The Peter Principle in the Supernal Realms - A Novel Explanation for the Problem of Evil
Transcendence and universal truths are often considered in pari material. The Peter Principle, though often thought of as a mere hypothesis, rests not on empirical observation (whether such is employed to support the hypothesis or not), but simple self evident truths combined with the rules of thought as articulated from Aristotle to the present. On this basis, the Peter Principle is not only in play in this world (but one instantiation of many possible worlds) but in all worlds, possible or not, imminent or transcendent. It therefore stands to reason that god (whether one of one or one of many) has obtained god’s position by virtue of having failed up to its highest level of incompetence. In such a circumstance, where god’s greatness is obtained only as a function of being capable of being no better, it hardly requires significant effort to establish that evil necessarily manifests from god inherently sucking at its job. In support of this idea, one can simply remember/observe that everyone (who are putatively in god’s image) sucks at their job and thereby implicates the merit of their mold.
As related to me by my rabbi for your consideration this coming holy season.
As related to me by my rabbi for your consideration this coming holy season.
Comments (33)
Explains a lot, doesn't it?
Except, God's reportedly omniscient - impossible for a know-it-all to be bad at anything, right? An incompetent, all-knowing being is an oxymoron, like a "bitter-sweet", self-contradictory - something doesn't add up.
The Abrahamic religions are basically the only ones that struggle with the idea of an incompetent god - and I believe this is based on wrong expectation and misconception. The root of all of this is that in the scriptures, god on numerous occasion decides to intervene with humanity, most often in the form of punishment.
This gives us the idea that god has a plan for us, that there must be a certain way humans are supposed to act unless they are to face the wrath of god. In the original sin of Adam and Eve, the snake claims that the forbidden fruit will give them wisdom, that they will be able to discern between good and evil. After they ate the fruit, the first thing they do is cover up their nakedness. Why did they do that? Because of shame? Because them being naked was evil? Hardly. They were made that way afterall.
What the forbidden fruit really represented, the way I interpret it, was the ability to judge gods creation. In a way it was wisdom indeed. The ability to discern things. An ability that allows us to apply logic and philosophize about such matters today. But the essential thing here is that human understanding of "good and evil" likely was different from god's understanding - showcased in the act of covering up their bare bodies.
Now if we move away from Abrahamic religion, which in the end is a grand compilation of numerous texts by numerous authors - not free from contradiction - what is good and evil?
Good and evil are very much human concepts. The judgement of what is good and what is evil is as personal as religious belief in itself. Where did humanity get the idea that they are favoured by god? Where did humanity get the idea that god's job is to look after them, to prevent evil and promote good? Even in the bible that original sin right from the start tells us: That is not god's job. We are endowed with free will. It wasn't earned either - it was there from the start. The lesson here is merely that our actions have consequences.
Demoted? :chin:
Bit of a failure, it seems.
But, you couldn't devolve into something lower in rank than yourself, right? unless, of course, God shares the same human frailties but then we're looking at a being that's all too human, not God God.
time stamp 1:38
[quote=The Merovingian (to his thugs when he sees Neo bleeding)]You see, he's just a man.[/quote]
Evolution is not teleological. No higher or lower. The premise is muddled. Like in that silly film.
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about evolution. Let's keep this simple. Yes, a person who's acquired a PhD in some field can lose everything that the PhD stands for e.g. if he suffers a stroke, brain trauma in an accident, and so on but we're here talking about a being that has achieved omniscience - there's nothing this being (God) doesn't know - and I find it hard to believe that an omniscient being can be bad at anything let alone his job.
The movie's not silly. :smile: It deals with many philosophical issues.
Badly.
As best as a layman could, no?
What about :point: Quoting TheMadFool
Those that can do, those that can’t teach.
While not a universal principle in the same way as the Peter Principle, it is well known that that one can know the particulars and yet be unable to execute. This is intimated in the tension between “knowledge that” and “knowledge how”. In an uncritical view of god’s omniscience, one might simply accept that god’s omniscience includes all forms knowledge and of necessity, knowledge how includes the ability to execute that knowledge. Consider the person that knows how to add and when presented with all of the relevant figures still comes to the wrong sum. This person, engaged purely in intellectual endeavor, didn’t know something and is clearly not god. But now imagine that an invisible being, who knows both everything about strutting down a runway (knowledge that and knowledge how) and has the desire to do so, struts down the runway. In some abstract way, it is probably the best runway strutting anyone would be able to do, but no one saw it - indeed no one was capable of seeing. In this way, necessary features of god can preclude the meaningful manifestation of god’s knowledge. Though far afield, perhaps this accounts for “god the teacher” who provides instruction on how to make the world a better place. Remember, though, if knowledge how is actually not knowledge, and god is imbued with only knowledge that (acquaintance knowledge is taken for granted because god knows everyone), it may be that god’s incompetence has additional explanations.
In any event, given enough time (which an infinite god has surely had) god will reach god’s maximum level of competence and thereafter function at least at god’s lowest level of incompetence (which may or may not be the most god can get away with and keep the job). At this level of incompetence, god can be unable to do despite complete knowledge of what to do, how to do it, and the consequences of the incompetence god will manifest in attempting to do so. The Peter Principle does not preclude god functioning at the highest possible level of potency, it merely highlights that superlatives are of necessity ordinal and being number one (in spirit, character, or count) for god says nothing about god’s invariant competence.
P.S. Auto-correct on a phone is, I believe, anti-intellectual.
Relevance?
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
I do respect your call for a critical examination of omniscience; it, for sure, counts as one of the best advice I've received. However, omniscience in re God is an attribute specifically crafted by theists to leave not even a tiny sliver of doubt as to what it means and what it implies - absolute knowledge that is perfect in every sense of perfect. To give you an idea of what it means, even if it were that there's nothing to know, god would know something - that, in my opinion, is the scope, if that's even the right word for it, of God's knowledge.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
You have failed to make your case even though your attempt is commendably novel in its approach to the issue of the problem of evil. Why? For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window but if that, you would be arguing against not God but something else entirely, an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, non-omniscient being - that's not God.
Liberal theology has come along way since the formulation of God as omniscient( see process theology, open theism).
Again, knowing and doing are two separate things. A paralyzed Olympian knows how but can't do. A marginally competent god is the same way. Omniscience is not the problem with what I am saying, it is omnipotence. Can there be a constraint on god and it still be omnipotent? You'll find that people have historically argued that god can do anything logically possible. What I have done is suggest that the Peter Principle is a necessary logical constraint on god. Random Wiki on Omnipotence
A quibble - This is not true. The Peter Principle was developed by Dr. Laurence Peter based on his empirical research.
What is it about the world being an instantiation of the forms which must exist of necessity? For us to observe and discover the necessary is not to make the necessary empirical, it is just the way that we must experience the world. So yes, his research was empirical, but what he discovered was timeless. It would be like claiming that the first person that said, "On a plane, a circle consists of all points equidistant from a fixed point" invented a circle rather than discovered it! Or perhaps you'd like to say that 2+2 requires empirical proof because we came to number theory by counting our fingers? Wouldn't that be silly?
Although I think the Peter Principle may be a plausible explanation for the behaviors and performance of some people in hierarchical institutions, I don't think it is self-evident, or as you call it, "an instantiation of forms." It is a generalization from observations.
And I can generalize that 2+2=4. And also like I said, I can observe people categorically sucking and thereby glean something of their mold. So not only does god self-evidently suck at being god, but also demonstrably sucks at being god.
I most certainly agree that there's a difference between knowing and doing - the former is pure thought while the latter is action. There's a causal gap indeed between the two as many thoughts aren't acted upon and sometimes what happens is a far cry from what was intended. The latter situation (italicized) is where incompetence enters into the picture.
There seems to be something off about the Peter principle. Let's take an example from the military, it seems the most obvious choice for studying how promotions work.
The Peter principle claims that, say, a brigadier (2nd highest rank), Jack, is promoted to general (highest office in the military) because Jack is a competent brigadier and second, in the same breath, asserts that Jack is an incompetent general.
How then can Jack ever be given a promotion to the rank of general? Jack's an incompetent general. That competent brigadiers are promoted to general indicates that the logic of promotion in this case is, good brigadier = good general or competent brigadier = competent general. The same principle applies to all cases of promotions.
Similarly, imagine a being's been promoted to God. This can only be the case if this being's level of competence at the next lower level is at par with that of a God. In other words, God's competent.
:ok: :up:
I appreciate your seeming sincerity, but one can be a flirt only so long. This post is largely an example of Poe’s Law.
That said, there are some things to be gleaned from an absurd analysis of the Omni-god, but as this is a philosophy forum (which is concerned primarily with method), I will not elaborate in a way that would strike of being religious.
I will, however, tell you that this story is an absurd expansion of an actual sermon which is timely for Jews thinking about the themes of some upcoming holidays. Charity and humility (the acceptance that others will suck at their jobs while we suck at our own) are virtues that go a long way towards maintaining relationships and allowing ourselves and others to seek and give forgiveness for our failings. The Peter Principle (empirical as it is) is a relatively contemporary tool for framing the abundant incompetence we see and highlighting the systems and systemic forces that foster it.
You seem to be on top of things.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
So, God wasn't what you wanted to discuss. What you really wanted was an opinion on human failings, incompetence, and how it would be better if we cut each other some slack to avoid unnecessary headaches. We did discuss that too, although only superficially.
The Peter principle applies to hierarchical structures; but not a statue, nor a painting ever gets promoted to the job of artist. It makes no sense to suggest it, and that is God's relation to His creation and to all other creatures.
People. God might have been good at somethings once upon a time, but as widely conceived these days? A bit like using a screw driver to try turning the main shaft of an aircraft carrier.
Everyone’s, Hanover.
What I really wanted to do was share a bit of humor in religious philosophy. What makes it funny is how it hints at something more profound and gives momentary context for the vicissitudes of life. Just imagine that the reason for life being the way it is is due to some dawdling good natured putz who knows everything, but just can’t seem to get out of his own way. It would be such a nice explanation, even if it isn’t.
I gain greater comfort in knowing that each blade of grass is exactly where it ought to be. Why do you gain greater comfort in divine halfassery?
Man created god in his own image?
Nice.
But I try to think of God as the ideal. No need to aspire to be the guy next door.
1) Flat rank up: Promotion to general from brigadier rank means you have to be a competent brigadier. Peter principle applies.
2) Slope rank up: Promotion to general means, in addition to being a competent brigadier, one has to be a competent general. Peter principle doesn't apply.
God's numero uno status was achieved via 1 or 2? It remains a mystery.