Take Me To Your Leader

[Goober4473]

“Take me to your leader,” said the visitor.
The man stared blankly at him. “What?”
“You’re leader. Take me to him.”
”I do not understand. Where do you want me to bring you?”
“To your leader. Your boss, or king, or lord, or president.”
“How do you mean?”
“The person in charge.”
“You mean like an expert?”
“An expert?”
“Someone that you go to when you need to know something or need something, and they are wisest about that thing, so you let them tell you or do it for you, because then it gets done in the best way.”
“Uhh…”
“What do you need an expert in?”
“I want to talk to the person in charge of everything here.”
“You mean an expert in all things?” The man laughed. “There is no such person.”
“You don’t have anyone in charge?”
“Of everything? Of course not. Do you?”
“Well, yeah.”
“And this person is the wisest is all things?”
”No…”
“But you go to them for all wisdom?”
“Well, no… They go to other people to learn, they just make sure everyone follows the rules.”
“The rules?”
“You don’t have rules? Things you have to follow or it’s wrong?”
“You mean like guidelines for life?”
”Right.”
“I see. So this person is an expert in what is good?”
“Well, no. They don’t always know why the rules are there. They just make sure everyone follows them.”
“So this person is a messenger?”
“Not quite. They just enforce the rules.”
“Enforce?”
“Like if someone does something wrong, they punish that person.”
“Punish? You mean explain why it was wrong so that the person wont make that mistake again? How can they do this if they are not wise in what is good?”
“Well, no, they don’t explain it. They discipline them, so they wont do it again.”
“Discipline?”
“Like, if a child does something wrong, you take away their toys for a while, so they know not to do it again.”
“So this person does harm to people who do wrong?”
“Right. So they wont want to do it again, or else they’ll be punished again.”
“Why?”
“What do you mean?”
“Why not explain why it was wrong? If they knew that, then they would not do it again.”
“But people don’t understand when they’re told what’s wrong.”
“So your experts in what is good are not wise, so instead you do wrong when wrong is done?” The man looked very confused.
“Well…”
“It seems that where you come from is in great need of wise experts in what is good.”
“I guess it is.”

[Green Bean]

That's very profound and all, but what's this about? :smallconfused:

[Closet_Skeleton]

Isn't Arts and Crafts supposed to be containing all the nutjobs like these?

[Goober4473]

*shrug* Didn't see the forum. Someone can move it if they want.

[Supagoof]

That is a great example of human logic.

[Serpentine]

Did you write it? If so, probably Arts & Crafts. I like it.

[Kaelaroth]

My brain hurts. :smalleek:

[Serpentine]

What are you, a Gumbie? :smallconfused:

:smalltongue:

[Narmoth]

This was good.
I liked it. And I don't wisit arts and crafts much, so I'm glad it was posted here.

[reorith]

nice. i enjoyed it.

[thubby]

profound as it may be, i know I've read that before somewhere, or something painfully close.
its also a bit over simplistic. not to mention its easy to get turned around about who's talking.

[DarkLightDragon]

Very amusing :smallamused:

[Dragonrider]

That was excellent. I love it when they're logical. :smallbiggrin:

[Icewalker]

Quite nice. Interesting to think about.

[Raiser Blade]

“Take me to your leader,” said the visitor.
The man stared blankly at him. “What?”
“You’re leader. Take me to him.”
”I do not understand. Where do you want me to bring you?”
“To your leader. Your boss, or king, or lord, or president.”
“How do you mean?”
“The person in charge.”
“You mean like an expert?”
“An expert?”
“Someone that you go to when you need to know something or need something, and they are wisest about that thing, so you let them tell you or do it for you, because then it gets done in the best way.”
“Uhh…”
“What do you need an expert in?”
“I want to talk to the person in charge of everything here.”
“You mean an expert in all things?” The man laughed. “There is no such person.”
“You don’t have anyone in charge?”“Of everything? Of course not. Do you?”
“Well, yeah.”
“And this person is the wisest is all things?”
”No…”“But you go to them for all wisdom?”
“Well, no… They go to other people to learn, they just make sure everyone follows the rules.”“The rules?”
“You don’t have rules? Things you have to follow or it’s wrong?”“You mean like guidelines for life?”
”Right.”
“I see. So this person is an expert in what is good?”
“Well, no. They don’t always know why the rules are there. They just make sure everyone follows them.”“So this person is a messenger?”
“Not quite. They just enforce the rules.”“Enforce?”
“Like if someone does something wrong, they punish that person.”“Punish? You mean explain why it was wrong so that the person wont make that mistake again? How can they do this if they are not wise in what is good?”
“Well, no, they don’t explain it. They discipline them, so they wont do it again.”“Discipline?”
“Like, if a child does something wrong, you take away their toys for a while, so they know not to do it again.”“So this person does harm to people who do wrong?”
“Right. So they wont want to do it again, or else they’ll be punished again.”
“Why?”
“What do you mean?”“Why not explain why it was wrong? If they knew that, then they would not do it again.”
“But people don’t understand when they’re told what’s wrong.”
“So your experts in what is good are not wise, so instead you do wrong when wrong is done?” The man looked very confused.
“Well…”“It seems that where you come from is in great need of wise experts in what is good.”
“I guess it is.”


This way you don't get confuzzled.

[Semidi]

Reads a lot like a Socratic Dialogue. Some work can be done, if this is original. First, as a few people have said more work differentiating between speakers is needed for clarification. For the sake of this post the visitor is V and the native is N.


Expert is defined by N as:

“Someone that you go to when you need to know something or need something, and they are wisest about that thing, so you let them tell you or do it for you, because then it gets done in the best way.”

Now the real stumbling block in the dialogue is the misunderstanding between what V and N and they do sufficiently define their terms.


“I want to talk to the person in charge of everything here.”
“You mean an expert in all things?” The man laughed. “There is no such person.”

This line details the stumbling block. What I understand V means by leader is not a superlative entity, rather a representative or governing body. This is only my assumption from reading this as someone living in the 21st century in a place using the democratic system of government. I can only extrapolate that the original poster also has this mindset due to living in the US. However, later in the dialogue what V means by leader changes, I would recommend sticking with one definition.


“You don’t have anyone in charge?”
“Of everything? Of course not. Do you?”
“Well, yeah.”

This second quotes mixes me up from my earlier understanding of V. One of two things can be presumed about him: A) he lives in a totalitarian system of government or B) he doesn't understand the nature of his own governing body. Most western cultures no longer have someone in charge of everything, as an American my understanding is that certain people detail certain aspects of 'ruling' however we have no one central superlative authority figure. For the sake of this post I’m going to presume that V knows what he’s talking about and go with A, partly because nothing is learned from V being a fool.


“And this person is the wisest is all things?”
”No…”
“But you go to them for all wisdom?”
“Well, no… They go to other people to learn, they just make sure everyone follows the rules.”

My issue with these lines is that V cannot seem to get an accurate definition of leader. He first states that he has someone in charge of everything now the person in charge just enforces the rules. He quickly leaps from dictator to police officer when defining leader. Also, a person in charge of all things would also be in charge of teaching.


“The rules?”
“You don’t have rules? Things you have to follow or it’s wrong?”
“You mean like guidelines for life?”
”Right.”
“I see. So this person is an expert in what is good?”
“Well, no. They don’t always know why the rules are there. They just make sure everyone follows them.”

Again, I see a police officer as V's idea of authority rather than the dictator expressed earlier. My idea of authority is someone who makes the rules--not someone who enforces them. N however, thinks like I do, that authority is derived from the creator of rules rather than hired help who enforce the rules. Two different definitions, nothing is learning because they aren’t discussing similar ideas. An excellent vein of thought and I can tell where the OP wants to go with this, though it isn’t expressed as well as it could.


“So this person is a messenger?”
“Not quite. They just enforce the rules.”
“Enforce?”
“Like if someone does something wrong, they punish that person.”
“Punish? You mean explain why it was wrong so that the person wont make that mistake again? How can they do this if they are not wise in what is good?”

Ok, so the definition changes, police officer changes to punisher… person, I can’t think of an accurate name for someone who punishes.. Something I believe, which is hinted at, is that just because something is a rule doesn't mean it's morally apprehensible to break it. I don't know if that was the intent. Though I think this quote is more of a jab at the prison system, which is political... see no politics, hear no politics, smell no politics... or Something.

However there seem to be another misunderstanding of definition between the two people. If these misunderstandings aren’t discussed on even ground nothing profound other than a misunderstanding is gained. N wants to describe a rule as Good/Evil whereas V wants to say Right/Wrong, a minor detail which can be over looked.


“Right. So they wont want to do it again, or else they’ll be punished again.”
“Why?”
“What do you mean?”
“Why not explain why it was wrong? If they knew that, then they would not do it again.”
“But people don’t understand when they’re told what’s wrong.”

Politics comes to mind. I shall avoid it discussing it. I'll skirt the issue, V is more in favor of Action-Reaction forms of punishment akin to spanking a child for picking his nose. The child doesn't understand that mining for gold is icky, but he does understand that it's a pain in the ass. However, N is more of an explain it to them kinda guy. V though expresses that criminals are somehow incapable of understanding right from wrong. Clearly people can understand why they are being punished in a contemporary society--aside of course from ass backward places which lock people up and never tell them why. Due process and all that jazz.

However, V misses the point. A criminal is generally perfectly able to understand a basic thou shalt not law though they either don't care that it's wrong or they don't think it is themselves. Both men come off as naive which is detrimental to your point in my mind as N is supposed to be the Socrates. I shall express it in a hypothetical situation:

Person A kills Person B. Person C sticks person A in prison for twenty years without telling him why, Person A then gets out and kills person D. Person C puts him in prison for 20 years… and so on.

V’s society is completely ridiculous if it has laws and never tells criminals about them. And it doesn’t resemble anything my western mind can comprehend other then said ass backwards places. V is naïve in thinking people can’t understand right/wrong of a basic thou shalt not law.

N is completely naïve in thinking that explaining it to someone sans punishment will make the criminal care at all. Contemporary society generally explains right and wrong however, we still have repeat criminals. Neither one of them has a competent grasp on reality.


“So this person does harm to people who do wrong?”
“Right. So they wont want to do it again, or else they’ll be punished again.”
“Why?”
“What do you mean?”
“Why not explain why it was wrong? If they knew that, then they would not do it again.”
“But people don’t understand when they’re told what’s wrong.”
“So your experts in what is good are not wise, so instead you do wrong when wrong is done?” The man looked very confused.
“Well…”
“It seems that where you come from is in great need of wise experts in what is good.”
“I guess it is.”

I disagree with the first line, not on a philosophical basis but on a rational one. If you are making someone do good then you are not harming them rather, helping them. I'm assuming that there is a true good. Now, I am a tad confused as to what V means by authority figure, it has gone from totalitarian leader, to police officer enforcing the law, to some sort of odd mix of Cop, Punisher, and Judge. When clearly, at first he wanted one leader.

Another thing is that N didn't grasp or attempt to refute V's point about those doing wrong being unable to understand that their action are wrong. I may disagree with the statement, but N never attacked it and merely restated his original question without regard to V's. V however, the silly person he is, let's it slide and agrees with N despite N being confused about V's definitions or V's understanding. Rather, N stated what he presumed to be the case when it really has very little to do with V's objective reality.

In conclusion: I was really bored. You have an excellent idea, I would recommend polishing the dialogue by clarifying their definitions and having them address each other more. I think it would work better if N accepted V's definition and went from there. I think that your ideas are provocative though unclear in some cases which leads to me presuming and interpreting more than I probably should. Also note, I don’t agree with my above post and merely trying to play devil’s advocate in many cases.

I might go through this post and edit more later.

[Serpentine]

I got the impression it was more that V found himself suddenly having to define something that he previously took entirely for granted to someone for whom it is an entirely foreign concept and progressively having to reevaluate his own definition.
So it goes like this:
Take me to your leader.
A leader is in charge of everything.
A leader can only be in charge of everything if he knows about everything. Okay...
They enforce the rules, then.
Rules are guidelines for life. Therefore the leader must know what is good. But they don't. Okay...
They just punish people who break the rules.
edit: Looking at my own synopsis, there is quite a jump between "in charge of everything" and "enforces the rules". If it were being redone, I'd probably suggest adding a few steps in between there.

I think it's a very good example of someone's reaction to being asked questions they never even considered could ever need asking. Hard to explain properly something you've never really even thought about.

This second quotes mixes me up from my earlier understanding of V. One of two things can be presumed about him: A) he lives in a totalitarian system of government or B) he doesn't understand the nature of his own governing body. Most western cultures no longer have someone in charge of everything, as an American my understanding is that certain people detail certain aspects of 'ruling' however we have no one central superlative authority figure. For the sake of this post I’m going to presume that V knows what he’s talking about and go with A, partly because nothing is learned from V being a fool.
Well, it is entirely possible that the Visitor came from a monarchy. But even if they are from a US-style democracy, I think that works well enough. It's just a slightly simplistic view of how the president works. I think that certainly counts as "one central superlative authority figure", even if the actual individual in the position changes every so many years. I also think you need to look at the phrase in question: "Take me to your leader". "Take me to your democratically elected governing body" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[Semidi]

I got the impression it was more that V found himself suddenly having to define something that he previously took entirely for granted to someone for whom it is an entirely foreign concept and progressively having to reevaluate his own definition.
So it goes like this:
Take me to your leader.
A leader is in charge of everything.
A leader can only be in charge of everything if he knows about everything. Okay...
They enforce the rules, then.
Rules are guidelines for life. Therefore the leader must know what is good. But they don't. Okay...
They just punish people who break the rules.


"A leader can only be in charge of everything if he knows about everything," is due to a misunderstanding of the term, "expert." N presumes that to be in charge of everything he must know about everything which is not necessarily true. V accepting this premise makes him look unconfrontational (Word says it’s a spelling error, but I think it’s just the un prefix) and like he a bit of a dunderhead.

I can accept the first jump however though think there could be a bit more argument and back and forth about it. I have more issues with further changes:

V is discussing an enforcer, N is discussing a totalitarian leader who is a superlative being. In a democratic society the masses have the ultimate power (and the individual has no power… BAD SEMIDI BAD! *slaps hand* Politics!) This would be a misunderstanding of definitions rather than values.

I understand that it's supposed to be a progressive re-evaluation of ideology, but it doesn't have sufficient cause for said reevaluation which makes V look like a simpering fool.


Well, it is entirely possible that the Visitor came from a monarchy. But even if they are from a US-style democracy, I think that works well enough. It's just a slightly simplistic view of how the president works. I think that certainly counts as "one central superlative authority figure", even if the actual individual in the position changes every so many years. I also think you need to look at the phrase in question: "Take me to your leader". "Take me to your democratically elected governing body" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

What I mean is that the president is not a superlative authority figure in charge of everything. It's not slightly, it's an overly simplistic--down right false perception of a western style government. A president cannot do many, many, many things--you know like make a law. If V thinks the President is in charge of “everything” then he needs to read the constitution—it’s in most 8th grade history textbooks.

However, it is still unclear which is my primary complaint. If this dialogue is a commentary; it is generally important to understand what it’s a dialogue against. All authority figures? Western Authority figures? Illegal political commentary? He doesn’t address any of N’s definitions with any arguments nor does he express clearly what he exactly an authority figure represents. We could gain some understanding of it if he attacked some statements of N and we as the reader could gain some pro-N arguments. There are no real arguments from N only conclusions, baseless ones.

Now I must go to bed.