Thursday, January 27, 2011

So I know this is way too long but I was trying to get out some of my main ideas. Please lots of suggestions!

Power is so entirely omnipresent on every level in the modern world that it is virtually impossible to make any decision or act in any manner without its involvement. Deriving its origins from the purely physical power of taking a step or moving an object, power has become a complex structure which is manifested throughout the world. Over time, as the human mind became increasingly analytical, it was discovered that creating larger social systems allowed each individual to do less work for a more efficient result. Even in basic systems, human interaction, although necessary to the human psyche, creates disparity, discord, and disagreements. Therefore, some rudimentary structure of government or mutual understanding of particular rules becomes necessary for the system to function as more than a series of arguments. Naturally, smaller systems were controlled by the more physically strong whose power came purely from bodily superiority. In larger systems, however, structures of power become more complex in that physical strength no longer correlated with guaranteed rule; five weak men could easily physically or mentally overpower one strong man. Thus, in such systems, power fell to the individual or group with whom the majority placed their belief; as these social systems grew the complexity of the multifaceted manifestations of power throughout increased exponentially. So that, in the modern world, structures of power both individually and socially are legitimized by people’s belief in them, while simultaneously the structures are able to control the very people who give them power. Moreover, because everything is a social structure of power, individuals cannot separate their thoughts or actions from subjectivity or situation. As a result universal concepts cannot exist. Given this contradicting duality and lack of universality, the individual is faced with the dilemma of human action. In a given situation how is one to decide upon a course of action. In such a complex world the only thing an individual can expect to achieve is a life in which, on the strictly biological level, they experience as much pleasure as possible. While there is no universal method to achieve this end goal, there are general guidelines. A comprehensive education which allows an individual to understand structures of power, analyze each situation, and utilize all parts of the brain is the primary method for attaining these ends. Ultimately, power in the modern world exists in every sphere of both the individual and the social as a contradicting duality; consequently, in order to achieve the most pleasurable life possible, individuals must understand continually shifting structures of power and recognize that both education and an extensive reallocation of belief in the system are necessary to change a power structure.

3 comments:

  1. There are a lot of ideas in here!
    Ok, my first thoughts (and I'll keep them brief) are these:
    Are there any limits to our ability to act in a way as to "experience as much pleasure as possible"? Is our ability to do so limited by our will/biology/situation or any universalized morality?
    There is an implied hierarchy of desire here and a positive and negative way to achieve them. What is the foundation of that?
    You say "recognize that both education and an extensive reallocation of belief in the system are necessary to change a power structure." --- is this Enlightenment? A search for Truth? Is there a recognizable end goal for individuals who "must understand" these systems of power and hope to change them? What does this change look like? Why?
    You are off to a very good start!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Catherine,

    Its a very good, well thought out beginning paragraph. I can easily tell which philosophers are going to work well for this paper and how you will transition them smoothly. My only problem is, I'm not really sure what you are arguing here.....

    You give a good start in describing power and the history in which it has developed. But are you saying that you believe that the majority should rule, or that the government and people should work together to create and legitimized power structure?

    "Moreover, because everything is a social structure of power, individuals cannot separate their thoughts or actions from subjectivity or situation. As a result universal concepts cannot exist. " I'm pretty sure this part fits well into my argument as well--that all your actions and ideas come from others and the situations that you are thrown into. But how is this related to the government? Should they be working with these individuals and trying to create universal concepts that everyone can follow? Is that how education would help--determine the structures of power as you said, and figure out the best possible way to work with others and create a system that everyone can follow?

    There are definitely great ideas here, I just think you need to figure out a main argument and see how you can fit them all together.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again, sorry for getting to this so late.

    Anyways, i like your idea a lot and see that it would lead to quite and interesting paper. However, i think you do need to deal with some sort of moral imperative. If the goal of life is to experience pleasure why should i not waste my life shooting up heroin? Certainly i would feel more "pleasure" than honest people who go about their lives helping others. Despite that pleasure i dont think i would be the happiest person around. I think you need to push on the idea of what we really want out of life because it is absolutely central to your argument.

    Also in order to lead the most pleasurable life do we really only need to, "...understand [the] continually shifting structures of power and recognize that both education and an extensive reallocation of belief in the system are necessary to change a power structure.” Or is there something more? Do we not also need to act on the knowledge we gain from those two actions? If we see grave injustices limiting the well being and “pleasure” of other individuals are we compelled to change the situation? If we are not I can see your argument very easily leading to the platonic tyrant who acts only on their desires at the expense of the people. This person by your argument would understand the way in which power functions in society and manipulate it to their own advantage.

    I do know that you aren’t trying to argue for selfishness or fascism (at least I hope so) so I would think you do need some sort of moral system to govern action.

    Overall though I like it and look forward to seeing where you go with these ideas.
    -Eric

    ReplyDelete