generally I believe this boils down the same thing quoted above. Humans have a more expansive cosmological outlook so interactions with fellow humans and interacting with the future makes morals/ethics a useful ‘tool’.

Ah, but now did you not just do the same? — Outlander

Whatever you wish. Not interested thanks.

You just did it yourself. It is silly to define what you mean then ask for a definition of what you mean.

ALL terms are context dependent. There is no ‘universal’ meaning that isn’t subject to differing interpretations due to differing subjective and contextual items.

I recommend putting a bit more thought into your OP’s or just reply to other threads instead for the time being.

Surely you can come up with something better than that?

Humans are both good and evil. How would we know either if we weren't both?

SO superficially ... YES. But that isn't all humans are anymore than a human amount to just being a creature with four limbs.

Reminds me of 'Behold a human!' Nah, plucking a chicken doesn't make it human and defining a human as either evil or not is just as silly.

What Banno said.

I'd also add that it makes sense for people to attempt to understand what someone else means rather than categorically say they are 'wrong' when it comes to judgements like this - which are often personal.

I've had an issue with people telling me that I was using the term 'belief' in the wrong way and that there was one common meaning. They fell silent after I quoted several different definitions used by philosophers over the ages.

Another loaded term is 'faith'. All I ask is that people try and ne generous in their interpretations and perhaps ask for clarity rather if they believe something sounds stupid/wrong/insane.

Fair enough. We have no written records to go off so archeological evidence is pretty much all the hard evidence we have. Various artifacts and sites cannot really divulge much about how people lived, but they can suggest many different things.

One common occurance throughout the history of interpreting artifacts is that we constantly make biased assumptions - usually because we assume certain things we do now as 'the norm'.

This seems to be more supportive of your view:

https://sites.dartmouth.edu/aegean-prehistory/lessons/lesson-11-narrative/#l11d

For myself, anyone questioning Renfrew is putting themselves on the line as Renfrew is a very steady hand.

Also, even though this points more toward the 'elites' having more selfish goals it doesn't then make humanity worse only bring out into the open a natural tendency. I don't agree one way or the other but I do know that in the modern world many people assume wealth is a result of selfish ends rather than reciprical cooperation. Again I would not hold to such a simplistic view in a stand alone sense as such reciprocity would have to insular in some fashion rather than universal - intent aside!

You may find this interesting: https://blog.degruyter.com/ancient-ukrainian-megasites-might-have-been-the-worlds-first-cities/

I was talking about how ‘civilisation’ can and is defined within the fields of anthropology. I do know. There is not an absolute consensus.

It’s a bit like the ‘all swans are white’ point. We cannot state something with such certainty when there is scant evidence/history. Added to this we carry around numerous modern assumptions about ‘how humans live’ based purely on how we live now. We cannot really do much about this other than try and guard against and highlight what possible assumptions we may be making and such assumptions influences our perception of said matter.

The problem with comparisons of modern day hunter gatherer groups with prehistoric hunter gatherer groups could well be irrelevant.

They do okay. They live lives with ample free time, but not as much as before. The amount of effort some peoples have to put into basic sustaiance is quite high in some places though, plus if they’re cut off from the modern world they are commonly infested with all manner of parasites.

Note: In prehistory there was undoubtedly more interaction between groups whereas today such groups are more insular due to the encroachment of the ‘modern world’ and the reduction of fellow like groups.

YOu are assuming people cared about 'wealth'. This is to impose a modern day mindset on our ancestors. Something all too easily done.

There is evidence (somewhat anecdotal) that 'prestige' was more important. Putting on a feast for other tribes rather than being viewed as a display of wealth was more accurately viewed as a competition of sorts where one tribal leader would try to outdo the other. The idea of 'material wealth' is much more of a modern concept and may very well be tied into the onset of sedentry living and farming (a very old topic in anthropological circles - The Birth of Inequality).

There is evidence from Turkish sites (Göbekli Tepe) that points to a complex society that doesn't appear to have been farming at all. There was clearly a very well established community of various human tribes and it goes without saying that the work they put into constructing/producing what I would call works of art is not exactly something we would assume to be 'uncivilised'.

To be clear I am NOT assuming they were civilised only using some conjecture about what we define as being 'civilisation'. Some people insist that 'writing' is what makes a 'civilisation' but there are unseen forms of writing that people miss (ie. quipu from the Inca Empire).

Note: I don't vie wit as a 'mistake' either. It is interesting to discuss and look at how the onset of agriculture has changed the face of humanity, and it is fair to muse about what we may have forgotten/left behind. I could argue the same for the written word as there is some interesting study into the area of mnemonic techniques and knoweldge passed down through mythos.

Doesn't matter if you agree or not. A complex social strata doesn't necessarily have to have farming ... we don't have any clear instances of this but that doesn't necessarily mean they have never existed.

This is the anthropological view. We CANNOT assume that it never happened or could never happen.

Yes, perhaps, but the important part for abstract thinking, upon which all art and science depends, namely the frontal region, has grown tremendously, while the evolutionarily less important parietal and occipital regions have shrunk. — Michael Zwingli

Brain size doesn't dictate brain power. There is obviously a loose connection. The cranial size doesn't tell us about how compact and interwoven the actual neural networks are. A skull doesn't tell us anything like the whole picture when it comes to brain power.

You're wrong. We assume this but we don't know it for fact. I'm not denying that they don't go hand in hand BUT I am stating that it is not always as simple as we first assume because with prehistory we're relying on artifacts alone not documented history ... another element that some consider as a sign of 'civilisation' (mythos and folklore don't count as 'history' written for histories sake.

Like I said, there is nothing to say a 'civilised' society couldn't come into being based on a hunter gather lifestyle. The main issue would be sustaining a larger population.

Of course there is the view that some form of complex economic record keeping plays into the idea of what a 'civilisation' is - be this with common writing or other forms of symbolic representation like quipu in the Incan empire.

Generally though a 'civilisation' is just a body of people organised into complex social strata with more skilled-labour being a major hallmark.

Defining the term it's cut and dry. There are many gray areas. A big problem is some people get caught up in arguing what the term means rather than focusing on what they were originally interested in :D

Here the question posed is basically 'Is agriculture a mistake because it has led to a disparity in wealth?'

I think that is a rather myopic view because it fails to take into account anything but the idea that agriculture caused some kind of social tyranny. In the cosmological sense I see the habits of humans to be one of controlling our surroundings in order to reconcile our sense of 'World'. We draw a line in the sand and 'claim a space' in order to experiment within it and see what kind of control we can inhabit within the space. An extension of this happens as we come to appreciate what we gliby refer to as 'time' now and through that insight we can plan and act upon the natural world wilfully.

In a purely biological energy sense we paid for our lack of strength with a more energy thirsty brain. This brain has paid off as we can expend little energy by acting in concert and by manipulating the world around us (fire helps us digest food more quickly and happened to kill harmful parasites too). A lot of what we do exists because it has benefitted us in some way (known and unknown).

Referring to another thread it is in these kinds of areas that Critical Theory is of use in reexamining possibles. The danger is getting carried away by them.

One theorist (maybe in Against the Grain--not sure) proposed that agriculture was not intended to make life better for the farmer; it was intended to make life better for those who controlled the farmer. Capturing labor for economic exploitation would have had to wait until agriculture was developed well enough to produce a surplus for the new exploiters. Getting from the first bowl of oatmeal (so to speak) to the first grain collection bins may have taken several millennia. — Bitter Crank

Whoever that theorist is I imagine they know next to nothing about anthropological studies in this area. Agriculture is a group effort and I cannot imagine that farming began through dictatorship given the amount of effort that must be invested. It looks far more likely to have be a cooperative group effort.

I doubt it was an overnight revolution either. In sites of the earliest known 'buildings' there is good evidence for social gatherings between tribes/groups. Great amounts of labor were needed to construct such artifacts and so food would be needed ... it kind of makes sense that either they started building due to having the free time to do so OR that they made the free time to do so and set aside resources (food) for such events.

I doubt there is a singular main explaination either. Obvious factors would involve happenstance, climate change, religious ideas and sendentary living (which almost certainly went hand in hand with the onset of farming).

Since agriculture would seem to be a necessary condition for civilization, I can't see how it could be one of civilization's mistakes. — Janus

Not exactly. There are exceptions. Generally a complex social heirarchical strata is what defines a body of people as a 'civilisation'. If a hunter gatherer society could sustain a large enough populace then there is no reason why it couldn't be considered 'civilised' (so to speak).

HAHA!! :D

The nihilistic tendencies of youth ;)

Science begs to differ.
If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots.

I believe that emotions and desires don't define us, our intelligence does.
A murderer has reasons to do crime, he did it because of his desire to kill or emotion.
Whereas if he just used logic, he would have come to the conclusion of killing someone. — Kinglord1090

No it doesn't.
Unsubstantiated claims are just that.
What you believe is not evidence of anything.
There are many possible logical reasons for killing people. Have you heard of psychopaths and their regard for other human beings? They have no regard for them.

I would recommend reading up on Antonio Damasio and his contributions to the cognitive neurosciences. In fact, you're probably good reading ANY scientist invoplved in the cognitive sciences to come to the understanding that 'emotions' and 'logic' are NOT mutually exclusive items.

Have fun :)

I had a conversation with a guy a couple of decades ago. He was citing increased longevity over time. I pointed out that it was my understanding that decreasing infant mortality made up the lions share of that. — James Riley

You were completely wrong. Longevity is increasing - the same trend is seen where child mortality has remained constant. The data is pretty clear in this regard. We are undoubtedly living longer and longer on average and it isn't due to healthcare or healthier living as far as we can tell - because we are not exactly living healthier lives. It is a puzzling phenomenon and it is exponential in growth. You musty have heard scientists say that if you were born in the 2000's you're likely to live to 100.

It is probably something to do with a more species wide phenomenon that can be observed in other creatures from time to time. For some reason some creatures physically alter due to certain population limits. I wouldn't be at all surprised if humans acted in kind of the same manner (even though the mechanisms remain a mystery). Think of it like each human cell seemingly 'knowing' how to read the DNA coding and produce a fingernail cell rather than a neuron. Blow that up and think of each human being as a singular 'cell' with the species. Once a certain threshold is hit a new stage kicks in.

Given that CRISPR is on the horizon we will be pretty much able to live for ever - barring accidents and such. Diseases will be eradicated by CRISPR as will (almost certainly) what we currently regard as the human race ... we're going to recreate ourselves genetically and who knows what the results will be.

Note: It is okay to point out unexplained phenomenon. Examples of this are strewn through human history with the miasma theory of disease - which had some relation to mosquitoes living in humid climes. It took some time for people to figure out the it was the mosquitoes rather than the weather.

t brings to mind a sign in a bar just off the Shoshoni/Paiute Reservation. It said something to the effect: "We hunted and fished and crafted and sang and danced and had sex all day. We paid no taxes and the women did all the work. The white man showed up and figured he could improve on that." — James Riley

Generally speaking the lives of hunter gatherers was pretty brutal from what we can tell - and 'modern day' hunter gatherers are not exactly living to a ripe old age in perfect health (even though 'modern day' is not equated to actual prehistoric human lifestyles so not much of an argument there either way). There was likely a Golden Age of sorts where humans had plenty of freetime between basic sustainance, yet disease, parasites and general interhuman brutality were not exactly non-existent.

It could be argued that in our modern societies life seems harder than it is because we have it pretty easy for the most part - as in acquiring salts, sugars and fats.

There is also the issue of how our physical well-being has deteriorated from more physical life styles. Our diets have almost certainly impacted our physiological status ... how? We have limited data and not exactly a comprehensive understand of epigenetics and how the interplay of species and environment can shift in relatively sort spans of time.

The Birth of Inequality is a pretty well argued topic in anthropology. The issue of unearthing such matters proves difficult due to too many extrapolated fields of research that act contrary to each other rather than together (anthropology, psychology, neurosciences, biology, econmics, etc.,.).

I wanted to start with quite a controversial argument I imagine which is to suggest that the discovery of agriculture is one of civilisation’s biggest mistakes. I will set out some of the main reasons why but the main one to start with is the fact that it created surplus and with that the idea or concept of wealth. — David S

I think it is easier to argue that agriculture is the reason for human civilisations.

Surplus would merely free up time for human cultivation - ie. free time and the pursuit of self-improvement (or simply scientific study, politics, mathematics and other interests).

Agriculture led to larger populations and better standards of living as far as we know (meaning medicine, education and cooperation). Basically I don’t see the negatives outweighing the positives. It is certainly intriguing to look at what we may have lost along the way though.

I don't understand your comment? Asking for a definition for the sake of clarity isn't asking someone to defend anything.

I was just trying to get at all too often people talk cross purposes in this area as there are different sections within Critical Theory that offer up quite different uses of the term 'power'. I don't see how viewing Critical Theory through any one particular lens does anything but damage without the context of myriad possible 'other' lens - none of which can be measured empirically to any degree.

Note: I don't think it is an entirely futile exercise. It is good for flexing the mind and seeing what you may not be thinking about from time to time. As a potential tool of skepticism it is more useful than not.

I’m guessing he means ‘reasons’ based on ‘learnt observations’. Reductionist perspective of what a ‘fact’ can be or is.

@Janus You like monads I take it? You cling to ‘essences’? Some ‘pure form’? If not then explain your view regarding ‘truth’/‘fact’ please. I’m interested to hear.

@Olivier5 Are you viewing ‘observe’ as ‘experience’? I find it difficult to see your point (or if there is one).

Sure, the items of accuracy and truth are connected. That isn’t saying much though. I cannot ‘observe’ 1 yet I can say 1+1=2 is a specific fact of basic addition. A Concrete fact could be that the Sun rises everyday, yet from another perspective this could be regarded as silly because the Sun doesn’t ‘rise’ it merely appears to rise. Observed from a particular area of Venus the Sun it merely there in the Sky.

From here we can of course argue further that ALL such items are merely Abstractions. So, there you could push home a reductionist argument of what constitutes ‘fact’ in pure terms of ‘observation’. My only question would they be to what ends? What can/do you/we achieve by shifting our perspective thus? Or is it just ‘for the hell of it’ so-to-speak (fine by me).

I'd say Critical Theory in general is, well, too generalised and open to interpretation.

The social sciences at large are probably trying to be too specific rather than wide reaching into other fields that they clearly overlap. Any social scientist not knowledgable about anthropology, mathematical modelling, poitics, psychology and philosophy, is going to end up fighting in an imaginary corner.

I would ask anyone who feels a strong inclination toward Critical Theory to give an explicit definition/s of what exactly is meant by Power and how Power can manifest. Then as a follow up I'd ask what brings Power into social existence and whether or not Power is an inevitable social structure we have to work with rather than beliving it is something that can be destroyed and/or reimagined (I get the impression from many that nullifying Power is what the y secretly wish for, so that is why I ask what it is to them/those that think this way).

Defense mechanism and insecurity most likely. The example of 'women' in particular is something people are ready to take offense by because the current political climate warrents a heightened vigilance for sexism due to media outlets and youthful naivety.

In general I can understand why you mentioned women in particular, but you certainly aimed the question in a more general sense so I responded to that.

I find it annoying when women seem to think so highly of themselves when in truth they don't look that great in my opinion. I find overconfidence keeps people from communicating and really getting to know one another. Is there a purpose for thinking so positively and absolutely about ones appearance? — TiredThinker

I find this annoying in either sex. Some people can pull it off though usually with comedic insincerity :) Often 'overconfidence' in this sense is not sincere at all - more fun poking than arrogance.

I have found a lot of people who are considered by people to be 'physically attractive' often don't know it because people tend to focus on their self-perceived 'negative' features.

In bold ... other than obvious items, like our tendencies to make assumptions at face value, it is just part of emotional maturity. Some peopel develop faster than others and some people probably have a lesser 'capacity' for suich development.

Does such a thing prevetn people from getting to knwo one another? I don't really think so. If people are highly judgemental then they tend to paint a picture of someone fairly quickly and fairly inaccurately. That can be a big issue because the 'first impression' does make quite a difference and is hard to overcome if one is 'emotionally underdeveloped' or numerous other things to boot.

Confidence is probably one of the most attractive attributes individaual humans possess. Like anything too much is too much. Returning to 'judgement' there is also something to be said of people throwing out their 'opinions' of someone ... why? To flatter/seduce? This can make us uneasy too. If someone stopped me in the street and said they liked my dress sense or eyes, or whatever, I would assume they are trying to sell me something. As is often the case the context is paramount.

The exceptions to generalised rules are usually more interesting than not :)

Nice. I'm just not keen on the terms 'Goods and Services' ... too vague fo rme and too much relation to $$$$

We do. We place value on everything within the social world we occupy.