btw, Chinese authentic civilization has no 'religion' concept or word in language, as western culture — YiRu Li

What does Zōngjiào mean?

Zōngjiào is a translation word for foreign culture entered China.
But it means : teaching from ancestors. still different from the English meaning of 'religion'.
The Chinese somehow changed foreign culture in order to fit Chinese civilization.
General public's worship was forbidden from 5,000 years ago when Chinese civilization was created.

Well, perfect equality is stasis, which essentially equals death. No, I prefer inequality. That's what makes life interesting. Everyone is better and worse than others at something. — LuckyR

:up:

This world is not equal and we can’t change it externally.
— YiRu Li

What does this mean? I would have thought that robust social policy (an external approach) is central in building a more equal society. — Tom Storm

Good question!

Inequality is a thinking issue. It's about how people see the world.
Will the focus on social policy block out the time for people to practice thinking about it?

Policy is made by complicated processes and not all the people are qualified to get benefits.
But the inequality issue is serious for everyone's life, in all kinds of areas, and we often are not aware of it.

Inequality is a thinking issue. It's about how people see the world.
Will the focus on social policy block out the time for people to practice thinking about it? — YiRu Li

Social policy is a 'thinking issue'. You don't get to robust social policy without lots of thinking and conversation/discussion.

Policy is made by complicated processes and not all the people are qualified to get benefits.
But the inequality issue is serious for everyone's life, in all kinds of areas, and we often are not aware of it. — YiRu Li

Good social policy saves lives. So I think I disagree with you.

Perhaps you can provide a few examples of inequality so that we know what you mean. I am talking about poverty and lack of access to vital resources and services. What are you referring to?

Fourth, what is the individual capable of doing within society? Are they disabled? Weak? Smart? Strong? We should expect such people to be able to contribute with their strengths, and not push them to work in ways that constantly expose their weaknesses. — Philosophim

Perhaps you can provide a few examples of inequality so that we know what you mean. I am talking about poverty and lack of access to vital resources and services. What are you referring to? — Tom Storm

Good ideas!

Please help check if this classic allegory is inspiring for your question?

There was a hunchback named Su. His jaws touched his navel. His shoulders were higher than his head. His hair knot looked up to the sky. His viscera were upside down. His buttocks were where his ribs should have been. By tailoring, or washing, he was easily able to earn his living. By sifting rice he could make enough to support a family of ten.

[In all of these occupations a man would necessarily stoop.]

When orders came down for a conscription, the hunchback stood unconcerned among the crowd. And similarly, in matters of public works, his deformity shielded him from being employed.

On the other hand, when it came to donations of grain, the hunchback received as much as three chung, [An ancient measure of uncertain capacity.]

and of firewood, ten faggots. And if physical deformity was thus enough to preserve his body until its allotted end, how much more would not moral and mental deformity avail!

[A moral and mental deviation would be still more likely to condemn a man to that neglect from his fellows which is so conducive to our real welfare.]

-Chuang Tzŭ (Giles)-

The selfish gene. In nature, animals that have some advantage over others of their species succeed at living longer and having more offspring than the others. This means that their [aggressive, ambitious] genes are passed on to more new members of the species. This is offset by the need to fit into a social group for the survival of those offspring, so that friendly and co-operative genes are also passed on. In humans, both traits are present and the notorious big brain serves both - not in the same proportion in each specimen. Everyone desires some advantage, some way to be better, smarter, faster, stronger, more talented, more charming or more beautiful than others of of our species. But we're not all willing to pay the same price or make the same amount of effort or take the same risks to achieve it. — Vera Mont

Good point!
In this case, I'd think the 'Life <-> Death' inequality may be the most fundamental inequality that we need to treat than any other inequality.
Maybe that's why Socrates talked about his death?
Maybe Socrates' death completed his teachings?

Please help check if this classic allegory is inspiring for your question? — YiRu Li

If I understood the allegory correctly, the physical deformities do not excuse the man's act of morality and responsibility to his own welfare and the community where possible. Further, the man is not expected to perform duties that one with his deformity could not do. Sounds fair to me. I am of the opinion that every person find some way to make themselves of use in this world, no matter their deficiencies. In addition, we as society should serve where we can with everyone included in the benefits, not just a few or those deemed worthy.

In this case, I'd think the 'Life <-> Death' inequality may be the most fundamental inequality that we need to treat than any other inequality. — YiRu Li

I don't see how that works. I mean, obviously, live people are more likely to succeed and reproduce than dead ones, but even the most successful will have to die sometime.
Death seems to me the ultimate equality.

Inequality is much like the concept of change, for the fact that it is guaranteed, a constant, and that is why greed exists, jealousy, hatred, envy, capitalism and colonialism. Equality is like the concept of perfection, totally unrealistic, but an ideal mark to shoot for, one which in fact will never be reached.

I mean, obviously, live people are more likely to succeed and reproduce than dead ones — Vera Mont

:lol:

Please help check if this classic allegory is inspiring for your question? — YiRu Li

No, I'm sorry I don't understand your point.

Inequality is much like the concept of change, for the fact that it is guaranteed, a constant, and that is why greed exists, jealousy, hatred, envy, capitalism and colonialism. Equality is like the concept of perfection, totally unrealistic, but an ideal mark to shoot for, one which in fact will never be reached. — boagie

:up:

I appreciate Tom mentioned social policy and everyone's reply that made this question clearer!

Chinese medicine says about 5,000 years ago, everyone lived one hundred years without showing the usual signs of aging.
Can you imagine what social policy looked like at that good ancient time?

I read the following paragraph in 'Classic of Medicine' which describes the society of that time.
I don't quite understand it, so I started this philosophy discussion.
Chinese medicine is always studied together with philosophy.
I hope I show you where my question comes from and that can help you understand it better.

Maybe check the following 'Classic of Medicine' with the 'hunchback Su' allegory.
Chinese ancient historians said Chuang Tzŭ (b.c. 369) wrote his book according to other ancient books.
I think his 'hunchback Su' allegory is a real example of what ancient time life looks like.



---The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Medicine (Maoshing Ni) , chapter 1---

The accomplished ones of ancient times advised people to guard themselves against zei feng, disease-causing factors. On the mental level, one should remain calm and avoid excessive desires and fantasies, recognizing and maintaining the natural purity and clarity of the mind. When internal energies are able to circulate smoothly and freely, and the energy of the minds is not scattered, but is focused and concentrated, illness and disease can be avoided.

Previously, people led a calm and honest existence, detached from undue desire and ambition; they lived with an untainted conscience and without fear. They were active, but never depleted themselves. Because the lived simply, these individuals knew contentment, as reflected in their diet of basic but nourishing foods and attire that was appropriate to the season but never luxurious. Since they were happy with their position in life, they did not feel jealousy or greed. They had compassion for others and were helpful and honest, free from destructive habits. They remained unshakable and unswayed by temptations, and they were able to stay centered even when adversity arose. They treated others justly, regardless of their level of intelligence or social position.


---Chuang Tzŭ (Giles), hunchback Su---

There was a hunchback named Su. His jaws touched his navel. His shoulders were higher than his head. His hair knot looked up to the sky. His viscera were upside down. His buttocks were where his ribs should have been. By tailoring, or washing, he was easily able to earn his living. By sifting rice he could make enough to support a family of ten.

[In all of these occupations a man would necessarily stoop.]

When orders came down for a conscription, the hunchback stood unconcerned among the crowd. And similarly, in matters of public works, his deformity shielded him from being employed.

On the other hand, when it came to donations of grain, the hunchback received as much as three chung, [An ancient measure of uncertain capacity.]

and of firewood, ten faggots. And if physical deformity was thus enough to preserve his body until its allotted end, how much more would not moral and mental deformity avail!

[A moral and mental deviation would be still more likely to condemn a man to that neglect from his fellows which is so conducive to our real welfare.]

The selfish gene. In nature, animals that have some advantage over others of their species succeed at living longer and having more offspring than the others. This means that their [aggressive, ambitious] genes are passed on to more new members of the species. This is offset by the need to fit into a social group for the survival of those offspring, so that friendly and co-operative genes are also passed on. In humans, both traits are present and the notorious big brain serves both - not in the same proportion in each specimen. Everyone desires some advantage, some way to be better, smarter, faster, stronger, more talented, more charming or more beautiful than others of of our species. But we're not all willing to pay the same price or make the same amount of effort or take the same risks to achieve it. — Vera Mont

Many philosophers were talking about death, especially for the inequality issue.
Before I didn't understand why they talked about death?
But after I thought about your post, I finally understand:
If a person can figure out 'Life<-> Death' inequality, then the person will feel easy to deal with other inequality.

I think the best case is Socrates.

But I haven't had time to research what his death is teaching.
If anyone can tell me?

He is special to me because many Chinese philosophers teach how to run away from people who are trying to kill them just because of what they teach.
But Socrates didn't run away.
I also think he can prove philosophy is a good thinking practice for people to deal with inequality issues.

But I haven't had time to research what his death is teaching.
If anyone can tell me? — YiRu Li

It wasn't about teaching. It was about integrity. The accusations against him were bogus - politically, not morally motivated. He might have been granted exile, since all they really wanted was his silence, but he chose instead to make a stand: he demanded to be rewarded for his service to Athens.

Not everything a philosopher says and does is meant as lesson, and hardly anything in life and death is about equality.

It wasn't about teaching. It was about integrity. The accusations against him were bogus - politically, not morally motivated. He might have been granted exile, since all they really wanted was his silence, but he chose instead to make a stand: he demanded to be rewarded for his service to Athens. — Vera Mont

Why did Socrates make a stand: he demanded to be rewarded for his service to Athens.?
proposed his own penalty: that he should be given free food and housing by the state, for the services he rendered to the city???
I really don't understand this part in his trial.

I guess an ethical system is the 'clothes', which is a prevention/temporary solution.
We still need to fix the root cause 'the Apple', which changed the way Adam and Eve look at things.
How to turn our mind back to the original / nature, to antidote 'the Apple'?
I guess that's why philosophy discusses dealing with inequality or the way to see things. — YiRu Li

I'd take the apple in the metaphor to represent the knowledge of good and evil, distinguishing humans from the animals that lack such knowledge. I don't see the antidote is returning humans to that animal like state to where we become amoral.

If we're sticking with the metaphor, the question is how we should best respond to the serpent, which represents temptation to do evil.

That is, we know what is right and what is wrong and we have to respond by doing what is right.

I really don't understand this part in his trial. — YiRu Li

He was making a point. In order to understand the trial, you first have to understand his life and principles, as well as the tenor of his times. https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-greece/socrates

Chinese medicine says about 5,000 years ago, everyone lived one hundred years without showing the usual signs of aging. — YiRu Li

There are lots of legends in many different cultures about all kinds of golden eras. Are they true? Probably not.

But I don’t think I know what you mean when you say inequality. Perhaps you can list a few examples?

There are lots of legends in many different cultures about all kinds of golden eras. Are they true? Probably not. — Tom Storm

For Chinese medicine to be true or not, this probably needs using your own body to try it. No one can tell you. :sweat:

We found out 'inequality' is an issue when we discussed our last question:

What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty? Considering that individuals may occasionally engage in falsehoods, how do we conceptualize the mindset of honesty? Is 'honest' a noun or a verb? Can one still be deemed an honest person if they occasionally engage in deception?


Do you think the following unenlightened's posts are helpful?
We found out we need to talk about 'inequality' from his posts.

Perhaps some light could be shed if the question is reversed.

What characterises the mindset associated with dishonesty? My first impulse is to notice that the mindset must typically include a notion that some advantage will accrue, either personally or tribally.

Consider the deceptive body of a stick insect. It (metaphorically) declares to the world and particularly to its predators "Ignore me, I am a stick." The Blind Watchmaker learns to lie, and simultaneously in the evolution of the predator, tries to learn how to detect a lie. Such is communication between species, in which morality plays no role. Nevertheless, the advantage of deception is obvious.

Imagine a tribe of smallish monkeys in a jungle environment; they have various calls of social identification, and perhaps some to do with dominance and other stuff, but in particular, they have two alarm calls, one warning of ground predators, and one warning of sky predators. One day, one rather low status monkey, who aways has to wait for the others to eat and often misses out on the best food, spots some especially tasty food on the ground, and gives the ground alarm call. The tribe all rush to climb up high, and the liar gets first dibs for once on the treat. This behaviour has been observed, but I won't trouble you myself with references.

Here, one can clearly see that dishonesty is parasitic on honesty. Overall there is a huge social advantage in a warning system, but it is crucially dependent on honesty, and is severely compromised by individual dishonesty. Hence the social mores, that become morality. Society runs on trust, and therefore needs to deter and prevent dishonesty. And this cannot be reversed because the dependence is one way, linguistically. If dishonesty were ever to prevail and be valorised, language would become non-functional. The alarm call would come to mean both 'predator on the ground', and 'tasty food on the ground'. that is, it would lose its effective warning function and its function as a lie. — unenlightened

Basically a lie can only work in a community that expects truth. Clearly there is no community of 'predator and prey', so there is no conflict between the individual interest and the community interest.

But I think there is a lesson here for humanity that in order for everyone to put the community before self interest, everyone must benefit from the community, and not only the dominant members. Someone has put it this way - that the most dangerous person is someone with nothing left to lose. Like that monkey. So with the morality of truth must also come the morality of fairness, and equality.

So a society that is stratified by race or class in a totally unequal way becomes more like a predator/prey arrangement where morality breaks down because society is fractured. — unenlightened

I'm asking you as the writer of the OP what do you mean by inequality?

What is inequality. Can you define it so I understand where you are coming from?

The best answer so far may be this.

Democratic socialism would be one answer. — Wayfarer

But I am till waiting to understand what your definition of inequality is because I fear we are talking about different things.

For Chinese medicine to be true or not, this probably needs using your own body to try it. No one can tell you. :sweat: — YiRu Li

I was not talking about Chinese medicine - I was talking about whether legends were true. E.g., People living to 100 without showing signs of aging.

I was not talking about whether Chinese medicine - I was talking about whether legends were true. E.g., People living to 100 without showing signs of aging. — Tom Storm

Chinese has 5,000 years of history.
We still can easily read any documents from 5,000 years ago.
It's not legends, it's history.

Chinese has 5,000 of years history.
We still can easily read any documents from 5,000 years ago.
It's not legends, it's history. — YiRu Li

No. As Henry Ford use to say 'History is bunk'. History is written by the victors, is full of myths, legends, half-truths and self-glorifying factoids.

No. As Henry Ford use to say 'History is bunk'. History is written by the victors, is full of myths, legends, half-truths and self-glorifying factoids. — Tom Storm

Other countries' things are very hard to learn.
I'm still feeling that much of American culture is impossible for me to learn.
Even though I have lived in the US for 10 years. I can read English.
I probably can't comment on this too much.
I can only tell you where my thoughts come from.

I am not American and don't live in America. I am referring to human history whether Chinese, Swedish or Australian.

But let's come back to the question above.

I am not American and don't live in America. I am referring to human history whether Chinese, Swedish or Australian. — Tom Storm

Chinese history has a very strong civilization and culture supports the truth.
But if other countries don't have that similar civilization and culture, I can't say the truth in history is there.
But what is that Chinese civilization and culture?
It takes me at least 12 years of school time to learn and I'm still learning it everyday.
It's very hard to describe.

I know when talking about inequality, in western philosophy, political philosophy is more famous.
Glad you'd like to identify it.
I'll let my friend reply to you.
He knows better about philosophy.

Also if anyone here knows it, please feel free to reply. Thanks!

Chinese history has a very strong civilization and culture supports the truth. — YiRu Li

But isn't this what all governments say?