Obligation toward declared superiority

[Grantywanty]

I have a question for all responders:

How many of us who responded to greenberg IMPLICITLY assumed we knew more than him and that he should listen to us?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

ok, I'll say it, since the rest of you dumbasses can't work it out. There superior 'person' is God. There. Now get down on your knees and pray. Pray before God for your worthless, maggot-infested souls.

If someone claims to be a god, that is about the most extraordinary assertion imaginable. He had better provide some extraordinary substantiation. Since most professional magicians can perform tricks that look like miracles, a burning bush or a pillar of salt won't be good enough. David Copperfield could probably part the Red Sea.

One of our aphorisms is: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." We need to remember that the opposite is also true: "Magic is indistinguishable from someone else's incomprehensible technology."

If someone wanted to convince me that they are smarter or wiser than me, well at least that's possible. Many people are smarter and wiser than me, it's just that smart and wise people don't generally go around accosting people to assert it because that is not smart and wise behavior. Still I might listen for a couple of minutes. But if someone wants to convince me that he is a god, well that just sounds like the plot from a 1980s movie. It would have to be a really slow day for me to have time for such bullshit.

I have a question for all responders: How many of us who responded to greenberg IMPLICITLY assumed we knew more than him and that he should listen to us?

I just thought he was about eighteen years old. This is the kind of idea we used to think up in college in order to procrastinate with our homework.

 

[greenberg]

I just thought he was about eighteen years old. This is the kind of idea we used to think up in college in order to procrastinate with our homework.

Aww, thanks, granpa.

 

[Grantywanty]

I just thought he was about eighteen years old. This is the kind of idea we used to think up in college in order to procrastinate with our homework.

I just thought it was interesting if the people, including myself, who in general poo pooed with gusto listening to someone who claimed to be superior were doing the same thing implicitly. I think a fair question is: does the fact that we implicitly made that claim somehow make it better for him to listen to us.

 

[maxg]

How many of us who responded to greenberg IMPLICITLY assumed we knew more than him and that he should listen to us?

Well he asked a question--that would suggest that there was something he didn't know that he wanted to know.

 

[Grantywanty]

Well he asked a question--that would suggest that there was something he didn't know that he wanted to know.

Sure, but one can answer someone's questions without assuming they must be young, or silly, or really foolish IN GENERAL. I think that was some of the undercurrent, unstated reaction.

 

[whitewolf]

You people are yapping without thinking. I say this because a lot of you reject authority in words, but in real life you all submit to it like the good boys that you are.

You never needed to be told that your parents, teachers, bosses, political/religious leaders, philosophers, etc. are morally/intellectually/religiously superior to you. They didn't have to prove anything to you. You submitted to their authority without question. Americans don't have trouble doing it, most of them do it all the time. It's not a bad thing at all.

 

[Sarkus]

How many of us who responded to greenberg IMPLICITLY assumed we knew more than him and that he should listen to us?

Certainly there was an implication that he should listen - after all he made an opening post and we had the grace to respond. There is thus an implication that he should listen.

As for implicitly assuming I knew more... no.
In all dialogue I start from the assumption that all are equal - until proven otherwise. Certain people have proven themselves inferior during my time on this site, and some certainly superior - at least in some fields.
But hopefully I assume equality.

You people are yapping without thinking. I say this because a lot of you reject authority in words, but in real life you all submit to it like the good boys that you are.

You never needed to be told that your parents, teachers, bosses, political/religious leaders, philosophers, etc. are morally/intellectually/religiously superior to you. They didn't have to prove anything to you. You submitted to their authority without question. Americans don't have trouble doing it, most of them do it all the time. It's not a bad thing at all.

But in all of these there is clear evidence to support the claim of superiority - evidence whether you may realise it or not. There is also benefit to being subservient, e.g. with parents there is housing, food, support, love etc, and there are risks of not being (e.g. a clip round the ear).

So your examples are different to the situation in the question being asked in the massive amount of evidence available that support the claim / assumption.

 

[Grantywanty]

Certainly there was an implication that he should listen - after all he made an opening post and we had the grace to respond. There is thus an implication that he should listen.

As for implicitly assuming I knew more... no.
In all dialogue I start from the assumption that all are equal - until proven otherwise. Certain people have proven themselves inferior during my time on this site, and some certainly superior - at least in some fields.
But hopefully I assume equality.

I just went back to your first response and I your self-assessement and the feel of your post seem a match to me.

I appreciate the answer, but the way. I was not saying everyone was doing this.

 

[Grantywanty]

You people are yapping without thinking. I say this because a lot of you reject authority in words, but in real life you all submit to it like the good boys that you are.

You never needed to be told that your parents, teachers, bosses, political/religious leaders, philosophers, etc. are morally/intellectually/religiously superior to you. They didn't have to prove anything to you. You submitted to their authority without question. Americans don't have trouble doing it, most of them do it all the time. It's not a bad thing at all.

Americans and not others? Or Americans despite their self-image?

I was actually pretty cranky in response to authority.

 

[Baron Max]

You people are yapping without thinking. I say this because a lot of you reject authority in words, but in real life you all submit to it like the good boys that you are.

You never needed to be told that your parents, teachers, bosses, political/religious leaders, philosophers, etc. are morally/intellectually/religiously superior to you. They didn't have to prove anything to you. You submitted to their authority without question. Americans don't have trouble doing it, most of them do it all the time. It's not a bad thing at all.

I agree. But remember, it's not just Americans who do, everyone on Earth does it ....even as they're pretending to rebel against it.

Baron Max

 

[maxg]

Sure, but one can answer someone's questions without assuming they must be young, or silly, or really foolish IN GENERAL. I think that was some of the undercurrent, unstated reaction.

It wasn't my assumption although I did assume he was going to try and make an argument for a belief in god based on self-declared superiority. Any invective in my post was directed towards someone who would go around declaring their moral/intellectual/etc. superiority.

 

[greenberg]

It wasn't my assumption although I did assume he was going to try and make an argument for a belief in god based on self-declared superiority.

Not for, and if anything, against.

Although I wasn't thinking only of the situation with belief in God, but more generally - as with gurus, professional organizers, coaches, trainers, personal assistants.
People that are nowadays making good moneys based on their clients basically trusting them blindly.
I wonder how much the client actually benefits - or whether the benefits last only as long as the guru, personal trainer etc. is around, and if yes, how come and whether it has to do with the blind trust.

 

[whitewolf]

But in all of these there is clear evidence to support the claim of superiority - evidence whether you may realise it or not. There is also benefit to being subservient, e.g. with parents there is housing, food, support, love etc, and there are risks of not being (e.g. a clip round the ear).

So your examples are different to the situation in the question being asked in the massive amount of evidence available that support the claim / assumption.

In all those examples, one individual declares authority on the basis of moral/religious/intellectual superiority, while the other accepts it without question. In the initial post, one individual declares authority on the basis of moral/religious/intellectual superiority. In both the initial post and my first post in this thread, the individual declaring authority at least states the basis for it; other details are not discussed. Your assumption that the details do not exist is just as valid as my assumption that the details do exist. The thread starter formed his question in an abstract way, narrowing it down to the basics. I merely brought his question to realistic level and gave you examples. Yes, there are desirable and undesirable consequences to submission, like there are consequences to all actions.

I agree. But remember, it's not just Americans who do, everyone on Earth does it ....even as they're pretending to rebel against it.

Baron Max

I mentioned Americans because someone above me said that Americans don't like authority and fought two wars against it.

--

What most of you fail to realise in your philosophical daydreams is that most men are followers, not leaders. I see this misconception fairly consistently in discussions on various subjects. If your philosophy becomes detached from reality, it is a waste of oxygen.

 

[Sarkus]

In all those examples, one individual declares authority on the basis of moral/religious/intellectual superiority, while the other accepts it without question. In the initial post, one individual declares authority on the basis of moral/religious/intellectual superiority. In both the initial post and my first post in this thread, the individual declaring authority at least states the basis for it; other details are not discussed. Your assumption that the details do not exist is just as valid as my assumption that the details do exist. The thread starter formed his question in an abstract way, narrowing it down to the basics. I merely brought his question to realistic level and gave you examples. Yes, there are desirable and undesirable consequences to submission, like there are consequences to all actions.

The OP asked whether we should obligate ourselves on purely declared superiority (i.e. no confirmative evidence).
Nowhere in our every-day lives does this happen.
You gave example of parents, teachers etc - but this obligated submission is based on plethora of evidence - which helps in the subconscious risk/reward assessment.
As a baby we are utterly helpless - and submit ourselves to those who give us warmth, succour, food etc. This is the start of the evidence.

At no point does a parent merely say: "I am your parent - you are obligated to me" and the child accept it. It is based on all of the evidence up to that point.

And this happens nowhere else in reality. Everything is based on evidence.


Feel free to come up with an example where there is merely a declared superiority and no action / evidence supporting it.

Police? No... there is a mountain of evidence of police being able to take away liberties for going against societal laws.
Teachers? No... there is plenty of evidence that teachers know what they are teaching - plus the ability to punish.
Bosses at work? No... there is plenty of evidence thorughout our lives that promotion is earned through ability - plus the risk of losing salary if we do not obligate ourselves.

 

[greenberg]

The OP asked whether we should obligate ourselves on purely declared superiority (i.e. no confirmative evidence).
Nowhere in our every-day lives does this happen.

You've never been to a motivational seminar, have you?

 

[Gustav]

sarkus is dogmeat
he just doesnt know it yet
clearly inferior
stating superiority is thus redundant

 

[Gustav]

i counsel patience. perhaps a digression to aid the wait

the compliment

what a kick it is to watch the buffoon inflate his chest in pride. laugh at the peacockery as he assumes responsibility and ownership towards the object being complimented. watch how he assumes a role in the conception, design and manufacturing process by simply shuffling his sorry ass towards the checkout line.

rest assured, i know this buffoon
he is you

/spits

 

[Grantywanty]

The OP asked whether we should obligate ourselves on purely declared superiority (i.e. no confirmative evidence).
Nowhere in our every-day lives does this happen.

This is odd. I see this all the time. Especially around issues of concern to Greenberg, spiritual issues.

You gave example of parents, teachers etc - but this obligated submission is based on plethora of evidence - which helps in the subconscious risk/reward assessment.
As a baby we are utterly helpless - and submit ourselves to those who give us warmth, succour, food etc. This is the start of the evidence.

The overall authority may, I repeat may, be corroborated by evidence, say with competent parents. But about their moral awareness, spiritual insight, intelligence about specific issues or even in general, certainly there are many cases where there is no evidence.

At no point does a parent merely say: "I am your parent - you are obligated to me" and the child accept it. It is based on all of the evidence up to that point.

And this happens nowhere else in reality. Everything is based on evidence.

Feel free to come up with an example where there is merely a declared superiority and no action / evidence supporting it.

Do mean we need to find an example where someone has absolutely zero potential to do/be what they claim? That seems misleading.

Hitler could certainly offer some evidence, but it was overwhelmed by swathes of evidence, generally ignored, that he was the wrong person to lead Germany, as it turned out.

Police? No... there is a mountain of evidence of police being able to take away liberties for going against societal laws.
Teachers? No... there is plenty of evidence that teachers know what they are teaching - plus the ability to punish.
Bosses at work? No... there is plenty of evidence thorughout our lives that promotion is earned through ability - plus the risk of losing salary if we do not obligate ourselves.

Ah, you are not saying their authority is bases on merit, skill, intelligence, etc, merely that they can hurt you so that it is smart to follow them. But that is not really Greenberg's concern.

You can do what you boss tells you AND AT THE SAME TIME know the guy is a moron about purchasing. Or you can believe that he really knows what he is doing as a Purchasing Manager because he claims to despire the evidence to the contrary.

In all the situation above you are talking about respecting functional authority. But Greenberg is concerned about another kind of authority based on knowledge or skill. And there is no reason in all of these situations to assume that these people have that. One can respect their authority to cause one harm, without assuming that they are smart about who they harm and why let alone, for example, their ability to teach math, as opposed to giving you a bad grade.

The worst teacher on earth will give some evidence they can teach - they show up for class. A teacher needs to be present. This is some evidence....blah, blah blah. This does not mean they have any authority as a pedogogue.

 

[Gustav]

i prostrate myself at granty's feet
i have assumed the obligation

and wolfie is sexy when she is on fire
i prostrate myself b/w her thighs

/responsibilities!