LORELEI JOY A.
CORPUZ
Introduction
Power: how far will one go to have
it? Thousands of years ago, God created Adam and Eve, the first people on the earth.
He created Eden, a paradise where everything Adam and Eve need is at their
fingertips. God only gave one rule to them: that is, not to eat the fruit of
the tree located in the middle of the paradise. Nevertheless, Adam, with the
persuasion of Eve, disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit which opened their
knowledge of good and evil. After being cast out from the paradise of Eden,
Adam and Eve bare Cain and Abel. These two individuals could not stand being
together and this resulted to Cain killing Abel. This began the story of man –
the story of conquest, control, and power.
After thousands of years, stories of
power, manipulation, and control have proliferated not only in the individual
level, but also in organizations and even nations. Essentially, the entire human race is under
the manipulation and control of individuals who have acquired positions of
power and control within the systems created for this purpose. Countries, like
the United States, Russia, North Korea, and China, wanted to have super powers
on this planet. They keep on building military bases, strengthening nuclear
facilities, claiming disputed territories to maintain and further their
positions of power and control over billions.
Nowadays,
we have a measure of what we call “freedom and independence” as long as we bow
to those who have these positions of power and control over us.
The
question now is, why do people, organizations, and nations desire for power? Is
the lust for power part of human nature?
Many philosophers have studied human
nature, of which, one of them is the English philosopher, Bertrand Russell.
The Life of Bertrand Russell
Bertrand
Arthur William Russell was born into a privileged English family on May 18,
1872. He was the grandson of Lord John Russell, who was the first Earl of
Russell as well as a former prime minister.
Bertrand’s early life was traumatic: orphaned by the age of four, he and
his elder brother Frank were sent to live with their strict grandparents. Lord
Russell died when Bertrand was six, and thereafter the boys were raised by
their austerely religious, authoritarian grandmother. Russell’s youth was
filled with rules and prohibitions, and his earliest desire was to free himself
from such constraints. His lifelong distrust of religion no doubt stems from
this early experience. As was customary for children of his social class,
Russell was initially tutored at home. Later, he attended Trinity College,
Cambridge, where he achieved first-class honors in mathematics and philosophy.
At Cambridge, under the tutelage of the Hegelian philosopher J.M.E. McTaggart,
Russell became a proponent of idealism, the belief that all reality is
ultimately a product of the mind. Some years after graduating, however, Russell
and his colleague G.E. Moore came to reject idealism in favor of realism, the
belief that the external world exists independently of experience and
consciousness. Russell became part of a general revitalization of empiricism,
the belief that all human knowledge is derived from our sensory experience of
the external world. By the time Russell published the philosophical works The
Problems of Philosophy and Our Knowledge of the External World, he
was working firmly in the empiricist tradition.
Russell graduated from Cambridge in 1894 and was briefly an attaché at
the British Embassy in Paris. In 1895, he returned to England, where he became
a fellow of Trinity College and married his first wife, Alys Pearsall Smith. A
year later, after a visit to Berlin, he published German Social Democracy,
the first of his seventy-odd books.
Russell’s important early work was concerned with mathematics. Russell’s
great contribution to logic and mathematics was his defense of logicism—that
is, the theory that all mathematics can, in some fundamental way, be reduced to
logical principles. The logicist project was important because, if it could be
achieved, then mathematics would be established as a field of certain knowledge
and not one of conjecture. Mathematics could legitimately be considered a
priori knowledge, meaning knowledge that is necessary and self-evident,
completely objective, and independent of human experience. The search for
legitimately a priori knowledge has been a major occupation of philosophy throughout
history. Over the course of his career, Russell remained preoccupied with the
questions of what we can know with absolute certainty and how we can know it.
The Principia Mathematica, Russell’s three-volume treatise on logicism,
coauthored with A. N. Whitehead, is full of painstaking proofs that attempt to
establish that numbers, arithmetic, and all mathematical principles can be
derived from formal logic. This dedication to rigor and interest in
justification is a recurring characteristic in Russell’s work.
Along with G. E. Moore and with Russell’s student Ludwig Wittgenstein,
Russell is considered one of the founding proponents of analytic philosophy.
Analytic philosophy describes both a historical tradition (the tradition
following Moore and Russell) and a general approach to the practice of
philosophy. Analytic philosophy—which has come to be virtually synonymous with
“logical positivism”—refers to a belief that philosophy should be executed with
the same rigor and precision as scientific inquiry. Analytic philosophy is
characterized by a skeptical distrust of assumptions and a methodical system of
analysis based on logic. Just as he used logic to describe the foundations of
mathematics in Principia Mathematica, Russell would use logic to clarify
philosophy, through his concept of logical atomism, and linguistics, through
his theory of descriptions. Although the subject matter differed across his
career, Russell’s analytic methodology remained more or less constant. Many of
the particulars of Russell’s analysis have been challenged or refuted, but his
legacy as an analyst remains undeniably influential.
Although Russell’s intellectual reputation is based on his work as a
mathematician, philosopher, and logician, Russell was also noted for his work as
a social reformer. In fact, he first became known to the general public because
of his political and social work rather than his publications. When the First
World War broke out, Russell publicly voiced increasingly controversial
political views. He became an activist for pacifism, which resulted in his
dismissal from Trinity College in 1916. Two years later, his opposition to
British involvement in the war landed him in prison. Stripped of his teaching
job, he began to make his living by writing and lecturing independently. In
1919, Russell visited the newly formed Soviet Union, where he met many of the
famous personalities of the revolution he had initially supported. The visit
soured his view of the Socialist movement in Russia, and later that year he wrote
a scathing attack titled Theory and Practice of Bolshevism. In 1921, he
married his second wife, Dora Black, with whom he explored his interest in
education. Russell and Black opened the progressive Beacon Hill School, and
Russell wrote such works as On Education (1926) and, a few years later, Education
and the Social Order (1932).
In 1931,
Russell became the third Earl of Russell. Five years later, he divorced Dora
Black and married his third wife, Patricia Spence. By this time, he was
extremely interested in morality and had written on the subject in his
controversial book Marriage and Morals (1932). He had moved to New York
to teach at City College but was dismissed from the position because of his
unconventional, liberal attitudes on sexuality. In 1938, Russell wrote the book
Power, A New Social Analysis. When
Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, Russell began to question his own
dogmatic pacifism and by 1939 had rejected it in favor of a more relativist
position. Believing Nazism to be an evil that needed to be stopped at all
costs, he campaigned tirelessly against it throughout the Second World War. He
returned to England from the United States in 1944. His teaching position at
Trinity College was restored to him, and he was granted the Order of Merit by
King George VI. In the period that followed, he wrote several important books,
including An Enquiry into Meaning and Truth (1940), Human Knowledge:
Its Scopes and Limits (1948), and his best-known work from the period, History
of Western Philosophy (1945). He also continued writing controversial
pieces on social, moral, and religious issues. Most of these were collected and
published in 1957 as Why I Am Not a Christian. From 1949 and for the
rest of his life, he was an active advocate of nuclear disarmament. In 1950,
Russell won the Nobel Prize in Literature. He spent his final years in North
Wales, actively writing until the end. He died on February 2, 1970 (SparkNotes,
2017).
Russell’s
Idea
Lust For Power: Part of Human Nature
Russell's view of
human nature, like that of Thomas Hobbes (1651) in his Leviathan, is somewhat pessimistic.
By Russell's account, the desire to empower oneself is unique to human nature.
No other animals besides Homo sapiens, he argues, are capable of being so
unsatisfied with their lot, that they should try to accumulate more goods than meet their needs. The
"impulse to power", as he calls it, does not arise unless one's basic
desires
have been sated. (Russell 1938:3). In Russell's view, the love of power is
nearly universal among people, although it takes on different guises from
person to person. A person with great ambitions may become the next Caesar, but
others may be content to merely dominate
the home. (Russell 1938:9)
This impulse to power
is not only "explicitly" present in leaders, but also sometimes
"implicitly" in those who follow. It is clear that leaders may pursue
and profit from enacting their own agenda,
but in a "genuinely cooperative enterprise", the followers seem to
gain vicariously from the achievements of the leader. (Russell 1938:7–8)
In stressing this
point, Russell is explicitly rebutting Friedrich Nietzsche's infamous "master-slave morality" argument. Russell
explains:
"Most men do not feel in themselves the
competence required for leading their group to victory, and therefore seek out
a captain who appears to possess the courage and sagacity necessary for the
achievement of supremacy... Nietzsche accused Christianity of inculcating a
slave-morality, but ultimate triumph was always the goal. 'Blessed are the
meek, for they shall inherit the
earth. '" (Russell 1938:9).
However, Russell is
quick to note that the invocation of human
nature should not come at the cost of ignoring the exceptional personal temperaments
of power-seekers. Russell separates individuals into two classes: those who are
imperious in a particular situation, and those who are not. The love of
power, according to Russell, is probably not motivated by Freudian
complexes, but rather by a sense of entitlement which arises from exceptional
and deep-rooted self-confidence.
(Russell 1938:11)
The imperious person
is successful due to both mental and social factors. For instance, the
imperious tend to have an internal confidence in their own competence and decisiveness which is relatively
lacking in those who follow. (Russell 1938:13) In reality, the imperious may or
may not actually be possessed of genuine
skill; rather, the source of their power may also arise out of their hereditary or religious role. (Russell
1938:11)
|
"I greatly doubt whether the
men who become pirate chiefs are those who are filled with retrospective
terror of their fathers, or whether Napoleon, at Austerlitz, really felt that
he was getting even with Madame Mère. I know nothing of the mother of Attila,
but I rather suspect that she spoilt the little darling, who subsequently
found the world irritating because it sometimes resisted his whims."
|
|
Bertrand Russell (1938:11)
|
Non-imperious persons
include those who submit to a
ruler, and those who withdraw
entirely from the situation. A confident and competent candidate for leadership
may withdraw from a situation when they lack
the courage to challenge a particular authority, are timid by temperament, simply do
not have the means to acquire power by the usual methods, are entirely indifferent to matters of power,
and/or are moderated by a well-developed
sense of duty. (Russell 1938:13–17)
When any given person
has a crisis in confidence, and is placed in a terrifying situation, they will
tend to behave in a predictable way: first, they submit to the rule of those
who seem to have greater competence in the most relevant task, and second, they
will surround themselves with that mass of persons who share a similarly low
level of confidence. Thus, people submit to the rule of the leader in a kind of
emergency solidarity. (Russell 1938:9–10)[4][5]
Russell argues that
the love of power can actually be a good thing. For instance, if one feels a
certain duty towards their neighbours, they may attempt to attain power to help
those neighbours (Russell 1938:215–216). In sum, the focus of any policy should
not be on a ban on kinds of power, but rather, on certain kinds of use of power
(Russell 1938:221).
|
"The love of power is a part
of human nature, but power-philosophies are, in a certain precise sense,
insane. The existence of the external world... can only be denied by a
madman... Certified lunatics
are shut up because of the proneness to violence when their pretensions are
questioned; the uncertified
variety are given control of powerful armies, and can inflict death and
disaster upon all sane men within their reach."
|
|
Bertrand Russell (1938:212)
|
According to
Russell's outlook on power, there are four conditions under which power ought
to be pursued with moral conviction. First, it must be pursued only as a means
to some end, and not as an end in itself; moreover, if it is an end in itself,
then it must be of comparatively lower value than one's other goals. Second,
the ultimate goal must be to help satisfy the desires of others. Third, the
means by which one pursues one's goal must not be egregious or malign, such
that they outweigh the value of the end; as (for instance) the gassing of
children for the sake of future democracy (Russell 1938:201). Fourth, moral
doctrines should aim toward truth and honesty, not the manipulation of others
(Russell 1938:216–218).
To enact these views,
Russell advises the reader to discourage cruel temperaments which arise out of
a lack of opportunities. Moreover, the reader should encourage the growth of
constructive skills, which provide the person with an alternative to easier and
more destructive alternatives. Finally, they should encourage cooperative
feeling, and curb competitive desires (Russell 1938:219–220, 222).
Other thinkers have
emphasised the pursuit of power as a virtue. Some philosophies are rooted in
the love of power because philosophies tend to be coherent unification in the
pursuit of some goal or desire. Just as a philosophy may strive for truth, it
may also strive for happiness, virtue, salvation, or, finally, power.
Reflection
Is the lust for power part of human nature? If
one answers, “man desire for power because human nature compel him to have
control over others”, then I believe that it does not answer the question
directly. That is not an answer at all to the question. It is like answering
the question, why elephants are so strong, by saying that, because it is the
largest animal in the world. Such answer does not explain the cause, but only
add another feature of the same question that begs again for an answer.
The pursuit of ‘power’ is definitely not a
facet of human nature! It is a vague effort to continue to be important because
of one’s upbringing that nurtured the ego and not the persona. If a person have
lived an orchestrated existence, graduated from elite schools, participated in
lots of extracurricular activities, had parents who concentrated on developing him
to be the most prominent person, , then he is in danger of entering the world of seeking power, and may
never recover at all.
The pursuit of power is usually limited to people who are very insecure.
Those who are secure in themselves are busy doing things to make this world
into a better place. This means that insecurity creates strong desires and
motivates people to strive for whatever can make them feel secure. People who strive
for money are the ones who need it the most and the same goes for power. If a
child felt powerless, neglected or weak early in his life then there is a very
big possibility that he will strive for power when he grows up.
The
desire for power may be somewhat misplaced. Generally, when people say they
want power, what they really want is freedom. And when they get that freedom,
they tend to stop wanting power.
I believe that desire for freedom and not
power, as opposed to Bertrand Russel’s idea, is a part of human nature. I
believe that what man, as well as animals, desire most is FREEDOM; freedom from
bothering others, for maintaining own life, or freedom from depending on
others. Such a desire was set by nature, because man believe that only a free
entity can be happy and creative.
In order to have freedom, a person has to
prevent others around him to have control, or mastery over him, either by
physical strength, or by strength by numbers. It is the fear of being under
subjugation that living beings seek Power; power by numbers (group power) and
power either by own physical strength, or by intelligence, or by ability in organizing
groups.
Man by nature wants freedom and tends to
have resistance over rules. That, I believe, is the reason why Adam and Eve
disobeyed God. God gave one rule to them and that is not to eat from the tree
located in the middle of the garden. Cain killed Abel because Abel was a threat
to his real freedom – to do what he wants.
The root of the matter is existential necessity
for freedom for every being! Man’s desire for power only starts when freedom is
compromised. Desire for power, then is a natural response/reaction when man’s
freedom is suppressed.
So,
to save the world from power seekers is to devise a society wherein maximum
individual freedom is accorded to every human being in the socio-political
system. Democracy must be reinvented, by avoiding its present power-fueled model
as Hobbes (1651) had prescribed to tame the brutish nature of man. He was
fundamentally wrong in assessing the bottom nature of man as nasty and brutish.
What man seeks by nature is pure freedom
Conclusion
In conclusion, the basic aspect of human nature is the drive, the
never-ending struggle to be free and to live in solidarity and harmony with one
another.
In other words, humans have a drive to live and a drive to be happy, to
live in peace, love and freedom. Freedom quenches the desire for power.
References
123 HelpMe Editors. (2017). Hobbes' View of Human
Nature and his Vision of Government. Retrieved from 123 HelpMe.com:
http://www.123helpme.com/assets/13117.html
Adler, Alfred (1927). Understanding Human Nature. Unknown: Garden
City Publishing. ISBN 1-56838-195-6. ASIN B000FFTGRI, ISBN 0-7661-4263-9
Griffin, Nicholas (2003). The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand
Russell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-63634-5. ISBN 0-521-63634-5
Hobbes, T. (1651). (R. Hay, Ed.) Retrieved
from http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3113/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf
Lloyd, S. A., & Sreedhar, S. (2014).
Hobbes' Moral and Political Philosophy. (Spring 2014 Edition). (E. N. Zalta, Ed.)
Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/hobbes-moral/
Russell,
Bertrand (1938). Power: A New Social Analysis. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-50653-7. ISBN 0-7661-3569-1
Russell, Bertrand (1969). The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell
1914–1944. London: Bantam Books. p. 193. ISBN 0-671-20358-4. ASIN B000KRWCMW, ISBN 0-415-22862-X
Sommerville, J. (1992). Thomas Hobbes:
Political Ideas in Historical Context. London: Macmillan.
Sommerville, J. (2017). Thomas Hobbes of
Malmesbury. Hobbesian Politics. Retrieved from
https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/367-092.htm
SparkNotes Editors. (2017). SparkNote on
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Retrieved from Spark Notes:
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hobbes/
SparkNotes Editors. (2017). SparkNote on
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). Retrieved from Spark Notes:
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/russell/
Williams, G. (2017). Hobbes: Moral and
Political Philosophy. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Resource, A Peer Reviewed Academic Resource: http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/
No comments:
Post a Comment