Posts by brisktiger56

Brian Foster3 said:Power is really just the next level of human desire once you've already exhausted your craving for wealth. Once you've chased down power, you move on to this even higher pursuit of knowledge, which is basically where all those material cravings finally die out.

At its core, wanting power is nothing more than trying to manipulate certain parts of reality just to suit your own needs. Honestly, if you look at it closely, the hunger for power is right up there with the desperate need for fame and glory.

Wealth, though? Are we talking cold hard cash or spiritual richness? I mean, someone could be considered powerful just because they’re rich in spirit, right? Like, if a person is charismatic enough to crack a joke—one they actually came up with themselves—and they manage to force everyone else into a fit of laughter, isn't that a form of power?

Whether it’s romantic or not, I guess the main thing is just being on the same page.

Tony, please give me a concrete example here: you say power is clearly manifested through action. But what about power that manifests without direct action? Like, for instance, the way our environment reacts to what we actually do.

I laid out my take. Fear itself doesn't diminish power—it's the decisions and actions taken *because* of fear that do the damage.
In my view, nobody else can mess with our power. Well, okay, maybe if someone is significantly more powerful than us, they can.

Fear can chip away at an individual's confidence, which rattles their self-esteem, and then that whole chain reaction hits their thought process and how they use their free will to make decisions. If someone stops acting the way they intended because they got spooked, that's a degradation of power. Or... maybe it's not the potential for power that's shrinking, but just the will behind it (hmmm)? Whatever part of those core factors gets cut out, the end result is less power. It’s like fire. You need fuel, heat, and oxygen. Take one away, and the fire is gone.

An influential person or a group can sway others, effectively stripping them of their power through persuasion (whatever serves their agenda), intimidation, or direct physical confrontation—in extreme cases, even total incapacitation. Basically, might makes right. The ability to physically overpower or kill someone is undeniable proof of power. Of course, an influential person could also use that same power to empower others, helping them grow from weakness into strength...

So, power is essentially potential energy—the capacity for psychological or physical action created by specific factors like free will, motivation, goals, and the resources needed to reach those goals. Power can be used or abused, much like fire, nuclear energy, or money.
Power can be directed at others or inward toward oneself; it can be visible or invisible. Whether it's "enough" or not is really up to the individual in question.

hm... thinking of will as the steering module, while power is just the potential we have sitting there. It still trips me up a bit.

The whole OP thing bugs me because... wait, is this supposed to be about what someone's watching on TV?! Are we learning how to read now? Nemruth brings up politicians, but they aren't even part of the conversation. Is focusing that hard for you guys?

.

Tony, if a person is physically and mentally sound, you can actually see their power in action when they use their free will—with a clear goal in mind—to execute a solid plan. That whole combination is what constitutes power. Maybe power (if you recall those elementary school lectures) is really just the union of all those elements; if you're missing even one piece of the puzzle, you won't be able to demonstrate any real power.

When someone starts a thread, they're essentially manifesting their power. I mean: they use their free will to write the OP, and they've got all the necessary prerequisites—the computer, the fingers hitting the keys, and the cash to pay the electric bill. Ultimately, it all results in power and the ability to draw people into the discussion.

I used to wonder how and when someone loses their power—like, does fear diminish their value, or... something else? Now, it seems to me that an individual's power is diminished whenever they're being deceived by someone else.

I don’t really see willpower as being synonymous with power.

More like... willpower is just the trigger that lets power actually get to work.

Sam Hayes said:Power is ultimately just a matter of will...

or... does will just happen to be how power shows up?

Anonymous said:In principle, we're saying the same thing here. Every time you cave to fear, your power weakens. Every time you push through it, your power grows.
How do you overpower fear? Through will—through decision. We don't need to get bogged down in a deep dive into the mechanics of how willpower works. It's pretty straightforward, like the old saying goes: "you just have to find the strength." Once you muster that strength, the fear loses its grip, and that power becomes yours to use.

I feel like we’re all circling the same drain, just trying to pin down how these different pieces fit together...

We keep tossing around terms like power and fear, then you jump in with willpower, decisions, strength, and overcoming fear.

There’s a lot of stuff swirling around in this metaphorical pot, and I’m just trying to zoom out and see a clear picture. You know? Like, if you were trying to define darkness, you could go on forever, but the clearest way to put it is simply that darkness is what happens when light is absent.

So, following that logic, maybe power is just a state caused by the presence of... something, while powerlessness is just the absence of... something else.

Is power actually just the state of having willpower present?
And is being powerless just what happens when that will is missing?

Jessica Gonzalez7 said: On man's natural enemies

There are four natural enemies of man: fear, clarity, power, and old age.

If one conquers the first enemy, fear, they attain spiritual clarity. With this spiritual clarity, when everything becomes crystal clear, a person no longer doubts their own decisions; instead, they become blinded by them. They will refuse to back down from anything, even when they must defy their own clarity and consider that it might actually be flawed.

Once they realize that this clarity is merely a point before their eyes, they will encounter power. This time, it will be true power; their desire becomes law. This is the most formidable of all enemies, and it is the easiest to succumb to once a man has become truly invincible. Power is nothing more than a burden on his destiny; such a man does not rule himself and lacks the wisdom to know how or when to wield his strength. If he realizes that clarity and power, when unguided by self-mastery, are more ruinous than mere mistakes, he will reach a point where he can govern everything. Only then will he know how to utilize his power, thereby defeating the third enemy.

At that stage, man will be at the end of his learning journey and, without warning, will face the final enemy: old age. By then, fears have vanished, and that impatient spiritual clarity is gone. It is a time when he wields his full power, yet also a time when he feels an irresistible urge to rest. If he gives in to this desire for repose and oblivion—if he indulges himself by yielding to exhaustion—he will lose the final round, and the enemy will prevail. His desire to withdraw will overpower his clarity, his power, and his knowledge. However, if a man overcomes this fatigue and lives out his destiny, he can be called a man of knowledge, even if it lasts only for the brief moment in which he manages to resist his final, indestructible enemy. That single moment of clarity, power, and knowledge is sufficient.

The moment being discussed is the transition of consciousness after death.

Power lies not in quantity, but in the quality of knowledge a person possesses. What use is knowing how many sticks of dynamite it takes to reach Jupiter? None at all.

Are those just your own observations or did you pull that from some book? Those lines feel a little too heavy-handed for my taste...

Isn't a person their own worst enemy—and arguably a natural enemy to everyone else, too?

Anonymous said:I promised I’d weigh in on this one.
Fear can definitely sap your strength if you let it take over the very thing you're afraid of. But it doesn't have to. You build power through every right decision and every principled action you take—and you can absolutely do that even when you're feeling terrified.
The real kicker isn't whether we feel fear, but whether we let fear be the thing that drives our decisions and actions.

It hasn't quite clicked for me yet...

My take is that fear essentially blocks power—specifically, each individual fear targets a specific type of capability. For instance, if a guy is too scared to walk up to a girl he likes, his "power" to initiate contact is basically frozen. It's also pretty interesting how procrastinating just feeds the fear, making the actual move—like finally talking to her—feel even more daunting.

How do you actually "overpower" fear? You'd need some kind of power to do that, wouldn't you?
You mentioned that by surrendering part of our power to fear, we diminish our specific capabilities...
So, what's the move? What should we be thinking or doing to prevent that from happening in the first place?

Anonymous said:

How do you keep from throwing away your own power?

You have to hold more sway than the person trying to pull your strings.

Let's take a step back for a second. Craving power isn't actually a sign of strength. That kind of desperation might work on people who are weak, but it won't touch someone truly powerful.
Basically, if you’re desperate to influence someone—or what we usually call "manipulating" them—that very desire is what drains your leverage.
If you want to protect your autonomy from someone trying to force their will on you, you just need to be less afraid.

So, does that mean fear just chips away at power, or does it kill it entirely?

It makes sense—I’m with you there. It really just comes down to how humans perceive things, and our perception is pretty limited... which is why we tend to focus so much more on physical manifestations.

But think about this: what if someone possesses power through, say... the power of persuasion > the power of physically forcing a change in someone else's decision? That’s still primarily a spiritual action, right? It isn't some physical act, like slapping someone to force them to change their mind. History is absolutely packed with examples where that kind of influence sits way above the physical realm—which actually backs up your point. When Hitler manages to sway the masses (who, let's face it, are the easiest to manipulate), millions of innocent people suffer. Death is basically just a byproduct of that kind of power, isn't it?

So, how do you actually stay aware when you're being manipulated? How do you hold onto your own common sense—assuming, of course, that your perspective is actually the rational one compared to whatever someone else is trying to shove down your throat?

And more importantly, how do you make sure you don't end up throwing away your own power in the process?

Not bad at all!

Potential—that intangible, almost ghostly thing...

It can show up in the physical realm or take a more spiritual route.

Physical power > say, having the strength to pick up a glass and grab a drink.
Spiritual power > like actually swallowing your pride and being able to listen to someone else's take.

Anonymous said:It doesn't necessarily have to be an active effect; like you pointed out, it could just be a possibility

I sketched out about three different ways to look at this so everyone can pick their own flavor... Regardless of how you slice it, power shows up through action, sure, but it also shows up through intentional inaction. I mean, an individual's freedom to choose whether or not to step in is its own kind of manifestation of power, isn't it?

If we’re looking at it from a religious angle: thought, word, deed, or omission > it all boils down to some form of "activity" that impacts someone or something somewhere.

Power...

isn't power really just potential? Like, an activity—an actual way of acting—that allows you to bring about some kind of targeted physical or spiritual change?

Brandon Kelly6 said:How do you decide what's underestimated versus what's overrated? What would you say is the "real price"...?

Look, if you're a grounded person, you probably realize that you actually have the agency to make things happen—and how you choose to act ends up defining you, just as much as it affects everyone else. That’s what power is. Whether it's big or small, whether you're physically fit or navigating life in a wheelchair, you've got some kind of leverage, and you can do a lot with it. If Sršen had ever sold herself short, or played down what she was capable of by retreating into her own head... she'd likely just be posting depressing stuff in those "mental health struggle" threads, moping about how powerless she is.

"When she was 12, Ana Sršen had a leg amputated due to a sarcoma. She took up swimming and started competing at a serious level back in 1995[1]. In 2000, Ana Sršen launched training programs and a swim school specifically for children with special needs."

Link to the article

Today, Ana has that power, and she's channeled it into helping kids who really need it.

Brandon Kelly6 said:People generally tend to exaggerate their feelings and shrink the whole world down to just their own perspective.
this little bit of "power" I have is honestly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. that's what I want to learn and understand... without kidding myself into thinking I can actually change anything important.

Most people tend to underestimate that "little" bit of influence they actually do hold.

Brandon Kelly6 said:It’s just a feeling. Usually fleeting and pretty unrealistic...

Well, if you follow that logic, everything around you is just some transient, unreal sensation... You're definitely underselling the influence you actually have, though. You really are.

dustyskipper3 said:True power is essentially 'inner peace,' having self-control, or perhaps just the ability to master one's own selfishness and those more primitive, animalistic impulses we all carry within us.

Winning against other people makes you strong; however, the one who conquers themselves is what I would call truly powerful. (Lao-tzu)🧐

It’s similar to what Zachary Cook2 mentioned regarding spiritual 'black magic' being a way to 'conquer' others, whereas spiritual 'white magic' is about mastering oneself—it's how you defeat those who lash out at others simply because they lack the capacity to control their own negativity and ego.

👍

Power is a lot like money—you can use it for good, or you can absolutely wreck things with it if you aren't careful...

exactly....

Words aren't really built to handle the weight of true sincerity, raw emotions, or deeply held convictions... but hey, when we talk, words are all we’ve got. They are what they are—and honestly, if you approach communication with the assumption that words are fundamentally flawed, you might as well just stay quiet or stop typing altogether for the sake of everyone involved.

If someone fails to grasp a sentence you've sent or an opinion you've shared, the burden is on them to ask for clarification or dig into the nuances... If someone is actively refusing to understand—much like how people clearly refused to wrap their heads around Hegel—then you should probably just let them sit in their own stubbornness, no matter how narrow-minded it may be.

p.s. Nuance is everything if you actually want to understand something. It’s like saying you’re going to see a comedy at the AMC theater; there is a massive difference between a dark comedy and a rom-com. Personally, I'd much rather catch one of those dark ones 😉. At the end of the day, they all fall under the "comedy" umbrella, but the internal distinctions within that category are what actually matter.

Ethan Johnson16 said:this line. It’s all about context, isn't it? I'm trying to show how contempt, insincerity, selfishness, and greed—all those hallmarks of ego-driven discourse—crop up regardless of the setting. First off, there's always that unspoken demand for something in return. And second, there's this constant expectation that you owe something back. Both sides are inherently political. Or are they? 🤦
Ultimately, it all boils down to negotiation.

I feel for you if that's been your experience with relationships so far. But look, we aren't all cut from the same cloth. Some people, faced with some heavy-duty criticism, actually swallow their pride and realize they were dead wrong—so they approach the critic with genuine respect instead of disdain, saying things like, "Thanks, you helped me see how my own convictions were totally out of touch with reality..." If there is even one single instance where that happens without someone being a jerk or using sarcasm, then the whole claim that every spoken sentence contains a grain of contempt just... falls apart. Not everyone is playing politics, manipulating others, or acting like they're owed something just for showing up... lonegarder laid it out pretty well; I can't help but agree.

slymaker9: So, basically, you agree in principle, and an individual could prove to you that they truly want to hear, value, and handle your honest opinion?

Hegel's claim is only partially right. I'd say I agree maybe 50% of the time 😉. It isn't always as black and white as he makes it out to be. Personally, I think you should speak your mind if someone actually cares, but it’s on us to judge who we're talking to—sometimes it's smarter to just play dumb and dodge the question entirely. That's where the real wisdom lies. Hegel's statement feels a bit lacking in actual wisdom because he—miracle of miracles—simply realized that some people aren't worth being honest with. I mean... just think about all the people you've met in your life that you wouldn't want to be caught in the same elevator with, let alone share a booth at a diner! Imagine being brutally honest with them and saying, "Look, you're a total disaster, you've raised a family of losers, and if you don't fix your act, you're going to end up in a state penitentiary... actually, that's probably where you belong."

Sure, that kind of feedback could be "fertile ground" for someone to actually improve, but usually, for a million different reasons—mostly because it hits the ego and pride—the most predictable response to that kind of honesty is a physical reaction, like a fist meeting the honest person's nose. 😬

I honestly wonder what groundbreaking thing Hegel discovered with this sentence that we didn't already know, and where on earth did he get the idea that his claim applies to EVERY possible scenario.

When my wife asks me if these shoes go with that skirt, I'll tell her straight up: "No." She might prefer that they do, and she might not love my answer, but usually she just goes, "Fine, I know you're being honest, and I value that more than whether the shoes match the skirt perfectly," and tells me to keep being that way. Is that really a sign of contempt?