>I would define power as the ability to make other people do what you want
I don't think anyone agrees or uses the word 'power' that way, instead, power ought to be defined as:
>the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality.
Getting this definition wrong confuses the author throughout the article:
>So freedom is a kind of power; but a certain kind freedom also comes with powerlessness
Okay, the definition the author provided literally stated power is the ability to make other people do what you want and freedom is the ability to do what you want. I fail to see how in that mode freedom is a kind of power. I think the author doesn't really believe their own definition.
The author goes on to question if great leaders (e.g. Alexander the Great) have freedom, comparing him to the homeless philosopher Diogenes. That's ultimately a personal question; if Freedom is indeed the ability to do what you like, you have to ask "could I do more of what I like as Alexander the Great or Diogenes?"
>Underlying the pathetic quest for all power is fear: the fear of death.
Underlying the pathetic quest for mediocrity is fear: the fear of failure. We can sit here speculating about the psychology of the average and the ambitious all day, but it provides nothing useful other than additional zings for $ECHO_CHAMBER to enjoy.
>The sanest people, I think, are those happily unafflicted with ambition
Cattle are pretty happy, sure. Expounding on the mental health of "the ambitious" (whatever that means to the author) seems pretty disingenuous and like an attempt to control the creative expressions of others.
It's frightening that people actually think this way.
I don't think anyone agrees or uses the word 'power' that way, instead, power ought to be defined as:
>the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality.
Getting this definition wrong confuses the author throughout the article:
>So freedom is a kind of power; but a certain kind freedom also comes with powerlessness
Okay, the definition the author provided literally stated power is the ability to make other people do what you want and freedom is the ability to do what you want. I fail to see how in that mode freedom is a kind of power. I think the author doesn't really believe their own definition.
The author goes on to question if great leaders (e.g. Alexander the Great) have freedom, comparing him to the homeless philosopher Diogenes. That's ultimately a personal question; if Freedom is indeed the ability to do what you like, you have to ask "could I do more of what I like as Alexander the Great or Diogenes?"
>Underlying the pathetic quest for all power is fear: the fear of death.
Underlying the pathetic quest for mediocrity is fear: the fear of failure. We can sit here speculating about the psychology of the average and the ambitious all day, but it provides nothing useful other than additional zings for $ECHO_CHAMBER to enjoy.
>The sanest people, I think, are those happily unafflicted with ambition
Cattle are pretty happy, sure. Expounding on the mental health of "the ambitious" (whatever that means to the author) seems pretty disingenuous and like an attempt to control the creative expressions of others.
It's frightening that people actually think this way.