Statement 1 is the greater insult because it is the more comprehensive; it insults all men, both individually and as a class. Statement 2 insults all men as a class, but it does not insult all men as individuals. — John

Perhaps in my question lies the answer to many other inquiries. The class doesn't get insulted. It's not a person, although I have certain doubts about it. It's always the undividual who's feelings get hurt.

The statements each say something different, but the bigger difference comes from what they don't say - the undefined context.

The first one fits into a wider variety of broader views or narratives, some of which are more palatable than others (e.g. Gandalf might say that as a helpful reminder of your limitations).

The second one places a bigger emphasis on sex and implies that no women are fools. I wouldn't necessarily say this is a bigger insult, but its meaning is more narrow and likely causes a different, more specific, kind of reaction.

I think it makes sense to say that a class can be insulted, but obviously not that it can feel insulted.

This does not actually answer the question but imo it's immoral to be less insulted by the first one because of being relieved by someone else being a fool as well.

Edit: re-wrote the whole sentence for clarity reasons.

Thanks for the input. There are so many dimensions to these simple statements. You've pointed out one that I didn't think of: men being insulted because women are excluded from the fool class in statement 2: all fools are men. It's a rather narrow view, morally speaking, because it reeks of misogyny. Anyway, thanks for looking into the problem.

Yes, there's a difference between the class of men and men. The former isn't a conscious being, so can't be insulted, while the latter is composed of conscious individual beings, who each can be insulted.

This is new to me. I'd think statement 2 is a lesser insult because men are relieved that others (women, dogs, etc) aren't being insulted since they can't be fools. So, men have the choice of assuming a higher moral ground compared to statement 1. Anyway, have a look at Roke's post here and my reply to it above.

Thanks for the input. There are so many dimensions to these simple statements. You've pointed out one that I didn't think of: men being insulted because women are excluded from the fool class in statement 2: all fools are men. It's a rather narrow view, morally speaking, because it reeks of misogyny. Anyway, thanks for looking into the problem. — TheMadFool

Statements don't just exist on their own in some objective dimension. Someone has to say them. The 2nd statement says more about the speaker - specifically that they are a misandrist. This invokes a different reaction with or without any misogyny in play.

(Y)

I have an exam tomorrow so in an ideal world I should be studying, but I discovered this website just now, so chuck studies; I will just answer this question. xD

1. Any sort of comparison brings in the problem of perception and no perception is absolute, hence according to me it becomes more an opinionated question than that of philosophy.
2. As it is an opinionated question with two choices, we can easily do a breakdown of both the choices and view which segment of population will prefer to divulge in which choice.
3. When we look at the question from the perspective of a relatively insecure, person, someone who puts comfort and stability before his ambition, he would feel that the later one is a bigger insult as he will draw comfort in the first insult that he is not alone in his suffering. He will be ready to accept foolishness as a trait common with all men and will accept or block out the insult dimming the sting of it.
4. The second category of people will feel that the first insult is more, well.. insulting because they are the ambitious people, they are the rebels, they do not want to be bounded by the statement that all men are born to be fools, he will shout and scream against this insult,

A very natural (though odd) test for guessing which category they belong to, give them a seemingly impossible task and tell them that you were not able to do it, hence he will not be able to do it as well. If he tries, then gives up too easily then refer point three or else man oh man you have a point 4 guy right there.

Ps. Now I really need to return to my studies. I have web mining exam tomorrow and there is a shit load to study. :3

Neither, unless one is foolish enough to take them (ergo ego) seriously, in which case, both, which is one of infinite 'self' paradoxical parodies selfish fools subjectively subject themselves to....

.....since insults are on the table ;}

Yer welcome

For a social species, we sure do like to exclude each other. Many people like to be comforted by being better than others, rather than being in a group. If we weren't so competitive, perhaps we could happily accept that we are fools, so long as we knew we weren't the only one.
But we are a competitive species, and do not like the idea that we are a fool, even if it were common to be one. Therefore, the bigger insult is saying that all men are fools.

Re: what it has to do with philosophy.

It's categorical logic, i.e., a hugely important part of philosophy.

It would seem to me that, in practice, only people looking for a fight would react to either, which are such silly generalisations as to produce no more than a shrug. This seems to me a good instance of the differences between philosophy and literature, which is what I am interested in. I see that there is a distinction, but find my instinctive reaction is, 'Who cares'. Philistine of me, doubtless.

As someone who teaches English lit, I think especially philosophy dealing with this sort of close attention to language should appeal to the literary-minded. Which of these two sentences appeared in a poem or dialogue would make a profound difference on the interpretation thereof.

Also, this inspired me to a little dialogue drafting myself:

"You'll always be alone and unhappy, because you think all men are fools!" He growled at her, waving his hand in disgust.
She was taken aback for less than a moment, "That's not true!" Glancing out the window she regained composure and in a more even tone added: "But I do think all fools are men."
With that, she left him to ponder the implications of her statement for himself as well as for mankind.

but find my instinctive reaction is, 'Who cares'. Philistine of me, doubtless. — iolo

Your word, not mine. Poo-pooing what others spend time and energy discussing, and what some spend their whole careers dissecting, is usually what my younger students do in an attempt to mask their ignorance of a subject.

I like your novel-bit, but I'd see such an opinion as something that reflects back on the character and what we are to make of her(?) . She can't mean it as literally factual or she wouldn't be a major character, so has she had bitter experiences in the past, is she laughing at someone stupid, or what? I said it was an instinctive reaction, but, honestly, who cares?