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.
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"
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.
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!❤️