Nicolas Fouquet, in a bid for more power in France during Louis XIV’s reign, threw a grand party in his honor. Already an established favorite, Fouquet envisioned, for himself, unlimited power and authority throughout the kingdom if he is able to situate himself as Finance Minister. When the current finance minister died, he threw a grand party for His Majesty using all his connections, displaying his inventiveness, his unique cleverness. Fouquet intended to honor the king but succeeded only in overshadowing him.
After the party, Fouquet was arrested, tried for stealing from the national treasury, and made to spend the last years of his life in solitude.
He had broken the cardinal rule of power which holds that subjects of those empowered must take care not to inspire insecurity in their masters. The powerful are dangerous and, at times, extremely paranoid and distrustful of those who surround him. Who wouldn’t be? They have what everyone wants.
A display of power is threatening especially those who are Empowered. Therefore, those in the service of the Empowered should take care not to appear as a threat to power. Always leverage oneself into a relationship close to power and once privileged with a position, only time stands in the way of finally achieving it.
Power is the authority to bring about change – it is control. Society created the concept of power as a device for organization – to develop a hierarchy and as a way of arranging ourselves out of chaos and destruction. It is meant to be creative, not destructive.
Different kinds of societies – like the Egyptians -- seem to be dependent upon Power as a superstructure - which makes organization, development and, eventually, civilization, possible. Despite this, Power is equally able to create chaos, conflict and, ultimately, destruction. Power struggles -- rooted deep in our consciousness and help form the very base of our identity (including gender roles, etc) -- are manifested through politics, media wars.
The situation of power denotes domination and submission (in all their shades and gradients). Our dependence on Power begs the question: is society capable of existing without Power? If we are, can we consider a classless mass of humanity a society? How do we relate to each other in the absence of designated niches in society?
kyra ballesteros
hi18 K
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
I think there always has to be someone on top of things...it's more efficient that way. From the examples in class about Egypt we can see that the king idea helped in forming ancient Egypt to achieve what it did back then.
I also couldn't help thinking of that scenario in those kung-fu movies where the student must kill his master to complete his training. Hmm...what if he didn't?
(insert in last comment)
Denis Flores
Hi 18k
I honestly can't think of any group of people, animals, even plants, that doesn't have a hierarchy of some sort. There will always be an alpha male or female or a group of them to lead the congregation. So, I'm really not sure if it can be called a society because, well.. it's practically non-existent.
As a reaction to the law itself, I agree that it's important to be in the background first. I think most of the 48 laws rely on the art of being inconspicuous. No one ever suspects a wallflower. But then, does this law go against the whole "the student surpasses the teacher" concept?
Bea Ocampo Hi18 K
In answer to your question, I don't think society or any group of people/animals/whatever would be able to function without some sort of leader or sense of power. A leader brings order and a sense of direction. It is only through having some form of leadership and hierarchy in a society that people can organize ideas and the members of that society, agree on a plan of action when faced with a decision to be made or problem to be solved, and ultimately function as a group.
Kristina Tan
Hi 18K
I disagree with this law.
It may be applicable but not always. It just seems that in complying with this law, you are allowing yourself to be binded by your "master"'s strength and supremacy at the same time his limitations and short comings. You are making someone who has imperfections a benchmark that can cause constraining your talents and intelligence.
Make your master God nalang then. amen. haha.
a society that does not use power to create classes within itself cannot grow. there is a reason why there needs to be a head or master of things in order for there to be quick decisions and more accomplishments made by the people. A classless society is an orderless society. People aren't just unfairly or randomly placed into classes; meritocracy will (in whatever type of society) determine a person's fate.
monica ang
L
Fouquet's plan backfired. LOLs He didn't think it through well enough.
A group/society definitely needs a leader to keep things in order, to make the right decisions etc. It would be chaotic without them.
I agree that it may not always be applicable. Submitting to one's authority is stated in the bible. we should learn to respect the authority's decision, after all, they are in power, but, of course, his decision should be for everyone's benefit and not his own.
Clarice Manuel
Hi18K
I believe that a subject outshining his master may on some level show a lack of respect. The reason why there is a master in the first place is because he is acknowledged as the head of the group and therefore everyone else is under his rule. Every loyal subject should know that he must do everything in his power to work hard and SUPPORT his master. Outshining him, if preconceived, shows a deliberate desire to have an edge to benefit himself. It is one thing to be Employee of the Month, and quite another to kiss up to the owner of the restaurant in order to give the current manager the boot and take his place.
Regina A. Yulo
Hi18 L
Seems weak to me.
One-up-ing on those of a higher position than you, I believe, is the entire point of a master-student relation. In terms of chronology, I think it's only logical that the student outdoes his teacher. Precursors to classical medicine for instance never would have dreamed that their proteges would be dabbling with x-rays and lasers and such.
To me, you should really never say never. It's so limiting; against the natural transcendence of man.
Joey Palma
Hi18 K
I think people are missing the point of this law. The point of the law is never outshine those above you. I mean why would you? If they're better, stronger, more equipped, why should you outshine them? The point is, outshine those below you and make your way up. I think what this law simply says is that you shouldn't go against those who are stronger than you. Of course the goal of every power hungry being is to be on top but it's a gradual process. One step at a time and not aim too high. Those above should be friends and never enemies and that's what this law supports. Those who want to rise must not show they want to take over. Befriend the powerful and when the time is right take what's rightfully yours.
This law to me makes sense. Don't take what you can't handle.
Jaime Lizada
Hi 18K
I agree with Jaime. Outshining those in power can create insecurities and as a result try to bring the person down. I think that it is better to work up in stealth until you are better than the master then that is the time to outshine him.
Sean Co
Hi 18 K
Hierarchies of power and divisions of labor aren't just a human thing. Pack animals establish roles because it puts the strongest member at a greater advantage for reporoduction, as well as protects him, like how in chess all the other pieces protect the king, to make sure he passes on his superior genes. The point is that in survivalist terms it's the intelligent thing to do. It's biological. We can't help it. Like everyone else has said, we need to establish power roles to ensure order, one reason (I'm sure there are plenty of others) being that BASIC SURVIVAL INSTINCT MAKES US WANT TO MAKE SURE NO ONE BEATS US TO OUR FOOD OR OUR MATES.
Dominique Du Hi18-L
The student can only kill the teacher if he's gained enough power to do so. Fouquet did not have a title or resources superior to the king's, and could be easily cut off the second the king sensed a threat. This law doesn't contradict the student must kill teacher thing, it emphasizes it. And if he didn't... well, he'd have to. If the student and teacher fought, the weaker one would die. Otherwise he runs away and bounces around using his powers for evil instead of the good intended by his master, ala Battousai, if you know what I'm talking about. Dominique Du, L
i agree with what raf said that this law should not be followed all the time. indeed, if the leader has shortcomings or lacks important traits, then this is enough reason for others to surpass him. if the leader is not the best one available, then it should not hurt to find a new and better one. also, what if the master were an unjust and cruel ruler? shouldn't this be enough reason for a kingly and compassionate master to show up? someone better and more fit for the position?
i think, that societies should always have a leader, provided that he is a just and regal one, someone who genuinely cares about his people. a leader provides direction and hope to the people. a leader can provide order and protection too. truly, the role of a leader is extremely important. as long as the ruler leads the right way, then everything should be fine.
also, for example, can you imagine what school will be like without a headmaster or teachers? it will be chaotic.
-Philip Albert T. Verde
Hi18K
I agree with Joey's post. I am all for outshining a master, as long as one is capable enough of doing so. Why settle for being the student? One cannot have power unless he stays on top, and the only way a student can do that is to outshine his master.
If Thomas Aquinas failed to outshine his teachers, would have have reached his philosophical apex? Wasn't Aesop, considered the most prominent fablist of all time, a slave? Didn't Cratylus outdo Heraclitus' logic when he said that "it is impossible to enter the same river not only twice, but even once"?
I think true greatness can only be achived by those who dare to outdo the great.
Chio Cebrero
Hi 18 L
i think that trying to "outshine the master" is not always a bad idea. the thing is, do it at the right time and the right place. everything must be perfect, after all, a master is a master, and overthrowing a master is not an easy task.
if you want to have pure power, you must be on top of everyone, therefore, being the master is a key role in obtaining power.
John Kristoffer M. Gomez
hi18 - section L
I agree with Kris Gomez that outshining the master isn't always a bad idea as long as you do it in the right time and place...and I think that right time and place means that you have already established a good relationship with the master meaning the you have made it clear to the master that you would not take over his position as long as he is alive.
For me, power is not just for those who are the most powerful but power comes to people who are closely connected to the most powerful as well. And having a bond with the master means power.
Leng Desuasido
Hi18 L
i think Chio makes a really good point -- FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD. in order to survive, to grow, to become something, in order to make a name for ourselves, we have to outstrip those who have become great. we must exceed -- outstrip the path, expand the land or deviate.
kyra ballesteros
hi18K
@Bea : i do think that the natural order consists of hierarchies, hegemony is prominent to sustain order.
and yes, the law does go against the student surpassing the teacher. i think, ultimately, the law aims for survival instead of growth and development, at first. it's about the Opportune Moment of finally and officially seizing power as opposed to violently taking it at will
kyra ballesteros hi18K
@Jaime: spot on, i think i have to agree with you. despite my bias (this being my law) i believe the strong point of this law is teaching us patience, teaching us the ability to realize (and accept) that there is a time for everything. we have to accept our own limitations first (being students, being controlled, having less power) and THEN, FINALLY being the one in power, empowered, wielding the power.
kyra ballesteros
hi18K
Masters are supposed to have what everyone wants and that definitely includes power. Power is what makes the master a master therefore the ones under him should definitely learn how to submit themselves. The power of the people is dependent on how powerful their master is. I don't think the society is capable of existing without power. Although, power may lead to chaotic situations I know it is very much important that someone is there to regulate the rowdiness and eventually control it. And yeah, I can't imagine how people relate to one another without the hierarchy.
Czarina Kathryne Masagca
Hi18-L
"Never Outshine the Master"
And why not? Whoever said that attempting to reach the best of one's abilities is a crime? Why would you settle for less if you can do more?
If you have what it takes to actually outshine a great person, don't be apprehensive. Just go for it. It's stupendous to hold back and stay inferior to a leader just so he could remain unsurpassed.
Monica Copuyoc
Hi18- L
I believe that the Filipino saying, "alamin mo kung saan ka lulugar", can be applied for this law. Power is, indeed, very tempting to have but claiming it in a way that would cross the boss is a big no no. Sure, some may have been successful in doing so but most often than not those who are really in power are able to do something to that person who is longing to take his place.
I believe that a society should have a main power like a government. This makes the city more organized, like Egypt as you have pointed out. However, the society should also be responsible enough to choose the right people who would gain access to this power over them for they would be the ones affected if the leaders they choose turned out to be those who would succumb to it.
Tom Manahan
Hi 18-K
To Tom:
you mentioned the Egyptians and, in relation to this law, i immediately remembered Khafre and Khufu, the builders of the pyramids at Giza -- i think there's a perfect example in history for this law. Khafre didn't attempt to outshine his forefathers: he saw the wisdom in upholding a respectful distance from those who've gone before us and experienced problems similar (but not completely identical) to our current problems.
^
kyra ballesteros hi18k
"FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD. in order to survive, to grow, to become something, in order to make a name for ourselves, we have to outstrip those who have become great. we must exceed -- outstrip the path, expand the land or deviate." so kyra, by saying this, are you going against your law? from your statement, it obviously seems like elaborating on OUTSHINING THE MASTER.
so where do you really stand when it comes to this law?
-Philip Albert T. Verde
Hi18 K
@Philip
i believe that growth and development of the person exceeds any law, including my own. that's why i mentioned the Opportune Moment, the concept of an ideal time in which to perform all acts. the basis of the first law is to NEVER outshine the Master -- in which case i have to amend it to NEVER OUTSHINE THE MASTER (during the inopportune moment). i abide by my law and, at the same time, recognize that development always comes from necessity -- comes from the fact that we need improvement, innovation.
i recognize that you forgot about societies wherein no leader is recognized but a social system exists regardless -- the headless societies. however, i believe that this law is applicable in those societies as well, because it deals with traditions that have outlived their purpose, beliefs that need to be edited and even practices that need to be removed for the betterment of the society and culture.
do you believe that a leaderless society have the capacity to follow this law?
kyra ballesteros hi18k
To Kyra:
ok, i get what you said about growth and improvement, and doing things at the opportune moment. good point. by developing, one can bring about change and improvement.
in reply to what you said about the leaderless societies, i understand that traditions and beliefs can serve as the backbone of societies and can thus provide direction. these can serve as the "leader." traditions and beliefs can also be subject to change and improvement, especially if needed. times change and if these customs remain the same, then they may no longer be apt for the particular time. so if the need arises, then it is ok to "outshine."
-Philip Albert T. Verde
Hi18 K
I personally believe that in order to keep a society fully functioning and running a leader should be placed at the top. A leader is the driving force of organization and is the person in charge of keeping order. Without him, chaos and turmoil would be dealt with by society.
He is the symbol of peace and control. He is responsible for guiding his people and directing them to prosperity and growth.
Leaders shouldn't be only viewed as a person of great power and prestige but also as a representation of development and success.
Teri Marcelo
Hi 18-K
I agree with Joey. It’s like being that one great apprentice. Along the way, you learn more tricks. You learn to work your way around what you’re absorbing. You learn to analyze and not just soak up information blindly. That’s how a student rises above his teacher, how one who is submissive can rise into power.
Mara Liboro
Hi18-K
conflict due to power is a must, especially if the current leader/system is deemed weak... Although what I think the law is trying to say is not to eliminate that kind of conflict, but to know when to do so? Timing most probably?
Jame Say
Hi18-K
i think the question is not whether we can live without power but if we can survive with it around us. this law showed us that one has to know how to play the field PROPERLY if they want to get the power they want. not to do it exaggeratedly and then cause the master to fear you.
-joey regala Hi18K
This really does happen in real life, sadly enough. Employers can often get jealous of job applicants who have higher educational and professional credentials than they had, and they find all sorts of excuses to turn them down, perhaps claiming that they accept people with even higher achievements. It's a culture of eliminating threats. Perhaps it is best to package yourself neutrally in these situations so that people don't see you as either a pushover or a potential rival.
Peep Warren
Hi18-L
everyone has their time to shine, just give your master the respect he needs so that he would treat you well. it could also be the key for him to teach you all that he knows. if he's gone do whatever you like.
a kind of baiting to get what you want. you do not always need to be on top to have power. it might be less than you deserve though.
JR Resma
Hi18 K
To philip:
the right time is exactly what i meant when i mentioned the opportune moment -- we must be skilled enough to recognize when the master should be usurped, when he has taught us everything that he can and when we are more than capable of continuing the path or leading others into greater times. there have been enough cases in history wherein rulers have not been gifted enough to recognize this Opportune moment and accidents in history wherein the masters were brought down by war, accident, some political or economic crisis and those who took up the scepter of responsibility were unable to lead properly. (case in point: former president Bush of the United States of America).
kyra ballesteros hi18K
To Peep;
i have to agree that you have to appear less than threatening. i think you understand what i mean when i say that, in this case, playing up stereotypes actually adds to your value as an employee: your ability to skillfully manipulate your self-image to fit your needs is a valuable asset that not everyone has developed and, for a communications-driven world that we live in, it is essential that we understand how people react to certain stereotypes.
in relation to my law, i believe that the deception at work is necessary. you have to be concerned for more than yourself when you follow this law because taking down the Master -- taking down the leader -- affects more than your own life. The people the Empowered governs should benefit from the exchange of power.
kyra ballesteros hi18k
To Teri:
i mentioned the existence of headless or leaderless societies wherein there are no formalized leaders and the power structure is determined by heritage, mostly -- even the tribal elders are not considered entirely powerful.
but i have to agree that TIMING, more than anything, is most important. the question, then, becomes: how do we know when it is the Opportune Moment? what defines the state of an Empowered's decline and at what point at this decline is it plausible and beneficial for the society for the leader to be usurped -- when is this Chaos necessary?
kyra ballesteros hi18K
To Kyra:
wow, i really love the idea of acting in an opportune moment. sometimes in life, its not just about attacking and going forward. one must also strategize and plan when to act. one must realize which time is the best time to make a move because sometimes, we may have all the tools but it's not at the right time. i suddenly remembered one of the laws wherein you "master the art of timing."
-Philip Albert T. Verde
Hi18 K
This would have to be the cardinal law of power. It's main focus shows power as power itself, with respect to a certain hierarchy as well. One must always be cautious with the power he or she possesses, and should also take into account that there are others who share, if not the same amount, more power than him or her. With this in mind, one can pair this law with a combination of the other laws, to carefully maneuver one's way into success, and of course, gain more power.
Paolo Banaga
Hi 18-L
I dont believe that over achieving is bad in any matter. Regardless of the fact that it is possible that one might be able to outshine the master intentionally or unintentionally. Greatness is seen through magis and excellence. Trying to out throw and overrule the master is another thing.
Richard Hahn
L
Wow, this is tricky. I guess this is law applies only to certain conditions. If your master is weak, losing power or dead, even, I don't see how this law applies. But then again, history has shown that this law works. After the Great Pyramid of Giza, the succeeding pharaohs built pyramids that were second to the Great Pyramid. They did not want to outshine it and wanted to respect its memory.
But again, this law doesn't always work. There have been a lot of people who have made their mark in history because they beat "the master" and outshone him.
I don't know; this law leaves me undecided. The concept of a leader is important, sure. But shouldn't the student eventually surpass the teacher?
Sam Bautista
Hi18-K
Post a Comment