Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

You see nothing because you don't want to see it, presumably because it offends your keenly socialist sensibilities.

You are so brainwashed that you can't see that you are in Marx's thrall.

This just gets better...

You say that stratification does not exist in reality.
...
You are confused. The territory may or may not be stratified and observers may or may not notice it.

You still misunderstand. There are two things here, mixed together. I am trying to separate them, for our mutual clarity and understanding.

First, there is the (scientific) observation; what we observe. Then there is our explanation for it; why we observe what we observe.

Our observation, the 'what', is actual, and part of reality; it exists. Our explanation, the 'why', is our invention; it is not actual; it does not exist.

[Sy Borg]

You see nothing because you don't want to see it, presumably because it offends your keenly socialist sensibilities.

🤣🤣🤣

You are so brainwashed that you can't see that you are in Marx's thrall.

🤣🤣🤣This just gets better...🤣🤣🤣

And you are too naive to see it. Every view you express here is concordant with Marxism. I suspect that you don't actually know what Marxism is, so you don't understand how you have been manipulated by universities and media.

You say that stratification does not exist in reality.
...
You are confused. The territory may or may not be stratified and observers may or may not notice it.

You still misunderstand. There are two things here, mixed together. I am trying to separate them, for our mutual clarity and understanding.

First, there is the (scientific) observation; what we observe. Then there is our explanation for it; why we observe what we observe.

Our observation, the 'what', is actual, and part of reality; it exists. Our explanation, the 'why', is our invention; it is not actual; it does not exist.

Of course I understand the difference between ontology and epistemology - that's Philosophy 101, even if it seems like something new and exotic to you.

The fact that our perceptions shape our perceptions has nothing to do with the actual ontology - the physical reality.

It's not just humans, but nature itself cannot avoid hierarchy and structure. Stratification is a real phenomena that happens in the physical world. You have strange ideas nowadays - you speak of stratification as if it is imaginary but claim that leprechauns might be real.

[Pattern-chaser]

You have strange ideas nowadays - you speak of stratification as if it is imaginary but claim that leprechauns might be real.

If I drop a pebble, it falls to the floor, every time I try it. We label this observed phenomenon "gravity". So far, so good: this is simple empirical fact; it exists.

But then we offer an *explanation* for gravity, and our *explanation* is our creation; it is not real; it has no existence out there in the Universe.

Hierarchy and structure are not empirical descriptions, they are putative explanations, and as such, they don't exist in the Universe, but only in our minds.

[Sy Borg]

You have strange ideas nowadays - you speak of stratification as if it is imaginary but claim that leprechauns might be real.

If I drop a pebble, it falls to the floor, every time I try it. We label this observed phenomenon "gravity". So far, so good: this is simple empirical fact; it exists.

But then we offer an *explanation* for gravity, and our *explanation* is our creation; it is not real; it has no existence out there in the Universe.

Hierarchy and structure are not empirical descriptions, they are putative explanations, and as such, they don't exist in the Universe, but only in our minds.

No, you are confused. Our explanation is a perspective - one perspective of real phenomena. Stratification is a phenomena, an aspect of how nature behaves.

Social stratification is inevitable in large, organised groups. If a large group of humans is not stratified, it will be chaotic.

[Sushan]

And most importantly, managers are neither directors nor CEOs.

Agreed, but if we turn it around, it becomes clearer. Directors and CEOs are senior managers, even though more junior managers also exist. And all those who decide salaries, of others, but also of those with similar-seeming jobs or job-descriptions as they do, are encouraged to award larger salaries to those who, like themselves, do jobs that they see as being more valuable.

Managers seek to make managers seem important, even vital, to the enterprise, when they are merely one cog in the overall machine, and it takes the entire machine to do the job. The man with the broom really *is* sending a man to the moon... Everyone contributes, otherwise (in accordance with Capitalist dogma) they would have never been employed in the first place. Every member of the team has a vital role. Even managers.

So why are managers worth more? Your story offers one perspective, but it is not the whole story, I feel. The employee who can plan and strategise is no good if the job requires physical strength, just at the moment. Many skills are required, and many who have those skills. And it would seem that no skill is more valuable than the others, because they are all required to get the job done.

I am neither disrespectful towards nor saying unnecessary for the blue collar jobs. Yes, they are vital parts of almost all organisations. Even if a single cog malfunctions, a whole machine will not work. But among these cogs, some are placed in strategically important places, and malfunction of such a cog will do more harm.

And I cannot say the hiring for the menial jobs are always done out of necessity. In China, although they have the technology and money to automate many systems, they still hire people to do such jobs because the labour cost is low and also they cannot afford to reduce the job market because of their very high population. And also, there are situations where people are given this sort of jobs simply for political reasons. I am not saying neither of these two are correct, but there are occasions (or sometimes more than occasions) that such job postings are easily replaceable.

[Sushan]

Whatever, hierarchies are as inevitable in large societies as layers forming in large planets. Larger things naturally break up into small portions, they form structures and complexify.

I would say that's topsy-turvy; that it's all the wrong way round. BUT ... I agree anyway.

We can't grok big things in one go, so we break them down — where "break" is the operative word — into smaller things that are a little easier to understand. And so on. This inevitably results in a seeming of structure and hierarchy. A structure and hierarchy of where our breaks are located.

Breaking down complex matters into simple parts is sometimes necessary, and also makes it easier to understand a situation. And sometimes it is important for execution as well, but not always. And yes, we can break human society also into parts for easy understanding. But I am not certain how this applies to hierarchies, because hierarchies are used mainly for execution rather than understanding, as per my understanding.

[Sushan]

That is why we do not see kingdoms anymore. And who knows, people may find an alternative to parliament systems as well.

Unless we can find a way for every member of a group/tribe/etc to participate, we will always need a smaller group of people to take the decisions. That 'smaller group' has, in history, been a monarch, or sometimes a parliament. But it would seem that *some* form of group smaller than the *whole* group will always be required. If we get rid of parliaments, we will need something to take their place, I think. Don't you?

Parliamentary Systems are chosen over kings and monarchs because it is always better when a group of people make decisions rather than it is done by an individual, regardless how much a genius or a good fellow he/she is. Due to practical issues we have chosen representative democracy rather than direct democracy. But with the technological advancements a day that direct democracy can be actually practised in cost effective and easily accessible method won't be too far, and that will diminish the need of Parliaments. Even then the decisions won't be agreeable to everyone, but that is the case in democracy and that will remain as it is until a better system replaces it.

[Sushan]

Whatever, hierarchies are as inevitable in large societies as layers forming in large planets. Larger things naturally break up into small portions, they form structures and complexify.

I would say that's topsy-turvy; that it's all the wrong way round. BUT ... I agree anyway.

We can't grok big things in one go, so we break them down — where "break" is the operative word — into smaller things that are a little easier to understand. And so on. This inevitably results in a seeming of structure and hierarchy. A structure and hierarchy of where our breaks are located.

No, it is not topsy turvy. It's a matter of physics, not epistemology. While chunking obviously occurs, there is physical tendency for large things to complexify, for scale to bring on emergent properties.

The structure of planets makes that clear. Planetesimals don't tend to have structure, which only appears due to gravity as the objects accrete material.

Thank you for the explanation, and this knowledge was new to me. I see that in a comparative way the two can be understood in this manner, although I am not sure whether the density of the core, or the control of the governing bodies, is the only reason for societies to condense around the top layers of the hierarchy, or the dense core in this comparison.

[Sushan]

Whatever, hierarchies are as inevitable in large societies as layers forming in large planets. Larger things naturally break up into small portions, they form structures and complexify.

I would say that's topsy-turvy; that it's all the wrong way round. BUT ... I agree anyway.

We can't grok big things in one go, so we break them down — where "break" is the operative word — into smaller things that are a little easier to understand. And so on. This inevitably results in a seeming of structure and hierarchy. A structure and hierarchy of where our breaks are located.

No, it is not topsy turvy. It's a matter of physics, not epistemology.

Yes, the physics is there to be observed, and we observe it. Then we overlay onto our observations, our own 'understanding' of the "structure and hierarchy" of whatever we are observing.

Or are we really wondering, here, whether the "hierarchy" is actually part of The Universe? If so, where is it? Where is something we can observe that has greater/more/better/higher hierarchy than something else? I can see (or think of) nothing.

Although I am unable to answer your question whether there are inherent hierarchies in the universe rather than what humans observe and interpret. But I have to agree with you that humans are capable of observing, interpreting, and identifying (or seeing) patterns in many things, even when there are no such things in the reality. The best example I can think of is the constellation of stars. Although they are actually in a large 3D space with a distance of many light years in between them, ancient humans observed them in the 2D celestial sphere and even identified patterns. And their imagination power led them to create fascinating stories about them. And I believe that ability has not been diminished, rather has been improved with human evolution.

[Sy Borg]

Whatever, hierarchies are as inevitable in large societies as layers forming in large planets. Larger things naturally break up into small portions, they form structures and complexify.

I would say that's topsy-turvy; that it's all the wrong way round. BUT ... I agree anyway.

We can't grok big things in one go, so we break them down — where "break" is the operative word — into smaller things that are a little easier to understand. And so on. This inevitably results in a seeming of structure and hierarchy. A structure and hierarchy of where our breaks are located.

No, it is not topsy turvy. It's a matter of physics, not epistemology. While chunking obviously occurs, there is physical tendency for large things to complexify, for scale to bring on emergent properties.

The structure of planets makes that clear. Planetesimals don't tend to have structure, which only appears due to gravity as the objects accrete material.

Thank you for the explanation, and this knowledge was new to me. I see that in a comparative way the two can be understood in this manner, although I am not sure whether the density of the core, or the control of the governing bodies, is the only reason for societies to condense around the top layers of the hierarchy, or the dense core in this comparison.

Yes, analogies can only be stretched so far. The issue is emergence. Things grow, shrink, stretch, squeeze, freeze, boil until a threshold in reached. Planets and stars. Water. Chemicals. Rocks.

As for populations of humans and other animals, note how many social species have battles for dominance.

I tried to think groups of animals I've seen that don't seem hierarchic to test my point. Sometimes I see groups of around fifty birds called ibises, pecking away on a field, eating grubs, worms, beetles, skinks etc. They look to be quite loose and unordered. I checked with AI:

Yes, there are hierarchies within flocks of ibises. The social structure of ibises can be quite complex, particularly during the breeding season. Males often exhibit behaviors that indicate a hierarchy as they compete for nesting sites and mates. Some males may choose to remain at the colony to guard nests from rivals and predators, which can lead to periods of starvation as they prioritize protecting their territory over foraging for food.

In addition to territorial behaviors, ibises also engage in raiding behaviors where some individuals will steal food from others, including both adult birds and their chicks. This competitive behavior highlights a dynamic social structure where certain individuals may dominate access to resources such as food and nesting materials.

The flexibility in nesting sites among ibises allows them to adapt their social structures over time, with preferred locations changing every few decades. This adaptability is crucial for their survival in changing environments and contributes to the fluid nature of their hierarchies.

Overall, while ibises are social birds that often form large flocks, there is a notable hierarchy influenced by competition for resources and reproductive success.

Since resources are always limited, there is always competition. Once organisms compete, they naturally form hierarchies.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am neither disrespectful towards nor saying unnecessary for the blue collar jobs. Yes, they are vital parts of almost all organisations. Even if a single cog malfunctions, a whole machine will not work. But among these cogs, some are placed in strategically important places, and malfunction of such a cog will do more harm.

The "blue collar" worker who neglects the job they're doing can bring down to whole enterprise. If the negligence result in poor quality product, it won't sell... It takes the *whole* enterprise to make it all work. Even those who might seem 'less' in some way are vital to the overall success.

So my question stands, I think. What is it about a CEO that is worth so much more than the floor-sweeper?

[Pattern-chaser]

Breaking down complex matters into simple parts is sometimes necessary, and also makes it easier to understand a situation.

Yes, but *why* is it "sometimes necessary", and how does it make it "easier to understand a situation"? I think the answer to both these questions might be the one I have already offered:

We can't grok big things in one go, so we break them down — where "break" is the operative word — into smaller things that are a little easier to understand. And so on. This inevitably results in a seeming of structure and hierarchy. A structure and hierarchy of where our breaks are located.

???

[Sy Borg]

I am neither disrespectful towards nor saying unnecessary for the blue collar jobs. Yes, they are vital parts of almost all organisations. Even if a single cog malfunctions, a whole machine will not work. But among these cogs, some are placed in strategically important places, and malfunction of such a cog will do more harm.

The "blue collar" worker who neglects the job they're doing can bring down to whole enterprise. If the negligence result in poor quality product, it won't sell... It takes the *whole* enterprise to make it all work. Even those who might seem 'less' in some way are vital to the overall success.

So my question stands, I think. What is it about a CEO that is worth so much more than the floor-sweeper?

You are an old man (even older than me) and you still haven't worked out the basics of life? Consider the concept of leverage. Consider the concepts of talent and ability. Of capability. We are not blank slates, or readily interchangeable. Some people really are smarter, more astute, more talented, more capable.

Have you seen successful companies go bankrupt due to a change of leadership? Have you seen successful companies go bankrupt because a floor-sweeper left?

Do floor sweepers live their jobs, working 80 hours a week and thinking about work or networking in their free time? Did the sweeper study the fine art of floor sweeping for years?

I agree that the difference today between top and bottom is disproportionate, but that's a function of supply and demand. If it was easy to replace your overpaid CEO with another, without it causing problems, CEO salaries would be far lower. It's a wicked problem. It can be solved by significant changes in policy, but history tells us that the cure is often worse than the ailment, when it comes to economic matters, so reformists would need to step carefully.

Significantly raise taxes for the rich and they will leave, taking their wealth and talents with them to more favourable places. That would deepen the current declines.

Boosting productivity to lift all boats seems to be the way, and the keys there are energy, intelligence (human and machine) and a culture of industriousness.

[LuckyR]

I am neither disrespectful towards nor saying unnecessary for the blue collar jobs. Yes, they are vital parts of almost all organisations. Even if a single cog malfunctions, a whole machine will not work. But among these cogs, some are placed in strategically important places, and malfunction of such a cog will do more harm.

The "blue collar" worker who neglects the job they're doing can bring down to whole enterprise. If the negligence result in poor quality product, it won't sell... It takes the *whole* enterprise to make it all work. Even those who might seem 'less' in some way are vital to the overall success.

So my question stands, I think. What is it about a CEO that is worth so much more than the floor-sweeper?

You are an old man (even older than me) and you still haven't worked out the basics of life? Consider the concept of leverage. Consider the concepts of talent and ability. Of capability. We are not blank slates, or readily interchangeable. Some people really are smarter, more astute, more talented, more capable.

Have you seen successful companies go bankrupt due to a change of leadership? Have you seen successful companies go bankrupt because a floor-sweeper left?

Do floor sweepers live their jobs, working 80 hours a week and thinking about work or networking in their free time? Did the sweeper study the fine art of floor sweeping for years?

I agree that the difference today between top and bottom is disproportionate, but that's a function of supply and demand. If it was easy to replace your overpaid CEO with another, without it causing problems, CEO salaries would be far lower. It's a wicked problem. It can be solved by significant changes in policy, but history tells us that the cure is often worse than the ailment, when it comes to economic matters, so reformists would need to step carefully.

Significantly raise taxes for the rich and they will leave, taking their wealth and talents with them to more favourable places. That would deepen the current declines.

Boosting productivity to lift all boats seems to be the way, and the keys there are energy, intelligence (human and machine) and a culture of industriousness.

I disagree. Supply and demand explains the difference in compensation between a worker on the shop floor and the engineer who designs the product or the guy in marketing who sells them. Very few call that difference disproportionate. But CEO salaries are disproportionately high because they are set by Board members who are likely going to be future CEOs somewhere. That's a form of nepotism.

[Pattern-chaser]

So my question stands, I think. What is it about a CEO that is worth so much more than the floor-sweeper?

You are an old man (even older than me) and you still haven't worked out the basics of life? Consider the concept of leverage. Consider the concepts of talent and ability. Of capability. We are not blank slates, or readily interchangeable. Some people really are smarter, more astute, more talented, more capable.

Have you seen successful companies go bankrupt due to a change of leadership? Have you seen successful companies go bankrupt because a floor-sweeper left?

Alright. My question isn't a question at all. It's a diplomatic way of saying, "this is not right", and asking why this should be so.

And I have seen companies go bust because employees made simple mistakes. Mistakes that they shouldn't've made. But they did, and my employer disappeared within months.