Poll: Who are the most important members of society?

[Diddy_Mao]

Honestly, it's everyone but the people listed.

The farmers, carpenters, heavy lifters, desk monkeys, cooks, cleaners, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. Anyone who's getting to in the morning to make their daily bread.

They're the people supporting the millionaires and entrepreneurs, the ones whom world leaders are chosen to serve the interests of, who consume the works of artists and put to use the discoveries made by scientists.

They're the ones making use of their respective educations and whom activists and peace keepers choose to protect.

 

[Roxor]

While I am more incline to vote for "The scientists. Doctors, engineers, researchers" but I voted for "The educators. Teachers, university professors, counselors, tutors", after all who do you think taught the scientists about science in the first place unless that scientist self taught with books/ videos?

This is the exact same reasoning I used for deciding on my answer.

Scientists are important, but given people only live a few decades, it's more important that we have people who can make their replacements, so my vote went to the teachers.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

I think I may have gotten a little carried away with the rhetorical questions though. My point was that a leader cannot do anything on their own, they glean their importance off of the countless individuals that make up the country that they run.

Who are the most important members of society. Not who would be most likely to survive on a desert island. I don't care who "can't do things on their own."

 

[Frission]

I think I may have gotten a little carried away with the rhetorical questions though. My point was that a leader cannot do anything on their own, they glean their importance off of the countless individuals that make up the country that they run.

Who are the most important members of society. Not who would be most likely to survive on a desert island. I don't care who "can't do things on their own."

The problem then as I said is that you can't easily define who the most important member of society is without using petty distinctions.

If you're going to ignore who "can't do things on their own", that's fine, but the definition you use to justify that leaders are the most important isn't any more valid.

 

[Frission]

There are only 8 slots in the poll, I had to cut a lot of options already.

Honestly I knew how many ways the question could be taken before I posted the thread, perhaps it was a mistake, seeing as things are heating up. I was more curious as to the "aura" that society puts on certain people than an actual "determination" of who's "best." If you know me you'd know I'm completely disinterested in such subjective labeling.

Well that certainly explains the problem. Sorry for attacking you about that then.

OT: If I was to think about the aura instead of just pure vital function, then I would actually vote the artists. Yeah, it may be surprising since I'm studying a scientific field, but I've always loved the idea of pursuing both beauty and the truth. A general knowledge or the world and culture is necessary to make a well rounded individual.

Artists can expand your views and your horizons in so many ways that I find it regrettable that they're not a popular choice for the poll. I always find it fascinating when I meet a really good artist or artisan. Maybe that's just me. It's not logical, but auras never are.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

Kids, who have the potential to grow into any of these roles or any of the ones you left off, who can still change and grow and cause the evolution of our entire race and planet beyond anything we can even imagine.

 

[loc978]

I want to interject that I didn't make this thread because I believe that one group is more important than the other.

On the contrary, the basis for the thread is how strange (to me) the varying levels of respect we give to people in society.

I understand how you can like what someone does, but there's a BIG gulf between agreeing with someone's politics and treating them like a demigod. Like, if you spill ketchup on the President's shirt, you are always going to be known as "the guy who spilled ketchup on the President's shirt," or if you say that ANY contemporary musician is/was better than Mozart, people just stop listening to you, even people who know next to nothing about Mozart.

In the same vein, why does a person feel different in the following scenario: There is a fancy dinner, with people of all callings and races gathered around, giving speeches on their profession. The people at table A are: a doctor, an engineer, an Oscar-winning actor, a champion pro gamer, the president of France, a cook, a sultan, and you.

Now, you CANNOT tell me that the power dynamics of this table aren't governed by arbitrary rules set up by society. Do we value the people that contribute the most? The job of an actor is to be an awesome pretender. By that mark, the cook should get "more respect," but it's harder to be a doctor, so that honor goes to him, but oops, Sultan gets that one, even though he didn't do sh** to be a Sultan other than be born into the right family. That doesn't stop you from stifling your laugh at his fart. The person you're most likely to go out for a beer with later is, usually, the person you're brave enough to ask, likely not the Oscar-winning actor.

Just curious about these things.

I find it interesting that you can be so neutrally curious about the dinner party thing... it causes a rather violent gut reaction in me. If I had to be there for work as the soldier I once was, I'd have been cold and professional to everyone present. Now, I would make it clear I have better things to do with my time. The dynamics you describe are certainly real... and anyone who adheres to them disgusts me.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

It's not good debating since it sometimes focuses on key points instead of the whole argument, but very well.

You know what is also not very good debating, is ignoring the original post as much as possible and just saying irrelevant things

Also arguments are based on key points. When they don't hold together, it's a shitty argument.

The problem is that I could say that a good leader is worth nothing if he's on deserted island and it would be just as intellectually honest as stating that nothing would have been done without world leaders, as if they were the ones who built all infrastructure instead of just being someone on the rudder.

Straw man, read the actual posts before spewing entire paragraphs in response. That's another good thing to do when debating.

We're not speaking of a single individual having influence, but a group.
There are no members of society more important than others. That is my argument.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Because the schizophrenic homeless people who yell/attack goers by are part of society.

You're rhetorical questions about the civil war and who is to blame means nothing. In this case the better general lost, but it has more to do with the North being richer and having a greater industrial capacity, than anything about who was leading at the time.

It counters the argument that great generals independently win wars without the decisions of presidents and dictators.

Also it's not about win or lose. Grant was a good general. Lincoln's shitty decision to play McClellan in charge. Lincoln prolonged the war inexorably with bad decisions.

The whole point about Alexandria does not mean anything. I could say that is was in a library built by a bunch of workers with plans designed by architects and stones cut by masons. Ptolemy was no more vital than the worker. What was the other point about Caesar? That paper burns and knowledge is lost in brutality?

Ptolemy is far more vital than the individual worker.

Pythagoras was killed by a roman soldier and that didn't make his contributions any less important. Alot of the Egyptian kingdom is gone, but the findings of Pythagoras remain.

Normally I'd act more aloof, but I'm leaving so honestly Pythagoras wasn't even that important. Pythagoras' theorem isn't his, it's knowledge predates him by quite a bit. It was only brought to Pythagoras' attention by another guy whos name eludes me; who Pythagoras then kicked out of his group because Pythagoras was a talentless diva, who didn't really have any contributions.

The kingdom may be gone, but the country isn't and it was sure as hell more shaped by the pharaohs than the world has been by Pythagoras.

On the final topic of the picture, I'll ask if you're seeing the trees without seeing the forest. The point is not a literal interpretation of a group called "random shit". It shows how pointless it is to try to attribute events to people in history. The greatest for history here is "random shit". Chaos, luck, uncontrollable circumstances or random events if you want a better more elegant term.

Uncontrollable events have nothing to do with "who the most important members of society are." That's like saying who's the fastest swimmer? And then you go well speed in water actually has more to do with water density and planetary gravity. That's nice but it isn't relevant at all.

 

[kasperbbs]

From this list: Teachers, without them everyone else from this list wouldn't exist or would just be terrible at their jobs.

 

[Sight Unseen]

A sell sword stands before three men. A king, a rich man and a priest. Each bids him kill the other two. Who dose he kill.
The power lies with the sell sword. It is the soldiers that keep the peace ad protect all the others. This allows all others to flourish and create a better society. In a perfect world this leads to a world without soldiers but the world is not yet perfect.

Yes I did get the riddle from game of thrones but the point still stands.

Soldiers. Keeping the peace by killing anyone who disagrees with the person who he is most inclined to side with.

Should be their new slogan

 

[Frission]

/snip

I argued only what I saw and what I could extrapolate. What is your main point then? Any argument without a main thesis or conclusion is just a collection of ramblings and disjointed points.

I have to write in little collections because you can't answer the argument as a whole.
___________________

What do schizophrenic homeless people have to do with anything? Are you going to use anything else than non-sequiturs? We're using the people on the poll. I can be more precise and say that working members of society play an important part.

If you don't like the argument about Pythagoras, then use Claudius Ptolemy or use any other philosopher you want. The point is the same. Whether or not the work of Pythagoras was inspired from the work of other man is pointless. He's the face of a lot of western thought. Pythagoras's life was chronicled centuries after his death so debating whether his work was his own or is pointless.
Losing yourself in the specifics of a situation then trying to apply it to a larger context doesn't work. You take little points and try to twist them whatever into you wish. You disregard or you use opinion to dismiss what you don't like.

Who cares what you think of Pythagoras, his work or other sections of society? Does your approval actually affect their contributions? I could say he contributed more than pharaoh's, but that's turning in circles as mentioned in the random shit argument.
Egypt exists, but it's as much a credit to generations of Egyptians than a Pharaoh who died and got mummified in ages immemorial. All the while the teachings of ancient philosophers are still taught.

"It counters the argument that great generals independently win wars without the decisions of presidents and dictators". It also counters the argument that Leaders can win great wars without good generals. They're co-dependent.

I think I also explained the random shit part to you in the edit. Chaos means that assigning roles in history can be extremely difficult and dangerous if you're not well versed about the situation. Drivers for history are most of the time random events, which I why it irritates me to see you try to fit and twist history into your argument.

But if you want to only talk about the contributions of each section of society. Then give some examples as to why leaders are more important in terms of society, instead of using tangential examples that can be explained away for other reasons or are too ambiguous to be definite.

Here I have an example. Leaders are more important because they order other people around.

EDIT: One possible interpretation I also got from your argument was that leadership was important, which is obvious. Leadership occurs at all levels and is not unique to a class of individuals.

 

[Heronblade]

Honestly, it's everyone but the people listed.

The farmers, carpenters, heavy lifters, desk monkeys, cooks, cleaners, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. Anyone who's getting to in the morning to make their daily bread.

They're the people supporting the millionaires and entrepreneurs, the ones whom world leaders are chosen to serve the interests of, who consume the works of artists and put to use the discoveries made by scientists.

They're the ones making use of their respective educations and whom activists and peace keepers choose to protect.

Can't say that I agree with your logic here.

Let's take a water turbine as a metaphor for these differing groups. The water itself is a decent analogue for the common working adult, it does the work, and was there long before the turbine was set up. However, without the machinery that guides its path and gives it purpose, its just water flowing from point A to B. No purpose, no direction, and no point, it just is.

Given that, at least to me, society is primarily about pushing our limits, I'm not particularly inclined to give primary credit for that to the support staff.