They certainly have the power to enforce tremendous violence, death and destruction and without a planetary system of Justice we can only imagine their own karmic blowback.
I'm taking George Carlin's stance; remaining in a space between wonder and pity. Otherwise I think I will be devoured by absolute rage in such a demented realm.
Was reading her Reflections on Violence literally last week because of Assad's fall, alongside John Mearsheimer's thoughts on power.
Power, for Arendt, stems from collective action and agreement, relying on legitimacy and consent. It is sustainable only through mutual support and shared purpose. Violence, in contrast, is instrumental and arises where power has failed. It is a means to an end, relying on coercion rather than consensus. While violence can destroy power, it cannot create or sustain it.
John Mearsheimer, in contrast, views power in terms of material capabilities, particularly military strength, with nuclear weapons as the ultimate tool for coercive influence. His perspective aligns power with the capacity to dominate and enforce outcomes through force or the threat of it.
Arendt's view highlights the limits of violence in achieving durable authority, while Mearsheimer emphasizes the centrality of physical force to geopolitical power. These ideas reveal a tension: where Mearsheimer sees violence as a supreme expression of power, Arendt might argue it underscores power’s absence, replacing legitimacy with fear.
They certainly have the power to enforce tremendous violence, death and destruction and without a planetary system of Justice we can only imagine their own karmic blowback.
I'm taking George Carlin's stance; remaining in a space between wonder and pity. Otherwise I think I will be devoured by absolute rage in such a demented realm.
Was reading her Reflections on Violence literally last week because of Assad's fall, alongside John Mearsheimer's thoughts on power.
Power, for Arendt, stems from collective action and agreement, relying on legitimacy and consent. It is sustainable only through mutual support and shared purpose. Violence, in contrast, is instrumental and arises where power has failed. It is a means to an end, relying on coercion rather than consensus. While violence can destroy power, it cannot create or sustain it.
John Mearsheimer, in contrast, views power in terms of material capabilities, particularly military strength, with nuclear weapons as the ultimate tool for coercive influence. His perspective aligns power with the capacity to dominate and enforce outcomes through force or the threat of it.
Arendt's view highlights the limits of violence in achieving durable authority, while Mearsheimer emphasizes the centrality of physical force to geopolitical power. These ideas reveal a tension: where Mearsheimer sees violence as a supreme expression of power, Arendt might argue it underscores power’s absence, replacing legitimacy with fear.