/lit/ - Literature

We pay a lot of attention to the CEO, or the President, or the Head Coach. But they wouldn't be in their positions if they didn't meet the criteria of the social structure they're a part of. That structure is determined by the implicit consent of the majority. So that sense they're participating in the same game as everyone else.

With this in mind, we can look at the behavior of social structures as a 'wisdom-of-the-crowd' effect, determined by no one in particular but simply the average of the whole. I think this is supported by some arguments in the Philosophy of Mind which shift emphasis from the individual to the group they're in to explain certain aspects of language and thought (ex. Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein 1955).

Is this a tenable position in contemporary sociology and social theory? What are the relevant issues and debates? Can anyone direct me to resources where I can learn more about this? FYI I have background in linguistics and philosophy.

Thanks in advance.

The Universe is God's orgasm

>>13063664
And heaven is in the mind.

>>12909345
I've been found out

>>12736748
it is if you want to fuck your daughter

>>12463054
We should each do our devotional service.

Is there any point to reading translated philosophy? you could just read a wikipedia article and get the same knowledge.

>>12114973
Can confirm this. As example; when I was a kid I developed the same points that are talked in OP's book but growing up my head got filled with more information and I forgot it, then when I read the book it was like coming back to my childhood.
Feels good being patrician.

>>11921029
that's ok, you'll have plenty of lifetimes to wake up.

>>11715570
only in meditation can we really learn the answers to these questions.

>Bible, Quran, Torah
skip the ELIIPP (Explain Like I'm an Illiterate Palestinian Peasant) versions of the Vedas.