|
Post by Polaris on Feb 12, 2018 21:53:08 GMT
Which is more natural, to have people grouped into a hierarchy of social classes or to have them as equals.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Feb 13, 2018 6:17:25 GMT
“Free men aren’t equal and equal Men aren’t free” Think of it this way, truly free men achieve different levels of power, success, fulfillment, wealth, and so on. When forced to be equal, it's by force, therefore you are not free any longer. I’m a civilized country everyone is ideally equal under the law, which is really the only equality than can be effectively regulated. Women are not equal to men, in terms of physicality, academically, and intelligence. Men are, on average physically superior, but academically women are edging ahead of men (for various reasons), in terms of intelligence women cluster around the middle meaning men are more often genius level intelligence and more often feeble minded on average as well. There are the same or similar comparisons that can be made between religious and non religious people and race as well. so you are basically claiming that equality does not exist and consequently is not natural. this claim of yours, if i am getting you right, lead us to another question: which is more natural: freedom of men or having men's freedom fettered by society well-being considerations? Yes that is correct, as for your second question I would say it is arguable. It is almost like the libertarian/authoritarian argument. Not exactly, but similar. Freedom and equality have an inverse relationship. More freedom, less equality and vice versa. What is more natural is probably total freedom but that doesn’t make it most optimal for society to establish proper morals, increase rate of survival, safety, and to evolve as a group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 6:25:51 GMT
Neither.
Class differences prevent unity (see India), equality brings down all greatness/merit.
A true community of peoples requires both doctrines to be abolished.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 13, 2018 6:53:53 GMT
so you are basically claiming that equality does not exist and consequently is not natural. this claim of yours, if i am getting you right, lead us to another question: which is more natural: freedom of men or having men's freedom fettered by society well-being considerations? Yes that is correct, as for your second question I would say it is arguable. It is almost like the libertarian/authoritarian argument. Not exactly, but similar. Freedom and equality have an inverse relationship. More freedom, less equality and vice versa. What is more natural is probably total freedom but that doesn’t make it most optimal for society to establish proper morals, increase rate of survival, safety, and to evolve as a group. i agree!!!
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 13, 2018 6:56:56 GMT
Neither. Class differences prevent unity (see India), equality brings down all greatness/merit. A true community of peoples requires both doctrines to be abolished. Practically you cannot abolish both unless you think of a hybrd system that takes from both!!!
|
|
|
Post by bctsarivan on Feb 13, 2018 8:04:47 GMT
Equality is exceedingly unnatural. This is pretty clearly evidenced by the fact of how many societies have attempted to make people equal and how it is always a failure and these same societies mange to created strong hierarchies. The USSR being the obvious example. The Marxist myth of 'primitive communism' is pretty easily dismantled by the fact that in primitive human societies the majority of access was dominated by a small amount of the men.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 13, 2018 9:15:50 GMT
Equality is exceedingly unnatural. This is pretty clearly evidenced by the fact of how many societies have attempted to make people equal and how it is always a failure and these same societies mange to created strong hierarchies. The USSR being the obvious example. The Marxist myth of 'primitive communism' is pretty easily dismantled by the fact that in primitive human societies the majority of access was dominated by a small amount of the men. i think taking either of the two extremes is unnatural, and human systems should promote justice rather than equality
|
|
crakzeno
New Member
Wewe
Posts: 11
Likes: 13
Country: UK
Religion: Pagan
Hero: There was this one husky-dog that protected me, yeah.
|
Post by crakzeno on Feb 13, 2018 10:18:29 GMT
Which is more natural? Clearly that's social hierarchy, look at all species - there are power levels and leaders always, those who do better than others. Does that mean it's 'good'? Just because something is "natural" does not mean it's right, morally speaking. It's natural for people to crave more and more; it's a survival instinct, greed is what has kept us alive many a time. The idea of taking more "just in case" is what it'll be founded on, though these days that's practically obsolete and detrimental to yourself and others. But it's still what we're "naturally" inclined to do.
Think of all life more or less; all programmed to reproduce as much as possible, but when this works "too well" we get overpopulation which leads to a lack of resources then fighting and starvation, the death balances the scales again this is what "naturally" happens, very rarely is nature kind or nice - but it's balanced, some will be very poor, some will be very rich. But there's still both ey? Naturally some are lucky enough, or have the skills to rise above others (or a mix of the two). Hierarchy is everywhere around us, insects, animals, plants, and countless systems within our lives. Very very rarely is there true equality, and if there was...
Would it be everyone getting exactly the same? What if others work harder than some, is it fair they only get the same? This is how things start, it's inevitable - we like having a pack leader, and being better than others. It's just how we're hardwired for survival purposes to get a mate, food, shelter etc.
tl;dr hierarchy is more natural but don't assume that means it's always good - nor always bad.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 13, 2018 13:17:53 GMT
Which is more natural? Clearly that's social hierarchy, look at all species - there are power levels and leaders always, those who do better than others. Does that mean it's 'good'? Just because something is "natural" does not mean it's right, morally speaking. It's natural for people to crave more and more; it's a survival instinct, greed is what has kept us alive many a time. The idea of taking more "just in case" is what it'll be founded on, though these days that's practically obsolete and detrimental to yourself and others. But it's still what we're "naturally" inclined to do. Think of all life more or less; all programmed to reproduce as much as possible, but when this works "too well" we get overpopulation which leads to a lack of resources then fighting and starvation, the death balances the scales again this is what "naturally" happens, very rarely is nature kind or nice - but it's balanced, some will be very poor, some will be very rich. But there's still both ey? Naturally some are lucky enough, or have the skills to rise above others (or a mix of the two). Hierarchy is everywhere around us, insects, animals, plants, and countless systems within our lives. Very very rarely is there true equality, and if there was... Would it be everyone getting exactly the same? What if others work harder than some, is it fair they only get the same? This is how things start, it's inevitable - we like having a pack leader, and being better than others. It's just how we're hardwired for survival purposes to get a mate, food, shelter etc. tl;dr hierarchy is more natural but don't assume that means it's always good - nor always bad. this leads us to open a very interesting question. It is argued in philosophy that nature is (beyond) good and bad, and if we accept this claim we should hold that being natural is neutral as for good or bad unless viewed from a certain point of view!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 4:53:46 GMT
Neither. Class differences prevent unity (see India), equality brings down all greatness/merit. A true community of peoples requires both doctrines to be abolished. Practically you cannot abolish both unless you think of a hybr id system that takes from both!!! Yes, a higher synthesis of democracy, dictatorship, and socialism. That requires people who can fully comprehend higher ideals, which is still rare. Democracy is the most vulnerable form of government. All the really great humanists repudiated it. It requires people who are capable of ruling themselves, which is a childish dream of fantasts. The contempt for dictatorship is partially hysteria (maintained by the prevailing views), but there's also a historical basis for this aversion. Nostalgics who want a return to dictatorship/monarchy/fascism probably never lived under such governments in the first place. As for socialism, it existed long before Marx's day. Marx's take on it (communism) was a distortion of it's original concept. Today we have adherents naively claiming that it was never truly implemented and who pin the blame on leaders like Stalin.
|
|
|
Post by avenger5998 on Feb 15, 2018 13:37:41 GMT
Well it depends on which type of equality you are reaching for. Equality of outcome is completely unnatural and requires extreme pressures to be forced upon the people. Equality of oppurtunity is closer to natural and much more desirable. Social classes naturally form because of our brain structure, its very unlikely that we could remove them. Its another question if its even a good idea. From what I can tell it may even be undesirable to eradicate social class.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 9:53:25 GMT
My answer is short: no leaders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Feb 28, 2018 9:58:15 GMT
unknown Anarchist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 10:27:43 GMT
it is established in Greek philosophy that people are not born the same. some are born to rule, others are born to be ruled. if we just shift the focus from ruling to our endeavors in life, you will probably notice that people are not the same in their abilities, ambitions, and other stuff. does that justify any sort of social stratification? karmic influence of theory. Even in my family, we three brothers are entirely different, in fact, i don't have same mindset of my family members. It is because of the karmic theory. Yes, within the same family, you get geniuses, kings, scholars, and within the same family, there would be people who would be paupers or average or a commoner. However, social classes are mainly for functioning and division of labor, and birth is pretty much a part of it.
|
|
Gavius
New Member
Posts: 15
Likes: 14
Meta-Ethnicity: Mediterranean
Ethnicity: Half British (English/Irish) and Half Italian (Sicilian)
Country: Australia
Region: New South Wales
Politics: Centrist, Nationalist
Religion: Hermeticism
Relationship Status: Single
Hero: Marcus Tullius Cicero
Age: 21
|
Post by Gavius on Feb 28, 2018 12:05:20 GMT
“Free men aren’t equal and equal Men aren’t free” Think of it this way, truly free men achieve different levels of power, success, fulfillment, wealth, and so on. When forced to be equal, it's by force, therefore you are not free any longer. I’m a civilized country everyone is ideally equal under the law, which is really the only equality than can be effectively regulated. Women are not equal to men, in terms of physicality, academically, and intelligence. Men are, on average physically superior, but academically women are edging ahead of men (for various reasons), in terms of intelligence women cluster around the middle meaning men are more often genius level intelligence and more often feeble minded on average as well. There are the same or similar comparisons that can be made between religious and non religious people and race as well. so you are basically claiming that equality does not exist and consequently is not natural. this claim of yours, if i am getting you right, lead us to another question: which is more natural: freedom of men or having men's freedom fettered by society well-being considerations? I totally agree with AmericanCharm and by no means is equality a real concept in the way that some people fight for it. Like he said, equality should be that everyone is ideally equal under the law. I absolutely support this, but it's the only type I really believe in. Absolute equality is ironically limiting, as everyone is unique. As for your question, Polaris it is certainly an interesting one. I think we need to find a middle ground. Too much freedom is a dangerous thing, as you'd find most people lost to their vices. I believe the best option is it being decided on society's basis, as we do today. Every society in history has had different standards that worked in their world and often contributes greatly to their civilisation. EDIT: I just noticed there was multiple replies to this question after the version I quoted, I feel as if I still agree with the both of you.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 28, 2018 21:55:37 GMT
it is established in Greek philosophy that people are not born the same. some are born to rule, others are born to be ruled. if we just shift the focus from ruling to our endeavors in life, you will probably notice that people are not the same in their abilities, ambitions, and other stuff. does that justify any sort of social stratification? karmic influence of theory. Even in my family, we three brothers are entirely different, in fact, i don't have same mindset of my family members. It is because of the karmic theory. Yes, within the same family, you get geniuses, kings, scholars, and within the same family, there would be people who would be paupers or average or a commoner. However, social classes are mainly for functioning and division of labor, and birth is pretty much a part of it. i agree 100 percent
|
|