Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Gregg Hurwitz – An Invitation to the Intellectual Dark Web" video.

There must be something about this hierarchy issue that I'm not getting, some slant of perspective I haven't yet happened upon. I can't respect a position that would hold "hierarchy" out as evil, or created by evil people, or in any way worthy of derision. In fact, I have to doubt the sanity of anyone who holds such a position. No? I think of hierarchy as an organic pattern of arrangement determined naturally by the interactions of proximal influences. In fact, the concept of "order" relies on concepts of hierarchy. No? What would order devoid of hierarchy look like?! Order = hierarchy; they're parallel concepts.
2
C'mon, you've gotta be able to discriminate between a principle and an expression of that principle. Hierarchy is a natural principle which manifests "Order". You simply CANNOT oppose the hierarchical principle rationally. You can oppose particular manifestations of the principle; corruption of the manifestation is not a corruption of the principle. It's the flip side of "correlation is not causation": it's just not the fault of the principle of hierarchy that a given manifestation/application of the principle is corrupt. Oh, and, just for you, MAGA!
1
"Order" and "success", as ideas, are as apples to oranges: only tangentially related. "Short term success is meaningless if the end result is failure" is a baseless assertion: "short term" is undefined; what "end result"--success is success, how does success retroactively become failure at some "future" time; "meaningless" is impossible! How can any identifiable thing be meaningless?!! The identification itself supplies meaning. Your further statements are similarly baseless assertions. And you ask if I can give you a "long term" (what's that?) "successful" (what's that?) example of a hierarchy that "stands alone" (what's that?), as if there would be value in providing such, while, actually, you mean to simply assert that no such example exists, and, therefore, "hierarchy" must be a deficient notion deserving of (what?) destruction, derision. Examples of the expression of the natural principle of hierarchy can not implicate the principle itself. Get real.
1
In this case, substitution of equivalent terms yields a meaning not inconsistent with the original; but not identical, either. In virtually all cases, a synonym is subtly different in meaning, and will alter some aspect of the possible interpretation of the sentence. In this case I don't object to system=order=hierarchy. But "success" seems out of order to me; I have no idea what value this term is meant to convey in this context. I don't see the value in denigrating a system just because it fails to endure eternally--that's, to me, an unrealistic expectation. Only the principles endure eternally. The expressions endure according to their natures: maybe some eternally, but not for the most part. That doesn't mean they weren't "successful". Time expresses through cyclicity, so anything time-dependent experiences cyclicity. Structure is a manifestation/expression of the principle of hierarchy/order/system. Ask yourself what elicits the impetus to expression.
1