Power and Love

[Niklaus]

The spoiler below has a long, very long wall of text. A wall of text which is full of my ramblings. Read at your own risk

 

 

 

In ancient times, wars were fought to annex new territories, to increase influence, to take revenge, to crush rebellions, for political freedom, sometimes for sake of love while other times they were fought for some very ridiculous reasons (the pig war, War of Jenkins' ear, the Pastry war, War of the Golden Stool, to name a few.)

 

Now more battles are fought in our homes and offices than on actual battlefields and the weapons of choice are cunning and guile instead of guns and artillery. The game of power is no longer restricted to the politicians or those leading a nation or a state. We all are part of it. The whole world is a large courtroom and we all are courtiers, to paraphrase Robert Greene. All of us have our own sense of morality; a sense of what is right and wrong (which I think is not as absolute as we'd like to think) and we apply it in our lives. This internal moral compass of ours determines to what extent we play this political game. It is what determines whether we choose to passively accept the effects of moves made by others or we choose to actively plot and plan to acquire power or if we will play defensive. So, on this basis, perhaps we can divide the world around is into three general categories - the players who play the game of power, the victims and the defenders who can understand the tactics and can defend themselves against them but do not use their knowledge to actively harm others to achieve their goal.

 

All of us come across all three kinds of people and as I have observed, more often than not, to recognize all the three types, one has to be either a player or defender.

 

The players or the machiavellians ,as the common terminology goes, are the most dangerous type. They know which button to push and when. They know the "thumbscrews" of their targets and they use their "friends" at will to achieve their goals. Sometimes their targets don't even realize it. People Machiavelli would approve of and those who tend to gravitate towards political professions.

 

Next, the victims. These are those kinds of people who think that though bad people exist in the world, majority of the people they meet are basically kind and care for others as much as they do for themselves, maybe a little less but they do care. They often ignore the slight advances made by the manipulators and at times don't even notice when they are being manipulated by someone.

 

Lastly, the defenders. Probably the rarest type in political offices but constitutes a fair share of the general population. They know some of the tactics of manipulation. They understand them and they can use them but they don't . They have chosen to use their knowledge only for self defense. The problem with this type is that it is difficult to know the tactics and avoid using them. If you have a Machiavellian edge, it eventually shows its effect, with or without you realizing that it did so.

 

Then again, for some people the only concern is to be in control of their own life and such people are not very concerned with pursuits of power. They don't covet power. Such type of people can either be victims or defenders, usually they are defenders I think.

 

Once again this system of categorization is very broad and most likely inaccurate. Read and form your own judgments.

 

Enter Love...

 

Love. Love is that feeling you experience when you are near your dear ones, maybe a friend, a family member (parents, grandparents, husband, wife, son, daughter, etc) or a girlfriend, etc. There is love for society, for humanity, for the downtrodden and underprivileged, etc. So love has different forms.

 

 

Power vs love.

 

For some power is a means to immortality. After all who knows what may happen after death? Whether there is a heaven or not? If cutting a few corners here and there is all that takes to acquire power, shouldn't we do it? Isn't it too small a price for immortality? But then again, does being powerful really make you memorable, hence immortal?

 

Power or desire to have it isn't immoral in itself. Its the tactics employed that determine whether the person desiring to become powerful is immoral or not. But that begs the question, is it possible to reach highest offices of power without a little bit of Machiavellianism? In politics, probably not. At least not in our present age. Also, people who want power to do only good are rare, often doing good is second to some bigger self interest.

 

On the other hand, there is love. A life lived for others should surely be meaningful, especially if there is some reward for selfless service after death. Even if there isn't, it sounds nice to look forward to someone to love; to care for. Someone who matters more than one's pursuit of power. Someone who won't be sacrificed on the altar of this political game.

 

The world is full of people who are faced with this choice in their life at one time or another. It may not be an extreme situation but the fact whether we hold our pursuit of power or our relationships dear to us determines our fate and of those around us to a great extent.

 

Given the choice between power and love, what would you choose?

 

 

The post is inspired from the T.V Show Scandal, I am not a big fan of it but this particular line stirred something in my mind.

 

“Given the choice between power and love, men like you will always, always choose power.†(Olivia to Andrew)

 

After I had written this wall of text I also talked to Yerushalayim about this topic who had some very mature insights to offer. I have tried to include what I retained from our conversation.

 

 

[Khestra]

"Love is fleeting; power is eternal." - The Beast, Krull

 

[Alex]

I enjoy philosophical thoughts and discussions. You mentioned a quote from a TV quote, which reminds me of a quote from the show House of Cards:

 

 

 

A great man once said, everything is about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power.

 

Take it for what it is, it sure provoked some thought in me. That whole show is really great - Kevin Spacey's thirst for power and his apparent Machiavellism is something I find particularly enjoyable.

[Khestra]

[Ayayay]

People want to be remembered. No one wants to, after their death, have their memory tossed aside like a dirty rag. The powerful are remembered, as are the tyrants who rule through fear. Few bother remembering the people who acted out of the kindness of their heart and wielded no power. No one will remember the name of the man in charge of the soup kitchen, but they will remember the mass murderer. Few know the names of the leaders who ruled the nations who fought Napoleon, but they know him. Ask someone the names of the leaders in World War II and they will know of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FRD, and even Hirohito. But do they know who lead Czechoslovakia? Do they remember the names of the Communist or Kuomintang leaders? No. People want their legacy to live on, and it takes either power or hate to get there. 

[SoS]

Altruism has been proven to be a self-serving adaptation. There's a lot of sickness, tho...martyrs and co-dependents and what-not. People not seeking power over their own life have some sort of a problem.

[Niklaus]

People want to be remembered. No one wants to, after their death, have their memory tossed aside like a dirty rag. The powerful are remembered, as are the tyrants who rule through fear. Few bother remembering the people who acted out of the kindness of their heart and wielded no power. No one will remember the name of the man in charge of the soup kitchen, but they will remember the mass murderer. Few know the names of the leaders who ruled the nations who fought Napoleon, but they know him. Ask someone the names of the leaders in World War II and they will know of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FRD, and even Hirohito. But do they know who lead Czechoslovakia? Do they remember the names of the Communist or Kuomintang leaders? No. People want their legacy to live on, and it takes either power or hate to get there.

I totally agree but what's the purpose? If there is a final judgement after death, such an attitude to attain immortality through infamy will prove to have been unwise. If there isn't a heaven or hell and death is indeed our ultimate end, then does it really matter whether people remember us for good things or bad things or whether they do remember us at all? We won't be there to see it. Wouldn't it make more sense then in this case, to live a life that earns you good will of others? At least while you are alive, you will have people respecting you out of goodwill and love (not respecting you out of fear) and that ought to count for something.

 

No one may remember the in charge of soup kitchen but I think it would not matter for that person, if he were able to see it. He may get it a little bit hurt over how quickly people forget but he'd have lived his life with a purpose. At least when he was alive, he had the satisfaction of helping others and possibly more love and goodwill of the people with whom he came in contact with than a person with more power would have.

 

Indeed memory of Hitler lives on but would I like to be remembered in the manner he is remembered? I don't think so, even if it means living a simple life and dying without making it into the history books. Infamy isn't necessarily better than ignominy.

 

In the end I guess, it really depends on how you perceive life and your understanding/belief of what happens after death?

Edited November 15, 2014 by Niklaus

[Niklaus]

I enjoy philosophical thoughts and discussions. You mentioned a quote from a TV quote, which reminds me of a quote from the show House of Cards:

 

 

Take it for what it is, it sure provoked some thought in me. That whole show is really great - Kevin Spacey's thirst for power and his apparent Machiavellism is something I find particularly enjoyable.

I have watched it as well. His acting is great, the storyline is great. How he manages to rise so high, so quickly is amazing.

 

My fav quote was - You are what you choose to reveal

[Tim Armstrong]

Great questions. When a person comes into power it is only a matter of time before his character is tested. If he reveals moral and fair traits it inspires others to support him and his cause. A leader who exhibits cruel and unbalanced traits instills fear and obedience in his subjects.

 

Which is more effective? Which is more sustainable?

 

People want to feel a part of something bigger than themselves where the total is greater than the sum of the parts. If a powerful leader is able to implement policy that gives the average person a taste of more power in a meaningful way it changes the equation. They may overlook some questionable ethical practices in favor of protecting and growing their own power and position.