Power is not a means, it is an end.

Every human mind is a indelible imprint of atomistic psychological longing and unique subjective preferences. We notice from a casual glace at everyone around us that we all value different things above and beyond all else, whether it be a singly obsessive drive for money, love, fame, sex, respect, security, revenge, knowledge, freedom, or glee to the expense of nearly all the rest. How can it be, though, that in the midst of all of our own specific, all-encompassing monomania for the one single end that will ever truly make us happy and render us complete we all share a similar and equally potent drive (at times superseding) to attain power? It could be reasonable to assume that this is because it is the only thing in existence capable of achieving all aforementioned ends at once. I do not at all deny that certain people desire power strictly for it's own sake; this is as discernible from empirical observation as every other example mentioned. But it is not exactly the feel on the grip of the gun we wave that motivates us, but the look on our fallen adversary's faces as they bow and grovel at the feet of their new master. It is not the sight the giant globe-destroying robot we have built to obey our every command; it is the imagined reaction of our browbeating father who always claimed we'd never amount to much. It is not the feeling for the power that we have exerted these energies towards, but merely the feeling of the *ends* that tap into our innermost personal desires of what we believe we want and need, no matter what the cost. It could very well be argued that these ends I've just described--control over your enemies, ownership of the all-powerful gun and robot, the feeling a validation after a lifetime of abuse--are merely components of the abstract entity that we refer to as "power." This is a perfectly acceptable argument to make, but it does not change that these are all disparate components unrelated to the millions of observable and conceivable ends that fulfill everyone else's subjective desires and needs. This is consistent with accounts of notable figures who have achieved the highest ranks of power and prestige, but still remain unhappy, whether it be the fictional Citizen Kane who pined on his deathbed for the Rosebud of his childhood, the conqueror Napoleon pining on his deathbed for his long-lost Josephine, or even the depression-prone super-rich and affluent, the likes of which the world has never seen. A hermit could exult in endless joy for his station of isolation and solitude, despite possessing exactly zero power over his fellow humans; all the power and dominion in the whole world could fail to please a deranged philatelist if it meant separation from his prized stamp collection. My opponent has argued that all of the varied and innumerable pursuits that billions of humans individually pursue to the exclusion of others can be all be reduced to power. I would counter that this is impossible, as along with the others, the desired end of self-destruction and Thanatos can very commonly be observed in the human race, and destruction and defeat would seem to entail, by definition, a state of powerlessness. (I apologize if this entry is too long, and let me know if you would like me to make my posts shorter in the future!)