Obligation toward declared superiority

[Grantywanty]

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

I don't want anyone to prostrate themselves at my feet even ironically, though perhaps for different reasons than when it is literal.

 

[Gustav]

your desires are of no concern to me

 

[Grantywanty]

I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Gustav]

pardon

------------------------------------------

the compliment has a point to it

i compliment the bmw not the owner. the owner simply interjects himself into the equation. the most he can reasonably assume is that he has good taste, a taste usually determined by propaganda. he has elevated stature by mere possession. it is unwarranted

i suspect most do this. it is a variation of a outright declaration or perhaps a mechanism thru which superiority is expressed

 

[Grantywanty]

Wow. I was actually being mostly wry in both of my posts above. I wasn't quite sure what you meant in what I now see was a compliment.
Now I know what you meant and what you meant by the my desires not being important to you.
Your intent might be clearer if the message had not been about prostrating at my feet.

 

[Sarkus]

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

Apologies - probably should have said "my everyday life".

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.

And you would subjugate yourself to them purely on their say so that they know better? - or is the subjugation more to do with: (a) realising that it's probably best not to argue (based on prior evidence of arguing, and the punishment one might get); and (b) realising that you don't know better - and it's not so much that they have evidence that they do - but in other things they often have demonstrated it and so in this instance you are happy to take their word for it?

In no practical examples you can mention is their merely proclaimation without supporting evidence. Even Jesus in the Bible provided examples sufficient to gather a following.

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

Not sure where you picked this up from.

What I am after is an example of where people have subjugated themselves to another purely because that other person declared themselves superior and did not support their claims with actions.

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.

Yes - there was evidence - and plenty of it. People didn't follow him merely because he proclaimed "I am your superior" but because he could support his claims that he was the best person to lead the country.
But political leaders isn't really what this debate is about - as I'm sure political leaders around the world are not seen as morally or intellectually superior to the voters - but merely those who have the political ideas, and are willing to implement them.
You really think GW Bush is your intellectual / moral superior?

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.

But it is the point in my argument that there is NO obligation toward declared superiority - but there is / might be toward demonstrated superiority.

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.

Of course - it depends on why you have subjugated yourself - usually in the workplace it is because it is in the job description and thus the monetary benefits outweigh anything else.
But then you're not really subjugating yourself to them but merely carrying out a role.
I only raised this example in response to whitewolf's argument.

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.

Exactly - and better put than I did. As stated, this was in response to whitewolf's argument.

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.

But my point, in all this, is that ANY obligation must be toward more than a mere declaration.
A teacher can claim themselves morally / intellectually superior - but unless they can show it... why be under any obligation to them or to what they offer?

To be honest, I think you have read too much into my response to whitewolf's argument, which I thought missed the point of the OP.

 

[Grantywanty]

And you would subjugate yourself to them purely on their say so that they know better? - or is the subjugation more to do with: (a) realising that it's probably best not to argue (based on prior evidence of arguing, and the punishment one might get); and (b) realising that you don't know better - and it's not so much that they have evidence that they do - but in other things they often have demonstrated it and so in this instance you are happy to take their word for it?

Me no. Hell I had trouble subjugating myself to authority that was on the money. My point was there that parents, and not spiritual leaders, may have power but little authority about real life, etc. But I think we were at cross purposes here.

In no practical examples you can mention is their merely proclaimation without supporting evidence. Even Jesus in the Bible provided examples sufficient to gather a following.

I agree. But there are people who are vastly less interesting than Jesus seems to have been, even just thinking aobut him as a communicator, who make these proclamations. I think it is clear that many people have a severe gap between the authority they claim to have and the authority they actually have in terms of expertise. Is your whole point hinged on Greenberg's 'purely',? If he had said almost purely would you have gone along? Anyone who does not need to be institutionalized provides some minimal scraps of evidence that they are spiritual authorities. I think Greenberg's purely refers to nothing being over and above average levels. A claim to be such an authority is based not on minimal levels or average levels. So saying there is some evidence does not really back up the claim. They are claiming we should follow them. Minimal evidence does not back this up. And there are some people out there with average and below intelligence, moral character, oration skills who are religious leaders.

Not sure where you picked this up from.

I guess, I assumed that you too had seen some TV preachers at some point. Or read about, for example, the guy who told everyone that the way to get up to the aliens on the comet was to drink poison. People with no evidence of special skills, much evidence that they lacks spiritual expertise, and yet they claimed authority. So assuming you had seen some of these people and yet still felt you needed us to come up with an example where there is no evidence, you must mean something more complete.

What I am after is an example of where people have subjugated themselves to another purely because that other person declared themselves superior and did not support their claims with actions.

Actions. Everbody performs actions. Hitler's basically showed people how sure he was. I just read an interesting book on Hitler called the man who invented Hitler. Hitler's actions were his proclamations. These proclamations inspired others to perform acts and the ball got rolling.

Yes - there was evidence - and plenty of it. People didn't follow him merely because he proclaimed "I am your superior" but because he could support his claims that he was the best person to lead the country.
But political leaders isn't really what this debate is about - as I'm sure political leaders around the world are not seen as morally or intellectually superior to the voters - but merely those who have the political ideas, and are willing to implement them.

There is always evidence. There was much evidence that he was not competent to lead. People were not swayed by evidence, they were swayed by his conviction. And by the way he was considered a religious leader by both Nazis and followers. Their experience of him was religious in nature.

You really think GW Bush is your intellectual / moral superior?

No.

But it is the point in my argument that there is NO obligation toward declared superiority - but there is / might be toward demonstrated superiority.

Oh, thank God. Now we are heading towards agreement, not that obligation is the word I would use.

Of course - it depends on why you have subjugated yourself - usually in the workplace it is because it is in the job description and thus the monetary benefits outweigh anything else.
But then you're not really subjugating yourself to them but merely carrying out a role.
I only raised this example in response to whitewolf's argument.

Exactly - and better put than I did. As stated, this was in response to whitewolf's argument.

Ah, perhaps it was my fault for getting your comments out of context. I did feel something strange was going on.

But my point, in all this, is that ANY obligation must be toward more than a mere declaration.

Logically yes, but in reality, I don't think this is true. Certainly you can see how much surplus obligation there is despite a dearth of demonstration.

A teacher can claim themselves morally / intellectually superior - but unless they can show it... why be under any obligation to them or to what they offer?

Because we are trained to confuse power and authority.

 

[Gustav]

Your intent might be clearer if the message had not been about prostrating at my feet.

pardon
there is a contagion running around in sigh