Merci Mary. It took a while to get there, I mostly think what I learned in academia was returning to the simplicity of form to integrate and interrogate complex ideas. It's why I stopped at post-structuralism. Lord help me
I enjoy reading your thoughtful forays into the world of ideas. And I am likely jumping in here a bit early since this is a three part foray and I'm not sure where you're headed, but I found myself thinking that while all three theories represented here are interesting to contemplate, they are also rather reductive.
People have many motivations for their actions, several summarized in Maslow's heirarchy. Pleasure, power and meaning certainly drive certain personalities, while others seem more driven by, say, comfort as distinct from Frued's Eros, or security in the form of a regular paycheck as distinct from Adler's power, and as for meaning many find meaning in pleasure and/or power.
What I believe fascists understand better than most other ists is that 1) people are driven more by emotions than reason - control the emotions and you control the person; and 2) morals are for losers - the moral authority of a fascist (no matter how immoral) cannot be questioned, because the fascist dictates what behaviors by which people are acceptable regardless of existing laws, protocols, or basic human decency.
I'm looking forward to reading where your foray takes you next.
Yes indeed, they certainly are reductive--pleasure/power/purpose surely can't be the sole motivators--and I don't think Frankl believes in his theory as a panacea, simply as a framework. This is one of the fascinating aspects of theory--it takes a lot of chutzpah to propose ANY idea that applies to all humanity, and I respect the effort, even if in the end it's inevitably Sisyphean. I do think that those definitions found in Maslow's hierarchy to fit quite neatly into pleasure/power/purpose, and of course a paycheck/security is a form of avoiding suffering/pursuing power, depending how you view it.
Re: Fascism, you're spot on. The emotional creature that exists within all of us is FAR EASIER to manipulate than the empathetic one. To this day, I don't see anyone on the left using this principle to appeal to the better emotions of our nature. Love CAN BE as strong as hatred, but it requires killer messaging, and from the DNC to the various parties on the Left throughout the world, the message is very weak right now, i.e. "we should be ashamed / should be better / should love everyone." Should doesn't work in a political setting. Action is key. And most folks, in the end, I suspect, prefer to be told what to do.
As for love and the Left, it's not official party leadership (which is definitely the point), but I love reading what philosophers and activists like bell hooks and adrienne marie brown and Audrey Lorde have to say. Because they know how to make love powerful in a political way that inspires psychological and social change.
My June conversation group took on Love as its theme with the starting prompt being its overuse and trivialization particularly in popular culture. We considered the Greeks many words for different aspects of love and how our single word has lost its power because of this abuse. The conversation reinforced for me that when you think of it as an act as opposed to an emotion, the power of the word is resurrected.
Jeffrey, as you know, the luminaries you mentioned understood/stand that love as represented by acts of care, commitment, responsibility, and respect is not merely a personal feeling but a practice that can transform individuals, communities, nations. One does not have to LIKE someone in order to perform an act of love that enriches both the lover and the loved. This understanding, I believe, is the mark of true civilization, and something that has eluded all but perhaps the most homogenous and isolated H. sapiens' societies. Introduce "the other," and H. sapiens' minds are blown. That we must be constantly be reminded of the power of acts of kindness, respect, etc, that adults teach their toddlers to be nice and share and then treat adult life as a zero-sum game is the ultimate human hypocrisy.
As Samuel noted, most people want to be led and by following achieve a level of comfort and security that they trust will always be there - a sort of universal personal security program. Not until the people who lead us place value on "be nice and share" and demonstrate their valuation of that precept with acts of care, commitment, responsibility, respect...will their followers do the same. "We have met the enemy and they are us."
Thanks for this thoughtful response and foray into the ACT of love as opposed to the word or the sentiment. I’ve always felt that love is a verb, which is the title of a John Mayer song that isn’t his finest but nonetheless resonates: “love is a verb, it ain’t a thing, it’s not something you own, it’s not something you scream”
The theories that inform our lives are also blueprints for how we think and filter the world. After reading your essay I much prefer Viktor Frankl's view. Also, welcome to Vienna next week ;).
I, too, resonated most with Frankl ... and of course there's more than pleasure/power/purpose to consider in the scheme of our lives, but the triptych that I studied was exceedingly useful both as a framework for how I approach(ed) life as well as a way to succinctly figure out how to write characters with various "needs"
Love your response to the tour client. My uncle told me a very similar thing recently, but I didn't have the zinger of the response ready, as you did. I just thought: it's funny how casual it can feel, when the stakes are so high. Films make it seem more dramatic historically, but we need powerful storytelling to wake us up to the times we live in today.
Grateful for your analysis of Frankl. Cultivating hope is no small feat. Bravo !
Thank you sir for the kind words. I imagine folks like the server or your uncle who go through life with such calcified notions about others are in some respect incredibly lonely. It's got to feel quite alienating to be so convinced that who a stranger decides to have sex with is at a danger to society. What a world.
You excel Samuel in summarizing the key fundamentals points of philosophies and perspectives. Thanks for the succinct insights here.
Merci Mary. It took a while to get there, I mostly think what I learned in academia was returning to the simplicity of form to integrate and interrogate complex ideas. It's why I stopped at post-structuralism. Lord help me
I enjoy reading your thoughtful forays into the world of ideas. And I am likely jumping in here a bit early since this is a three part foray and I'm not sure where you're headed, but I found myself thinking that while all three theories represented here are interesting to contemplate, they are also rather reductive.
People have many motivations for their actions, several summarized in Maslow's heirarchy. Pleasure, power and meaning certainly drive certain personalities, while others seem more driven by, say, comfort as distinct from Frued's Eros, or security in the form of a regular paycheck as distinct from Adler's power, and as for meaning many find meaning in pleasure and/or power.
What I believe fascists understand better than most other ists is that 1) people are driven more by emotions than reason - control the emotions and you control the person; and 2) morals are for losers - the moral authority of a fascist (no matter how immoral) cannot be questioned, because the fascist dictates what behaviors by which people are acceptable regardless of existing laws, protocols, or basic human decency.
I'm looking forward to reading where your foray takes you next.
Cheers!
Yes indeed, they certainly are reductive--pleasure/power/purpose surely can't be the sole motivators--and I don't think Frankl believes in his theory as a panacea, simply as a framework. This is one of the fascinating aspects of theory--it takes a lot of chutzpah to propose ANY idea that applies to all humanity, and I respect the effort, even if in the end it's inevitably Sisyphean. I do think that those definitions found in Maslow's hierarchy to fit quite neatly into pleasure/power/purpose, and of course a paycheck/security is a form of avoiding suffering/pursuing power, depending how you view it.
Re: Fascism, you're spot on. The emotional creature that exists within all of us is FAR EASIER to manipulate than the empathetic one. To this day, I don't see anyone on the left using this principle to appeal to the better emotions of our nature. Love CAN BE as strong as hatred, but it requires killer messaging, and from the DNC to the various parties on the Left throughout the world, the message is very weak right now, i.e. "we should be ashamed / should be better / should love everyone." Should doesn't work in a political setting. Action is key. And most folks, in the end, I suspect, prefer to be told what to do.
As for love and the Left, it's not official party leadership (which is definitely the point), but I love reading what philosophers and activists like bell hooks and adrienne marie brown and Audrey Lorde have to say. Because they know how to make love powerful in a political way that inspires psychological and social change.
My June conversation group took on Love as its theme with the starting prompt being its overuse and trivialization particularly in popular culture. We considered the Greeks many words for different aspects of love and how our single word has lost its power because of this abuse. The conversation reinforced for me that when you think of it as an act as opposed to an emotion, the power of the word is resurrected.
Jeffrey, as you know, the luminaries you mentioned understood/stand that love as represented by acts of care, commitment, responsibility, and respect is not merely a personal feeling but a practice that can transform individuals, communities, nations. One does not have to LIKE someone in order to perform an act of love that enriches both the lover and the loved. This understanding, I believe, is the mark of true civilization, and something that has eluded all but perhaps the most homogenous and isolated H. sapiens' societies. Introduce "the other," and H. sapiens' minds are blown. That we must be constantly be reminded of the power of acts of kindness, respect, etc, that adults teach their toddlers to be nice and share and then treat adult life as a zero-sum game is the ultimate human hypocrisy.
As Samuel noted, most people want to be led and by following achieve a level of comfort and security that they trust will always be there - a sort of universal personal security program. Not until the people who lead us place value on "be nice and share" and demonstrate their valuation of that precept with acts of care, commitment, responsibility, respect...will their followers do the same. "We have met the enemy and they are us."
Pardon my ramble.
Thanks for this thoughtful response and foray into the ACT of love as opposed to the word or the sentiment. I’ve always felt that love is a verb, which is the title of a John Mayer song that isn’t his finest but nonetheless resonates: “love is a verb, it ain’t a thing, it’s not something you own, it’s not something you scream”
The theories that inform our lives are also blueprints for how we think and filter the world. After reading your essay I much prefer Viktor Frankl's view. Also, welcome to Vienna next week ;).
I, too, resonated most with Frankl ... and of course there's more than pleasure/power/purpose to consider in the scheme of our lives, but the triptych that I studied was exceedingly useful both as a framework for how I approach(ed) life as well as a way to succinctly figure out how to write characters with various "needs"
Thank you for another enlightening essay!❤️
Love your response to the tour client. My uncle told me a very similar thing recently, but I didn't have the zinger of the response ready, as you did. I just thought: it's funny how casual it can feel, when the stakes are so high. Films make it seem more dramatic historically, but we need powerful storytelling to wake us up to the times we live in today.
Grateful for your analysis of Frankl. Cultivating hope is no small feat. Bravo !
Look forward to Part II
Thank you sir for the kind words. I imagine folks like the server or your uncle who go through life with such calcified notions about others are in some respect incredibly lonely. It's got to feel quite alienating to be so convinced that who a stranger decides to have sex with is at a danger to society. What a world.
Great article. Combining Franco’s thoughts with the system theories provides a clear picture of conditioning and man’s will to act.