No understanding of "authority"

Post Reply New Topic

Well played, sir. Well played.

Sorry to any who were offended, but I was not referring to "religion" which is man made rules and traditions attempting to follow patterns supposedly for the purpose of pleasing a higher power. I never mentioned or brought up such a topic.

I was referring to the source of information relating to the concept of "authority" which, if I'm not mistaken, is the actual topic of the thread. Authority is not a secular concept, so to bring talk of God into the discussion (within the context of authority) is not off topic. It would be impossible to participate in a discussion about authority without this. Its like someone asking a question about AS but where autism is considered off topic. I cannot distinguish the two, since I firmly believe that true authority stems from this source. God isn't religion and doesn't even like religion, so it would be nice if people who dislike religion would stop freaking out whenever God is mentioned. This type of talk is part of everyday life, and not a "topic of interest" which is somehow separate from all other topics to be confined to discussions that are specifically related to the topic of spirituality. I was trying to draw a distinction between authorities and powers, which I think is critical to a proper understanding of the topic, since they are so different. Namely that you are obligated to obey authorities out of moral principle, but you obey powers only to the degree which you weigh the consequences due to the powers' ability to harm you.

How do you know when you are being obedient out of moral principle? You do it even when you know nobody is watching and there's no possible way you can get caught. And you don't begrudge it. The other kind is totally out of self preservation, when you obey powers, and if you can evade them, by all means disobey. When someone threatens you with a knife to hand over your wallet and you are confident that your skills at martial arts can defeat this threat, by all means do it. This is the same principle no matter what kind of "power" you encounter and whether they are a thug on the street or a politician in some fancy office making laws he thinks you need to follow.

So you see, the discussion requires involves bringing God into the topic or the entire premise of drawing a distinction between authorities and powers is meaningless. I'm not "hijacking" the thread, I'm enhancing by providing critical understanding of an on-topic principle. The second that someone says "you can have authority without involving God" the logical response question that must be asked is "why?" Why do you recognize that person's authority at all? Who granted it? The very phrase "By who's authority" indicates that it is a person who grants authority. And how can a person grant authority unless he himself was given authority by someone who was already his authority? You can quickly see the logic problem when a mere man claims authority over others "just because".

I find the idea of some power, human, divine, supernatural or extraterrestrial morally repulsive (at least without some justification). Not going to heaven or living in eternal bliss if I don't follow someone's rules isn't enough justification for me. I think I have moral values like most people. Some possible reasons:

"But insights into the changing moral landscape (e.g., animal rights, abortion, euthanasia, international aid) have not come from religion, but from careful reflection on humanity and what we consider a life well lived. In this respect, it is important for us to be aware of the universal set of moral intuitions, so that we can reflect on them and, if we choose, act contrary to them. We can do this without blasphemy, because it is our own nature, not God, that is the source of our species’s morality."

"One view is that a divine creator handed us the universal bits at the moment of creation. The alternative, consistent with the facts of biology and geology, is that we have evolved, over millions of years, a moral faculty that generates intuitions about right and wrong."

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads ... Singer.pdf

http://www.sociology.uiowa.edu/nsfworks ... lity_2.pdf

i agree with this, actually. and that's why the principle of authority in most democratic countries is a pyramid that starts at the president, down to the simple people, , people who vote to decide who the person in charge of the rules will be, who then appoints powers of authority to who he sees fit to have them respected. i see no involvement of god in this at all.... i don't even know how he came to enter the conversation...
it was the case at the time when "god" chose a family to be the royal family, and that was a very weird and unfair system that gave those families an unhealthy sense of entitlement, and was mostly replaced now, even in most modern kingdoms , where the powers mainly belong to the parliament.

Well if you look back to that point in history, it was the ancient Hebrews who complained and whined about being accountable to God directly and they wanted human judges and kings. So after much whining about it by the people, God gave them judges and kings like they wanted. Then the system of human rule became bureaucratic, corrupt and quite complicated very quickly. Human beings always rule one another unjustly. Its the nature of humanity.

As for the "president" pyramid, yes the president in a secular government is (usually) elected by the people. But who gave those people the authority to grant that president authority? Its circular reasoning. If that holds ground, then any guy off the street can go up to his president and say "I defy your authority because I elected you. I'm your boss." In practice this does not work, though many have tried. The nature of true authority is always hierarchical and not circular. Authority can only be bestowed upon someone by a person who is of greater authority than him already. Those who are at the bottom do not "elect" those who are in authority over them. In some cases they can choose those "in power" over them but certainly not true authority.

True authority sincerely and honestly loves you, has your best interest at heart, and will suffer personal sacrifice for your benefit. This is always true and is important to remember. Do you think your president fits this description? If you do, I'm sorry but you're deluding yourself.

I agree about the president but I feel the same about God. I like this quote:

"If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."

Report me then. In any normal conversation there are off topic moments. I just dont understand all the anger and resentment. It is actually fueling the tangents you wish to supress.

If animals and the environment could talk they would probably, for the most part, describe their relationship with humans as one of power, given the above definition of authority.

Some pets might agree with it.

Doesn't change the designated authority hierarchy. Its human beings' responsibility, as the authority, to be good stewards of the environment and animals and not be abusive. As I said, a true authority has the other's best interest at heart.

When people choose to abuse this (as in the cases you are thinking of) its wrong and a misuse of authority.

As for Kon, your cynicism is noted. God has not harmed you. People have, in his name, and this is also abuse. Place blame where blame is due.

One time I decided that I should give my teachers report cards every time they gave me mine. My psychologist told me not to. I didn't realize that it might offend them; I thought it was a good idea, since teaching is a two-way street. I'm angry that it would have offended them. Mature professionals shouldn't be offended by criticism; they should welcome it so they can improve themselves.

...so you took your psych's advice and did not hand out report cards?

a good compromise might have been to do it and then not actually give them out.

One of the exercises that therapists give to stutterers is to rate listeners. Maybe order a pizza on speaker phone and then the group can rate how the person taking the order did at listening. It helps to support your idea of "a two-way street"

I totally agree with that! The more modern universities are publishing professors' ratings by their students.

As for all the religious back-and-forth, someone seems to have decided that I must not be religious if I'm asking for the religious debates to cease, or even that I am anti-religion. In fact, I am a religious person myself, but the types of comments being posted were heavy-handedly religious to the point of being impolite in mixed company. Assuming that everyone worships your God or your Bible is bad manners. A biblical response was unfounded.

I usually slow down in front of police officers, not out of any genuine respect, just to stay safe. Couldn't care less about offending their personal feelings, just don't want to give them an excuse to hurt me or arrest me or even to give me a ticket.

As for famous people, I recognize that a lot of people give them "reverence" and "authority" but from my own personal beliefs I don't see any reason why being famous is so special. Even if I was neurotypical it would depend on the famous person. Being aware that I'm "supposed to" respect such and such a famous person wouldn't persuade me if I didn't like them. Some of them I respect for what they did to become famous. Others I see as stupid or some even evil and then I wouldn't even acknowledge them.

The dirty homeless person would get my respect. I don't know the dirty homeless person, but he's probably a good person whose fallen on some hard times. I'd show the poor guy some respect just for having to put up with such a terrible situation regardless of how he got into it. If I felt safe enough I might even invite him into my home for awhile and try to help him get on his feet.

I also feel that everyone is equal in worth except that some people are more experts at certain things than others and then I give that person "authority" as far as going to them for advice about those things. I don't think anyone deserves to have a higher standard of living just because they are experts at some activity that society places more value on than another. Why are doctors more important than janitors? There would be nearly enough doctors to take care of the medical crisis there would be if trash was never picked up. Differences in standard of living are only reasonable concerning the actual work an individual puts in factoring in their own needs and capabilities and even then I don't think there should be that huge of a difference. If that was put into practice I think overtime we'd reach a society of abundance where it would be safe to distribute solely according to need, but at first there'd be too many slackers so a measuring of a person's "labor" is in order. This could be accomplished by democratizing the workplaces. No more lazy owners collecting without working, and the workers would have an incentive to have at least some variance in pay based on the amount of work done. This would lead to more production and hence greater standard of living and also a greater "bargaining" position in a federation of other workplaces.

Yes, neurotypicals often claim to value equality. The irony is most of them are parroting what the mass media tells them and have also soaked in a distorted view of what equality means that is used to justify a highly unequal society.

Some social norms are useful but others are complete rubbish, and have their origins in lies propagated over the course of history to justify the position of the ruling class. In learning about social norms I always critically reflect on their basis in the material conditions of history. I don't just want to know "what" but also "why".

Society is not always right. Sometimes it's OK to knowingly violate social norms, especially norms that perpetuate alienation and oppression. You just have to think carefully about it, and also consider the conditions around you. Unfortunately, even when it's the right thing to do sometimes because of the consequences to yourself and even sometimes friends and loved ones it's necessary to hold back and toe the line.

Thanks, MidlifeAspie. I think you've spotted the fundamental flaw in wavefreak's assertion.


Sure, lots of people go off-topic by accident. The anger is caused by people deliberately continuing to post off-topic after the original poster has politely asked them not to.

You're correct that I risk fuelling the very tangents I wish to suppress. The problem is, when somebody makes it personal by hurling abuse, one has to be mindful of the effect of not countering the attack. Quite a dilemma......I think I'll click the "stop watching this topic" button after this, and leave it to others to make their own judgements. Never argue with idiots.......

Agreed 100%

this might be slightly beside the point, because it does not involve my direct interaction with another person.

does anybody else remember, when visiting as a youngster the obligatory cathedral or castle on the obligatory weekend excursion with the grandparents, looking at the masonry and thinking, "how did that get there? who built it?".
the statement " king x built this castle in xxxx to compete with versailles. he commissioned such and such architect and the renowned painter x from italy to help him fulfill his vision."
"no, he didn't!! ! grandpa, who really built this castle?"
it got worse with the cathedrals, when well informed guides would quote from still existing records, how much a worker would earn (often nothing, because it is such a great honour to partake in this task ) and how many had fallen to their death, whilst building this house of god.
"why would god want somebody to die such a horrible death for a bishop or regent, who sinned in his life and tried to redeem himself by building a pompous church?"
and the cherry on the cake was, when they told the widow and half-orphans, that their husband and father will probably go to heaven on the fast lane.
my young mind was frazzled.
it is like DGuru said, values and depictions of grandeur have been force-fed over and over again over centuries, but that does not make them right.

as i grew up i did come to understand that the expertise of an architect is different from that of a mason (could that mason have become an architect with the right support and education? how many architects and masons respectively would society need? it's an abyss, ), but i still have ambivalent feelings when visiting places like this.