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

[Terrapin Station]

It depends on the context. For example, in the military, if a leader doesn't dictate just what various members of the team should do, there's a good chance that many will end up dead.

[Sushan]

It depends on the context. For example, in the military, if a leader doesn't dictate just what various members of the team should do, there's a good chance that many will end up dead.

Well, I won't label is as dictating, but commanding. Yes, definitely a military leader should have a good commanding ability, and that will lead his soldiers to victory.

But what we should keep in mind is that a military leader is a human and there is a certain tendency for a human to make mistakes. So it is not an unusual thing to take wrong decisions by a military leader in battle and lead his men to unnecessary demise. But if the leader cannot command in battle, the soldiers won't fight. So in that dictating nature, there are good things as well as bad things. So the leader should be competent enough to make correct decisions and apply them correctly.

[Sushan]

I agree. Most of the generals who are considered as great ones have not fought in battles as a general. If we think of that practically, actually their lives cannot be put in unnecessary danger, because a demise of such a person will discourage the soldiers and encourage the enemy.

But there are leaders at the ground level who fight. Starting from a second lieutenant who commands a platoon, there are company commanders, battalion commanders, divisional level commanders and so on. All these personnel are actually fight along with the soldiers, inspiring and guiding them. Do you think if they too were commanding from an air conditioned room, that the soldiers will fight?

Yes I do, because wherever possible the brass gets the grunts to stand in the way of the bullets.

I do not see it like that.

Then I think you are probably a naive grunt.

I know that you are a history student and pretty much aware of the written things in the historical books (whether they are true or not). But I am not sure whether you have any experience related to military, battles, etc. (This does not include watching war related news, having a family member who works in army, reading war related historical data, watching TV series on wars). I would like to know your experience related to military leadership and then this discussion will be more productive.

And please be kind enough to mention any wars that there were no brass on the battle ground to command but only the grunts to fight, and the brass commanded them by being in an air conditioned room.

[Sculptor1]

Yes I do, because wherever possible the brass gets the grunts to stand in the way of the bullets.

I do not see it like that.

Then I think you are probably a naive grunt.

I know that you are a history student and pretty much aware of the written things in the historical books (whether they are true or not). But I am not sure whether you have any experience related to military, battles, etc. (This does not include watching war related news, having a family member who works in army, reading war related historical data, watching TV series on wars). I would like to know your experience related to military leadership and then this discussion will be more productive.

And please be kind enough to mention any wars that there were no brass on the battle ground to command but only the grunts to fight, and the brass commanded them by being in an air conditioned room.

There are levels of grunt and brass. It's a spectrum of absurdity. At one end of the scale you have people with their feet in mud and blood, and at the other end they are stting at a dinner table with their old school chums deciding which batallion goes north and which goes south, and oh don't forget to pass the port clockwise.

[Terrapin Station]

It depends on the context. For example, in the military, if a leader doesn't dictate just what various members of the team should do, there's a good chance that many will end up dead.

Well, I won't label is as dictating, but commanding. Yes, definitely a military leader should have a good commanding ability, and that will lead his soldiers to victory.

But what we should keep in mind is that a military leader is a human and there is a certain tendency for a human to make mistakes. So it is not an unusual thing to take wrong decisions by a military leader in battle and lead his men to unnecessary demise. But if the leader cannot command in battle, the soldiers won't fight. So in that dictating nature, there are good things as well as bad things. So the leader should be competent enough to make correct decisions and apply them correctly.

Sure--what I actually had more in mind was something like a small battalion leader. During a specific action, they need to tell team members exactly where to go and at least generally what to do. And sure, they can make mistakes, but it would be much worse if they were just there to "inspire" people and let them do their own thing. This would go just as well for something like a SWAT team, a fire crew, etc.

Something like being a film director is even similar. You don't just "inspire" the crew and let them do their own thing. Everyone needs fairly explicit instructions or the shoot will be a mess . . . and you'll wind up going way over budget and the film will be a disaster if it even gets made.

A lot of vocations would be similar--factory work, for example, construction, and so on.

[LuckyR]

It depends on the context. For example, in the military, if a leader doesn't dictate just what various members of the team should do, there's a good chance that many will end up dead.

Well, I won't label is as dictating, but commanding. Yes, definitely a military leader should have a good commanding ability, and that will lead his soldiers to victory.

But what we should keep in mind is that a military leader is a human and there is a certain tendency for a human to make mistakes. So it is not an unusual thing to take wrong decisions by a military leader in battle and lead his men to unnecessary demise. But if the leader cannot command in battle, the soldiers won't fight. So in that dictating nature, there are good things as well as bad things. So the leader should be competent enough to make correct decisions and apply them correctly.

Sure--what I actually had more in mind was something like a small battalion leader. During a specific action, they need to tell team members exactly where to go and at least generally what to do. And sure, they can make mistakes, but it would be much worse if they were just there to "inspire" people and let them do their own thing. This would go just as well for something like a SWAT team, a fire crew, etc.

Something like being a film director is even similar. You don't just "inspire" the crew and let them do their own thing. Everyone needs fairly explicit instructions or the shoot will be a mess . . . and you'll wind up going way over budget and the film will be a disaster if it even gets made.

A lot of vocations would be similar--factory work, for example, construction, and so on.

It depends on the work to be done and the expertise of those doing the work. Many need direction, many don't. All would likely benefit from inspiration, some only need inspiration.

[Sushan]

I do not see it like that.

Then I think you are probably a naive grunt.

I know that you are a history student and pretty much aware of the written things in the historical books (whether they are true or not). But I am not sure whether you have any experience related to military, battles, etc. (This does not include watching war related news, having a family member who works in army, reading war related historical data, watching TV series on wars). I would like to know your experience related to military leadership and then this discussion will be more productive.

And please be kind enough to mention any wars that there were no brass on the battle ground to command but only the grunts to fight, and the brass commanded them by being in an air conditioned room.

There are levels of grunt and brass. It's a spectrum of absurdity. At one end of the scale you have people with their feet in mud and blood, and at the other end they are stting at a dinner table with their old school chums deciding which batallion goes north and which goes south, and oh don't forget to pass the port clockwise.

I am not willing to expose what I really do. But I can assure you that I have more first hand experience compared to you when it comes to the army and the war.

Yes, there is scale. And what we should keep in mind is that no one is directly recruited to the top levels of that scale. All start from the bottom, whether he belongs to brass or the grunts. A private (the basic soldier) will fight in the battle field and a second lieutenant (the junior most rank among the officers) will command him while being on the battle field on his side. If the table turns, both will take the bullet. It is a real disrespect to the army to say that the wars are fought by commanding from fancy dinner tables.

[Sushan]

It depends on the context. For example, in the military, if a leader doesn't dictate just what various members of the team should do, there's a good chance that many will end up dead.

Well, I won't label is as dictating, but commanding. Yes, definitely a military leader should have a good commanding ability, and that will lead his soldiers to victory.

But what we should keep in mind is that a military leader is a human and there is a certain tendency for a human to make mistakes. So it is not an unusual thing to take wrong decisions by a military leader in battle and lead his men to unnecessary demise. But if the leader cannot command in battle, the soldiers won't fight. So in that dictating nature, there are good things as well as bad things. So the leader should be competent enough to make correct decisions and apply them correctly.

Sure--what I actually had more in mind was something like a small battalion leader. During a specific action, they need to tell team members exactly where to go and at least generally what to do. And sure, they can make mistakes, but it would be much worse if they were just there to "inspire" people and let them do their own thing. This would go just as well for something like a SWAT team, a fire crew, etc.

Something like being a film director is even similar. You don't just "inspire" the crew and let them do their own thing. Everyone needs fairly explicit instructions or the shoot will be a mess . . . and you'll wind up going way over budget and the film will be a disaster if it even gets made.

A lot of vocations would be similar--factory work, for example, construction, and so on.

I agree. Let's take a director as an example. His job is clearly mentioned in his title, and it is to direct. It is true that he is some sort of a leader, but he has to exactly tell his crew what to do and what not to do.

It is similar to a battalion commander as well. At least he has to tell his junior commanders (company and platoon commanders) what to do, and then those junior commanders will command their subordinates. But at the same time all these commanders are leaders, and they should harvest leadership qualities. Soldiers will fight in a war as they obey commands. But they will fight better with more courage if the commanders can inspire them more.

[Sushan]

It depends on the context. For example, in the military, if a leader doesn't dictate just what various members of the team should do, there's a good chance that many will end up dead.

Well, I won't label is as dictating, but commanding. Yes, definitely a military leader should have a good commanding ability, and that will lead his soldiers to victory.

But what we should keep in mind is that a military leader is a human and there is a certain tendency for a human to make mistakes. So it is not an unusual thing to take wrong decisions by a military leader in battle and lead his men to unnecessary demise. But if the leader cannot command in battle, the soldiers won't fight. So in that dictating nature, there are good things as well as bad things. So the leader should be competent enough to make correct decisions and apply them correctly.

Sure--what I actually had more in mind was something like a small battalion leader. During a specific action, they need to tell team members exactly where to go and at least generally what to do. And sure, they can make mistakes, but it would be much worse if they were just there to "inspire" people and let them do their own thing. This would go just as well for something like a SWAT team, a fire crew, etc.

Something like being a film director is even similar. You don't just "inspire" the crew and let them do their own thing. Everyone needs fairly explicit instructions or the shoot will be a mess . . . and you'll wind up going way over budget and the film will be a disaster if it even gets made.

A lot of vocations would be similar--factory work, for example, construction, and so on.

It depends on the work to be done and the expertise of those doing the work. Many need direction, many don't. All would likely benefit from inspiration, some only need inspiration.

All will be benefited from inspiration, I agree. But inspiration alone won't complete a task in an intended way. For that directing is important.

As I believe, it is not that many do not need direction, but that they don't like someone saying them what to do and what not to do. Many believe it as an insult to their intelligence. Many try to show that they have a good knowledge regarding the task in hand, although it is not so. So first of all people have learn to accept a leader and work as he directs them. On the other hand a good leader should correctly identify who, when, and in what amount that direction is necessary and to apply it correctly.

Unnecessary direction will make a leader into a dictator or a boss and he will loose the respect of his team.

[Sculptor1]

Then I think you are probably a naive grunt.

I know that you are a history student and pretty much aware of the written things in the historical books (whether they are true or not). But I am not sure whether you have any experience related to military, battles, etc. (This does not include watching war related news, having a family member who works in army, reading war related historical data, watching TV series on wars). I would like to know your experience related to military leadership and then this discussion will be more productive.

And please be kind enough to mention any wars that there were no brass on the battle ground to command but only the grunts to fight, and the brass commanded them by being in an air conditioned room.

There are levels of grunt and brass. It's a spectrum of absurdity. At one end of the scale you have people with their feet in mud and blood, and at the other end they are stting at a dinner table with their old school chums deciding which batallion goes north and which goes south, and oh don't forget to pass the port clockwise.

I am not willing to expose what I really do. But I can assure you that I have more first hand experience compared to you when it comes to the army and the war.

Yes, there is scale. And what we should keep in mind is that no one is directly recruited to the top levels of that scale. All start from the bottom, whether he belongs to brass or the grunts. A private (the basic soldier) will fight in the battle field and a second lieutenant (the junior most rank among the officers) will command him while being on the battle field on his side. If the table turns, both will take the bullet. It is a real disrespect to the army to say that the wars are fought by commanding from fancy dinner tables.

Oh dear, disrespecting my betters? Whatever next?
Far be it from me to disrespect people whose choice in life is to make a profession out of killing people. Most psychopaths have to face the risk of facing the law for what they do.

[Sushan]

I know that you are a history student and pretty much aware of the written things in the historical books (whether they are true or not). But I am not sure whether you have any experience related to military, battles, etc. (This does not include watching war related news, having a family member who works in army, reading war related historical data, watching TV series on wars). I would like to know your experience related to military leadership and then this discussion will be more productive.

And please be kind enough to mention any wars that there were no brass on the battle ground to command but only the grunts to fight, and the brass commanded them by being in an air conditioned room.

There are levels of grunt and brass. It's a spectrum of absurdity. At one end of the scale you have people with their feet in mud and blood, and at the other end they are stting at a dinner table with their old school chums deciding which batallion goes north and which goes south, and oh don't forget to pass the port clockwise.

I am not willing to expose what I really do. But I can assure you that I have more first hand experience compared to you when it comes to the army and the war.

Yes, there is scale. And what we should keep in mind is that no one is directly recruited to the top levels of that scale. All start from the bottom, whether he belongs to brass or the grunts. A private (the basic soldier) will fight in the battle field and a second lieutenant (the junior most rank among the officers) will command him while being on the battle field on his side. If the table turns, both will take the bullet. It is a real disrespect to the army to say that the wars are fought by commanding from fancy dinner tables.

Oh dear, disrespecting my betters? Whatever next?
Far be it from me to disrespect people whose choice in life is to make a profession out of killing people. Most psychopaths have to face the risk of facing the law for what they do.

From the view that you have towards army, I assume that You are from the US, whose army fight in unnecessary wars in other countries, so have lost the respect of its people. In that aspect, yes, I agree that they do not do a honourable job. But you should keep in mind that that is not there fault or choice, but the political decisions that are made out of greed for power.

That profession is not for just killing someone. If you think so, you may not have seen how they rescue people from natural disasters. I do not believe in after life or the spiritual consequences of killing someone. If so, that should be applicable to other animals as well. And the killings in a war cannot be compared to just killing people for money, which is a task of the mafia bosses.

[LuckyR]

Well, I won't label is as dictating, but commanding. Yes, definitely a military leader should have a good commanding ability, and that will lead his soldiers to victory.

But what we should keep in mind is that a military leader is a human and there is a certain tendency for a human to make mistakes. So it is not an unusual thing to take wrong decisions by a military leader in battle and lead his men to unnecessary demise. But if the leader cannot command in battle, the soldiers won't fight. So in that dictating nature, there are good things as well as bad things. So the leader should be competent enough to make correct decisions and apply them correctly.

Sure--what I actually had more in mind was something like a small battalion leader. During a specific action, they need to tell team members exactly where to go and at least generally what to do. And sure, they can make mistakes, but it would be much worse if they were just there to "inspire" people and let them do their own thing. This would go just as well for something like a SWAT team, a fire crew, etc.

Something like being a film director is even similar. You don't just "inspire" the crew and let them do their own thing. Everyone needs fairly explicit instructions or the shoot will be a mess . . . and you'll wind up going way over budget and the film will be a disaster if it even gets made.

A lot of vocations would be similar--factory work, for example, construction, and so on.

It depends on the work to be done and the expertise of those doing the work. Many need direction, many don't. All would likely benefit from inspiration, some only need inspiration.

All will be benefited from inspiration, I agree. But inspiration alone won't complete a task in an intended way. For that directing is important.

As I believe, it is not that many do not need direction, but that they don't like someone saying them what to do and what not to do. Many believe it as an insult to their intelligence. Many try to show that they have a good knowledge regarding the task in hand, although it is not so. So first of all people have learn to accept a leader and work as he directs them. On the other hand a good leader should correctly identify who, when, and in what amount that direction is necessary and to apply it correctly.

Unnecessary direction will make a leader into a dictator or a boss and he will loose the respect of his team.

At this point it looks like we're basically in agreement.

[Sushan]

Sure--what I actually had more in mind was something like a small battalion leader. During a specific action, they need to tell team members exactly where to go and at least generally what to do. And sure, they can make mistakes, but it would be much worse if they were just there to "inspire" people and let them do their own thing. This would go just as well for something like a SWAT team, a fire crew, etc.

Something like being a film director is even similar. You don't just "inspire" the crew and let them do their own thing. Everyone needs fairly explicit instructions or the shoot will be a mess . . . and you'll wind up going way over budget and the film will be a disaster if it even gets made.

A lot of vocations would be similar--factory work, for example, construction, and so on.

It depends on the work to be done and the expertise of those doing the work. Many need direction, many don't. All would likely benefit from inspiration, some only need inspiration.

All will be benefited from inspiration, I agree. But inspiration alone won't complete a task in an intended way. For that directing is important.

As I believe, it is not that many do not need direction, but that they don't like someone saying them what to do and what not to do. Many believe it as an insult to their intelligence. Many try to show that they have a good knowledge regarding the task in hand, although it is not so. So first of all people have learn to accept a leader and work as he directs them. On the other hand a good leader should correctly identify who, when, and in what amount that direction is necessary and to apply it correctly.

Unnecessary direction will make a leader into a dictator or a boss and he will loose the respect of his team.

At this point it looks like we're basically in agreement.

Yes, basically we are in an agreement. I agree that inspiration is beneficial for team members and guidance is also important in team work. Inspiration will make a better person, but guidance will complete the required task.

[Sculptor1]

There are levels of grunt and brass. It's a spectrum of absurdity. At one end of the scale you have people with their feet in mud and blood, and at the other end they are stting at a dinner table with their old school chums deciding which batallion goes north and which goes south, and oh don't forget to pass the port clockwise.

I am not willing to expose what I really do. But I can assure you that I have more first hand experience compared to you when it comes to the army and the war.

Yes, there is scale. And what we should keep in mind is that no one is directly recruited to the top levels of that scale. All start from the bottom, whether he belongs to brass or the grunts. A private (the basic soldier) will fight in the battle field and a second lieutenant (the junior most rank among the officers) will command him while being on the battle field on his side. If the table turns, both will take the bullet. It is a real disrespect to the army to say that the wars are fought by commanding from fancy dinner tables.

Oh dear, disrespecting my betters? Whatever next?
Far be it from me to disrespect people whose choice in life is to make a profession out of killing people. Most psychopaths have to face the risk of facing the law for what they do.

From the view that you have towards army, I assume that You are from the US, whose army fight in unnecessary wars in other countries, so have lost the respect of its people. In that aspect, yes, I agree that they do not do a honourable job. But you should keep in mind that that is not there fault or choice, but the political decisions that are made out of greed for power.

No I am not from the USA.
Where are you from?

That profession is not for just killing someone. If you think so, you may not have seen how they rescue people from natural disasters. I do not believe in after life or the spiritual consequences of killing someone. If so, that should be applicable to other animals as well. And the killings in a war cannot be compared to just killing people for money, which is a task of the mafia bosses.

So are you saying that you have never been in combat?

[Sushan]

I am not willing to expose what I really do. But I can assure you that I have more first hand experience compared to you when it comes to the army and the war.

Yes, there is scale. And what we should keep in mind is that no one is directly recruited to the top levels of that scale. All start from the bottom, whether he belongs to brass or the grunts. A private (the basic soldier) will fight in the battle field and a second lieutenant (the junior most rank among the officers) will command him while being on the battle field on his side. If the table turns, both will take the bullet. It is a real disrespect to the army to say that the wars are fought by commanding from fancy dinner tables.

Oh dear, disrespecting my betters? Whatever next?
Far be it from me to disrespect people whose choice in life is to make a profession out of killing people. Most psychopaths have to face the risk of facing the law for what they do.

From the view that you have towards army, I assume that You are from the US, whose army fight in unnecessary wars in other countries, so have lost the respect of its people. In that aspect, yes, I agree that they do not do a honourable job. But you should keep in mind that that is not there fault or choice, but the political decisions that are made out of greed for power.

No I am not from the USA.
Where are you from?

That profession is not for just killing someone. If you think so, you may not have seen how they rescue people from natural disasters. I do not believe in after life or the spiritual consequences of killing someone. If so, that should be applicable to other animals as well. And the killings in a war cannot be compared to just killing people for money, which is a task of the mafia bosses.

So are you saying that you have never been in combat?

I did not tell so. But if you want to know, I can say that I have never killed anyone but have saved lives, and that is my task in the army.

What I was trying to say was, army is not for just killing. They kill to protect their country or the ones they love. Many people sleep well because they know that they are being protected by the tri forces and the police. If a police officer had to shoot a serial killer to save a innocent fellow, would you still call that as a murder and label that officer as a fellow who joined the police to kill others?