The question of authority

[Peter_Kropotkin]

the problem of the Enlightenment was this question of
authority… On whose authority should we act?
Should we follow god and the bible in our lives or
should we follow the political authorities, the state,
the king, democracy, dictatorship? and on whose
authority do we practice ethics/morality?

the entire Enlightenment project centered around the question
of authority… should we consider ourselves as being the voice
of authority? this is where democracy hinges on… and the political
question of who is in charge and who pays… virtually all of political
theory revolves around this point, who is in charge/and why, and who
pays?.. the three major political revolutions all deal with this question,
the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution…
who is in charge, has the authority, and why them and who pays?

Much of the defense of traditional authority, god, bible, church,
revolves around the statement that man is sin and by in sin,
man is unworthy, unable to be in charge, to be the authority
due to this failure of the weakness/sin of man…
thus the state or church is best for being the authority of man, in charge,
because of the weakness and sin of human beings makes them unable
to govern themselves…

Virtually the entire argument of the Enlightenment revolves around
this point… that man/human beings are able to govern themselves,
they have no need for external authorities to run their lives,
individually or collectively… We have traveled from childhood,
where we needed authority to guide us, to the point where we
no longer need any authority to rule/govern us… we are adults…
and thus, we act and are moral in an adult fashion… the state/church
no longer is our role model, we are our own role model… thus the value
of the ‘‘great men’’ …Gandhi, Goethe, MLK… as people who set
the standard by which we follow… not god or the bible or the state,
but individual human beings set the role models we follow, and not
Jesus… But Kropotkin, why not Jesus? For he is alleged to be god,
and we no longer need metaphysical authority to govern our lives…

So, the question of authority becomes this, whose authority do we follow
and why that authority?

When IQ45 says only ‘‘he can fix it’’… America, he is claiming to be
the authority to follow… but even a cursory glance at his past,
tells us he has been and continues to be a failure in everything he
has ever tried… he has started over 50 businesses and every single one
of them has failed…he has declared bankruptcy 6 times… that is
not having success… that is failure… and we should not
follow failure as our role model…

so, in this day and age, whose authority should we follow?
and the answer, for me anyway, is we should follow our own
beliefs and understanding…but that requires us to know
and understand what our beliefs and values are…
and not have beliefs and values that have been indoctrinated
by the state, church, media, schooling… for that is simply
following, rather blindly, the beliefs and values of the state,
the church, the media… which is exactly what we are trying to
avoid…if we are to follow our own values and beliefs,
we must have values and beliefs that are our own, not indoctrinated
values and beliefs of the state, church, media…

this is the point and value of Nietzsche overcoming… to overcome
the indoctrinations of the state/church/media/education…
otherwise, we haven’t gotten anywhere…and we are still
following the authority of the state/media/church/education…
which is the thing we are trying to avoid…

whose authority do you follow? and why that authority?

Kropotkin

[boagie1 (james boag)]

I wouldn’t even consider a discussion of the supernatural as an authority, considering it the weakest of all possible positions. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, that is, biological consciousness. In the absence of biological consciousness the physical world is utterly meaningless, for there is nothing in this world that has meaning in and of itself, except in relation to biological consciousness. The only authority in this world is the consciousness of life, and that authority safeguards life itself. The only distinction that can be made for an organism as authority is the distinction between the individual and the collective consciousness of the society the individual submits himself to. This is not often a conscious choice but a context the individual finds himself within at birth, so one is born into the authority of the collective in the form of family and then society at large. Only in the collective of society is one subjected to a system of morality of a generational tradition, for morality in isolation would have no purpose, freedom, and morality being mutually exclusive. Here the individual sacrifices freedom for security, but does not always stay the course of collective standards of established morality. His will and the will of the majority come into conflict, and he either conforms or suffers the consequences. So, the ultimate conclusion is biological life, biological consciousness is the authority safeguarding life itself.

[Bob]

@boagie1

I wouldn’t even consider a discussion of the supernatural as an authority, considering it the weakest of all possible positions.

After spending much of my life investigating spirituality and religion, I often have the idea that the so-called “supernatural” is actually the underlying principle, the “ground of being” rather than a being. It arises out of human beings’ ability to imagine or to look at something from a different perspective, perhaps from above. I find this ability quite helpful.

@boagie1

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, that is, biological consciousness. In the absence of biological consciousness the physical world is utterly meaningless, for there is nothing in this world that has meaning in and of itself, except in relation to biological consciousness.

Interestingly, you use the term “biological consciousness.” Is there a need to distinguish between biological and non-biological consciousness? What could that be?

@boagie1

The only authority in this world is the consciousness of life, and that authority safeguards life itself. The only distinction that can be made for an organism as authority is the distinction between the individual and the collective consciousness of the society the individual submits himself to.

By “consciousness of life,” do you mean its perception? Is that an authority or just an experience? Is observation always discernment? Do you mean by “the collective consciousness of the society” the general opinions? I find that consciousness is primary; without it, I wouldn’t perceive or discern anything and, therefore, would resemble an automated biological entity, merely reacting to my environment. Most animals are above that level, and with time, we may be able to communicate at a lower level. Human beings could communicate at a higher level but are seldom balanced enough and are distracted.

@boagie1

This is not often a conscious choice but a context the individual finds himself within at birth, so one is born into the authority of the collective in the form of family and then society at large. Only in the collective of society is one subjected to a system of morality of a generational tradition, for morality in isolation would have no purpose, freedom, and morality being mutually exclusive. Here the individual sacrifices freedom for security, but does not always stay the course of collective standards of established morality. His will and the will of the majority come into conflict, and he either conforms or suffers the consequences. So, the ultimate conclusion is biological life, biological consciousness is the authority safeguarding life itself.

Morality and ethics are interwoven. Morality provides the specific content of what is considered right or wrong, and ethics offers the philosophical tools to systematically analyse, critique, and apply these moral beliefs. Ethos originally meant “custom,” “habit,” or “character.” It refers to the characteristic way of living or behaving, often shaped by one’s upbringing and environment. So, ethos can be seen as a reflection of the collective identity of the group or place you belong to.

The problem arises, and often has, when the place we belong to has habits that go against my sense of good and evil. The question is, where does my dissent come from? Where has this sense of morality arisen?

Some theories suggest that humans possess innate moral intuitions—basic instincts or predispositions toward certain moral principles, such as fairness, empathy, or harm avoidance. These instincts might lead you to question or resist practices in your community that you perceive as unjust or harmful.

My dissidence might arise from rational reflection and critical thinking. I might question the norms of my community through reasoned analysis, comparing them against universal ethical principles or alternative moral frameworks.

Personal experiences, especially those that involve suffering, injustice, or witnessing harm, can profoundly shape my moral outlook. If my experiences contradict the values of my community, they may inspire a sense of moral dissent.

So, my dissent, or the sense that my community’s habits conflict with my understanding of good and evil can arise from a complex interplay of innate moral intuitions, rational reflection, personal experiences, exposure to different cultures, education, internalised universal values, psychological factors, and historical consciousness.