Comment:

At the time I'm writing this comment file, there's... well, let's just say that politics is happening, and leave it at that.

The central paradox at the heart of all politics is the attempt to reconcile two axiomatic truisms - that great things can never be accomplished without a group of people being co-ordinated, and that power corrupts. I strongly feel that the incompetence and mendacity and greed and aggression currently displayed on the world stage not only compromises the authority of the individual and the office, not only the authority of democracy and the voting public, but the authority of authority itself.

If this is what a leader is, why follow?

Authority is nothing more and nothing less than telling people what to do - ideally, because they trust you and believe that following your instructions is the best way to accomplish their goals. Without that trust in your competence and commonality of motivation, the only remaining source of authority is compulsion, compulsion ultimately derived either through control of resources or through actual violence. This is, I think we can agree, not ideal.

When a populace finds itself under such compulsion, rebellion and violent revolt become inevitable. Perhaps worse yet, the aforementioned great things are not accomplished - which may sound petty if you're thinking of "great things" as "carving Mount Rushmore" and not, as you should, "creating and maintaining a sewer infrastructure so that babies don't die of dysentery".

But perhaps I've wandered somewhat afield. My apologies. Politics on the brain, you know how it is.

As Lee says, a lack of central prescriptive authority over morality and purpose means that humans have to determine their purpose and their morality for themselves (I think we can agree that this is a good thing). Whether or not this freedom is in any way related to existentialism, as defined by Orb's class and its lessonbook, is another matter entirely.

Transcript:

---------------------------------------------------------------
0394– 2167/07/07/11:47- LC’s apartment, living room
Zoa (leaning on Lee): Oh, we want to skip ahead to chapter eight, do we? The existentialism of twentieth century philosophers like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche?
LC: Is it too late to change my vote?
Zoa: Yes.
----------------------
LC: Okay, uh… Nietzsche said “God is dead”, I know that one.
Zoa: Okay, cool.
Zoa: Why?
LC: Uh… because... God was dead?
----------------------
Zoa: So you’re under the impression that C was alive and well until the nineteen hundreds, and then what? Were they executed, or did they pass away of natural causes?
LC: Well, obviously, Nietzsche was actually referring to religion being dead. Which is to say... uh… that Christianity’s authority and influence on Western thought was no longer paramount? Because of the rise of secularism and religious pluralism meant that church leaders could no longer torture people to death for heresy and stuff?
----------------------
LC: Because… yeah. If people have the choice of what religion to follow or not follow, that means that some priest can no longer tell them what their purpose in life is… so that leads to existentialism, where you merely exist and have to decide your purpose for yourself. Is that right?
Doc: I see we’re back to anti-authority again.
Zoa: I, for one, am really looking forward to two months from now, when Lee drops this interpretation on Mezzer Twofeather. Please, by all means, continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------