Ted Hoffman

Ender, I hope you dont mind me creating a new thread !<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000149" target="_blank">here</a> so that we can thrash out this question of chaotic universe.
I find this place too "concealed" for such a tremendous topic. I think anything else I was discussing here with you is of secondary importance - unless there is some specific issue you really want to tackle with me, I will cease participating in this thread (I never appreciated the wording of the topic anyway). I will appreciate your participation in my new thread. I hereby let loose any hostages that were under my overbearing presence as I assumed the role of a hijacker in this thread.

**waves off the hostages with his gun** go!

Ender

It's called a historical approach. The concept of equal rights came into being after the prevailing morality of the herd mentality of Christianity reversed the older aristocratic values over a couple thousand years.
What's wrong with hierarchical ranking? A good democrat does not simply deny the value of great individuals, but they also refuse to accept their potentiality. I have a sneaking suspicion that democracy is a disbelief in great human beings.
I guess you're so easily satisfied. Unlike your average anti-egalitarian, I'm not concerned with the difficulty of the concentration of resources. The very stability of democracy will produce a more profound mediocrity in such a society. in addition, democracy waters down the development of great individuals by discouraging a possible social stratification. The problem is in this day and age; reducing others for one's sake is offensive to such democratic ears. Such pathos of distance is justified if it provides for the cultivation of human excellence- as in render the rise of a few great individuals.
Thank you. Perhaps you are guilty of making the dualistic claim that what one does is separable from what one is, but that's another topic.
I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. You need not state that little qualifier (entirely predisposed) in order to qualify for a gold member of the determinist fanclub.
I see no difference whatsoever between your confessions and the "caricature" you imagine. Gotta love scientific reductionism! You can rely on these metaphysical naturalists to reduce everything to a chemical pattern.
Just practicing my deprecations.
Now out comes the moral outrage! When I listed the differentials between people as the grounds for injustice of equality, you immediately went into a segue on genetic differences that did not deserve merit. With that denial of merit, I took you to be an out and out determinist. How can I be blamed for reading your stringent denials of variations between individuals as a determinist? It was your poor word-choices and lack of elucidation on your part that led me to censuring a "caricature." Methinks you are simply pantomiming a buffalo shuffle here.
Sometimes I find the inherent dualism in the mind/body bifurcation amusing at times, and at other times, it grows wearisome and dull. Perhaps there is an instinct in the stronger willed player lacking in the decadent-but-athletically blessed player.
Again, if people were truly equal, there would be no need for rights- ergo, the privileged status inherent in these rights.

Quote:

Ender, previously:

Quote:

of course, the symptoms of herd mentality shines through. When you claim universality, you are catering only to a specific kind of people. Since truth or morality is merely relative and appropriate to every perspective; the fault lies with kantists, Christians, rationalistic moralists, democrats, or socialists who subscribe to some sort of universal generalization of man"

By ignoring my sentences, you've mastered the "talking past one another" art quite well.
Since equal rights functions on the assumption that all men are equal, democratic equality impedes human excellence because it builds "herd mentality." Free speech would equate the voice of the noble man with the base person's and serves as a constraint on the special few.
I refer you to the above answer.
You exaggerate the democratic states' importance. There have been a number of great individuals long before the invention of democracy, which came into being with Rousseau. Rousseau claimed that the origins of inequality came from a natural (physical differences) and a moral (wealth and social status). He argued that inequality is a progression from natural inequality to the moral one.
Is it true that rightists favor freedom, as opposed to leftists who emphasizes equality, that and the conservatives elevate order above liberty or equality?
So you say. On what grounds do you base this? Plus that's the worst comeback i've ever heard on why there should not be a representative government or skilled elite running the government as opposed to mob rule. Have you heard of Mencken? He criticized American democracy by saying that it was run by the booboisie, that is the average moronic american. the average voter is a boob.
It's an injustice to give everyone the same kind of education based on a democratic assumption that all men are equal. Perhaps you are confusing equal opportunity with equality per se? Don't you see the motive behind such homogenizing equality? That of a "herd-animal morality?"
Probably right, if you define equal right to education as opportunity, not equal (read: homogenizing) education per se for all.
Sorry your inherent presupposition stinks: you equate humanity with equality. Try again!
Unlike you, I proclaim the meaning of life (mankind) lies with its highest specimen, not of that Englishman's notion, principle of utility.
Degenerate societies.
And they tell me the commonwealth is going on stronger than ever these days.
No you fail to understand the genesis of democracy, i.e. your motives. Disorder, challenges, suffering, all these "negative" concepts are not necessarily detrimental to the production of genius. Take these away and you have a herd of bleating sheep, with nary a giant in sight.
Nah. you're far more charitable to your heart, given that a cold intellect wouldn't succumb to herd thinking.

One complaint: why didn't you address my entire post, instead of picking and choosing easy segments to comment on?
~WiGGiN~
((exorcised for Grammatical daemon possession)))

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Much of your posts are interesting, I don't disagree with everything, sometimes a comment of mine that addresses one point addresses another, sometimes I think making a point would start a whole new avenue of discussion. That's why I don't always look at everything. Add to that time being a factor, or some ignorance with regard to philosophers you quote, and you have it

"Gotta love scientific reductionism! You can rely on these metaphysical naturalists to reduce everything to a chemical pattern."

Case in point, this would merit a new discussion, as I would be interested to know where you stood on this matter, unless we discussed amidst others on the threads on materialism that sprouted a while back.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Adrian Selby ]</p>

Adrian Selby

"The very stability of democracy will produce a more profound mediocrity in such a society. in addition, democracy waters down the development of great individuals by discouraging a possible social stratification. "

Do you have any facts to back this assertion up?
I do not see how the greatness of individuals is dependent upon social stratification, except historically. Are there fewer great individuals in modern democracies, or is the perception of greatness lessened by the close proximity of a far greater number of peers than previous geniuses, and history, had to contend with.

"How can I be blamed for reading your stringent denials of variations between individuals as a determinist"

Perhaps because I wasn't denying variations between individuals per se, indeed, not denying anything. I was questioning the basis of variations in individuals as a basis for ascribing equal rights. Of course, genetic differences alone, in my view do not define the merit of a person, I made comments along that line, but that is entirely different from me saying individuals do not vary.

"Sometimes I find the inherent dualism in the mind/body bifurcation amusing at times"

Being a materialist, I find it quite amusing too.

"When you claim universality, you are catering only to a specific kind of people. Since truth or morality is merely relative and appropriate to every perspective"

I have never claimed universality with regard to rights, I have said that there are certain rights that are held to be equal by certain societies. Whether these are defined because they pertain to a certain kind of people or perspective or not, I do not understand how they can be held to be unjust. Surely given truth and morality are relative, the justice of equal rights is for that society to decide, according to how it defines its notion of humanity? If you hold a society to be unjust when it chooses to give every citizen the right to an education, then are you judging that society by its own standards? If that society says it is unjust to deny any individual the right to an education then isn't it the business of that society to decide what counts as just or unjust?

"Free speech would equate the voice of the noble man with the base person's and serves as a constraint on the special few"

How does one man become a noble man and one stay base?

"You exaggerate the democratic states' importance. There have been a number of great individuals long before the invention of democracy, which came into being with Rousseau"

Do I exaggerate? I don't deny there have been great individuals that have arisen from non-democratic societies. I don't know however just what you mean by 'great' and whether a comparison can be made between the great men that come from democratic societies and those that don't. If I take the subject of Philosophy, we can argue that there are certain historical greats like Plato, Kant etc. and in the 20th century we have Wittgenstein, Russell to name two. Are these as great? Are they less great because there are so many more moderate to nearly great thinkers adding to the noise? After all, I don't pretend that a democracy that provides the masses with the opportunity to study philosophy will garner masses of philosophical genius. I don't understand how it can hamper such genius unequivocally, unless, in relation to your other comments, social stratification is a necessary condition for genius. You are obviously aware of more mediocrity now I'm sure, perhaps because mediocrity is better recorded than it was then?

"Is it true that rightists favor freedom, as opposed to leftists who emphasizes equality, that and the conservatives elevate order above liberty or equality? "

is it true there are people with attitudes in between?

"He criticized American democracy by saying that it was run by the booboisie, that is the average moronic american. the average voter is a boob"

Yet America is the richest most powerful nation on earth? Not a bad job for a bunch of boobies. Come on, Mencken might say that, but does he believe the average american is running american democracy? Your phrase skilled elite needs some elucidation too, I'm not sure in what way skilled or elite.

"It's an injustice to give everyone the same kind of education based on a democratic assumption that all men are equal. Perhaps you are confusing equal opportunity with equality per se? "

I'm not confusing anything, because I didn't say anything about the same education, just the equal right to an education. That to me seems more related to equal opportunity.

"Disorder, challenges, suffering, all these "negative" concepts are not necessarily detrimental to the production of genius. Take these away and you have a herd of bleating sheep, with nary a giant in sight."

I am not sure these can be taken away while there are scarce resources to supply unlimited wants. A socialist democracy aims to limit suffering for its citizens through a welfare state. This does not preclude disorder, or challenges. I believe the net can be widened to less socialist democracies, such as the UK, here, as in most developed countries with capitalist leanings, where challenges are there for anyone with enough self will that they wish to develop an entrepreneurial spirit, or take advantage of widespread university access to develop their thinking into the field of their choice.

People do 'suffer for their art' but perhaps the starving artists in their garrets are just a subset of tortured genius, alongside those who's tortures are more purely mental.

Adrian

Ender

Thanks for your reply. i find this very educational! A response is forthcoming.

~WiGGiN~

Adrian Selby

"I find this very educational!"

You always get me concerned that you're being sarcastic when you say things like this given your love of polemic.

Adrian

Ender

I take it my comments are not deserving of being taken at face value?

Maybe i should add smilies to punctuate the innuendo (or lack thereof!) I meant to say that i am grateful for your participation in this thread and i am short on time.

~WiGGiN~

Kyle Smyth

Perhaps this response is a bit late, but I like the topic, and anyway, limited exposure will conversely limit potential embarrassment

"Ender: It's called a historical approach. The concept of equal rights came into being after the prevailing morality of the herd mentality of Christianity reversed the older aristocratic values over a couple thousand years."

The origins of an ideal only matter if they cannot be separated. In this case one can believe in the need for universal or equal rights allotment without conversely having a belief in a perfect almighty consequently their origin is irrelevant so long as proponents of that ideal do not invoke its previous manifestations.

"Ender: What's wrong with hierarchical ranking? A good democrat does not simply deny the value of great individuals, but they also refuse to accept their potentiality. I have a sneaking suspicion that democracy is a disbelief in great human beings."

Your suspicion is close; democracy is the belief that no one human being can ever be so great as to be infallible. Macarthur was a popular man, some would argue a great man, and thank god he got the boot. Bear in mind however that so long as Macarthur provided brilliant leadership, he was backed 100%.

"Ender: The very stability of democracy will produce a more profound mediocrity in such a society. in addition, democracy waters down the development of great individuals by discouraging a possible social stratification."

Now in what way is a democracy stable? Even with the socialist reforms of the New Deal depression era America is evidence that our country is anything BUT stable and managed to produce a great number of notable individuals. In fact I am willing to posit the idea that our democracy has allowed for more great individuals, so many talented artists, scientists, diplomats, athletes, soldiers, philosophers have arisen in the last 50 years that it has (especially in the case of artists and scientists) created such a dense body of achievement that individual achievement becomes impossible to track in its totality. Unless you whish to define greatness as the achievement of men like Einstein or Gandhi, at which point I would have to say that you are never going to find a formula to recreate them.

"Ender: The problem is in this day and age; reducing others for one's sake is offensive to such democratic ears. Such pathos of distance is justified if it provides for the cultivation of human excellence- as in render the rise of a few great individuals."

You know, I have never had much of a problem saying that honors classes are for one type of student and not for another. Now I am reducing others for my own sake, but I don't think that I am really that horrible a person for it, if you don't have democratic ears don't characterize them. While I agree what an achievements greatness should be measured in the context of its difficulty, I don't think that is a good reason to heap misery on anyone. There are enough challenges to be overcome to last the entirety of human existence we need not create more.

"Ender: Again, if people were truly equal, there would be no need for rights- ergo, the privileged status inherent in these rights."

It is precisely because people are not equal that equal distribution of some rights is vital. As mentioned earlier rights are a function of responsibility if you forfeit one you forfeit them both. For example you have the just claim to be free from intentional bodily harm, you have the responsibility to not cause bodily harm intentionally. Of course this assumes that the right to be free from intentional harm is distributed equally. If rights were not to be distributed equally then they would either be distributed unequally or not at all. If they were to be distributed unequally then by what objective standard would they be distributed on? In some cases it's quite clear (i.e. the right to enforce the law is equitably distributed based on a clearly defined and as objective as you get standard) but in terms of the right to free speech, or life, how do you draw the line, an IQ test? If so who determines what IQ is high enough? If you can come up with a reasonable standard to give or deny the right of free speech then I will concede the point, but I don't think that is possible. If the rights are not distributed at all then you can't have a society, you just have a group of people wandering about doing exactly what they please. As people are unequal and self-determining, then with regards to many rights, equal distribution must be the rule.

"Ender, previously: of course, the symptoms of herd mentality shines through. When you claim universality, you are catering only to a specific kind of people. Since truth or morality is merely relative and appropriate to every perspective; the fault lies with kantists, Christians, rationalistic moralists, democrats, or socialists who subscribe to some sort of universal generalization of man?"

See above, differences in perspective mandate that we all have a base to operate form. The only way to cater to a diverse group of people is by ensuring that they all have a base of equal rights. Should their philosophy mandate that they can do less then they are allotted then they merely restrict themselves. If they wish to do more then they must simply avoid infringing on the rights of others who do not believe as they do.

"Ender: Free speech would equate the voice of the noble man with the base person's and serves as a constraint on the special few."

Huh? So because we all get to speak we are all garneted to have an audience? Just because I can speak in certain environments free form censorship does not mean that I have the ear of the world. What if the base man has a better idea? What if the base man is calling out an injustice preformed by the noble? You cannot limit an individual?s speech because you feel that they are unfit. That is tantamount to you proclaiming that you are fit to judge humanity in the exact same fashion that you condemned Adrian Selby for attmpting. (see quote below)

"Ender: Yes, I'm positively certain a single person like you has the license to hide behind a mask of objectivity and determine what the universal needs of man are."

You are no more right to judge the base man or the noble man then I am, or Adrian or my dog.

"Ender: Is it true that rightists favor freedom, as opposed to leftists who emphasizes equality, that and the conservatives elevate order above liberty or equality?"

No. It is all a shade of equitable (note, not equal) treatment, rightists have more to gain if equitable treatment is based on wealth and leftists have more to gain if equitable treatment is based on need.

"Ender: ...the average voter is a boob."

I thought that people were not of one mold.

"Ender: It's an injustice to give everyone the same kind of education based on a democratic assumption that all men are equal."

That's why schools are run they way that they are, to offer each student the opportunity to succeed in spite of or because of their abilities. Equal educational opportunity and an equally distributed right to an education are the same thing.

"Ender: Unlike you, I proclaim the meaning of life (mankind) lies with its highest specimen, not of that Englishman's notion, principle of utility."

Define the criteria to determine the highest specimen?

Ok, that's enough for me for now.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kyle Smyth ]

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Kyle Smyth ]</p>

Kyle Smyth

My apologies for the shoddy formatting, I tired to cut and past form Microsoft Word and just found out that this site does not like that, Ill get to reformatting after dinner.

Ender

Kyle- quick question- you're concerned about the quantity of humanity, not the quality of humanity, aintcha?

After i deal with finals and deal with Adrian, your post will get its turn.

~WiGGiN~