Link to other articles
The stigma of power, and making evil agreeable: framing, individualism
As can be seen from many of my past articles, YouTube videos are surprisingly very motivating for writing. The process tends involve me watching random YouTube videos, hearing some sentence or shallow concept that triggers my own imagination and thoughts, and then writing about it. These videos act as a great scaffolding for thinking (which infrequently gets translated into writing; I should really write more).
In today's edition, the inspirational video was by Robert Greene, about "life philosophies" discussed by the great philosophers of yore.
To begin, I must say, I've tried reading a few books, or at least listening to a few of the major figures, in the "modern intellectual" sub-genre (I don't know what term to use but this includes the umbrella of modern self-proclaimed "thinkers"; yes I guess I fall into that category too now...) and am consistently disappointed by the ubiquitous shallowness and arrogance masquerading as "profundity" and as "life-changing". Perhaps such concepts are profound and life-changing to someone who has never seriously thought about anything; but there comes a level where it is like listening to parakeets incapable of generating new language, and whose "original ideas" are just shallow, obvious, and usually wrong; not to mention the clear associations with "readers of books" (see this article) festering among both themselves and their fanbase (an "intellectual fanbase" is already an annoying contradiction). I shouldn't be too harsh though, many of them are very good communicators, and are great for getting your foot in the door for "thinking" or whatever.
I bring up these "modern thinkers" to juxtapose Robert Greene as the only one of them whose ideas I strongly respect and whose writing I strongly admire. I've read the first two chapters of "48 Laws of Power", and also the first three chapters of "Art of Human Nature". "48 Laws of Power" in particular is an incredibly good book, "Art of Human Nature" isn't as incredible but is still a great book in its own right.
Meta-level: but these books are bad!
To address the elephant in the room, "48 Laws of Power" (and all the rest of Greene's content) has an obvious Machiavellian tinge (the entire book is indebted to Machiavelli it seems). This is low-hanging fodder for folks to play the card of morality (which is, by the way, a power play in itself) against both Greene and anyone who would dare read that book. This is sensed and feared by the readers of the book, and it is always extremely funny to see reading lists mentioning "Art of Human Nature" but not "48 Laws of Power"... let's be real, if someone has read "Art of Human Nature", they have also read "48 Laws of Power", but due to the stigma associated with that book and with Machiavelli it is underrepresented in these reading lists. To see the glass half full, by not talking about the book, it is clear that those readers understood and are applying the lessons of the book (clearly I haven't internalized the lesson yet... nor do I really want to, to that degree, but thats the subject of another article). However, I must note that "48 Laws of Power", Machiavelli, and related works are not as vile as the holier-than-thou demographic would have you believe.
I could outline several reasons for this, but I'll keep it short. First of all, everyone uses these tactics anyway. Those who claim these books are bad do so not because they are great people, but because they want to be seen as great people, and will go as far as to denigrate and slander others as being "immoral" (these accusations have potential to be extremely socially devastating) to get that reputation of "guardian of the good". Strangely reminiscent of these selfish, coldly harmful power tactics, right? The very ones promoted by Greene and Machiavelli? I do not mean to promote this lifestyle myself; I personally do not condone these ambitious routes and lenses focused on power and personal gain, for many reasons; so in fact I would not even be in the camp supporting Machiavelli; but at the same time, I am cognizant that these concepts of power roll out everywhere and in everyone (in civilization, at least). I would argue that human beings naturally "play the game" (in most cases without knowing it or seeing it through that lens; obvious examples include gossip, never being in the wrong, rampant hypocrisy and contextual changes of opinion, censoring of speech or opinions, keeping of secrets while seeking those of others, and any practical observation and analyzing of people). So I'd argue that though, yes, following these books is indeed amoral, and has huge potential to be vile, it is not any more amoral or vile than the average person's day-to-day life anyway; and since most people are okay with the morality of their daily actions (and in fact think that they are good people, even better than most) then it would follow that reading these books confers no extra villainy. Second, don't listen to what people say: everybody wants to read this book. The moralizers too. Human beings love the feeling of power; it is a strong subject of daydreams since childhood, and at the end of the "rainbow" of most ambition is the pot of gold of some kind of power. More evidence: people absolutely love to win, and love to beat others. I would even say people love to manipulate others; ever see that grin on the face of someone who is in the process of tricking you? Or when they have tied you into a knot, and both of you know you can do nothing, and you suffocate with emotion, but all you're met with is that ecstatic grin? Ever felt that grin come on when you're playing some board game, and you know that your friend is about to fall in your trap? People love power, and people love superiority, and it makes sense as an evolutionary adaptation. Turns out that such heated competition and power struggles lead to great gains in progress, innovation, and heroism (and impress mates), so no wonder these things are ingrained into us. The point being, that these natural drives, though silent and unconscious for most people, colour our actions, beliefs, "personal story" and view of the world; and clearly it is then natural for all of us to want to know how to "gain power". It might be one of the most alluring concepts to any human being. There is no denying that "48 Laws of Power" plays into this built-in fantasy.
For these reasons it is clearly not more vile than usual to read these books. Though hopefully none of those readers use the tactics on me if I meet them (though I'm usually safe because people tend to read things a bit mindlessly anyway).
Once again I will reiterate that I am not "pro-Machiavelli" at all, but understanding this perspective is akin to studying psychology or sociology, since these power games and drives are omnipresent by nature.
Marketing power: desires and effective communication
This article was inspired by the first point of the video, starting at 0:44, when Robert Greene says (paraphrased):
"Marcus Aurelius wrote that if two people are in a boxing ring, and one person gets hit a lot, and starts whining things like: 'why are you so cruel to me? This is evil! You should be ashamed of yourself!' such behavior would be looked down upon as pathetic; because it misunderstands and tries to go against the game. The point is that life is some competitive game, just like the boxing ring, and you're going to get bitten, hurt, and mistreated by others, in this world where some people are bad. You must stop taking everything personally, and try to learn from mistakes and shortcomings, and tap into inner strength from the inside rather than blame the external world."
I'd guess this Marcus Aurelius quote is from the Meditations. I haven't read up to the "boxing ring" part that Greene refers to (though see this article for some notes about the first part). From the sections of the Meditations which I have read, I can see a connection between this boxing ring analogy and the rest of his stoic philosophy: life is like a boxing ring where you are expected to get hit and feel pain, and will receive these blows, and that this is not something under your control; you simply find yourself in the arena, and cannot leave it; the best you can do is understand the configuration and nature of the arena and the sport going on around you, and adapt to it in the way that "optimizes" your experience. That's how I would analyze the boxing ring analogy had I read it in the Meditations.
Comparing that to Greene's take, they are indeed very similar. Greene's presentation of this does have an underlying connotation connecting to "social power" in particular, though it is merely implied. After all, this is the author of "48 Laws of Power", whose insights are generally geared towards power, social observation, and strategy; and he often does loop back to these things in most of the concepts he presents. Thus there is an implied link here to power. The general concept of "reframing injury without blame" can be applied to power also, one could say; instead of getting swept along by the distracting and naive deliria of morality and self-centeredness, one can instead coolly observe these social interactions. Instead of taking injury or harmful social experiences personally, one can instead learn from them, and observe the actors, and then channel them later on.
In the above paragraph, notice at the end, when I loop power into the meaning of the quote, the writing can leave a bad taste in someone's mouth. In fact, the entire first section of this article is devoted to discussing the existing stigma and taboo surrounding these topics of power dynamics and the "48 Laws of Power". Clearly power is a touchy subject for many reasons.
However, perhaps one can discuss power, or present it in a positive light, without activating these alarms in the listener. The expert at this is Robert Greene himself.
Let's contrast Robert Greene with the stuff I wrote. My points explicitly mention power, and directly loop in all of those aspects of power which people and society consider taboo. Read again: "one could say; instead of getting swept along by the distracting and naive deliria of morality and self-centeredness, one can instead coolly observe these social interactions. Instead of taking injury or harmful social experiences personally, one can instead learn from them, and observe the actors, and then channel them later on." This is the absolute worst way to communicate anything about a touchy subject such as power as it directly loops in all those things that society tells you are bad. The word "power" itself has dark connotations, people hate hearing it unless they're the ones using it to refer to themselves, but after so much exposure to movies and stories about abuses of power, and prevailing narratives of "the rich are evil" and "the government is corrupt" (people are extremely hypocritical on these points, by the way), "power" comes to be associated with these things. The stories and people considered to be "good" are not framed in terms of power (although they almost always involve it, in reality). I also literally bring in "distracting and naive deliria of morality", "coolly observe social interactions", "observe the actors", "channel them later on"... in other words I have done an extremely good job at explicitly looping in the concept of Machiavellianism here. Independent of the point (I must reiterate it is not my point, it is just me attempting to explain Greene's perspective), any reader of this will look at it, and think to themselves, "wow, this guy is a manipulator... I need to avoid this guy". They will then stop reading, dismiss the point, and perhaps slander me on social media for the sake of... well... their own social power.
A caveat is that if I had a reputation as an intellectual, and a visible following, I would have the problem of people believing me without thinking (one could say this is not a "problem" at all). But if I have no such credentials, then I run into the opposite problem of people dismissing me without thinking, with the salt in the wound of hatred and ridicule.
In contrast, Robert Greene, independent of his intellectual reputation, would make the point sink down smoother than butter. Watch any of his videos. He is always so relaxed, and calming, and inoffensive, and nice, and (seemingly) harmless. This in itself makes his points about power all the more credible, by their seeming contradiction with his persona: people would think "well, this is clearly a good guy, and a respectable guy; so his thoughts about power are clearly worth hearing". This persona allows people to indulge in what they really want (power, doing whatever they want, winning) while also dealing with the guilt that would generally arise from contradicting their societally maintained morals (they project morality into Robert Greene, with his calmness and agreeability, and thus make the connection that they too can and will be moral while playing these power games). With the moral "barrier to entry" dealt with, people can be open to these thoughts about power. And indeed, they'll listen when they get a chance, since as discussed, people truly do love power. Beyond this, such a soothing character, with slow and smooth speech, fluid hand gestures, never showing annoyance or loss of control despite his agreeability, is hypnotizing and disarming to the point where any listener would be inclined to agree with the things he says. Getting a point across has more to do with your persona than your point.
People think that his persona frames the point about power in a positive light, making it worth listening to; but they don't see that the persona is actually forged by the point. This persona is intentional.
Also, in a "live" setting; notice he always explicitly agrees with the people interviewing him, never dismising them, before looping in his points and connecting his to their statement. He does this even when the interviewer makes a stupid point, or an obvious point; but he never lets on that they made an obvious point, or that their intelligence is lesser than his, or that they are merely "beginners" at this game whereas he is the expert. This is the opposite strategy of another popular "teacher" named Sadhguru, maybe I'll write an article on him at some later point. Rather, he harnesses the opposite energy: of connection, of bond; while feeding into their ego and validating their intelligence (which people are quite insecure about). The other party will love you for this, and we all know love is blind; so they will be more likely to agree with you, support you, and act in the way you would like. I feel the need to reiterate: I am simply pointing this out in terms of a strategy used by many manipulators, or many socially powerful people; I am not saying that all bonds are intentionally strategic or manipulative. Rather that the strong emotional energy of a bond, and of validation, can be used, and does get used, for the sake of social power.
Finally, by indirectly talking about power, by mentioning a Marcus Aurelius quote, the point sails smoothly. It's a quote by Marcus Aurelius, who has one of the most intellectual and noble reputations of all time; any conenction to the wise master of ancient times is sure to be accepted without thinking twice. The link to power was very implicit here, but does get made by the listener; so the communication is devoid of the barrage of negative energy that plagues my direct explanations, and instead replaces it with the benevolent wisdom of a stoic sage.
These strategies can be applied to just about any topic, and combined with positions of authority or social status, ensure that people will truly agree with you about topics, even ones that are taboo. Power is the perfect topic for this, since it is societally taboo, yet something that people actually do desire to harness and achieve.
There are better roads
I personally do not believe this way of power to be the most "optimal" road to pursue. Greene would probably argue that Aurelius' analogy of the boxing ring entails an "optimal strategy" of understanding and exploiting power dynamic, as the way to deal with the arena we find ourselves in; I would disagree, and I'm sure Aurelius would disagree too. See thoughts on the Meditations Book 1, or just read any paragraph from those writings; Aurelius clearly has a lens detached from worldly concepts such as power. I agree with this, I believe the optimal way to be in that more "spiritual" direction (I'm too tired to think of a better adjective than "spiritual"), and not towards personal gain or glory. Still, I believe it important to know and understand these concepts of power, for many reasons, including that it is indeed omnipresent in our world, that the best way to see the better path is to understand the more "obvious" one of power and selfishness, and that the nature of good and righteousness can be better understood by exposing and contrasting to the "ugliness" underlying the "normal" ways of life.