SHIT! AND IT'S THE ILIAD, NOT THE ODYSSEY! GAH, I F***** UP THAT TITLE! XD

It's no secret I'm an Elitist, and a great fan of Aristotle (Plato more so among the Greeks, but Aristotle worked alliteratively with the intended title.) :)

Elitism based on merit seems logical and ethical to me...in fact, that's a central conflict in "The Iliad." Achilles feels he merits more of a reward than Agamemnon is giving him, he wants more, and probably deserves more, and at one point refuses to fight because he feels he's not being compensated for his talents adequately enough (leading to the death of his pretty-weak brother, who tries to take his place.)

Similarly, I would ask you, those of you with jobs--

Suppose you do a better job than your co-worker, who has the same sort of task...shouldn't you be paid more?

In some states--mine included--teaching pay for public schools (and sometimes colleges) are fixed, a teacher can get as many awards and accolades and be as lauded as they like, they still don't receive any more money than a sub-par teacher in their department; what's worse, in my view, is the instances in which these people must make decisions COLLECTIVELY...

If every vote counts for one, the over-achieving math teacher's opinion boils down to no more or less important or recognized than the under-achiever who, like me, has no idea what he's talking about on the subject of Algebra. ;) (Taking it a second time this summer, here's hoping this go around goes better with just this one class to focus on!) :)

I could go on, and will, if asked, but I'll stop there, and put it to you, before I go further:

Doesn't the Elitist, by-merit system sound better than the Pluralist, let's-all-be-perfectly-equal system, at least economically and politically? (IMPORTANT! I DO NOT mean, as Plato and Aristotle DO, to apply Elitism to LEGAL rights...it doesn't matter if you're Achilles or a myrmidon, if you're guilty of wrong-doing, you're still guilty equally and should face the same punsihment, I'm not suggesting elsewise.)

I don't have much to say on this matter, but socialism does not advocate 'my ignorance is the same as your degree/experience/etc' democracy. Also, the above is not a fault of democracy, but a fault in its application. It is entirely possible to mix a meritocracy and socialism and/or democracy.

Well, I'd say the application is largely tied to the theory, largeham...

If I have a theory on how to cure cancer, but the application of that theory actually makes cancer worse, it's hardly worthwhile, or at least it may be said it's flawed at best...

And for the record:

This is not meant as ANOTHER attack on socialism...we already have a huge thread for that, this is more of just basic Elitism vs. Pluralism in any form or application, not just Aristotle vs. Marx, that just worked for the title...

This is not a real question. Every economic system, at least in theory, rewards harder or more difficult work [The USSR had a piece wage system and wage scales based on difficulty of work and skill required]. You're creating a complete straw man here and using 'pluralism' in such a way that I don't recognize the word.

The only real question offered here is whether certain people are entitled to more political rights on account of some 'merit'. I would assume this means that only certain people are entitled to rule or entitled to vote. On what basis would you make this determination? Knowledge of politics? Wealth? Blood lines?

But I will concede, if there must be a political fixture for my viewpoint, yes, a meritocracy would, of course, be it...

And I will admit I find it harder for that to exist genuinely in either a socialist or democratic system than it might in a republican one (again, the political idea nd NOT the party, because the LAST thing I want is pointless Red vs. Blue yammering...)

Blah, "republican" is not a system. This misconception infuriates me because every student of mine wants to believe that a 'republic' is some kind of special political arrangement. All republic means is that sovereignty derives from the people and not a sovereign. That's it. That's all it means. It is not differentiated from "democracy". You can have democratic kingdoms and democratic republics. Democracy refers to the mechanism for selecting rulers. Republic refers to the source of authority/sovereignty.

For whatever reason, I think it's due to the stupidity of James Madison, Americans have this idea that republic is contrasted with democracy. Not at all. The UK is a democratic kingdom. America is a democratic republic.

Wait...

Before I answer your points, Putin, or try to:

You teach?

What? :)

Very weird use of the word "pluralist".

John Keegan puts forward an interesting psychology regarding the Greeks in general that the Myrmidons exemplify perfectly. "Perfectly" as in Aristotle's version of perfect.

Contemporary tribes (i.e. barbarians to the Greeks) would throw spears, break formation and run or be held in place by overlords who would threaten greater punishment for fleeing. The Greeks were among the first in the west to stylize stand-in-formation unit discipline and exhibit an ant-like willingness to die for a cause. This seems to have intimidated the hell out of poorly disciplined ill motivated opponents. Political reasoning aside (although not unimportant) I think Homer was praising the Myrmidon behavior as inexorable, unstoppable and impervious to pain or disruption so long as the formation (brotherhood) held together.

Xenaphon highlighted this archetype in his Anabasis which effectively was a playbook for Alexander.

Even Shakespeare's Henry V on military resolve . . .
Therefore, my lords, omit no happy hour
That may give furtherance to our expedition;
For we have now no thought in us but France,
Save those to God, that run before our business.

@manganese:

I know...I was going to use "Collectivist," but I REALLY want to avoid the usual pro/con socialism debate, it's not only been had to death, there's actually a thread going on right now on it...

And Elitism technically has "Pluralism" as an antonym, so...yeah...

@Putin:

"The only real question offered here is whether certain people are entitled to more political rights on account of some 'merit'."

That was something of the intention, yes...though not just political rights.

Part of the question is which would you rather be, or which is it BETTER to be--Achilles or a myrmidon, ie, strive to be The Great Singular Figure or, to steal another easy analogy, adapt sort of a Borg-like mentality, the idea that the pluralist whole, taking and assimilating all ideas and potential points of view equally (hence my using the term, I know it's a bit wonky, though; again, if you ahve a better substitute for "Pluralist" for what I mean here, by all menas, folks...I was just trying to avoid using "Collectivist") is to be valued over the individual.

Which is the greater power, the one to be praised:

Achilles or the Myrmidons?

Both are fierce forces, arguably the two strongest forces the Greeks had at Troy in the poem...

But which is what we should strive to be--a part of a greater whole ion society, or a whole unto ourselves and to hell with society, to a degree, as is evidenced by Achilles' spurning Agamemnon and the Greek command.

Again, Achilles had the greater MERIT to lead the Greeks and get the most bounty, he was the best warrior, and Agamamemnon had his position simpy because he was king...

Shouldn't merit win out?



This isn't meant as a straight political talk, we've had enough of those.

This is more of a "values" talk, what we value more as a society, what you value...and if those values are good or not.

@neverhurtstohelp:

First:

+2 for the EXCELLENT citing job AND for citing Shakespeare at that! ;)

That's an interesting view on the Myrmidons I hadn't considered Homer might have meant before...I still think, given how the soldiers and Achilles both wind up, he's condemning their blindness and totally drone-like activity to an extent, especially since he spends so much time praising the uniqueness and creativity and individual personas of the many heroes in the Iliad and Odyssey...but I can see some logic in that interpretation.

And, in fact, that interpretation is a good exemplar of the question at hand here:

ARE the Mymidons "stronger" or "better" for being so uniform and drone-like?
OR would it be better to be individualistic, is the price for such efficiency too steep? (I can't imagine, even if he did praise them for their effectiveness, that eh'd praise them for being drones, he was more individualistic than that, and Plato in "The Republic" argues to ban some of Homer's material on those grounds, that as good as his works may be artistically, his heroes show too much individual thought and too much perceived weakness at points to be allowed as study material for The Republic's soldiers.)

OK; let's have a meritocracy. How do you implement it?

Again I'd say this is more of an abstract discussion topic than a poltical one, but, to answer your question, a quick question first:

Are you asking how I would implement it into our current state?

Or are we playing Plato and creating a new, "perfect meritocracy" from scratch, no previous constitutions or laws to bind?

I'd settle for a decription how you operationalize "merit".

SHIT! AND IT'S THE ILIAD, NOT THE ODYSSEY! GAH, I F***** UP THAT TITLE! XD
obiwanobiwan (172 )
Thu 6 AM
It's no secret I'm an Elitist...
#################################################################
Oh, you're elite all right....

I don't pretend to be elite--yet--mapleleaf.

It's something I shoot for, something to believe in.

And, after all--I can value a quality even if I, myself, don't possess it?

I can root for the men who can throw baseballs faster...
Or write richer works...
Or paint more beautiful paintings...

Which wouldn't be very hard, anyway, since I can barely draw a stick figure, but the point is made.

Doubtless you don't care, but I don't care that you don't or won't, so there we are.

(But it's good to see your banal postings again...Sicarius has resurfaced, he could give you a run for your moeny as chief troll, you know...)

I'd rather be a Myrmidon than Achilles. Myrmidons had character. Achilles and Agamemnon were self-absorbed and their individualism led to disaster for them both.
Anyway, values are only possible in a collective society. Individualism is logically impossible.

Furthermore, herds always outlive "great animals". Your boy Nietzsche articulated this well.

"Anti-Darwin. — As for the famous “struggle for existence,” so far it seems to me to be asserted rather than proved. It occurs, but as an exception; the total appearance of life is not the extremity, not starvation, but rather riches, profusion, even absurd squandering —
and where there is struggle, it is a struggle for power. One should not mistake Malthus for nature. Assuming, however, that there is such a struggle for existence — and, indeed, it occurs — its result is unfortunately the opposite of what Darwin’s school desires, and of what one might perhaps desire with them — namely, in favor of the strong, the privileged, the fortunate exceptions."

"The species do not grow in perfection: the weak prevail over the strong again and again---for they are the great majority, and they are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (---that is English!), the weak have more spirit... One must need spirit to acquire spirit,---one loses it when one no longer needs it. Whoever has strength dispenses with the spirit (---"let it go!" they think in Germany today---"the Reich must still remain to us"...). It will be noted that by "spirit" I mean care, patience, cunning, simulation, great self-control, and everything that is mimicry (the latter includes a great deal of so-called virtue)."

OK, my basic view:

Where the law and rights are concerned, all men are created equal or to each according to his need.

Where priviledge and comfort in life are concerned, from each according to his ability and too each according to his contribution.

Certain aspects of life should be a given: adequate food, shelter, and health care. But the "extras" should be on merit. My company has it right, as far as I'm concerned. To balance it all out, you are judged based on your performance each year. Then the company's performance as a whole makes a base level determination (or base percentage). Finally, that is compared to where you are on the pay scale for your position. Take the base percentage plus the adjustment based on present position and performance, and that is your annual increase. Those at the top or exceeding their current pay grade usually get promoted. Thos starting out but who do well get a huge percentage compared to someone mid-level but just skating by. It allows everyone to keep up with inflation and to move up the scale based on the individual's performance.

Fuck "The Odyssey." Read "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner."

Who determines what is "adequate" food, shelter, and health care? That is always the rub that leads to the empowerment of the few over the many.

“I see little hope for democracy as an effective form of government, but I admire the poetry of how it makes its victims complicit in their own destruction.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky

Are you cold or wet? Shelter is not adequate.
Are you hungry or do you have rotting teeth and organs due to improper/malnutrition? Food not adequate.
Healthcare is a little trickier, although it includes glasses if you need them and treatment for ailments that are fully recoverable, but not necessarily for those brought on by the persons bad habits like smoking and/or drinking, and not necessarily transplants unless it will extend their life to the full term of 80-100 years that is generally considered a full life.

I forgot clothing though. That should also be in there and include no holes in shoes, shirts, pants, socks, etc. But doesn't include bling/jewelry or anything more than the basics like jeans, seasonally appropriate shirts, jackets, and coats, and both casual and work shoes (gym shoes for casual and work boots or whatever you need for the job). Oh, and the clothes should be an entire weeks needs so once a week doing laundry is all that is required.

Really, we can't possibly determine that people are dying of preventable diseases, can't possibly determine if people are homeless or live in homes which are unsafe or unsanitary, can't possibly know if people lack the critical minimum caloric intake?

Nothing like manufacturing definitional problems where none exist in order to rationalize ignoring the suffering of others.

Yes of course, everything is unknowable I forgot.

Putin is the self-appointed spokesman for anyone and everyone that is "suffereing." He will define "suffering" for you on a case by case basis when he bills you to care for someone you have never met once in your life, but who Putin says you are responsible for.

@Putin's Nietzsche Quotation:

I think you have olk' Friedrich's meaning flipped around.

He's saying that the herds and herd mentality have so far prevailed over the strong individual.

He does NOT say that as if it's a good thing, or in praise of the herd...

Drones are happier, they trust that their leader knows best, they work hard and feel satisfied. This is a happy state in which to exist. The Hero/Leader must worry about their Drones and keeping them happy, it is a very stressful and difficult position to be in.

Of course human drone may or may not trust their leader, and human leader may or may not worry/empathize with their drones... but then life is more complicated that blacks and white would have you think...

I would argue that the drone's satisfaction--if indeed, they can have a sense of satisfaction, which I'd argue, to an extent, they cannot--is lesser than an individual's/hero's.

Any satisfaction a drone might feel for any one action or occurance must be a communal satsifaction, since they cannot feel or enjoy invidualistic satisfaction...they're not individuals. As a result, this satisfaction is shared equally amongst the drones and, correspondingly, the share in the satisfaction each drone may enjoy decreases exponentially with the increase of the drone collective.

More drones=less of a PERSONAL sense of satisfaction, as well as less of an impact and a feeling of importance (ie, if you're part of a drone collective of 5,000 and you are, within that collective, one of 500 who are, say, "the guard ants" of the hive, and you fight and defend your hive successfully, you must share that success with, to begin with 500 others, and so your role seems less significant already, but the end satisfaction is decreased as well, all 5,000 take satisfaction from a safe hive, leaving you with little personal satisfaction that YOU did something left, it's entirely the HIVE that has done something...and, as a drone, since drone's are totally replacable, it's entirely possible to imagine your not being important at all, and thus you gain no satisfaction.)

Satisfaction from action derives from the magnitude of the action and the uniqueness and personal nature of the achievement.

Drones lose the former to the just-as-large-if-not-larger magnitude of their numbers and the latter to the impersonal nature of their achievements.