Truth Is Nothing More Than A Strategy For

Power
By
Andro Nikolas Vlahovic Cabrera
Student OneID: 44006772
MGSM880, Foundations of Management Thought
Lecturer: Dr. Steven Segal
TERM 1, 2017

1 Introduction

This document tries to present the rationale behind the proposition truth is
nothing more than a strategy for power in terms of a personal argument by
comparing Platos and Machiavellis different rationalism or ideas of truth and/or
power1. From this perspective, Plato, will be argued in favour the proposition as
an efficient way to use truth as a strategy for power. While from a Machiavellis
view, it will be argued against the proposition, under which truth is considered to
be just one way or path as a strategy for power.

During the first section, shall be a semblance in Platos Allegory of the Cave
and how supports the my argument that only those that have real knowledge of
the truth have an incentive to use it as a strategy for power, realized on how fair
or unfair is under this relationship the use of power in a good or bad way as the
people with more knowledge of the truth have open to them to use it.

While in the next section from a Machiavellis approach, shall be discuss the
overall impact on power depending not by knowledge or the seek of truth. This
will be reviewed, as lie, deceit and other characteristics distort the behaviours on
people make it more susceptible to conducts in pursue of power, as for
Machiavellis -contrary to Plato- he advocates tough-mindedness, as a quality
required to seek and achieve power.

At the end as a deliberation of both arguments will be illustrated that even

when its being argued in opposite ways truth as a strategy for power, it does
exist a consensus for the end which is used power (the whole) but it is the
interpretation of the means (truth) that differs from one Philosopher to another as

1 The definition of power in this essay will be use, as a reference to the political power in the ability
to influence or outright control in decisions or behaviours in people.
my rationale discuss in this essay. That is from a Platos view people that want
to get and keep power seeks the objective truth , while from Machiavellis its the
best move that can make the individual to get power.

2 Argument under Platos approach

In the myth of the cavern, which synthesizes the duality of worlds (the
ontological dualism): there is a sensible world and an intelligible world,
represented in the myth by the interior of the cave and the exterior of it. In fact,
life inside the cave wants to symbolize our life in this world, while the outward
signifies the elevation of the soul to the world of knowledge of the truth and
Ideas.

Life in the cave is a life of ignorance (darkness), limitation and bondage. The
ascension and departure to the external world, luminous and immensely larger,
means the liberation of the soul from the lower passions as well as the progress
in knowledge and the gradual discovery of truth (light): geometric figures,
proportions, numbers, ideas.

However the myth of the cavern from my rationale, in this enlightenment path-
also manifests a refined conception of a strategy for power. In this distance
between ignorance and wisdom the one that finds by itself in this unimaginable
place where he had never thought, not even imagined -this world of "ideas"- gives
way to the development of unique knowledge over others who do not have access
to it (for example the rest of the people in the cave). It is in this line that I consider
that only those that progress in knowledge and the gradual discovery of truth will
have power over the ignorant, being the latter more likely to be deceived for its
lack of knowledge.

In fact this is a practice used in several countries as political power, where

the quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poorest and
most mediocre possible (the ones that remain in the cavern, analogy with Plato)
so that the distance of ignorance that plots between the lower classes and the
upper social classes, is and remain impossible to reach for the lower classes so
only high levels of the society (the most educated, the only ones that have
reached the enlightenment path) come into possession with a notion of power
which allows them to control the most ignorant, illustrating that the search for truth
can be transformed into a tool of power.

Nevertheless even when has been argued in favour of truth as a strategy for
power, in my opinion under the idea of Plato, this power can be only used as a
service to carry out the good for the whole. In fact, when Plato mentions about
the return to the cavern by the one that had been enlighted, such return is aimed
at liberating from the chains to who had formerly been his slave companions so
all can access and share the same knowledge of the truth and therefore the
power.

3 Argument under Machiavellis approach

According to the last section -argued in favour the preposition- as progress in

knowledge and the gradual discovery of truth (light) can be seen as a strategy for
power; from Machiavellis approach even when he also describes the use of
power not in self-interest but rather the whole good (as Plato), from my point
rationale (and thats why in this case I argued against the preposition), he
advocates to get and keep power not trying to legitimate it with reasoning or
truth seeking.

Arguing in this line, thats why Machiavelli refers to reasoning or the seek of
truth has limits so it cannot be used to get and keep power, because the means
are what shape the reality and from there it doesnt matter how accurate is the
knowledge of the reality (truth) or their facts, as whatever you do to get and keep
it power it is whats matter. Its only exist an apparent adherence to the truth,
where at the end people are just acting in accordance with pragmatism, making
one's own trustworthy word without the obligation to fulfill it.

In addition that also why the use of truth become some unattractive, as
Machiavelli refers that men are wicked liars who will turn against you when the
opportunity arises because they are willing to do anything to get and keep power.
Where in order to consolidate the foundations of power, we must not search the
goodness or the depths of the nature of truth, is just a response when necessity
dictates and if truth or lies can be used as a strategy for power it doesnt matter
which one is used.
4 Conclusions

Even when is being argued the preposition of truth is nothing more than a
strategy for power in different positions (favour Platos and against Machiavellis)
the deliberation of both point of views in the reason for use power, is justified in
doing whatever is necessary for the whole and not for the personal benefit.
However it is the means that differs and oppose from each other, where the unjust
or no search for the truth justifies are the means (Machiavellis) for get and keep
power. While for Plato to have real knowledge of the truth or to be just must be a
requirement as a strategy for power.

However this interpretation of the means is what makes so interesting the

preposition truth as a strategy of power, because How (the means) you get
power (the end) is what matter most, in this case the truth. While the end is free
of interpretation (achieve power) are the means that are so subjective for both
Philosophers, because the study of an objective truth is unique for each individual
thats is interpreting that reality so at the end is not a system to know the supreme
truth but only a method to find optimal solutions for the individual who seeking
power in function of the variable conditions of environment. So there always be
different positions for every preposition as an objective truth is unique for each
individual no matter what doctrine is follow.