Comment by marginalia_nu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by marginalia_nu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It is questionable whether these two ever actually met, but the moral of the story is relevant so I'll repeat the tale.

Alexander the Great, the embodiment of power, approached notorious hobo philosopher Diogenes the Cynic and asked if there was anything he can do for him. Sunbathing Diogenes asks Alexander if he wouldn't mind stepping to the side a bit, as he is blocking the light.

Alexander is able to compel armies and lay countries to ruin, but Diogenes is resistant to all compulsion but is without land, possessions, rank, title, nobility, reputation, and so on. There is nothing you can take away from him he hasn't already given up, no hardship you can impose on him that he does not willingly endure. Even the times he is de facto enslaved, he is still free, because he willingly subjects himself to any punishment.

It would be an absurd conclusion that the reason Diogenes is able to make a mockery of this request is because this homeless man is more powerful than Alexander the Great.

> It would be an absurd conclusion that the reason Diogenes is able to make a mockery of this request is because this homeless man is more powerful than Alexander the Great.

The only moral of this story I understood is that it is nonsensical to compare two different metrics. I do not know how one would come to the above conclusion, comparing Alexander’s power over many others to Diogenes’ power over himself and presumably pain receptors.

Alexander being able to kill Diogenes more easily than Diogenes being able to kill Alexander would be a proper comparison, or Alexander being able to compel more people than Diogenes, but even then, I fail to see the utility for this discussion.

Well let's go back to the statement you made a few comments ago

> Money is a proxy for power. Has a better alternative proxy to power been demonstrated to exist?

Here the a man with no possessions suddenly has power, and the richest most powerful man in the world struggles to exert power.

I disagree with characterizing Person A not wanting something from Person B as person B struggling to exert power.

Aristotle's virtue ethics is a helpful lens to view the power dynamic within this story. Virtue is defined as a purpose or reason for being: Alexander is good where he fits his purpose, like how you would judge a tool to use. As a great ruler, he should be able to demonstrate not just his ability to kill and threaten, but positive qualities like providing for his subjects.

When Diogenes asks Alexander to move aside, it demonstrates the limits of this power, and therefore Alexander's virtue as a ruler: someone who doesn't want anything gets exactly as much benefit from this king as from anyone else. If the only thing Alexander can contribute is threats, that would simply make him unvirtuous - and equivalent in power to any armed madman.

> When Diogenes asks Alexander to move aside, it demonstrates the limits of this power, and therefore Alexander's virtue as a ruler: someone who doesn't want anything gets exactly as much benefit from this king as from anyone else.

This seems like a trivial fact to me, or I am missing what is notable about this “virtue”.

> If the only thing Alexander can contribute is threats, that would simply make him unvirtuous - and equivalent in power to any armed madman.

I guess so in this specific interaction, but it would be ridiculous to say a person that commands armies is equivalent in power to any armed madman in the big picture. My responses are in the context of societies using money as a tool to incentivize people, to which I am not aware of there being a better known alternative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com