tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post3580482656414083514..comments2024-01-02T23:22:21.430-05:00Comments on The Guild Review: Meritocracy & LosersAaron Lindermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15992073027586818751noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-63247501164796814892009-11-07T03:35:20.696-05:002009-11-07T03:35:20.696-05:00I just don't get this argument at all. "A...I just don't get this argument at all. "All may aspire to the summit"? The summit of what? I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of a democratic, meritocratic society.<br /><br />First of all, I don't reject totally your premise. There was a book called "The Peter Principle" that argued that people rise in companies, driven through their ambition, until their incompetence outweighs their ability. But this could have been written in nearly EVERY culture, because this kind of "ambition" is NOT primary to our culture. What IS primary is entrepreneurship -- the idea of opportunity. This society rewards hard work much more consistently than ability.<br /><br />And what does "ambition" really mean, anyhow? Surely there's a sinful flavor stemming from a naked grasp for power and domination, but what about the "ambition" to own your own house? Or get started in a new career field? Or start your own business? The people I know who have tried and failed starting their own business are usually PROUD of their experience, not "disillusioned and depressed".<br /><br />I don't even know who these "losers" are that you mention. Where are they? Am I one? In one sense I have no "ambition" because I don't seek after leadership roles. On the other hand, I have the "ambition" to learn guitar, learn Greek, learn programming, and so on. Where else would I have so much opportunity?Jeremy Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07963963937784611544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-51822842431530383452009-11-05T13:55:21.599-05:002009-11-05T13:55:21.599-05:00You're right, Aaron. That statement is not 100...You're right, Aaron. That statement is not 100% empirically true, except in the ideal monastery, as you suggest. Perhaps we could speak instead of a general tendency. <br /><br />For example, even in the much more hierarchical Middle Ages, there were some places (i.e., cities) and careers (e.g., the Church) where you could advance out of the position you were born in. However, both the city and the Church would subsume you into a new hierarchy. Perhaps we could say that this at least acted as a kind of safety valve, without becoming too meritocratic.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825489013036249581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-63062988834454971492009-11-05T10:10:16.492-05:002009-11-05T10:10:16.492-05:00I'm not sure I agree with the statement that &...I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "in societies where inequality is the norm, each person settles into his own distinct place, without feeling the urge to compare himself with other, nor even conceiving the possibility."<br /><br />Perhaps I am simply not capable of thinking outside our own meritocratic framework, but it seems to me that in hierarchical societies those on top are rarely the most moral, talented or hardworking. This is not infrequently a cause for resentment on the part of those who (sometimes rightly) deem themselves more capable of ruling, but are stuck in lower positions.<br /><br />Some might argue that these ought to learn humility and accept their place, just or otherwise. (This is more or less the monastic view.) And perhaps, in an ideal world, they should. But for the sake of social stability, as well as to avoid tempting these people to envy, we may need to provide them a way up.Aaron Lindermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15992073027586818751noreply@blogger.com