-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a society, there are individuals with power who are not necessarily part of the government. Their power comes from their ability to conceptualize ideas, and convince others to follow these ideas. This power, derived from rational arguments with which people agree, allows the individual to seize control of the people, directing it in favor of the government or against it. These individuals must create ideas that are moral, in order to legitimize their power and act as a benevolent force on society rather than a terror over it. Meanwhile, the government has a responsibility to protect the civil liberties and security of the society should the powerful individuals become a threat. If the arguments of the powerful are rational enough, but immoral, the unenlightened individuals of a society may be drawn toward them, and away from a domineering, if secure, government. The government cannot prevent powerful individuals from shaping the society, but they can attempt to prevent them from harming it. Although the goal of the powerful and the government should be to bring all individuals to a state of enlightenment through education and the creation of a sphere for intellectual discussions, this will take considerable time and the government must protect the civil liberties of the society while it is still immature. The powerful have a responsibility to create moral ideas for individuals within a society to believe in and follow.
-By "create ideas that are moral" do you mean individuals creating a moral ideology that is really meant to control others? I would clarify this.
ReplyDelete-Does power only exist with manipulative individuals and government that tries to protect society from these individuals? How would you reconcile this with Foucaults (confusing) ideas that power exists everywhere, within local sites? And how do you reconcile the idea that some thinkers say there are no overarching systems of power?
-"The powerful have a responsibility to create moral ideas for individuals within a society to believe in and follow."
Why? You can do a little more to set this up...why shouldn't each person take responsibility to be educated and create their own ideas...it sounds like you are supporting some people creating ideology for others to follow and is this necessarily productive?
You seem to rely on Mill, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, (and maybe some others...) but think about how Marx, Nietzsche, and Foucault who I mentioned earlier and how their ideas can shape this a little.
Just some thoughts...
Dan-
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughts! These are excellent questions.
Through my paper, I'm going to shape the ideas a little more towards the government responsibilities vs the responsibilities of the powerful, so it comes out a litte less fascist. The paper is going to end up in the direction that the government has certain responsibilities (ex. education, protection of civil liberties, protection of physical security) and the powerful are the enlightened, and SHOULD (but don't always) guide society towards a more moral state of existence. If these enlightened, powerful types become a threat, then the people and gvmnt must fight back.
Now, in answer to your questions:
1) Power exists in more than just the enlightened and the government. People have the agency (choice = form of power) to follow the government and enlightened individuals. The government and enlightened must be moral, and appeal to the natural morality of the people, in order to be legitimiized. I haven't the foggiest what Foucault says most of the time.
2) Hmmm... I am actually working on changing my thesis towards a more hegelian sense of the enlightened having a responsibility to create moral ideas, which the people could then sublate with and create a more universal sense of morality. In that way, there would be more of a check on the power of the enlightened, who couldn't just create ideas pell-mell in an attempt to gain power (Nietszche will to power), as well as the government, which would have to be truly moral in order to be a legitimate governance over the more universally moral society (lim morality -> universal is the only way I can think to explain that. Morality will never be truly universal but with this is can be closer).
3) Yes, I do. I find them understandable so I tend to lean towards their opinions in my arguments, whether I agree with them or not. I am trying to work in the latter two, still not sure how to bring Marx's ideas into play.
Thanks again for your great questions! If you have any comments on this please do not hesitate to share. My paper just got a lot less fascist haha.
Hey Nats,
ReplyDeleteThink about Nietzsche's herd and free spirits. Do the free spirits care about the herd? This is so directly related to your intro paragraph that I would mention it early in your paper.
I need some definitions:
"conceptualize ideas" (what does that REALLY mean, practically speaking)
"rational"
"control" (There are all from the first part of the paragraph)
You seem to say that the end of these individual powerful people is to guide the people away or towards the government. Isn't there more to it than that? some way of life? what?
You also seem to imply that the individual powerful people are the creative force and the government is the repressive force. Do you mean to do this?
What are "moral ideals"? To me, these two words don't fit with the way you want to use them. How can you use ideals to guide people (in the real world) in a just way? Doesn't that create false hope and structure of power? (It would be great if you could clarify the whole sentence that includes the first mention of "ideals that are moral")
It was surprising when you started talking about education... can you lead up to this with a sentence about individual empowerment or something like that?
Thesis: Why? Why does it matter that "The powerful have a responsibility to create moral ideas for individuals within a society to believe in and follow"? Give me a "because" in this thesis. I'm not convinced that the moral ideals will lead you to some goal. What is your goal of society? Freedom? Happiness (what is that?)? Security?
This is an interesting slant on power relationships. You articulate them well! I, personally, am interested in seeing the individual in this (afterall, every person in gov't is also an individual). Good luck!
I agree with Sarah that what I want from this to take it one step further is a delving into the BECAUSE of it all. The powerful have this responsibility to create moral ideas... ok. Why? Why does it matter? To what end? Are they pushing toward a God-self actualization? Are they pushing toward a fully enlightened society? Are they recognizing that each increasingly larger class is about to take control of the state? Are they seeing the people as a herd who just need to be controlled? Are they helping us to find a Truth (Eidos)?
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be an implied value judgment on ideas making some moral (or more moral) in contrast to others. How do we define this value judgment? How do we decide what is a moral idea and what is not? Do we all have to agree on the definition of morality? Is it universal? Is morality simply defined by the powerful (and this is where the fascism problem comes in to play)?
You seem to be off to a good start.