You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 10 Ugly Truths About Being A Leader And Why I Quit Being One
Seems like a broad brush. I can see some of what you're saying, but to put all "leaders" into this basket seems disingenuous.
Some people really don't want to be leaders. They just end up with followers. And sometimes this is happening without the "leader" ever really knowing it. It can be by example, attitude, integrity or other aspects of one's demeanor or personality that people tend to emulate or follow.
It seems like this article is aimed toward those who would be leaders for the sake of leading, fulfilling their own egotistical ends. But it isn't necessary, especially when one finds he is being followed.
Or are you just talking about government? ;o)
Leadership is a disease of civilisation @anotherjoe
Civilised individuals don't follow leaders. They act on themselves. Great thinkers, inventors and enterpreneurs didn't follow anyone lor they were leading anyone. They stood independently.
Your argument of "not everybody is born a leaders" is similar to the 1910's argument that some people should be slaves. Argument from nature which is a logical fallacy. We consider leadership so de-facto that it has become the norm.
like the goverment. ironic huh? Half of people praising leadership here are anarchists and their arguments are much like what the statists say about goverments
what a joke :)
My argument of "not everyone is born a leader..." is what? Where did I make that argument?
It's not a disease, it's just a fact. I'll invite you to look up the meaning of disease.
Everyone follows someone, including you. As autonomous as you'd like to claim you are, there are people in your life who influence you, who you admire, who you emulate in some fashion or another. It may be that your work includes following someone, whether you like it or not.
Anarchy is no rulers, not no leaders. I wouldn't be so fast to poopoo anarchistic arguments. There might be some cognitive dissonance there, but maybe not. There can be a massive difference between leading and ruling. In any group of people, someone (or a few) rises to some form of prominence. It can be very casual or it can be quite clear. But it always exists. That's not bad, it just is a fact.
Another provocative argument. You seem to have developed a structure that is novel and stands alone. Or did you borrow it from elsewhere? Maybe others embrace it, but it seems to defy what is natural about humans as a race, and certainly defies common social construct. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But attempting to give it a moral compass at all is more than a challenge. As with leadership existing, your philosophy on this is amoral - it merely exists.
@anotherjoe
Well, I said it figuratively. Many things are currently a fact but in 50 years can be a fact no more. Again, slavery just last century was a fact. A natural fact. not an argument
It is different to be influenced by someone's work and different to follow them under a groupie fashion. Huge difference actually.
It can change, as much as the world can change "without goverment" or "slavery". You just abide to something and excuse it as natural fact. Why not accept that goverment is a natural fact of leadership? Why not accept anything around you as natural fact and stop trying? ;)
Nothing is wrong or right on this planet. Things are subjective. Again. I am bringing the goverment part in because I know you are an anarchist and that you will gringe when a statist brings you that social construct excuse :)
"Natural" is a logical fallacy. Argument from nature. Guess why. ---> nature changes all the time.
Ah, hypocrisy. what a glorious thing...