The goal was not to state definitions, or opinions on these definitions @Project_Jango... the actual question is how a person thinks a leader or tyrant is defined to their own opinion. This may vary from person to person.
The thread is a valid topic and should not be wiped off the table as a 'Google it yourself' type of discussion. So...
Like most people nowadays, I assume, I consider a tyrant to be a person that puts their own power and wealth over the well-being of the people, someone that wants to rule others without consideration. Generally a bad person.
This definition differs from the ancient Greeks, for whom a tyrant was a king/leader that had no legal right to rule, irrespective of whether it was a good leader or a bad one.
A leader, I would say, is less about ruling and more about leading (d'uh) in the sense that a leader puts the goal of the group over their own goals, and also actively takes part in the effort.
Like most people nowadays, I assume, I consider a tyrant to be a person that puts their own power and wealth over the well-being of the people, someone that wants to rule others without consideration. Generally a bad person.
A leader, I would say, is less about ruling and more about leading (d'uh) in the sense that a leader puts the goal of the group over their own goals, and also actively takes part in the effort.
Um. It kind of directly counters what you said. What you said makes no sense anyways, the fact that different people have different thoughts doesn't completely inhibit communication. That's what's called an "argument".
Really though, this is not a difficult point to comprehend.
It is in this context. You're literally arguing that by acknowledging that different people can have different views of what constitutes a leader and/or a tyrant, we're nullifying the entire English language to the point where we can't communicate with each other.
@Project_Jango You highlighted the 'definition' part of the OP's question and made it the main subject of discussion, but this is not the topic at hand. If you feel like discussing the definition of 'definition' and all its pros and cons, please feel free to make a separate thread about it, ok?
For now this discussion remains about what the OP asked in the first place: "What defines a leader or tyrant for you personally?"
@MrDayCee you're right. It is not the definition that is the issue (look in the dictionary for that) but the interpretation is what is being discussed.
TYRANT: Solely powerful person, that believes they have a right to ultimate power over a country (or business) and has the henchpeople to back them up.
LEADER: A decision maker, elected or not who has the benefit of the majority foremost and takes advice of others on their actions.
That's my very simplistic interpretation, I could elaborate, but I haven't the space here for a full explanation.
i have a problem with the question...
a tyrant is a leader.. maybe a bad one, but he still has the lead..
That's so funny - I was just coming along to point this out. In philosophy-speak, a tyrant is a species of leader. Another way of putting this is all tyrants are leaders, but not all leaders are tyrants.
But why is this a problem for the question? There's still a distinction to be made between X and Y, even if X is a species of Y. Suppose we were talking about extremists of religion R and members of religion R. An extremist is a species of a member, but it's still an interesting question as to what properties or qualifications an extremist would have.
So maybe approach the question that way. What needs to happen to a leader to turn him/her into a tyrant? So far we have a few thoughts on offer. One theme that keeps poking its head out is that a tyrant is a bad leader. But that seems to weak. Someone can be bad at leading without being a tyrant. Maybe they're just dumb or easily led astray or just misguided.
A stronger notion seems to be (along the lines of HahiHa's suggestion) a leader who is more interested in his/her own welfare than the welfare of his/her citizens. But this still might not be right. Suppose I'm far more interested in my own welfare and power than the rights of my subjects. But I also know that, if I were to try to increase my own power at the cost of my subjects, I would quickly be taken down as leader. So instead, I choose to do the right sorts of things that will keep me in power. And those things just happen to be what's best for the people. So here's a case of someone who would certainly like to be a tyrant but intuitively isn't one.
It seems to me what it comes down to 2 important aspects: intentions and actions. So suppose doing X, Y and Z would make you a tyrant. You would have to intend to do X, Y and Z and also do those things. So the real question comes down to this: what are X, Y and Z?
It seems to me what it comes down to 2 important aspects: intentions and actions. So suppose doing X, Y and Z would make you a tyrant. You would have to intend to do X, Y and Z and also do those things. So the real question comes down to this: what are X, Y and Z?
For me, one definitely is seizing power by force and/or preventing the end of your rule by taking down the other means of electing a leader (in most cases elections). Yes that is dictatorship, but dictators are not so different from tyrants.
And another important difference is that you can be a leader in a lot of things (team leader in sports, lead singer in a band with an influence over your bandmates etc.), while a tyrant can only be a leader of a nation.
Not necessarily. There are many instances in which you can be a tyrant in everyday life as well: an extra-bossy president of a club, a member of a group project who tries to take things into his or her own hands too much, a locker room bully, etc.
There are many instances in which you can be a tyrant in everyday life as well: an extra-bossy president of a club, a member of a group project who tries to take things into his or her own hands too much, a locker room bully, etc.
These are not really tyrants. A locker room bully is not even a leader most of the times.
For me, one definitely is seizing power by force and/or preventing the end of your rule by taking down the other means of electing a leader (in most cases elections). Yes that is dictatorship, but dictators are not so different from tyrants.
Actually I think in that aspect a tyrant and a dictator are the same. But then where exactly is the difference between, say, a tyrant, a dictator and a despot? All three have many things in common. Are they all coequal or is one a species of another? In the ancient Greek way, as far as I know, a dictator can be appointed by the people while a tyrant is illegitimate. Can this still be true today?
Not necessarily. There are many instances in which you can be a tyrant in everyday life as well: an extra-bossy president of a club, a member of a group project who tries to take things into his or her own hands too much, a locker room bully, etc.
You can say 'behaving like a tyrant' as a colloquial term for dominant/abusive behaviour, but I agree that an actual tyrant is, as Doom said, a leader of a nation.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines tyrant as "a ruler who has complete power over a country and who is cruel and unfair" or
"someone who uses power in a cruel and unfair way". In the context of this thread, we are referring to a person of power.
Like what @GhostOfNinja stated, there can be "tyrants" in everyday life. They are only tyrants in the sense that they are overbearing, as HahiHa has stated.
However, bossy club presidents or controlling classmates are not tyrants. True, they can be selfish or overbearing at times, but many do not have cruel intentions. The classmate may just want good grades, so he/she will do whatever it takes to attain it. The club president is a leader, but he might have a certain vision for his club, so he will want everything run his way. Unless the president or classmate uses his or her power to deliberately hurt other people, only then they are tyrants.
