Me:
Is this a good definition of “power”: ..the ability to cause an occurrence resistant to taking place…?
AI:
The definition you provided, "the ability to cause an occurrence resistant to taking place," is somewhat abstract and may not fully capture the broad and nuanced concept of power. Power is a multifaceted and complex idea that can manifest in various forms.
While your definition hints at the idea of influencing or controlling outcomes, it might be a bit too abstract and difficult to grasp without additional context.
A more common definition of power is: "the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way." Power can be political, social, economic, physical, or psychological, and it often involves influencing or controlling the behavior or actions of others.
Depending on the context and the specific domain you're discussing, the definition of power can vary. It's important to provide more context when discussing power to ensure clarity and precision in your communication.
Me:
Doesn’t your conventional definition of power include, for example, my ability to wash dishes or fold pieces of paper (as stand ins for any set of innumerable trivialities) in a “particular way”?
AI:
The conventional definition of power, "the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way," is indeed quite broad and can encompass a wide range of actions, from trivial everyday tasks like washing dishes or folding pieces of paper to more complex and significant actions.
However, it's essential to note that when we discuss power in the broader societal or philosophical context, we often focus on power dynamics between individuals, groups, or institutions and their ability to influence or control outcomes in a more substantial and consequential manner.
In everyday language, we may use the term "power" to describe our ability to complete simple tasks or actions, but in academic, political, or social discourse, it often pertains to the ability to affect change, exert influence, or make decisions that have more significant implications.
The context in which the term "power" is used determines the scope and significance of the actions it refers to.
Me:
Doesn’t your conventional definition include my ability to wash dishes or fold pieces of paper or crack my knuckles (as stand ins for innumerable like trivialities) in a “particular way” and is therefore over broad?
AI:
You are correct that the conventional definition of power, which states that it is "the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way," is indeed quite broad and can encompass even the ability to perform trivial tasks like washing dishes, folding paper, or cracking knuckles.
This definition, in its broad sense, is intentionally inclusive and can be applied to actions ranging from the mundane to the profound.
In most practical conversations and academic discussions, the term "power" is used to refer to more significant and consequential forms of influence, control, or authority, such as political power, social power, or economic power.
The broader definition can include trivial activities, but the significance of power in any given context depends on the specific actions, their consequences, and the relationships involved.
So, while the broad definition can encompass trivial activities, it is often important to consider the context and intent of the discussion when interpreting the meaning of "power."
In more scholarly and substantial discussions, it typically refers to the capacity to influence, control, or shape outcomes in a more meaningful way.
Me:
But if the definition includes the ability to do trivial things in a unique way that common sense and reasonableness wouldn’t see as examples of power, snap my fingers, say, then isn’t it a flawed definition?
AI:
Your point is well-taken. If a definition of power is so broad that it includes trivial actions like snapping fingers or other mundane activities, it may indeed be overly inclusive and less useful for understanding the more meaningful and conventional concepts of power as they are typically discussed in academic, political, or social contexts.
A definition of power should ideally focus on the capacity to influence, control, or shape outcomes in a way that has social, political, or economic significance.
While the broad definition encompassing even trivial actions is technically correct, it can be considered overly inclusive and may not capture the essence of what people generally mean when they talk about power in a broader societal or philosophical sense.
In practical discussions, it's important to provide context and nuance when talking about power to ensure that the term is understood in the intended way.
For more rigorous or academic discussions of power, a definition that focuses on influence, control, and authority in a meaningful context may be more appropriate.
Me,
Why does power have to focus on “ social, political, or economic significance”? What if I can lift a car, an obvious example of power that doesn’t have any of these significances?
AI:
You're absolutely correct, and I apologize for any unintended limitations in my previous responses. Power doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to social, political, or economic significance. It can manifest in various forms and contexts, and physical strength, like the ability to lift a car, is indeed a clear example of power.
Power is a multifaceted concept, and it can encompass a wide range of abilities, including physical strength, which has no direct social, political, or economic implications. The significance and context of power depend on how it is being discussed and in what domain.
So, while social, political, and economic significance are common aspects often associated with discussions of power, it is not the only dimension.
The ability to perform extraordinary physical feats, for example, is another valid representation of power. It's important to consider the specific context and the type of power being discussed when determining its significance and implications.
Me:
So while power can manifest itself in any number of situations, I’m trying to think of concrete counter examples to my original definition that disprove it. I’m not married to it. Can you think of any?
AI:
Your original definition, "the ability to cause an occurrence resistant to taking place," is certainly open to interpretation and discussion, but it doesn't necessarily have concrete counterexamples that disprove it.
It's a somewhat abstract and philosophical way of looking at power, and there may not be straightforward situations where it clearly doesn't apply.
However, you can find instances where this definition might not be the most suitable or precise way to describe power.
For example:
- Physical Strength: As previously mentioned, the ability to lift a heavy object or perform physically demanding tasks might not fit well with the notion of "causing an occurrence resistant to taking place." This is because it doesn't involve resistance in the same way that, say, influencing a political decision does.
- Artistic Expression: An artist's creative abilities, while a form of power in their own right, may not neatly align with this definition. Artistic expression isn't about causing something resistant to taking place; it's about creating and expressing.
- Scientific Discovery: When a scientist makes a groundbreaking discovery, it's more about uncovering a truth or a phenomenon rather than causing an occurrence resistant to taking place. It's about understanding the world rather than directly resisting something.
Your definition, while intriguing, might be more suited for abstract philosophical discussions rather than capturing the full range of power in practical situations. It's essential to consider the specific context and nature of the power being discussed when evaluating any definition.
Me:
To take your headings:
if I can lift something extraordinarily difficult to move, as just one example of physical strength, then isn’t resistance or the quality of being resistant built into its innate bulk;
I wonder if artistic expression also involves resistance in at least two ways:
creating something artistic from nothing involves overcoming reality in that prior to its creation there was either nothing there or something was there that you have by your will and effort transformed into art;
the second way might be what you create might elicit in the audience for it, laughter or exhilaration, or catharsis or any range or deep going responses to your creation; and I’d raise this same kind of reasoning mutatis mutandi to scientific work.
What do you think?
AI
You bring up some interesting perspectives, and I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Let's delve into these ideas a bit further:
- Physical Strength: You're correct that in lifting something extraordinarily difficult to move, there is an element of resistance inherent in the object's bulk or weight. In this context, your original definition, "the ability to cause an occurrence resistant to taking place," could be seen as applicable.
- Artistic Expression: Your interpretation of artistic expression involving resistance in terms of creating something from nothing is intriguing. The act of transforming a blank canvas or an empty stage into a work of art does involve overcoming the initial absence or void, and this is a form of resistance. Additionally, the second point about the emotional and intellectual responses that art can elicit is also valid. The artist's work can indeed resist or challenge the audience's preconceptions or emotions, leading to a kind of resistance or transformation.
- Scientific Work: Similarly, scientific discovery can be seen as resisting ignorance or a lack of understanding. Scientists work to uncover truths and phenomena that were previously unknown, and this process can be be regarded as a form of resistance against the unknown.
Your insights highlight the complexity of power and how it can manifest in various forms. They also demonstrate that your original definition, while abstract, can be applied in diverse contexts.
It's important to recognize that the concept of power is not limited to one specific definition, and it can take on many dimensions depending on the context in which it is discussed.
Me:
You have been stimulating to discuss this with and have provided me much food for thought. Thanks.
AI:
You're very welcome! I'm glad to hear that our discussion has been stimulating and thought-provoking for you. If you ever have more questions or topics you'd like to explore, please feel free to reach out. I'm here to help with any inquiries or discussions you may have. Thank you for the engaging conversation!
