Better Than You

[Anvil]

Do you believe that some people are better than others?
Do you find yourself better than someone else?
Do you feel that you are equal to others?
Why/Why Not?

My opinion would be that equality does not exist beyond generalities. Generalities such as being a human being, having the same body parts as other humans, etc.

I've never actually been able to think out whether or not I find myself better than someone else. Maybe because I cannot think of persons, only people. If I were to think that I was better than someone, it definately would not show in my every day life. It almost sounds contradictory to my previous statement, but its just how I am.

There are two ways of looking at it. Equality is a way for people to feel like they're being treated fairly. Fair is flawed. Fair brings up the problems of Right and Wrong, which are also flawed. Right and Wrong are only socially correct. Of course, our instinctual basis of right and wrong does exist, but as we grow up and learn from society they become twisted. (I've pushed into another direction, but its also something I wanted to bring up.) Equality does not exist, and never has. Only the perception of Equality is what is around now. (Although this might bring up some controversy, please bear with me.) Take for instance the United States and the Middle East. Although the US says they take a strong moral stance against inequality, after 9/11, many Middle-eastern men and women were discriminated against, and still are. Even still, African-americans are still discrimated against. As are non-christians. Is this right? Is this wrong?

But then this is thinking generally by putting people into very general categories. A lot of people I've spoken to, and/or met who DID feel that they were better than someone else, usually said for reasons such as beauty, wisdom, knowledge & skill, wealth, status, etc. But isn't that really what it comes down to? Isn't that what its been coming down to for centuries? The English, for example, were always about status. Even now, most countries are about status/wealth, but in a more discrete way (at least in North America and most of Europe.)

Anyways, I just got home from work, and I've already lost my train of thought a few times writing this... so I'm sorry. If something doesn't seem right, let me know and I'll reply with a better answer.

 

[کوڈانشی]

you’ve opened your post with a conclusion — though i accept you may have thought long & hard, philosophized a great deal and then drawn conclusions. what makes you start off thinking all of us somehow equal each other?

george lakoff’s work on conceptual metaphors, values, and so forth pulled me back from postmodernism’s nihilistic brink, but i have taken many great lessons from that widely varied field of philosophy. foremost among this: your thoughts, conclusions, and beliefs about something depend entirely on with which ‘discourse’ you view these matters, something i personally believe (mainly through many many years of experience, and even more years of thinking).

let me give you a few examples:

• in a capitalist country such as england or, even more so: america, money talks (and bullshit walks, so people say!). your ability to function as an effective member of society, your ability to ‘purchase’ happiness, even your very status depends entirely on your wealth, your goods, and so forth. accordingly that makes someone like bill gates or a major hollywood actor ‘better’ than others, despite protestations.
  
• in ancient greece and even now many considered philosophers ‘better’ than everyone else because they thought about matters above mere animal–derived physical actions, understood, gained knowledge and spread wisdom.
  
• many élite circles these days revolve around superiority of those who listen to a certain form of music. some people believe that listening to 1349 or dillinger escape plan, for example, makes you inherently more ‘worthy’ than someone who listens to (say) oasis. or ‘goawaysis’ as i call them, haha.
  
• i follow islam, and from this particular discourse — i suppose i can extend that to many more religions — superiority comes to those whose faith exceeds that of others. everything else bears no relevance: material wealth, societal status, and suchlike. now i, personally, don’t believe that praying 5 times a day makes me any ‘better’ than someone who goes out clubbing every weekend and listens to oasis in his or her spare time, but…

i maintain that a lot of our problems would disappear (though i accept new/different problems would arise) if we dropped ‘is’es of predication and identity (i am better than you; she is a highly successful singer, etc.) and spoke & wrote in e–prime instead.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Here's the explanation of why people think they are better than other people from a purely psychological analysis of the phenomenon.

The "vain brain" refers to a characteristic of the human brain whereby our perception of ourselves is instinctively embellished, enhanced and aggrandised. We all have this condition to varying extents and it has evolved to keep us from falling too easily into depression (the clinically depressed have a much more realistic and negative view of themselves) and to keep us feeling positive and motivated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1694848,00.html (Absolutely fantastic article).

"The brain is so very vain that it even considers the letters that appear in your name to be more attractive than those that don't."
"It excuses our faults, or simply ignores them. It hates being contradicted and keeps our egos plump. The brain, says psychologist Cordelia Fine, routinely lies to us - and it's a good thing it does."

We philosophic types must be really different in our way of thinking, compared with the bulk of humanity. We do not retreat from having our ideas challenged or contradicted, and we are prone to question and analyse our own perceptions. We are rare in being likely to learn from our mistakes.

Studies have shown that the vain brain makes everyone believe they are better drivers than average. This would be a statistical impossibility. When people have an accident due to recklessness such as speeding, the vast majority still think they are better drivers than most on the roads, and put their accident down to external circumstances. They then continue their dangerous habits behind the wheel. (This is refered to in the above link).

What we can see from this is that it is only human for people to think themselves better than others because the brain is wired up that way.

 

[کوڈانشی]

what an interesting article! thank you for linking that, norsemaiden. i have very little psychological knowledge, though i read extensively on psychology as a young teenager — it seems only philosophy stuck, and even that i’ve never studied formally.

i can believe that viewpoint though: studying other people (again!) and simply because i too acted like that many years ago. i would argue for point without prior knowledge, and then would simply sift through data to find evidence supporting my view, ignoring anything which opposed it: many many logical fallacies have i shouldered in my lifetime…

surrounding yourself with yes–people? i consider it a bad idea (as bad an idea as keeping company with people who only ever criticise you). it kept bob dylan going through his christian music years…

 

[ølfeen]

Equality of people is a complete nonsense.
Yes, i'm better than many people, more smart, that many people, more beautiful, than many other girls/women. And there are people, who are better/more educated/clever/beautiful, than me. It's a simple world order
I can remember on the spot only one religion, that says that all people are equal. It's Daosism and it's beyond my understanding )))

 

[infoterror]

Do you believe that some people are better than others?

Hard to linearize that way. Better at certain things? Yes. Better in character? Yes, but it's culturally-dependent (one of many reasons why multiculturalism is insane).

 

[jervi]

Hi all -

Yeah, better/equal in what way?
And better/equal in what sense?

When people say that everyone's equal,
maybe they're referring to potential?
That would make sense to me.
*Remember the difference between advantage and potential here*
Just think about the ridiculous energy-potential of a tiny atom...

-Ashen

 

[ølfeen]

When people say that everyone's equal,
maybe they're referring to potential?
That would make sense to me.

-Ashen

For me doesn't. Even potentially people cannot be equal, just because they have different genes. :Smug: But there's a question, potential for what..?

 

[jervi]

Ølfeen:
I didn't mean that people could potentionally be equal.
I meant that in a sense, their _potential_ can be equal.
You know.. The limits of what they can achieve...

 

[کوڈانشی]

their _potential_ can be equal.
You know.. The limits of what they can achieve...

i wouldn’t have thought that someone with non–functional legs as well as down syndrome can achieve as much as an able–bodied, intellectually advanced person. which suggests to me that their potentials differ.

 

[jervi]

Well, he can actually achieve the same, although that is very very unlikely...

Yeah, it's not a solid statement, but neither is the idea of equality, in the first place.

 

[ølfeen]

Ølfeen:
I didn't mean that people could potentionally be equal.
I meant that in a sense, their _potential_ can be equal.
You know.. The limits of what they can achieve...

The major difference is in structure of the sentence.
An able-bodied, intellectually-advanced person can achieve as much as down-syndromed person, i mean to achieve almost nothing, if some accident happens to him, but no down syndrome can have the same potential as a normal person. And the difference between every normal person exists too...

 

[Dushan S]

This matter is treated in a very wrong way, at least I cannot understand morality games that are attached without reason to this.

Obviously, people are not the same. It seems that telling anything about someones superiority in one or more fields is treated as political incorectness. Well, it sure can be like that, some people can use some of their capabilities as vulgar ego boost.
Problem is that there are two different things that should be separated first... Objective capabilities of individual, and stance that individual has about differences compared to other people. To me most important is stance of individual towards society as a whole and other individuals. If I have some capabilities and I am using them to help others, teach them, doing stuff for others as well as using my own personal power to meet my own needs too, what is wrong about feeling superior? It is realistic picture of my own capabilities as an individual. I have met a lot of people that were denying their very obvious capabilities in some fields, acting like they are modest and "realistic", faking their "normality" as it is some kind of special quality about them thus making them better persons. I perceive that like being very selfish, living under the mask of mediocrity insted of using personal qualities to change other people for better. People are afraid of responsability and their little life dramas often need them to be weak and tied down...but it is another story.
Being open to myself about my superiority in some fields, also makes me more open about my weakness in other fields. So in turn I can be ready to admit where my weak points are and ready to learn from other people that are better at things that I can't do well, and it also mekes it easier for me to ask help from others when I need it. And I think that EVERY person has something it is good at so, every person can be a source to learn from if you are open enough.

This can be also projected onto a woman emancipation movement that is by my opinion failure in a lot of ways. Instead of understanding obvious differences between man and woman, and making both of sexes being recognised and respected for their different qualities and capabilities (and thus making them truly equal in moral, higher sense) we have misunderstanding where woman should become man in a way to be equal, at least in eyes of our western society...Just open any magazine and check what being succesful women means in practice. Most usual thing is developement ofmasculine character traits.
Not that I think that all woman should stay at home, clean and cook. Bussiness woman is ok by me if it is a personal preference, just go for it, but point is that being house wife is part of thousands of years of evolution, and we still have not get completely to the point to understand that being a central point of home life and family, having children and made grown people out of them is VERY difficult task, more difficult than most of "men things" including getting to the moon, climbing to the Mt. Everest or earning millions of $, and is also much more important, crucial task.

 

[speed]

This matter is treated in a very wrong way, at least I cannot understand morality games that are attached without reason to this.

Obviously, people are not the same. It seems that telling anything about someones superiority in one or more fields is treated as political incorectness. Well, it sure can be like that, some people can use some of their capabilities as vulgar ego boost.
Problem is that there are two different things that should be separated first... Objective capabilities of individual, and stance that individual has about differences compared to other people. To me most important is stance of individual towards society as a whole and other individuals. If I have some capabilities and I am using them to help others, teach them, doing stuff for others as well as using my own personal power to meet my own needs too, what is wrong about feeling superior? It is realistic picture of my own capabilities as an individual. I have met a lot of people that were denying their very obvious capabilities in some fields, acting like they are modest and "realistic", faking their "normality" as it is some kind of special quality about them thus making them better persons. I perceive that like being very selfish, living under the mask of mediocrity insted of using personal qualities to change other people for better. People are afraid of responsability and their little life dramas often need them to be weak and tied down...but it is another story.
Being open to myself about my superiority in some fields, also makes me more open about my weakness in other fields. So in turn I can be ready to admit where my weak points are and ready to learn from other people that are better at things that I can't do well, and it also mekes it easier for me to ask help from others when I need it. And I think that EVERY person has something it is good at so, every person can be a source to learn from if you are open enough.

This can be also projected onto a woman emancipation movement that is by my opinion failure in a lot of ways. Instead of understanding obvious differences between man and woman, and making both of sexes being recognised and respected for their different qualities and capabilities (and thus making them truly equal in moral, higher sense) we have misunderstanding where woman should become man in a way to be equal, at least in eyes of our western society...Just open any magazine and check what being succesful women means in practice. Most usual thing is developement ofmasculine character traits.
Not that I think that all woman should stay at home, clean and cook. Bussiness woman is ok by me if it is a personal preference, just go for it, but point is that being house wife is part of thousands of years of evolution, and we still have not get completely to the point to understand that being a central point of home life and family, having children and made grown people out of them is VERY difficult task, more difficult than most of "men things" including getting to the moon, climbing to the Mt. Everest or earning millions of $, and is also much more important, crucial task.

Wise words Mr. DUshan. Wise words indeed. Women now are forced to sacrifice their instincts to start a family if they wish to climb to the top and fulfill once male-dominated, secular dreams and ambitions. Of course a few women raise children and realize their ambitions; but the vast majority do not, and are forced to choose. I think its a rotten thing for women. Instead of acknowledging extreme differences between the sexes in their fight, they wanted to be treated and accepted like men. The problem is, a few months of maternity leave, and then going back to a full-time 40-60 hour a week job is not going to cut it in terms of raising a child, both for the child and the mother.

 

[Dushan S]

Wise words Mr. DUshan. Wise words indeed. Women now are forced to sacrifice their instincts to start a family if they wish to climb to the top and fulfill once male-dominated, secular dreams and ambitions. Of course a few women raise children and realize their ambitions; but the vast majority do not, and are forced to choose. I think its a rotten thing for women. Instead of acknowledging extreme differences between the sexes in their fight, they wanted to be treated and accepted like men. The problem is, a few months of maternity leave, and then going back to a full-time 40-60 hour a week job is not going to cut it in terms of raising a child, both for the child and the mother.

Yes, it is really hard for woman, and ultimately a no-win situation, because no matter what woman in modern society do, it appers she must deny part of herself, or be extremely capable of balancing different aspects of her life.
Sadly, even if in some other cultures (for instance in China) technically there is a philosophical concept that promotes equality in moral sense, that would make every person in family equaly important, because person is valued and loved for what it is and for fulfiling its role in family, in practice, woman is even in worse situation than in western society, so it was also a failure.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I agree with everything you said too Dushan. Isn't it shocking how the Chinese refer to girl children as "maggots in the rice", and often want them killed. What kind of attitude is that? There doesn't seem to be much of a feminist movement there - as even the mothers prefer to have sons.

 

[Dushan S]

It is often the case in rural parts of the world, not something that is exclusively Chinese thing. Actually I don't think that there is any part of the world where society does not gives more approval for having a male children.
A bit off topic: I thing most important good aspect of popularity of Da Vinci Code book is making people more aware of how church and faith have affected woman in society and how these concepts are affecting women even today.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It is often the case in rural parts of the world, not something that is exclusively Chinese thing. Actually I don't think that there is any part of the world where society does not gives more approval for having a male children.
A bit off topic: I thing most important good aspect of popularity of Da Vinci Code book is making people more aware of how church and faith have affected woman in society and how these concepts are affecting women even today.

IMO the west has ever taken such a hostile attitude towards having daughters, except that sons are wanted because they are heirs. As long as there is an heir, more of a custom in the past, daughters are not hated. It is still sexist to that extent though.

The modern feminism that tries to make women behave like men has really done a disservice to women. Instead of taking the stance that women should be appreciated for the things that only women can do, it has made women feel a need to compete with men in masculine ways. This has cooincideded with an emasculation of men and a feeling of worthlessness as their role has been taken from them. Also, it has made women seem like competitors and thus as enemies, and chivalrous behaviour has declined consequently. Not only this, but many feminists seems to be keen to copy the worst behaviour of men. Such as getting drunk, rowdy and pointlessly promiscuous as if this was bringing them up to some sort of admired standard.

 

[Demiurge]

Do you believe that some people are better than others?
Do you find yourself better than someone else?
Do you feel that you are equal to others?
Why/Why Not?

A human is not superior to a worm in nature. A human is superior to a worm for humans. Superiority is not a property of things themselves. However, as man is dominated by final causes, there can be no doubt that some are better than others at achieving ends. No equality can be admitted in this sense.

When people say that everyone's equal,
maybe they're referring to potential?
That would make sense to me.

There is no empirical justification for this belief.