Ponder these …
1. Trust.
2. I’d go back and witness the creation of the universe. Just think of all the arguments I could solve.
3. Near the top of the list: The Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed.
4. That all religions are equally correct. That just can’t be.
5. A good leader needs to stand behind his followers as often as he needs to stand in front of them.
Posted by Phoenix
04/23/2005 at 12:39 PM
(1): The essence of loyalty is fidelity.
When you give your word, keep it. When you make a commitment, follow it through. When you pledge fidelity, do not betray the one to whom you are pledged. It is no more complicated than this.
(2): If I could witness one single event in human history, then let it be the most influential of all events.
I can see no event more important to us than the discovery that a vision, an abstraction, could be forged into a reality.
(3): The measure of influence must be the number of people influenced. Unfortunately Karl Marx would appear to be one of these three, since his teachings led uncountable millions of people down blind alleys where they could be mugged (and butchered) by such men as Lenin, Stalin, Yezhov, Beria, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro, to name a few.
On the other hand, it would be hard to find two people more influential, in terms of the sheer number of people influenced, than the founders of two great world religions, the Buddha and Jesus Christ.
(4): One must measure a lie by its longevity and the legs it grows, and, again, the degree of its influence (meaning, the number of people influenced). There are several contenders for the title here. One might begin with the entire Marxist package, with its many derivatives. That is certainly the most dangerous structure of lies yet abroad in the world today, although latter-day Islamic mythology is running it a close second.
(5): A true leader is born and not made. Only a more or less inadequate manager can be made, and no amount of study can give any manager the key qualities of a born leader.
First among them is the ability to win the unqualified devotion of followers. Different leaders display this in different ways, but it is a quality they all share.
Second is the ability to frame a clear and unblemished purpose, a vision, to offer those followers. If you please, it is the ability to give them a star to follow. It is one thing to know your own mind. The ability to make it the mind of others is another matter altogether.
Third is the ability and determination to pursue and realize that vision. Given the ability, the necessary competence will follow; given the willpower, the competence will yield results.
All history rotates about the axis of one single fact. It is the fact of who led, who followed, and why.
The “why” is paramount. From it, the harmonies of our history are unscrolled, the good as well as the bad.
Good questions, Steel. Keep up the good work.
Tannenberg:
“All history rotates about the axis of one single fact: It is the fact of who led, who followed, and why.” Isn’t it frightening to realize that many ‘born leaders’ were born madmen, as well? It is, as well, ironic that Marx was never a leader - not as you described. He was a ‘thinker’ who knew the common people only by those who served him personally. I might also change the word ‘history’ in your quotation above to read ‘civilization’. (Given natural occurrences, etc.)
I’d like to comment on #1: Fidelity is loyalty. The essence, the marrow of both is trust. Without trust, they cannot be.
Posted by Phoenix
04/23/2005 at 06:01 PM
1. I’ll go along with Tan: Fidelity. And I’ll add integrity and honor as underlying components.
2. The Spanish Inquisition because...."Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
Seriously, I would like to have seen what kind of guilt-trip mind-fuck the Church leaders of the day perpetrated on the illiterate, unwashed masses.
3. I have to go along with Phoenix on this one: Jesus, Buddah, and Muhammed. I would have said Marx, but for the same reasons that Tan cites (sheer number of people influenced), I have to go with Muhammed. While Marx has poisoned 2, maybe 3 generations, Muhammed and his bastard religion have been poisoning minds for a lot longer. One need not look too hard to see their influence in today’s world.
4. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
5. I think it depends on what kind of leader. Political leaders are not “real” leaders, IMO, because they rarely lead by example. They are more like demi-gods who are so far removed from those they “lead” that their stature is too often elevated by propaganda and deceit.
In the military, it is leadership by example: Never order your troops to do anything that you would not do yourself, and lead from the front. Examples: Chesty Puller and Hal Moore.
Phoenix: #3. The fact that Marx was not a “leader” is irrelevant, as the question posed was the three most influential “people,” not leaders.
As for #1, loyalty is fidelity, but trust is not necessarliy the essence of either. Blind ideology can also be the essence of both.
I love reading these damned things, but I am way too stupid and shallow to comment.
INC,
Thanks. Your point on #3 is well taken. I only mentioned him because ‘influential’ almost connotes ‘leader’, and Marx, as influential as he was, was not a leader. It is the irony of that that is quite shattering, I think.
Your point about ‘blind ideology’ is spot on. But I’ll stick with trust. Every ideology produces leaders, and if those leaders cannot sustain the trust of their followers, then the ideology is bound to fail, or at the least, falter. Ideology is a systematic body of concepts: Trust, hence, loyalty, fidelity are emotions that either support or destroy an ideology.
Posted by Phoenix
04/23/2005 at 07:13 PM
Hi Phoenix, yes, of course it is frightening to realize that many born leaders were also born madmen, but with that realization, you’ve stepped into the “why” of their careers as leaders. The manifestations of their madness, in one way or another, had a great deal to do with their careers.
Hi INC, you have piqued my curiosity by comparing Muhammad’s toll of a thousand years to Marx’s toll of a century and a half. If one could subtract billions of Chinese from Marx’s side of the ledger, I would yield my case instantly, but as things worked out, I wonder. It might be intriguing to actually add up the figures, if such could accurately be done.
1- The essence of loyalty: fulfilling your promises to the best of your ability.
2- View any event in history: the resurrection of Christ.
3- Three most influential people in history: the man/woman who discovered how to make fire, the man/woman who discovered how to make beer, the man/woman who who invented organized warfare.
4- Most innacurate or misleading information today: “My god and my religion are better than your god and your religion.”
5- Qualities a good leader should have: fearlessness, arrogance, anger, with a hint of madness and skill at “strategerizing” and the ability to instantly diagnose a problem and a method of eliminating it (reference: Alcibiades, Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, Lord Nelson, Napolean, Ulysses Grant, George S. Patton).
Tannenberg:
Good point. I have only to say that the fine line between genius and madness has been what has propelled civilization to where it is today. As for the ‘why’ I think it is that their particular genius/madness took them where they wanted to go. The quiet ones, leaders in various fields not demanding followers would be those such as: Salk, Einstein, Galileo, Schopenauer..... et.al.
It may be that madness/genius leads the man and that is all the ‘why’ to it.
Posted by Phoenix
04/23/2005 at 09:29 PM
Hi Phoenix, now you are ringing some familiar bells, mentioning Schopenhauer. What have you to say about Hegel, Treitschke and Nietzsche? I won’t mention Kant, for if you are half the objectivist I think you are, that’s a four-letter word.
Kindest regards and a toast of cherry schnapps to you, pros’t!
Wow, Steel the brain strain I have suffered over the last few days...
#1. Loyalty...ponders deeply, in my humble opinion loyalty is only given/earned when one has shared ideals/beliefs, dependancy/co-dependancy, physical attraction, love, lust, duty or fanaticism. Too many factors/traits in an individual are involved to easily explain loyalty.
#2. I am not sure, which event I am most intrigued with to actually wish to view.
#3. I agree with Phoenix and INC.. Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha.
Side tracking off the 3 chosen I feel that Marx did impact the world and it’s people, however, to be influenced no. Marxism was not a choice of the majority of the people living under that Regime, so to include him as being influential, I disagree, as I have known many, many Chinese none of who would claim that they are/or their beliefs are Marxist/Communist, the only thing they say is they had no choice but to live under these factions laws. So to me they as individuals were not influenced only controlled to a certain lifestyle, their minds, beliefs and souls remained theirs, albeit it hidden. Where on the other hand, Muhammed’s followers willingly subscribe to his beliefs.#4. At present, I would say the most misleading information is ....The USA is evil.
#5. I agree with Tannenberg on this point with one added quality, that is, to also have the appearance of humility.
Tannenberg:
Sheesh. Why’da have to pick three Germans? My bratwurst and Grolsch are spilling over my keyboard as I think.
Okay… a priori thoughts: They all were grumpy… no doubt from too much beer and bratwurst.
1. Treitschke: Besides having too many consonants in his name, I think he had no idea how to account for his thoughts; as if they had been running through some subterranean British upbringing from which he tired and turned German. I have no doubt that with his voluminous writings and anti-Semitism and wild nationalistic beliefs that he paved the way for the Third Reich. He did have some sense for logic and politics, however misguided by today’s standards, and unabashadly spoke those heinous words that no culture can survive without servants. It’s not as if those words are not true, people just don’t like to hear them.
2. Hegel - ow. At least he’s still talked about today. That’s because of his science of logic and his dedication to der Zeitgeist. Any philosopher who ignores that is a fool. If it is he who came up with phenomenology, bravo. I can’t remember. Mabye another beer and I can come up with something erudite to say about this complex man. Oh.. here it is: Many ‘thinkers’ really hate him. Have to give him credit for his forays into science to prove his sometimes abstruse concepts.
3. Nietzsche: Ahh, the bad boy. God is dead. I’ve studied him a great deal because I am an existential - to the extent my life allows me to be. Whenever I get to Nietzsche in my studies, I always experience mixed feelings of awe at his ability to deconstruct a whole lot of hooha, but then I end up depressed. Too much of a nihilist. Give me Camus any day. Or Kafka - at least he wrote stories that allowed you to ‘feel’ existentialism as opposed to having it feel you.
4. Immanuel Kunt: That pantywaist. If he could have crawled out from beneath the aegis of God and his mother, he might have made some sense.
I’m drunk now. And I have to go ride my tractor. That is probably not good, but it will be fun.
Next time, pick some fun guys like Victor Frankl (whew!), George Orwell (whew!,again), Bertrand Russell (my fav), Karl Popper (bring down that hammer of reason, Karl!) John Stuart Mill (blinding insight), and George Santayana (not afraid of anything).
Posted by Phoenix
04/24/2005 at 11:48 AM
I am drunk… #3 that would be “I am an existentist..” um.. E X I S T E N T I A L I S T. What in hell is an ‘existnentist’. When you show up for a root canal and the doc is not there?
I hayte when I doo thatt.
Posted by Phoenix
04/24/2005 at 11:56 AM
One can but admire your turnings of phrase, Phoenix. And many thanks for the insight.
PS: Sorry to hear I was so far off base. My first impression was of an objectivist, but if you are in fact an existentialist, how do you even know you wrote what you wrote? Could have been a cosmic accident.
Pros’t.
Tannenberg:
Good grief. You weren’t off-base. Existentialism is an attitude. You wouldn’t know it by the cheap, stupid way the word is used by writers trying to sound smart. “Tammy stood enshrined by lovely gowns in the middle of Macy’s and thought in an existential moment of angst: ‘Did I bring my credit card?’
How do I put this.... Every objectivist got that way by an existential moment when he realized - hey, I am here. This is up to me. I can be a victim, or I cannot be a victim. The choice is mine. I deal with reality or I don’t. Find me an objectivist who refuses to take responsibility for his actions, and we can talk some more. You bring the scotch.
Posted by Phoenix
04/24/2005 at 06:00 PM
Hi Phoenix, I appreciate the invitation. But how do I find an objectivist who does not take responsibility for his actions? It is rather a contradiction in terms.
Cherry schnapps instead of scotch, pros’t, kindest regards.
T.
That’s the whole point. You won’t find one.
An objectivist will never be a victim - in the psychological/philosophical sense.I’ll bring my own bottle. In a brown bag.
So much more I want to say, but it’s late.
Posted by Phoenix
04/25/2005 at 01:16 AM
04/23/2005 at 06:02 PM
