|
|
|
|
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 2:36:26 AM | A recurring complaint/theme in threads is the accusation that 'some people think they're better than everyone else' or a similar kind of statement.
So my question is, ARE some people better than others?
For instance:
Is a person who is wealthy and very active in their community better than someone on the dole who does nothing at all? After all, the welathy person has less time on their hands and does more for the people around them in this case.
Is the idea that we are all equall a myth that those lower down the pecking order choose to beleive to assuage their own feelings of inadequacy?
After all, it's clear to see there are heirarchies in nature. Why not with Humans?
Discuss. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 2:43:32 AM |
A recurring complaint/theme in threads is the accusation that 'some people think they're better than everyone else' or a similar kind of statement.
So my question is, ARE some people better than others?
All individuals excell at some things and are less able to perform others, the problem is in each individuals mind, thats where the aristocicy of the mind comes in.
Is a person who is wealthy and very active in their community better than someone on the dole who does nothing at all? After all, the welathy person has less time on their hands and does more for the people around them in this case.
.
Goal dependent, why is being wealthy a yardstick for being better?, was Gandi a drain on society and a slacker?, or to those of relgouse way of thinking, was Jesus a drop out slacker who could not and would not hold down a job and would never amount to much?.
Is the idea that we are all equall a myth that those lower down the pecking order choose to beleive to assuage their own feelings of inadequacy?
.
No two of anything are equal in life, the same opourttunities do not exist for them, despite societys rules/laws to promote eqaulity etc, it goes also to gentics, and the more free your society, the more free yiou are to show your inequilty, bigger house newer car etc. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 2:47:21 AM |
When people start comparing themselves to others whether in a position of above or below that person they are not seeing themselves as an equal and it signifies unhappiness about themselves.
'Enjoy your own life without comparing it with that of another.'
- Marquis de Condorcet | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 2:52:55 AM | | No.Why should i consider someone who earns more than me or has more than me better than me?We all come into the world the same way and we all go out of it the same way.We all bleed.Look at nature and take for example an ant and an elephant.Look at how big that elephant is and how tiny that ant is.Should that ant feel less superior because he is only tiny?We all have our differences,opinions,good,bad,the way we look, the way we feel,the way we behave but we all have one big thing in common.We are all human!! | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:01:56 AM |
No.Why should i consider someone who earns more than me or has more than me better than me?
That wasn't really the question, was it?
The question was about a wealthy person who give their own time freely to aid the community versus someone who does not work and does nothing(to make money you need to work, so you're likely a busy person).
You're focusing on the money, but I am not, I'm asking about the overall intrinsic 'worth' of a person. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:06:26 AM | To a certain extent our situation that we are born in to will make us what we are.
However some strive to better themselves, help others, build a better future for themselves their partner and their children, others seem happy to be scruffy, idle and to not better themselves or help any one else.
Some seem hell bent on portraying a chavvy common image in their demeanour and dress.
Lets take to women, Two sisters. twins.
a nice clean, tattoo free, white or slightly tanned skinned, nice clean well looked after hair in a nice style, Immaculately dressed in smart ironed clean clothes, not chewing gum, just ears pierced with expensive ear rings.
or a tattoo covered, orange tanned light brown, dark blonde streaked spikey hair scruffy stained un ironed t shirt and jeans chewing gum and piercings through tongue eyebrow, lip, nose, 10 in each ear.
which looks classy, clean attractive. which would be more likely to look after herself and you.
Same in reverse with blokes.
Its about the image we portray and the effort we make. How well we look after ourselves. Its about the sort of people we want to attract aswell.
I know that when me and my mate go out well dressed we portray an image of class and wealth, he has young women chatting to him all the time, I could but prefer my own age. When we don't bother we get non.
Are we better than those that don't... we were born to the same back grounds so I see no reason why we should be. We all have the opportunity to make the most of ourselves and what we have. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:10:29 AM | | I think people who associate personal wealth with personal worth are either skint and envious or wealthy and insecure, for me personally i may admire someone who's been successfull but i'm in awe of someone who's been selfless, such as people devoting a whole lifetime to working in third world countries trying to make a difference. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:14:06 AM | For instance:
Is a person who is wealthy and very active in their community better than someone on the dole who does nothing at all? After all, the welathy person has less time on their hands and does more for the people around them in this case.
That wasn't really the question, was it?
The question was about a wealthy person who give their own time freely to aid the community versus someone who does not work and does nothing(to make money you need to work, so you're likely a busy person).
Sorry i thought that was the measurement of worth you were using, so have others.
Now your comparing a value to society by one who gives time to the community to one who does not, so your not concerned with the relative wealth of the parties but the time they give, one haveing more than the other as they dont work compared to the one that does.
On your measurement one is clearly doing more, but this does not indicate an intrinsic worth of the parties at all!. How to measure the intrinsic worth of a person is part of the problem, to think in that manner shows you ( dont mean you persoanly btw) want to find the differences for a purpose, and im fairly sure its not to celibrate the diversity of people!.
Is a disabled person simply a drain on society and of lesser intrinsic worth since they seldom contribute to society in the same way as the able bodied?.
Society requres all its members to function, that includes givers and takers, some give always, some take always but on the whole, they move from giving to taking and over a lifespan contribute more than they take, otherwise society would collapse. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:15:53 AM | | I was answering the question as a whole and using what i said as an example the same way as you used what you said as a for instance!Your question was about whether one person is better than another was it not? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:15:54 AM | | We are all pebbles on a beach, unless you can accept the fact you no better than anyone else. You are just * Legend in your own mind* | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:16:01 AM | Look at nature and take for example an ant and an elephant.Look at how big that elephant is and how tiny that ant is.Should that ant feel less superior because he is only tiny?
But is this comparison valid?
I am not talking about superiority in an existential way, where 'nothing really matters so everything is the same'
I am talking in society. In that context, yes, an elephant is massively superior to an ant in almost every way.
Ants and elephants dont interact much so probably have little opniion of each other.
Sorry i thought that was the measurement of worth you were using, so have others.
It clearly isn't. If that were the case, the question would simply have been 'is a rich person better than a poor person?'
I didn't phrase the question that way though, did I? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:25:02 AM |
It clearly isn't. If that were the case, the question would simply have been 'is a rich person better than a poor person?'
Whats is clear is you worded it badly.
I am talking in society. In that context, yes, an elephant is massively superior to an ant in almost every way.
Rubbish individual Ants work and sacrifice themselves to death for the society, its gentuicly forced to do so, while Elephant society has no such strictures. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:30:07 AM |
Whats is clear is you worded it badly.
A matter of opinion, what is certain is that if you did read the WHOLE thing, you chose to reply to only one part of it.
Rubbish individual Ants work and sacrifice themselves to death for the society, its gentuicly forced to do so, while Elephant society has no such strictures.
But you are comparing two completely different things which are nothing to do with the discussion.
If you want to go down that route, I say the elephant is better because it comes to the rally call of a 'friend' when in need and stays with them when they are in danger or trouble. an ant does not. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:39:35 AM |
A matter of opinion,
Actually since others made the same asumption from your post, its a matter of fact that you did not word it as well as you should have.
what is certain is that if you did read the WHOLE thing, you chose to reply to only one part of it.
Again if you look at my post, you will see you are in error where the facts are concerned.
But you are comparing two completely different things which are nothing to do with the discussion.
Sigh, you clrify that your intrested in the intrinsic worth to society of its members.
You claim an elephant contributes more to society than does and ant to its society.
Ants are selfess worked to death for the good of the society creatures, genticly driven to fight to the death ifa warrior catse, and worked to death ina woirker caste, elephants are not, and do not contribute to society in the same structered ordered manner.
If you want to go down that route, I say the elephant is better because it comes to the rally call of a 'friend' when in need and stays with them when they are in danger or trouble. an ant does not.
Well your other route of comparing ant to elephants society was going no where so lets see what you have now.
Ants are controlled via pheromones, when threatned the warriors will fight to the death for the society, they have no will power and control resist the phermones direction to fight and die for the nest, the same as for when and who can breed.
Game set and match. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:43:24 AM | There's no question in my mind that there are , for want of a better word, superior people. But it's not in terms of their status, wealth, or authority.
It's about their actions in life, their personal standards of honesty, decency and respect, and how they treat others as they travel through life. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:49:18 AM | | And then there are those who simply think they are superior. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:52:01 AM | Could it be said that an Ant has different qualities than the Elephant?.. That does not mean the Ant is any better or higher in society than the Elephant..
Just like two humans, we all are different, we have different values and ideals in this life. however we can not judge another for their choices or what they stand for (being it was forced on them through birth or they have made lots of money through sheer hard work).. We can admire their actions and motivations, and maybe learn from them, if we wish to do so.. But to think that one person is better than another purely through your own idealistic view of what 'better' is?.. then no.. no one can be the judge of another... | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:57:48 AM |
Actually since others made the same asumption from your post, its a matter of fact that you did not word it as well as you should have.
Your opinion.
In my job (and in my personal life) I make a point of looking at the question in the whole. In my question, as you rightly point out in your first reply, there were the two elements of status and generosity. I was if you like offering the opposite scenario to the rich chap in the bible who makes a show of giving gold coins to the collection plate, while the poorer person makes a penny donation which represents a much larger portion of their wealth.
This really is pretty obvious, or at least, it would be to me if I were reading it because I assume that people type each individual word for a reason rather than a mere penchant for key bashing.
You claim an elephant contributes more to society than does and ant to its society.You claim an elephant contributes more to society than does and ant to its society.
No, someone else mentioned elephants and ants and I said if we are talking exitentially, I'd agree, they might be equal, but that comparing different species was not the 'question'
Nowhere in my question or postings have I given my opinion as to the overal worth of any single or group of elephant's worth to the community of Didsbury or elshewhere.
Well your other route of comparing ant to elephants society was going no where so lets see what you have now.
I suggest reading the thread if you want to comment. You're in error, I have no fixation on elephants and didn't bring them into it.
Game set and match.
I don't know if you've seen the film 'Zoolander', but this reminds me of the scene where the guy goes up to the stage to pick up an award he thinks he's won.
Sorry i thought that was the measurement of worth you were using, so have others.
Now your comparing a value to society by one who gives time to the community to one who does not, so your not concerned with the relative wealth of the parties but the time they give, one haveing more than the other as they dont work compared to the one that does.
Actually, I 'm not concerned at all. I was merely posing one of many possible scenarios to see what people would make of it.
On your measurement one is clearly doing more, but this does not indicate an intrinsic worth of the parties at all!. How to measure the intrinsic worth of a person is part of the problem, to think in that manner shows you ( dont mean you persoanly btw) want to find the differences for a purpose, and im fairly sure its not to celibrate the diversity of people!.
I don't take it personally.
Is a disabled person simply a drain on society and of lesser intrinsic worth since they seldom contribute to society in the same way as the able bodied?.
Well, this is partly the question I am asking.
It depends what you beleive, doesn't it?
I beleive a person who lazes away on a sofa spending my tax money is near worthless.
I beleive a disabled person is that way through no fault of their own and fully deserves the use of any tax money I pay, INCLUDING that portion which goes to the lazy bugger currently on the sofa watching 'Trish'
But this is just my belief.
Society requres all its members to function, that includes givers and takers, some give always, some take always but on the whole, they move from giving to taking and over a lifespan contribute more than they take, otherwise society would collapse.
Actually, this is something I have always maintained. That society needs everyone. Even the criminals. And yes, even the people I think of as worthless.
Why?
Because if everyone was like me, we'd probably live in a very horrible world indeed. Just as it would be if everyone were like you. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:58:22 AM | | all men are equal..but some are more equal than others..i can rightly say that georgie best was a more superior footballer than i ever was and that galileo galilei was more brighter than i..so yes..id say some are more superior to others.. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:58:31 AM |
Could it be said that an Ant has different qualities than the Elephant?.. That does not mean the Ant is any better or higher in society than the Elephant..
Indeed, ants have no free will, its the free will of people that makes any quantative judgement of them fraught with problems, as they measure there own worth by there own set of standards/measurements which make others judgement models on them rather imprecise. | |
|
Scints
|
Joined: 6/11/2009
Msg: 21 | |
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:04:47 AM | Well, there was a afew things going on in the OP, but I'll take the "are some people better than others" bit.
Some people are better than in others in different ways. I'm good at some things which makes me better than others, but I'm not good at other things which makes me not better,haha.
Some people are better at being literate on here, which is a medium for written communication, but may not be so good at social skills in the real world.
As for contributing to society, that makes them better at that. Probably indicates a vast range of desirable qualities. But they may not be good at other things, perhaps even as a partner or parent. | |
|
tm1971
|
Joined: 5/22/2009
Msg: 22 | |
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:04:48 AM | Some people think that they are superior because they are smarter, or prettier, or nicer, or more righteous, or less religious, or because they are a certain gender, hair color, or race. Sometimes children grow up learning these attitudes from others, and sometimes they determine these things through their own experiences.
People can be superior to each other in various ways ie. if I have a higher education than someone else but they could surpass me in other ways which ultimately should balance things out. But then again this all can lead to insecurity from people which ultimately causes hatred for instance between races. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:13:46 AM | People will always judge based on their own lifestyles. EG someone owning a house may see themselves as superior to someone who rents. This isn't always the case. When you own your own home, your responsible for the upkeep of it, however with a rental property you aren't. This is purely one example.
I think that society on a whole judges and quite often unfairly. This is simply how the times have changed! | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:17:31 AM | | I think that all people are equal, but those who think they are superior are surrounded by people who are waiting for them to fall. There are people who may actually deserve superiority (due to their actions &/or talents) & they are probably unaware of how others perceive them & are modest about their accomplishments... Well that's what I like to think anyway. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:18:02 AM | TjSlater,
<div class="quote">A recurring complaint/theme in threads is the accusation that 'some people think they're better than everyone else' or a similar kind of statement.
So my question is, ARE some people better than others?
For instance:
Is a person who is wealthy and very active in their community better than someone on the dole who does nothing at all? After all, the welathy person has less time on their hands and does more for the people around them in this case.
Is the idea that we are all equall a myth that those lower down the pecking order choose to beleive to assuage their own feelings of inadequacy?
After all, it's clear to see there are heirarchies in nature. Why not with Humans?
Good post 
I will turn this sideways a little...
An intrinsic part of what you are asking, is how does a human have to be in order for others to percieve them as better than others? And indeed for themselves to be better than other? Your analogy of a wealthy person who gives their time and energy to a community, as opposed to a jobless bum ( yes I know I am paraphrasing here!) is a classic one. Usually, people would view the wealthy person as being 'better'in some way, be it status or morals than the bum who does nothing. However you only have to throw a few social factors into each for the view to change. The wealthy man is in fact a company slavedrive, mistreats his staff and who only donates his time to the community because he is embazzling funds from the company and the voluntary work provides a good smoke screen. The jobless bum actually lost his entire family in a house blaze, and now cannot see any point to contributing to society.
Then the views start changing, they are the same people doing the same things but the social perspective of them has changed.
Additionally, both of those examples will not stay in that static state indefinately, the wealthy businessman may have a moment of clarity and become a 'better' person in our eyes, the jobless bum may find his redemption and go off and discover a major step in the fight against cancer. It's not a static dynamic but an ever-changing one.
So how can we ever really define how a person is??
As for people on here thinking they they are better than others....well thats standard on these forums Those to try and intimate that they are far better than anyone else here usually have their own feelings of inadequacy to deal with. Arrogance comes from insecurity.
With nature, its not really comparable as humans are the only ones capable of abstract thought, ants and elephants and all manner inbetween are driven by instinct and programme not from free abstract thought. However I am not going to get bogged down in that detail as that wasn't what the topic was about.
VVVVV Thats because I am better than you Nats!!! :oP
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
