Ego and Authority

[Nehru]

I understand that authority exists to protect capital in most cases, but what of authority in itself? What I mean is, authority does have a psychological aspect to it rather than a purely economic one. For instance, authority gives a person a feeling of superiority, self-importance etc..

So even if its relation to capital is clear, should we not understand its relation to the ego as well? After all, authority does nourish our ego and make us feel important, which is why most of us want it in the first place.

What I am saying is, in trying to understand authority within the capitalist framework, we cannot ignore its psychological nature.

[JazzRemington]

Depends on what you mean by "authority" and the context of having authority over others, really ("being an authority" not withstanding, of course).

[ChrisK]

I understand that authority exists to protect capital in most cases, but what of authority in itself? What I mean is, authority does have a psychological aspect to it rather than a purely economic one. For instance, authority gives a person a feeling of superiority, self-importance etc..

So even if its relation to capital is clear, should we not understand its relation to the ego as well? After all, authority does nourish our ego and make us feel important, which is why most of us want it in the first place.

What I am saying is, in trying to understand authority within the capitalist framework, we cannot ignore its psychological nature.

You are treating "authority" as if it is the name of some thing. The word authority has many different meanings and is not just one thing to fight against.

Authority can be used in numerous ways:

"He seems to have some authority"

"Her knowledge makes her an authority on the subject"

"Capitalists have authority over workers."

[Nehru]

Thank you. There may be many meanings to the word, but I am wondering whether they all stem from the ego (with economics playing only a secondary role).

[ChrisK]

Thank you. There may be many meanings to the word, but I am wondering whether they all stem from the ego (with economics playing only a secondary role).

Eh? Words don't gain their meaning from some metaphysical construct like the "ego".

[Nehru]

Eh? Words don't gain their meaning from some metaphysical construct like the "ego".

Ego is a reality, not a metaphysical construct. Without it, a person will not have an identity.

[ChrisK]

Ego is a reality, not a metaphysical construct. Without it, a person will not have an identity.

You need to prove that assertion. If you cannot back it up, then it is a metaphysical theory.

[¿Que?]

You are treating "authority" as if it is the name of some thing. The word authority has many different meanings and is not just one thing to fight against.
Some of the different meanings of the word authority have a much broader range, while others are more specified. Aside from being entirely abstract in his usage, I see nothing wrong with how he's "treating" authority.

although I'm not sure what he means by saying the ego is not some metaphysical construct.

[Nehru]

Some of the different meanings of the word authority have a much broader range, while others are more specified. Aside from being entirely abstract in his usage, I see nothing wrong with how he's "treating" authority.

although I'm not sure what he means by saying the ego is not some metaphysical construct.

I mean the distinct sense of "I" as different from "you". This distinction is so fundamental we can't brush it aside as a metaphysical construct. Without this distinction, there cannot be any identity to begin with.

[ChrisK]

Some of the different meanings of the word authority have a much broader range, while others are more specified. Aside from being entirely abstract in his usage, I see nothing wrong with how he's "treating" authority.

What I mean by this is that he is treating it as the name of an abstract object. Doing this is a misuse of the term authority as authority is not a thing, it is a description.

[ChrisK]

I mean the distinct sense of "I" as different from "you". This distinction is so fundamental we can't brush it aside as a metaphysical construct. Without this distinction, there cannot be any identity to begin with.

So it is a linguistic distinction.

[Nehru]

So it is a linguistic distinction.

Are entities not distinct from one another? If so, it's a real distinction, not merely a linguistic one. Language simply expresses this distinction, doesn't create it.

[ChrisK]

Are entities not distinct from one another? If so, it's a real distinction, not merely a linguistic one. Language simply expresses this distinction, doesn't create it.

Without actually being able to articulate it how would we know it? Distinctions are linguistically formed.

Anyway, saying that the ego is "I" definitively puts to rest the idea that authority stems from it. Nothing stems naturally from an individual.

[OhYesIdid]

Language simply expresses this distinction, doesn't create it.

I beg to differ, here. The assumption that psychological or spiritual reality is made up of independent entities, and that we can only name them, seems metaphysical at best. In fact, one could argue that all abstractions are a product of language.

As for the original topic: I believe that Authority (or rather, dominance) is an artificial construct used to defend and legitimize property and capital, and should be treated with no more reverence than religion or the state.

WARNING: MOSTLY IRRELEVANT
This is why Existentialism is such a great Humanism: by placing existence before essence, we are given free will. Existentialism is, at its core, a rejection of all reasoning a priori, which is awesome.