Whenever You Rely On Somebody Else

This is false, for the simple fact that authorities rely on those without authority. Short of physical force, no one actually has power over others. A president is only a president because enough people agree that they are a president. It is an illusion, or rather a social construct. Societies are constructed on a series of ideas and agreements, nothing more.

Maybe you meant to word your concept differently? "Authority" means they have command over you. But if a person you rely on does not live up to your expectations, they don't have command over you. You're forced at that point to rely on someone else, or yourself. Someone with authority can punish in a way separate from your reliance, like putting you in prison or harming you in other ways.

Quoting HardWorker

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you

Only if that's how you construct your worldview - in terms of power relations. Personally I see reliance as an issue of mutual trust and positive regard. But it may depend upon the context. The notion of 'rely' and 'others' needs further clarification.

Quoting praxis

This is false, for the simple fact that authorities rely on those without authority. Short of physical force, no one actually has power over others. A president is only a president because enough people agree that they are a president. It is an illusion, or rather a social construct. Societies are constructed on a series of ideas and agreements, nothing more.

You sound like a defender of anarchism (not anarchy, which is very different). These people say there is no authority above the individual. I may yield to your authority only if I choose to do so, and set the standards for compliance, given the obvious need for a deference to representative and delegated offices in a complex government.
They are keen about things like direct democracy rather than having a bunch of elected officials making decisions for us. Lately, I lean toward Plato's philosopher kings democratically elected. And for this we need a very educated society. One day.......

Quoting Philosophim

Maybe you meant to word your concept differently? "Authority" means they have command over you. But if a person you rely on does not live up to your expectations, they don't have command over you. You're forced at that point to rely on someone else, or yourself. Someone with authority can punish in a way separate from your reliance, like putting you in prison or harming you in other ways.

If only life were that easy. Authorities get very entangled in human affairs, politics--in government, at the office, at school, and so on. Such a mess.

Quoting Tom Storm

Only if that's how you construct your worldview - in terms of power relations. Personally I see reliance as an issue of mutual trust and positive regard. But it may depend upon the context. The notion of 'rely' and 'others' needs further clarification.

It is a fuzzy term, I think, in the extreme. The concept of an authority is not simply a fiction, I would argue. Any social concept you can think of has some hierarchical feature built into it, even if not explicitly so.

Quoting Constance

Any social concept you can think of has some hierarchical feature built into it, even if not explicitly so.

That's probably true. But I tend to work to minimize the inclination by not reinforcing hierarchies unless I can't avoid it. :wink:

Quoting HardWorker

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you.

In most organizations, management has the authority and power, and that is the power over subordinates. The manager who died not rely on others is the worst manager of all because he can't figure out that his role is to oversee the operation and not to work the assembly line.

It depends on the person. But I would guess that the majority of people who have someone that relies on them sees that as an opportunity for exploitation. I've seen a lot of that in my years. Again, depends on the person. I think women are especially vulnerable to this type of exploitation.

Quoting Tom Storm

That's probably true. But I tend to work to minimize the inclination by not reinforcing hierarchies unless I can't avoid it. :wink:

Yeah. That's the spirit. One has to know when one is simply going along with the climate of thinking. But philosophy attempts to take this kind of independence to its extreme end, which is why it is not well received, because no one wants to think that hard about what is there, at hand, and familiar. Philosophy is a radical extension of what it means to question an authority. Foucault: Am I being ventriloquized by history? Ever word I speak, after all, is learned, but have I assimilated language, or has language assimilated me? Assimilation here means in authority.

Quoting HardWorker

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you. An advantage of being independent is that you're not giving people power of you, you're not giving people authority over you. This is something to realize if you do plan to rely on others and if you do plan to not be a recluse.

Oddly, you are interpreting "rely" as a vertical relationship where anyone you rely on has (up down) authority over you. True enough vertical reliance/authority relationships exist. However, most o the people rely on are in a horizontal relationship, where authority over doesn't play a role. We are all reliant on many people, every day--all the other people who, along with our esteemed selves, keep the world running. Everything from the sewer system on up to the banking system.

The postal worker, bank teller, grocery store worker, and everybody else I rely on for bits and pieces of everyday life, have no authority over me, even though I rely on them.

That said, I don't like other people having arbitrary or extensive control over me (though one puts up with it because total avoidance is not possible), and there is a large set of relationships (work, law enforcement, medicine, public health, etc.) where control and reliance are paired.

In the old forum, back in the days when philosophers were ...

{10 pages later}

... and the button that here is labelled "Post Comment" was more accurately inscribed "Submit". You submit your ideas to the online community; and they put you straight!

Quoting Bitter Crank

The postal worker, bank teller, grocery store worker, and everybody else I rely on for bits and pieces of everyday life, have no authority over me, even though I rely on them.

So you don't have to pay for your groceries or buy stamps for your post? You pay whatever you like?

Unfortunately the kind of independence you ask for would be illegal, fatal, or at least require being dropped off in a fire station baby box.

You could continue on throughout stages of life, each progressive hypothetical becoming less and less ridiculous and relevant to your point I'd assume you'd think. But at the end of the day, it's the same dynamic. There's someone who can protect you either by declining to harm you simply because they could (be it a larger person, random criminal, government, alien race, what have you) or to do so directly out of benevolence when you have an active and unaddressed need. In an open and free society where you can address your own basic biological needs (food, water, shelter) this is pretty much true. With the one caveat of the fact if your governing bodies military were to become defunct others would perhaps come in and change what they please, and of course due to your alliance toward said government would offer resistance, and in such a scenario would result in.. a few things. None which one would call "good", based on widely accepted standards and definitions.

So, at the end of the day we're all connected in a society, and this connection is a dynamic relationship that may result in one being "receiver" or "supplier" or perhaps both at any given moment in time. Unless you're literally on a remote island or jungle, forging your own resources to address your needs from the surrounding environment. In which case we wouldn't be communicating.

Reply to HardWorker Reliance tends to be mutual. A web of interdependence that permits us to collectively do far more than we could individually.

Your recluse would be doing well to build a hut.

You might have done better to use the word "dependence" in the place of "reliance". You can rely on one person, but have the option of moving on to another if they let you down or make too great a demand. Being [i]dependent[/I] implies that the option of working with someone else is removed. Dependency perhaps lacks the mutuality of reliance.

So you have presented a case against monopoly. I won't disagree with that.

But I do think that individualism is harmful, indeed, emphasis on individualism is one of the nasty things lurking in the background of much of the demise of what we might loosely call western culture. Failing to acknowledge our mutual interdependence has led to the peneary of our common wealth.

We are in this collectively. That involves giving up some part of your autonomy. Get with it, or go live in your grass hut.

Quoting Constance

Philosophy is a radical extension of what it means to question an authority. Foucault: Am I being ventriloquized by history? Ever word I speak, after all, is learned, but have I assimilated language, or has language assimilated me? Assimilation here means in authority.

I can't disagree with this sentiment and it has, without the benefit of reading much Foucault, been my general approach.

Quoting Banno

But I do think that individualism is harmful, indeed, emphasis on individualism is one of the nasty things lurking in the background of much of the demise of what we might loosely call western culture. Failing to acknowledge our mutual interdependence has led to the peneary of our common wealth.

:up:

But it's interesting to see that Quoting Banno

But I do think that individualism is harmful, indeed, emphasis on individualism is one of the nasty things lurking in the background of much of the demise of what we might loosely call western culture. Failing to acknowledge our mutual interdependence has led to the peneary of our common wealth.

We are in this collectively. That involves giving up some part of your autonomy. Get with it, or go live in your grass hut.

Individualism killed western culture? Quite a thing to say. What part of western culture are you talking about? Given that culture is literally built out of dissent.

Reply to Constance

Most of politics since Thatcher and Reagan. Trumpism. Neoliberal economics. The failure to invest in social capital, such as education and health, let alone roads and pipelines. Shit, celebrity itself, the worship of individuals to the detriment of quality. Rap music. Need I go on?

Quoting Constance

Given that culture is literally built out of dissent.

Not speaking for Banno, but for me culture (for all its problems) is built out of cooperation and the overarching goal is to include as many stakeholders as possible. You can see that the significant problems of human existence - resource allocation, climate change, war, can only be successfully dealt with and remedied through cooperative ventures. If not, we are lost.

Quoting Banno

Most of politics since Thatcher and Reagan. Trumpism. Neoliberal economics. The failure to invest in social capital, such as education and health, let alone roads and pipelines. Shit, celebrity itself, the worship of individuals to the detriment of quality. Rap music. Need I go on?

Oh. So you're talking about some kind of libertarianism. That is not individualism AT ALL. That is economic fascism.

Quoting Tom Storm

Not speaking for Banno, but for me culture (for all its problems) is built out of cooperation and the overarching goal is to include as many stakeholders as possible. You can see that the significant problems of human existence - resource allocation, climate change, war, can only be successfully dealt with and remedied through cooperative ventures. If not, we are lost.

In political terms, in global political, I most strongly agree. But in terms of the way we stand at the receiving end of a body of determinative thinking, no.

Quoting Constance

But in terms of the way we stand at the receiving end of a body of determinative thinking, no.

Say some more.

Quoting Constance

So you're talking about some kind of libertarianism.

No, I am talking about individualism, the social theory "favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control".

Quoting Tom Storm

Not speaking for Banno, but for me culture (for all its problems) is built out of cooperation and the overarching goal is to include as many stakeholders as possible. You can see that the significant problems of human existence - resource allocation, climate change, war, can only be successfully dealt with and remedied through cooperative ventures. If not, we are lost.

Overwhelmingly, yes. The emphasis on competition is an anomaly deriving form a misguided account of how capitalism works. The idea is that competition rules the reduction of cost. But due consideration will show that to be too narrow a view. Take the baker who is in competition with the alternate baker across the street; both are reliant on the farmer who grows the grain, the miller, those who transport these items, the gas supply, the roads that bring customers. The degree to which he cooperates with others is far greater than the degree to which he competes.

But the myth of competition has bastardised our understanding of society.

Quoting HardWorker

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you.

And if this person relies on you, in a reciprocal relationship of mutual aid, do you not have "authority" over them? Or does authority cease to be a distinction?

Voluntary associations imply that each party freely chooses to participate; each party could survive on its own, but each chooses to cooperate for the mutual benefit obtained in doing so.

Quoting Banno

No, I am talking about individualism, the social theory "favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control".

You're talking about classical liberalism. Libertarians think like this, while also looking to ease restrictions on social values as well. Anyway, if this is what you object to, then more power to you. There is, on the other hand, the notorious "they", the ones who keep an Orwellian eye out for odd behavior, make sure we all toe the line, the omnipresent guards of the panopticon, that implicit standard of what is right and what is taboo that we all internalize.

I want to say I despise this kind of thing, but obviously, this needs to be qualified. This is the stuff arguments are made of.

Quoting Tom Storm

Say some more.

I speak of the dogmatic approach to living and thinking. Unquestioned rules and ideas. to me the question, that is, the resistance that is posed by the possibility of an opposition, this needs to be free. It most assuredly does cause trouble, but living in this "tension" of irony in which all things stand challenged and nothing sits too firmly, this is the essence of a free society.

Reply to Constance No, I'm talking about the emphasis on individuality over cooperation. That is the flaw in neoliberalism, not found in the more nuanced accounts of classical liberalism.

My interest is in ethics, as prior to politics. Or better, as what politics ought be.

Quoting Constance

I speak of the dogmatic approach to living and thinking. Unquestioned rules and ideas.

I understand this and agree. But perhaps one can also be dogmatic about not being dogmatic and end up sinking in a quicksand of mutually opposed world-views.

Quoting Constance

to me the question, that is, the resistance that is posed by the possibility of an opposition, this needs to be free.

I don't understand this sentence.

Quoting Constance

but living in this "tension" of irony in which all things stand challenged and nothing sits too firmly, this is the essence of a free society.

Indeed. And it is the tension inherent in pluralism. It's very easy to have the semblance of order, stability and certainty if we are living in a theocracy.

Quoting Banno

My interest is in ethics, as prior to politics. Or better, as what politics ought be.

Ethics prior to politics? But all politics is, if you will, an ethics prior to itself as it's good standing rests with essential defensible moral grounding. I generally criticize libertarian thinking on the grounds that it encourages a division of wealth that isn't morally defensible.

No ethics, no politics. What, therefore, ethics do you have in mind?

Quoting Constance

No ethics, no politics.

No, Ethics.

Sure, politics is just ethics recast. Ethics concerns our relation with others, as does politics. It is a misguided emphasis on individualism that misguides folk to libertarianism. Libertarianism is one symptom among many, indicative of the problem of individualism as ethics.

What is it you want?

Quoting Tom Storm

I understand this and agree. But perhaps one can also be dogmatic about not being dogmatic and end up sinking in a quicksand of mutually opposed world-views.

I guess you are referring to one who is a kind of rebel without a cause, someone who will not compromise at all. I think this can be understood in two ways: One is the irrational nonconformist, the anarchist, and I see no hope for people like this. The burden of living is living with others, and this has a very insistent sense of obligation in it, ethics. The other sees with clarity that these obligations we have are entangled with history and hardened thinking and challenges these to the purpose of better understanding. Here, I find one rule: do no harm (Mill's famous rule). Everything that follows from this is at issue, but this I take as foundational.

Quoting Tom Storm

I don't understand this sentence.

I mean, irony is the stuff prose and poetry are made of. It is the essence of entertainment itself, and irony is in its essence opposition, the strain that is created in resistance. Meaning itself, it can be argued, as a play of language in which one thing is not another and in this tension, the singularity is born, is ironic.

This may seem far flung. But Kierkegaard wrote his doctoral thesis along these lines (a have read only parts myself. It is about Socrates and his incessant questioning of everything. The question pierces complacency, stirs the world up. Ironic tension permeates social discourse) and Rorty's Contingency, Irony and Solidarity talks like this. This latter is excellent.

Quoting Tom Storm

Indeed. And it is the tension inherent in pluralism. It's very easy to have the semblance of order, stability and certainty if we are living in a theocracy.

I quite agree.

Quoting Banno

Sure, politics is just ethics recast. Ethics concerns our relation with others, as does politics. It is a misguided emphasis on individualism that misguides folk to libertarianism. Libertarianism is one symptom among many, indicative of the problem of individualism as ethics.

What is it you want?

Just wondering, really. Cooperation and individuality. Not an easy equation.

Reply to Constance Cheers. Further reading on the thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12496/if-men-wish-to-be-free-it-is-precisely-sovereignty-they-must-renounce-/p1.

Quoting Banno

Stopping at red traffic lights allows one to get to one's destination safely and quickly.

We have worked with a notion of freedom that pits one person against the others by imagining a battle between freedom and sovereignty. Arendt contrasts this with a notion of freedom as satisfying one's goals, achieving what one is capable of, by being part of a social space that not just enables but builds cooperation and capacity.

It would not be difficult to link this to Nussbaum's capabilities approach.

Hence, "If men wish to be free, it is precisely sovereignty they must renounce.”

So,

Quoting HardWorker

This is something to realize if you do plan to rely on others and if you do plan to not be a recluse.

Indeed.

Politics is not ethics recast this is the most pernicious idea in all of philosophy and one day we will burn all of Rawls to the ground and everything will be better again.

But otherwise yes absolutely, the ability to rely on, and work with each other has amplified human ability beyond anything any of us could ever imagine.

This was relevant:

Is The Age Of Individualism Coming To An End?

Quoting Bitter Crank

We are all reliant on many people, every day--all the other people who, along with our esteemed selves, keep the world running. Everything from the sewer system on up to the banking system.

:up:

Reply to praxis

This is false, for the simple fact that authorities rely on those without authority. Short of physical force, no one actually has power over others. A president is only a president because enough people agree that they are a president. It is an illusion, or rather a social construct. Societies are constructed on a series of ideas and agreements, nothing more.

But if you rely on somebody else they do have authority over you in some form even if you think you're the one who has the authority. Lets say you're a boss and you've got people working for you, you've got to pay them otherwise they won't work for you. You might think you've got all the authority since you're the boss but they've got authority too. They've got the authority to get money from you, however much you've agreed to pay them.

Quoting HardWorker

You might think you've got all the authority since you're the boss but they've got authority too. They've got the authority to get money from you, however much you've agreed to pay them.

Employees or labor has collective power if they can coordinate. That's why socialism is such a dirty word.

Reply to praxis

Employees or labor has collective power if they can coordinate. That's why socialism is such a dirty word.

But even without the collective power, even if you've got just one person working for you, you've still got to pay them enough so that they will work for you. So they've got authority over you in that sense.

Quoting HardWorker

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you. An advantage of being independent is that you're not giving people power of you, you're not giving people authority over you. This is something to realize if you do plan to rely on others and if you do plan to not be a recluse.

Given that we’re born dependent, and that we rely on so many systems, manufacturers and suppliers in our day-to-day lives, at what point can you claim to be ‘independent’ - relying on no one at all? It seems to me that anyone who claims to be independent is demonstrating ignorance to some extent.

Interdependence is an important aspect of being human, if you do plan to not be a recluse. The thing about giving people authority is that it doesn’t detract from your own. If it’s authority over you or aspects of your life that you’re giving, then you still have the authority to take it back.

Quoting HardWorker

But even without the collective power, even if you've got just one person working for you, you've still got to pay them enough so that they will work for you. So they've got authority over you in that sense.

I’m not entirely sure you understand what authority is: the power to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience. If I pay someone enough so that they agree to work for me, I haven’t given them authority in that sense. We’ve entered into an agreement, and we both retain authority over our own part in that agreement. I give them an agreed sum of money, they give me an agreed allocation of their time, effort and attention. Anything outside of this agreement is subject to further negotiation.

I’m not entirely sure you understand what authority is: the power to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience. If I pay someone enough so that they agree to work for me, I haven’t given them authority in that sense. We’ve entered into an agreement, and we both retain authority over our own part in that agreement. I give them an agreed sum of money, they give me an agreed allocation of their time, effort and attention. Anything outside of this agreement is subject to further negotiation.

So there you have it, when you mention that you both retain authority over your part of the agreement that means they do have some authority. Im not saying their authority is exclusive or that you don't also have authority, Im just pointing out that if you depend on somebody else that person has power over you in some form or another. In this example it would be the power to get money from you, however much you've agreed to pay them in exchange for them working for you. You have to obediently pay them the agreed upon amount otherwise they won't work for you.

As Obi Wan Kenobi would say, "From a certain point of view."

Quoting HardWorker

But even without the collective power, even if you've got just one person working for you, you've still got to pay them enough so that they will work for you. So they've got authority over you in that sense.

It depends on the circumstances. Generally speaking, an employer wants the most amount of work for the least amount of money, and the employee wants the most amount of money for the least amount of work. There are many factors that influence how this struggle is worked out.

If the work for an employer doesn't require much skill or particular ability, and there are many candidates without skill or ability available, an employee has no bargaining power because they are easily replaced. If the prevailing society didn't allow you to force them to do the work, as in slavery, the employer could pay just enough whereby an employee would reliably show up to do the work required for the business to run according to plan. In this case, it is possible for employees without skills or ability to gain bargaining power if they can coordinate, as in worker unions. They can also appeal to the state and its institutions, assuming they exist, to support them in their struggle. Unfortunately, government understandably tends to favor capitalists because they have wealth and the power that wealth offers.