On a side note, Plato viewed democracy as the best government for the most inferior type of humanity. And, Nietzsche (who completely rejected Platonism) explained it as just another slave morality.

I can understand treating individuals differently according to their individual needs, but I cannot comprehend treating entire races/genders differently according to some kind of generalized difference in needs. — VagabondSpectre

But the individual is lost when it becomes generalized into a collectivity, especially one as broad as race or gender. In fact, I might argue that racism and sexism (as concepts) are directed toward groups rather than individuals. Could that, in some way, indicate that the notion of collectivities is an essential component of racism or sexism? (Add. I'm black...I'm white...I'm male...I'm female...I'm Merkwurdichliebe; what incendiary statements, especially the last.)

Whatever the case, it is the individual that is of primary importance, and we shouldn't sacrifice that by enslaving the individual to a mandate of equality that pertains to groups.

Because I care about you. :kiss:

I was a compliment...

It wasn't a compliment

Oh, I didn't know I was supposed to be convincing you of anything. I just saw you begging someone to explain Banno's point, and I was approaching it like an experiment of reason.

Btw, don't be so narcissistic, I couldn't give two shits about your opinion

Makes sense to me.

Are you high? It's like your memory bottomed out and you forgot what our discussion was about, a discussion you initiated.

The one that is considering the relation of unique individuality to equality, and testing whether or not treating unique individualities equal has an opposite effect.

Thank you sir.

I don't know about that. But in the experiment I layed out, to treat unique individuals as equal has an opposite effect. It plays out by preventing some from attaining what is rightly theirs, while it allows others to remain unimpeded. So the question is: how close does oppression equate to inequality?

The folks in the nose bleed section are...fuckin animals

the prose is Nietzsche talking shit about equality.

If every individual is equally unique, and we treat them all the same, then that would necessitate the oppression of certain character types, preventing them from realizing their uniqe potential.

My point is the simple observation that treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequities. — Banno

I agree.

The great disgust at man - it strangled me and had crept into my throat: and what the soothsayer had presaged: "All is alike, nothing is worthwhile, knowledge strangles."

A long twilight limped on before me, a fatally weary, fatally intoxicated sadness, which spoke with yawning mouth.

"Eternally he returns, the man of whom you are weary, the small man" — Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, p172

But best not pretend that history is a science; there are no repeatable experiments, as initial conditions cannot be controlled. — unenlightened

Good point.

What is history other than a historical account. The historical account is a means of remembering the past. But, memory is not history, and whenever memory is communicated, it is simply a historical account.

Historical accounts are indeed capable of accounting for causation, but not in any scientific way.

Besides, disposing of babies down the sewer doesn’t sit too well with most people … this as metaphors go. — javra

I found that funny.

No, you are accurate, I was just being facetious and satirical.

Essentially the same physiology yet two very different moral frameworks. Clearly, it is inadequate to say that the mind or limbic system is the source of morals because it cannot account for vast differences in moral frameworks. — praxis

Great point.

But, yea, bathwater gets dirty after awhile, so out it goes ... just as long as it doesn't get confused for the baby. :razz: — javra

Lol

Just throw out the baby, keep the bathwater.

Camille Paglia feminism all the way.

Well then we will agree. Perhaps, I require a biological component to regard something as natural. I just find, that to regard absolutely everything that exists as natural, and nothing as synthetic, is an overgeneralization.

:sad: no

Why do people do this? Seriously? What is this? Preaching to the choir or straw man? — S

It's called the philosophy forums. Don't be so agitated.

Well, Stalin gets my vote over Hitler. He has a better moustache. — S

You should create a pole, that would be awesome.

Right on!

And you should cover your back with Lorem Ipsum 

I disagree. We are soon to see either the rise of either a gulag or concentration system. Radicalism means doom for everyone.

But that is what happens when either the right or left drift to their extremes

You seem to be the whiny complaining sort that you objected to earlier. You haven't actually made a single criticism of any of Clinton's proposals. You've just expressed cynicism, in the modern sense, to an unreasonable excess. — S

I really don't give two shits about what happens to the world or to me. And I like getting you slaves to the status quo, you talking sticks, worked up like this. That is bona fide, classic Diogenesean cynicism.

It's only a dangerous prospect because of the risk of the more radical right gaining power. The more radical left would make changes that would be of benefit to people like us and our interests. — S

Tell that to the survivors of the Soviet g.u.l.a.g.

Me too. I can't disagree and get along? I have even found myself agreeing with almost everything you say in every OTHER thread but that one. — ZhouBoTong

Janus is bifrontal, that is why he can disagree while remaining agreeable.

I think I get where you're coming from, but I disagree. It's sort of like, there's only a problem if we make it a problem. I make it a problem when I fight on behalf of bringing philosophy back down to earth, instead of walking away and making some cheese on toast. — S

You have a sort of Nietchzean spirit. Ever read about eternal return?

"we often feel differently and judge moral matters differently". — S

Ethical orientations aren't a matter of taste. They are based on deep convictions. The ethical arises from an assumption on how the world appears to the individual, how he believes the world should be, and finally with a judgement upon himself regarding whether he is conformed to the world as it appears, or as it should be. This process isn't so trivial and fleeting as say, being horny.

The left has shifted further to the left, — S

I see the left and right drifting apart at an exponential rate. Before we know it, it will be too late, and they will be radically charged. And that's a dangerous prospect, especially given the tyranny of the deep state.

I think of good aesthetic and ethical judgement in the same way; as being a matter of contextualized wisdom rather than determinate knowledge. — Janus

Yes, I agree. The difference is that the aesthetic judgement is directed toward objectivity, whereas the ethical judgement is reversed back upon the subject.

I should add that I don't see humanity in that anti-humanist way, I see us as an apex predator out of control, kind of like a "pig in shit". — Janus

Lol

Nice. Very comprehensive.

If I may ask, why did you use the term money instead of wealth? I just ask since it is a broader category which allows for greater generalization.

I thought tautologies were stupid. — Harry Hindu

They are, for instance:

What does it mean to be "unnatural"? How can a natural thing cause an unnatural thing? — Harry Hindu

It means: to not be natural.
By removing the thing in question from its nature.

Is a bird's nest or beaver's dam "unnatural"? — Harry Hindu

Yes it is. The beaver activity is natural. The wood they harvest is from trees in nature. But as soon as they render the trees into wood for damn building, the trees are no longer in their natural state. My argument is that humans are capable of doing this to themselves. Even if human technology can be considered natural, it nevertheless functions by removing humans from their original nature (technology is the beaver, and humans are the wood).

(I think a better term than technology is human artifice)

I suppose.

Yes, I agree, but Socrates was essentially concerned with the ethical, as in: what should one do, and why? He approached the ethical as a decision taking place in our immediate existence. In, contrast, Aristotle approached ethics speculatively, and deeply interwove it into his metaphysics (and political philosophy).

I feel sympathy towards those who have the genuine urge to take action (by voting) in order to make things better. It is unfortunate that we're left with the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. In the end, I think voting is futile and can effect no real systemic change.