The Relationship Between Truth, Power, and Freedom, Term Paper Example

The relationship between truth, power, and freedom is one of the main topics that draw a lot of attention in political philosophy. Comprehending these concepts is vital since they are the aspects that shape our politics regarding justice, democracy, individuality, and equality. These concepts are indisputably interrelated, but thinkers seem to generate various ideologies around them. There are multiple ways of analyzing this relation, as seen through the works of many philosophers. In other words, there have been many works of philosophy that tend to explain this relation. ‘Speak truth to power, and ‘knowledge/truth is power’ are popular notions and related slogans. The three theorists– Michael Foucault, John Stuart Mill, and Plato –  have interrogated and scrutinized this relationship at the most profound level.  In this essay, we seek to analyze how these three philosophers would evaluate those slogans by analyzing their beliefs on the three aspects.

So, what is the truth? Truth can be defined as the reality of the matter or being in accordance with reality.  According to Plato (Pg. 289), facts are to be discovered and knowledge, if sought, is possible – We can only see it with effort.  He asserts that truth is objective. In other words, it is the fact that our reason, if used correctly, apprehends. Contrariwise, Mill (page 19) postulates that truth always arises through power, and Foucault (Page 79) asserts that truth is an earthly thing and is caused merely by virtue of multiple constraint forms. He further argues that truth induces the regular effects that come along with power.  Due to this and many other reasons, Plato believes that the one who speaks the truth is the most loathed. Plato (pg. 279) also mentions that when the soul rests upon the truth, it shines and is radiated with intelligence. On the other hand, if it rests upon a lie, it goes blinking about like an eye due to the many opinions that it generates, thereby bringing out no intelligence.

In general, power can be defined as the capacity to influence others. Political philosophy is mainly interested in the nature of those changes. According to Plato (pg. 58), power is manipulated with justice or without justice. In this case, justice is linked to wisdom. From a different lens, Mill (page 6) asserts that power is regarded as highly dangerous, but also necessary. It creates its network through which it circulates – it manipulates rather than being controlled. Foucault (page 85) sides with Plato by agreeing that power can be manipulated. However, he argues from another significantly different point of view. He asserts that power manipulation or control entails detaching the power of truth from the cultural, economic, social, and hegemony forms from which it operates contemporarily. Plato asserts that a person cannot exercise power without any truth. In essence, we need the truth in order to have power, as directly stated in the slogan, “truth is power”. Mill (page 13) supports Plato’s ideology by claiming that in a civilized community, power is only exerted on a person forcefully if the person poses a threat to the rest of the community. In that case, the truth is that the person poses a danger to the community, and due to this truth, power has to be forced on the person as a corrective measure. Thus we see Mill’s view on the slogan “truth is power” as the truth leads to a need for power. He further mentions that the effect of power is war – a war fought by various means. It can be either political wars, religious wars, or personal wars. However, he asserts that this truth holds only up to some extent.  Overall, all the two philosophers’ works point out that power can either yield positive or negative outcomes, depending on whether it is good.

Interestingly, we cannot easily integrate Foucault’s ideologies on power with the other philosophers’ ideas. Regardless, his view on power is similar to Plato’s and Mill’s. According to Foucault (89), “power is neither given, nor exchanged, nor recovered, but rather l ·exercised, and that it only exists in action”. He hypothesizes that power is diffuse rather than concentrated and is made up of agents rather than being caused by them. Foucault recognizes that power is not only hostile, repressive, or coercive by forcing us to go against our wishes: it can also be positive. This argument supports Plato’s and Mills argument in that negative power results in poor outcomes, whereas positive power results in positive effects. Foucault (Page 104) further acknowledges that positive power is always gauged in the right direction and can make us productive within society. He continues to argue that some power conceals, masks, abstracts, represses and excludes. This statement supports Plato’s argument that power can either be just or unjust. Overall, we see that the three philosophers acknowledge that power can be either beneficial or non-beneficial, depending on how it is used.

There are various kinds of power. Plato (Pg. 68) categorizes power in multiple categories: just or unjust power, power of retaliation, power of philosophy, power of command, divine power, power of knowing, power of dialectic, power of destruction, power of acquisition, and power of invisibility. On the other hand, Mill (page 55) categorizes power into mental, moral, muscular, educational, and administrative powers. Also, all through his work, Foucault organizes power into political power, royal power, and psychiatric power. These different categories of power in the works of the three philosophies indicate what they believe to be right about the state of power. The truth has generated Their distinctions – they are affected by what people consider to be true. For instance, Plato (pg. 230) believes that the power of knowledge and philosophy can be affected by the truth using the philosopher kings’ argument.  Here he argues that the kings of philosophy should be the rulers since they will have the ability to discern between the truth and the lies and the good and the bad. Also, the power of destruction is guided by the reality of what is destructive and what is not.

Truth and power are interrelated. According to Mill, truth and power are inseparable entities, and truth does not lack in power. Mill (page 24) mentions that we are subjected to the truth in that the truth of an opinion is rarely disputed according to law, and within the law lies power. Plato (pg. 202) supports Mill’s argument by asserting that a person can manipulate the upheld truth with power. Also, Foucault (Page 87) signifies that power, which he also refers to as knowledge, is constituted in comprehending truth. His work is merely a radical departure from what the other philosophers think of. He challenges the idea that groups of people wield power. Instead, he sees it as pervasive and dispersed in what is perceived to be true. According to Foucault, no truth can be rescued, defended, or espoused against power systems. Thus, all of these three philosophers believe that power and the truth are inseparable entities. That leads us to the relationship between these two facets and freedom.

Freedom can be referred to as the ability to act on free will with no potential barriers. In essence, it is difficult to achieve freedom – it does not exist. Mill (Page 29) remarks that truth possesses an inherent power, free of error any bias of prevailing against freedom or liberty. However, later in his work, he argues and asserts that the resulting liberty consists in following personal desires, yet no one wants to fall in the river; thus, it does not result in ultimate freedom. This assertion is supported by Plato (Pg. 349), where he states that the freedom of unnecessary and useless wants can lead us into no freedom at all due to their repercussions. He further claims that freedom results in more buzzes in the democratic systems, which no one wants.  Foucault’s work also seems to go hand in hand with these two arguments. According to him, some power represses individuals, classes, instincts, and nature. Thus according to him, power can lead to repression and suppression. In this case, the person in power has the freedom to act in whatever way he deems appropriate, and eventually, he ends up taking away someone else’s freedom by repressing him or her.

The truth and power have a significant role in creating this impossibility. Plato (Pg. 371) uses an example of a tyrant who rules by unjust power, which is not often based on the truth. He claims that the tyrant can never taste true friendship or freedom. As Plato (pg. 31) states, “They are always either the masters or servants and never the friends of anybody; the tyrant never tastes of true freedom or friendship”. Mill (Page 12) exhibits the relation using the aspect of religious freedom. He states that religious freedom and political freedom cannot be practiced due to the underlying spiritual and political indifferences, where the truth has not been clearly defined. He claims that human beings tend to be intolerant regarding what they approve or disapprove of. Therefore, the lack of truth results in a disturbed piece through political and theological quarrels, ultimately disrupting freedom. Regarding truth and liberty, Foucault (Page 107) argues that power can generate reality, that is, the truth, which then produces the truth rituals and domains. Lastly, Foucault (Page 85) asserts that power and truth expose us to the danger of trying to make things go our own way. In doing so, we end up luring ourselves into traps, and to some extent, we end up losing our freedom.

After a careful analysis of the theorists’ points of view of truth, power, and freedom, we can be able to analyze how each one of them would evaluate the slogans ‘speak truth to power, and ‘knowledge/truth is power’. First of all, Plato believes that no power can exist without the truth, thus the slogan, “truth is power”. He also believes that if power is used in its truest form, it results in positive consequences. To avoid these consequences, Plato may assert the need to use power in its most real form, thus the slogan, “speak truth to power”. These consequences may result in freedom, which also, if used carelessly and inappropriately, that is – the diversion from the truth – it can result in loss of liberty. As he might argue, truth is priceless and powerful – if used appropriately, it leads to the greater good, and if misused, it may result in harsh repercussions.

On the other hand, Mill would assert that we are subjected to the truth in that the proclaimed facts determine the law. Indisputably, we know that within the law, there is power, and that is why we always obey the law. This argument supports the slogan, “speak truth to power,” in that the perceived truth is what results in the formation of rules, which are very respected and influential. He also remarks that truth possesses an inherent power; thus, the slogan, “truth is power”. Lastly, Foucault would argue that power is founded in comprehending truth. He would also say that power manipulation involves detaching from reality. Thus we see that with no truth to manipulate, there can be no manipulation. That then leads us to the slogan, “truth is power”. He may further argue that some power can lead to repression and suppression, that is, the untrue or unjust power. To avoid such adverse outcomes, we need to transform the unfair powers into just powers by introducing the truth element. Thus, this aspect leads us again to the slogan, “speak truth to power”. Essentially, these three philosophers have different points of attack on these slogans. Regardless, they can be used to make similar implications.

Works Cited

Foucault, Michel. “Two Lectures Lecture One: 7 January 1976.” (1980).

Foucault, Michel. “Two Lectures Lecture Two: 14 January 1976.” (1980).

Mill, John Stuart. “On liberty.” A selection of his works. Palgrave, London, 1966. 1-147.

Plato, Allan Bloom. The republic of Plato. New York: Basic Books, 1991.