If a person declares to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you, are you obligated to subject yourself to them?

I realize this might sound like a strange question.
However, it is possible that someone is superior to oneself in those ways - and since one is thus by definition inferior, one can't appropriately discern their superiority oneself and has to take the other person's word for it. It could be beneficial to oneself, though, to subject oneself to them.


What is your stance on someone declaring themselves to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you?

i would submit to them if by submit i mean kick them in the balls

Hell no--anyone who goes around shouting about how superior they all is a schmuck. If they were morally, cognitively or spiritually superior they would be humble/reasonable enough to keep it to themselves.

Laugh at them. Who cares?

If a person declares to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you, are you obligated to subject yourself to them?

Yes, you bloody are. :bugeye: Now get on with the subjegation.

Laugh at them. Who cares?
Really? ;)

However, it is possible that someone is superior to oneself in those ways

How :confused:

And I agree with maxg:

Hell no--anyone who goes around shouting about how superior they all is a schmuck. If they were morally, cognitively or spiritually superior they would be humble/reasonable enough to keep it to themselves.

Really? ;)

You never seen me in action?:D

I thought we had a deal, O magnificient one!

What is your stance on someone declaring themselves to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you?

I think one has the obligation to consider them inferior.

I'm sensing a lot of negativity towards this idea of inherent superiors. It's really quite disturbing.

I'm sensing a lot of negativity towards this idea of inherent superiors. It's really quite disturbing.

Uh-oh

:worship:

If a person declares to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you, are you obligated to subject yourself to them?...

No, you tell your husband to be quiet and keep rubbing your feet.

If a person declares to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you, are you obligated to subject yourself to them? I realize this might sound like a strange question.No, it sounds more like a foolish question. :) Even if we accept, for the sake of the argument, the possibility that they might be telling the truth, how do we know that they are telling the truth? This is no different from a salesman insisting that his widget is superior in functionality, quality, and economy to his competitor's widget. Of course he's going to say that in order to convince you to buy it.However, it is possible that someone is superior to oneself in those ways - and since one is thus by definition inferior, one can't appropriately discern their superiority oneself and has to take the other person's word for it. It could be beneficial to oneself, though, to subject oneself to them.This is not a very good argument. You're downplaying the very high probability that the other person is lying in order to defraud you.What is your stance on someone declaring themselves to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you?If for some odd reason I felt like taking this encounter seriously, I would apply the scientific method. This is a most extraordinary assertion, therefore the person must provide me with extraordinary substantiation, otherwise I am under no obligation to treat his assertion with respect.I'm sensing a lot of negativity towards this idea of inherent superiors. It's really quite disturbing.Most of us Americans find this whole discussion disturbing. We don't take kindly to the idea of one person declaring himself someone else's superior. It reminds us too much of slavery and the Holocaust. A lot of us died to put an end to both.

i would submit to them if by submit i mean kick them in the balls

I lol'd

ok, I'll say it, since the rest of you dumbasses can't work it out.

Ther superior 'person' is God. There. Now get down on your knees and pray. Pray before God for your worthless, maggot-infested souls.

If a person declares to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you, are you obligated to subject yourself to them?

I realize this might sound like a strange question.
However, it is possible that someone is superior to oneself in those ways - and since one is thus by definition inferior, one can't appropriately discern their superiority oneself and has to take the other person's word for it. It could be beneficial to oneself, though, to subject oneself to them.


What is your stance on someone declaring themselves to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you?

I think that is a strange thing for someone to do. I also think it might be better if the actual situation was described rather than taking it on in this abstract way. Who did this with you - and not just a category like Christians - how did they express it and in what way did they want you to subject yourself to them. And then on the response side, your part, why did this get at least a bit of a hook in you?

Anyone who is morally, cognitively and spiritually OK does not want others to subject themselves to them. They would find it unpleasant.

However, it is possible that someone is superior to oneself in those ways - and since one is thus by definition inferior, one can't appropriately discern their superiority oneself and has to take the other person's word for it. It could be beneficial to oneself, though, to subject oneself to them.


If you cannot trust your own perceptive abilities and intuition
1) you have no idea if the above theory is true, so there is no reason to force yourself to listen to, be in the company of someone who i will bet you find it uncomfortable to be around
2) there are so many people who think they are morally superior how the hell are you going to choose which one to follow - unless you do trust your own intuition .

But certainly the guru tradition has many followers. You could google Guru and find someone to follow IF THAT IS WHAT YOUR INTUITION tells you would be a good thing to do.

There is no escape from trusting your own intuition.

However, it is possible that someone is superior to oneself in those ways - and since one is thus by definition inferior, one can't appropriately discern their superiority oneself and has to take the other person's word for it. It could be beneficial to oneself, though, to subject oneself to them.

You're downplaying the very high probability that the other person is lying in order to defraud you.

It's a double-bind situation, potentially a no-win. There's plenty of this is everday life.
I'm interested in seeing how people would resolve it.

If a person declares to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you, are you obligated to subject yourself to them?No.
Absolutely not.
To do so flies in the face of rationality and logic.
It would be an "Appeal to Authority / Emotion / Consequence" etc - classical fallacies.

And then the question is one of how much evidence would an individual need to be convinced of the claim - and that is an entirely subjective matter - although one must of course rationally (and hopefully objectively) assess the evidence.


Plus there is the risk / reward pay-off (cf. Pascal's Wager) - how much would you gain if you followed, given level of evidence available, compared to what you would lose if you didn't.


The Bible was very clever in trying to disparage those who require evidence - in the story of "Doubting Thomas" - where seeking evidence is seen as something shameful.
But it is those who fail to seek evidence, those who blindly follow, that should be shamed - for disregarding one of the tools that evolution has given them - the ability to reason.

ok, I'll say it, since the rest of you dumbasses can't work it out.

Ther superior 'person' is God. There. Now get down on your knees and pray. Pray before God for your worthless, maggot-infested souls.

You're really good! My humble apologies (in accent of Indian from Mind Your Language)

If a person declares to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you, are you obligated to subject yourself to them?


Depends what they're offering.

[I]
What is your stance on someone declaring themselves to be morally, cognitively or spiritually superior to you?

I just walk away from them and never bother with them again. ;)

i wouldnt have a foggy mate im leaving this forum i had fun
was nice here with you nice people but i cant stand personal insults on my language thing
so i bewt leave and that will make things better for people if i never say a word that way no one gets confused
and i deleted all the net things so i cant come back again
and superior i wouldnt have a clue about that
think more like its a curse on sumone cause they are open to attack their is always sumone trying to be better than them
is best left alone

The Bible was very clever in trying to disparage those who require evidence - in the story of "Doubting Thomas" - where seeking evidence is seen as something shameful.
But it is those who fail to seek evidence, those who blindly follow, that should be shamed - for disregarding one of the tools that evolution has given them - the ability to reason.

You speak as if the Bible were Alive...basically It's your word against His Word. Wanna guess who's going to be proven to be the liar?

Those that blindly follow will be shamed...those who trust and blindly follow their own understanding...those who value the praise of men rather than the praise of God...these will be shamed...such is the obligation of those declaring their superiority over the Word of God.

And then the question is one of how much evidence would an individual need to be convinced of the claim - and that is an entirely subjective matter - although one must of course rationally (and hopefully objectively) assess the evidence.

I think as soon as one would take up pursuing evidentiary support of their superiority, one would actually be playing their game. Which is exactly what they might want. All that they might really want is to engage you somehow, to get your attention, and a declaration of superiority can be a good tool to get that. (I wonder how come?)



Plus there is the risk / reward pay-off (cf. Pascal's Wager) - how much would you gain if you followed, given level of evidence available, compared to what you would lose if you didn't.

Good point. But I'll argue that in the case of declared moral, cognitive, spiritual superiority the risk-reward pay-off doesn't apply. Namely:

If one is truly inferior, then one cannot adequately recognize or assess superiority.

So regardless if one would make a decision to subject oneself or refuse to do so, it would necessarily be a decision which is beyond one's competence. It would be a decision based on blind faith.

So even if the other person were truly superior, one would be unable to reap the benefits nor beware of the risks, because one's relationship with them would be defined by the decision beyond one's competence, by blind faith - ie. one wouldn't have the competence to reap the rewards and beware the risks.

Guess I'll shrink back into my mollusc like shell then and cower before the devine brightness and clearly superior one who( that?) makes my god given life here pale into insignificance by comparison to his FUCKING omnipresence!

* pssst, while Photizo is away writing reams of unintelligable crap, here's a joke: Why did Photizo cross the road? To pick up the thread where he left off!!!*

Guess I'll shrink back into my mollusc like shell...

Better yet, call on the mountains to cover you up like it says in Revelation...

Better yet, call on the mountains to cover you up like it says in Revelation...

Last time I had a revelation, I got arreseted for indecent exposure,
cover me up with mountains and shit! I love a good cave session!

I got arreseted for indecent exposure

One day you'll be arrested to provide indecent exposure.

One day you'll be arrested to provide indecent exposure.

Whoa! Bailed up at the pearly gates! " Show us ya piles Heathen"

Spud " I'm just trying to pass this bloody great aubergine yer 'ighness...Lord god on high,...I mean Up High!, Fark, I'll never get this right will i?"

" No, my son, ye shall burneth in eternal hellfire you pathetic ignoramus who i made in my likeness....Whoops,... strike that... Don't hit send... Spud i Verily implore You!... STOPPP!"

" Sorry Photizo, the Devil possessed me"

I think as soon as one would take up pursuing evidentiary support of their superiority, one would actually be playing their game.I don't think it would be a matter of pursuing - as that implies action of the would-be subject. The onus is surely on the claimant to produce what is necessary to support their claim.

If one is truly inferior, then one cannot adequately recognize or assess superiority.Then the question is totally moot.
Firstly, being truly inferior does not necessarily imply that one can not adequately recognise or assess superiority.

Further, if one can not recognise nor assess the superiority - then how is it actually superior, rather than just being different? And to what end does the claim of "superiority" lead?

If I can not assess the superiority - how will it affect me?
Surely the benefit of the superiority can... and should... be demonstrated - or it is of no value.

I think I am leading to the fact that superiority MUST have value - or it is not superior... and value MUST be able to be demonstrated.

Assume we are all intellectually superior to a caveman - and we claim as much to them. How will it impact them? Perhaps you can rattle off thermodynamic equations - but to them it means zip.
But, if you can show them better ways to do things they need - i.e. add VALUE through your superiority... then your claim means something.

Otherwise it is a meaningless claim.
There must surely therefore be evidence to support the claim - or it is irrelevant.

So regardless if one would make a decision to subject oneself or refuse to do so, it would necessarily be a decision which is beyond one's competence. It would be a decision based on blind faith.If no benefit / value can be demonstrated - it is an irrelevant claim.

" Sorry Photizo, the Devil possessed me"

Sure, no problem...Next time tell him to take a long walk on a short pier.

All that they might really want is to engage you somehow, to get your attention, and a declaration of superiority can be a good tool to get that. (I wonder how come?)


Denying self-doubt, mixed responses, concerns about possible problems, complexity has, unfortunately worked rather well, at least on the surface. When someone presents themselves as confident and absolutely sure, other people who more complex and open relationships with their emotions and reactions tend to assume(project) that the other person must have been as thorough as they would have been before making such an utterance. So there is a near instinctive urge to give away power.

Another way to put this is we have been trained not to acknowledge our own insights.

If one is truly inferior, then one cannot adequately recognize or assess superiority.

This is what I was trying to say.
Related is how irritated I have gotten at times with Christians, for example, who seem to think they are NOT making an enormous claim about their own intuitive abilities when they say the Bible is completely true or God's word. It is as if the decision to follow the book is simply listening. When in fact it is a very pompous claim about their own skills. Pompous claims can be correct. But the slimy way it is denied that they are making a personal pompous claim, is where the rub is for me.

ok, I'll say it, since the rest of you dumbasses can't work it out.

Ther superior 'person' is God. There. Now get down on your knees and pray. Pray before God for your worthless, maggot-infested souls.

That doesn't seem very superior.

Oh wait, it does.

I don't think it would be a matter of pursuing - as that implies action of the would-be subject. The onus is surely on the claimant to produce what is necessary to support their claim.

Note that this is about moral, cognitive and spiritual superiority. The claimant could simply say that even if he produced evidence of his superiority, the inferior couldn't properly assess it, due to their inferiority.

Things would be clear and easy if it was about physical or financial superiority, though.


If I can not assess the superiority - how will it affect me?

Exactly. That's why I argued that subjecting oneself to declared superiority will not reap benefits.


If no benefit / value can be demonstrated - it is an irrelevant claim.

Still, this would mean that one would give the claimant the benefit of the doubt and pay them at least some attention - on the grounds of declared superiority.

When someone presents themselves as confident and absolutely sure, other people who more complex and open relationships with their emotions and reactions tend to assume(project) that the other person must have been as thorough as they would have been before making such an utterance. So there is a near instinctive urge to give away power.

Yes, honesty can be an extremely vulnerable spot.


Another way to put this is we have been trained not to acknowledge our own insights.

That too. Or, our honesty can be blind.

Note that this is about moral, cognitive and spiritual superiority. The claimant could simply say that even if he produced evidence of his superiority, the inferior couldn't properly assess it, due to their inferiority.

Things would be clear and easy if it was about physical or financial superiority, though.Sure - but the principal is still the same. If one can not assess the superiority (due to the inferior position) then it is a meaningless superiority - UNLESS one can demonstrate the benefits of that superiority - which while not being direct evidence of superiority in the thing claimed, is at least of benefit.

Exactly. That's why I argued that subjecting oneself to declared superiority will not reap benefits.I would agree - but amend it slightly for clarification to what I think you mean: "subjecting oneself to declared superiority alone will not reap benefits" - i.e. if the claimant merely claims - it is meaningless. A case of "put up or shut up". :)

Still, this would mean that one would give the claimant the benefit of the doubt and pay them at least some attention - on the grounds of declared superiority.Sure - the declaration often comes before action. Give a declaration time to form into benefit.
The amount of time would be a subjective assessment of risk / reward - i.e. how much time do you wait with merely the declaration and no benefit? Some people would queue up for hours just for a chance of getting tickets to their favourite band. Others would see the hours wasted as too much risk for the eventual reward.

But in all this - there has to be evidence - in this case, evidence of the superiority through demonstrable benefit.

Yes, honesty can be an extremely vulnerable spot.




That too. Or, our honesty can be blind.

And in both of these I have found a guilt about discriminating between individuals. I would be bad if I formed impressions about who has their head up their ass, especially if they seem to make sense and have some brains or talent of some kind.

How the fuck dare I be open and honest with this person and not with this other?

Who am I to judge?

It's like pretending I can't see only worse.

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?

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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!

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.

your desires are of no concern to me

;)

I wasn't talking to you.

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

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.

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.

[QUOTE]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.

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