• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

are we created equal?

>>
* in the old days, these difference formed classes. (kings and peasants)
>>

You glossed over the paleolithic-neolithic transition and paleolithic social structure.

>>* and it worked for awhile (5000 plus years), but it got weak and corrupt, and was overthrown by people who are discontent with the current structure of the food chain.>>

So you'd argue that these classes were meritocratic?

>>* we 'reset' the society, and start again. >>

There was no reset. Rather, there was the rise of the merchants into the bourgeoisie, absorbing some lords in the process.

>>* still, there are certain traits that leads to the top of the food chain, and some that leads to the bottom feeders. >>

Many of these traits ascribed by social structure.

>>
* still we carry on with 'we are equal' coz that's the way our society works today.>>

In what way does it work like this?

ebola
 
no we're not all created equal in the sense that we don't all have the same physical or mental abilities. however it is also true that the world would never of been able to develop if people didn't differ in their talents and capabilities. everything in this world is on some level interconnected with the other and it is precisely that interconnectedness of all elements which is necessary inorder to create harmony. in my opinion the "all men are created equal" quote only truly makes sense when looked at abstractly. and in this case i believe it means that everything in this world is equal, in the sense that everything in this world serves a certain purpose, even if we may not be able to comprehend at times what that purpose may be. for actually being able to distance oneself far enough to be able to be able to gain objectivity and thus figure out how the universe functions, is so extremely difficult that it has not been done by anyone thus far.
 
big words...

hard to understand with my vocab skill, but i get the 'sound' of it.

well, i cant explain everything i think, well enough, although i would like to.
and i wish i knew what ebola's words mean, but too hard for me.

just unloading my mind, nothing serious.
 
Last edited:
Just so you know, I saw the original content of your post. :)
Communication is a two way street, and I often have trouble explaining what the hell I'm talking about. I'll try and decompress things on here later (I gotta go read now!)

ebola
 
i dunno why i keep posting here, i feel like i am just reiterating the same point... but, here goes:

Equality is entirely a human made concept. Outside of the human mind, equality does not exist as anything at all. Therefore, as a human made concept, it is entirely up to human minds to decide if it possible, or even plausable.

I suspect that those who don't believe in the concept of 'all people are created equal' also don't believe in the possibility of a Utopia...
 
the way tend to look at it is if im better at math then another person it doesnt mean that im better then them, im simply more advanced, and should use my powers to help that person advance to my level, while people better then me at something should help me get to their level at that

we all have a piece of the puzzle to contribute, and just because my piece is bigger than yours doesnt make it more important or better
 
>>
* in the old days, these difference formed classes. (kings and peasants)
>>

Basically, in your story of the "olden days", you ignore the body of social relationships that existed before we began farming. These relationships were almost classless (except in terms of cheifdom).

>>* and it worked for awhile (5000 plus years), but it got weak and corrupt, and was overthrown by people who are discontent with the current structure of the food chain.>>

I'm wondering if you would argue that division into kings and peasants was initailly just.

>>* we 'reset' the society, and start again. >>

In the transition away from relationships between kings and peasants, society did not "reset". Rather, the merchants in the city revolutionized production and took control of the political aparatus. These merchants would later become the capitalist class. Some kings were absorbed into this class in the process.

>>* still, there are certain traits that leads to the top of the food chain, and some that leads to the bottom feeders. >>

Are these traits genetic? Are they learned? Is it about the effort we put in? Or is it luck? The social circumstances into which we're born?

>>
* still we carry on with 'we are equal' coz that's the way our society works today.>>

In what way does it work like this?

ebola
 
hmm.... can i just quit now? =D

honestly, i cant back up the bullets... other than to say those are my thoughts.

although i do has one thing to say. kings and peasants system was just under a benevolent king and his subjects. just as a good democratic nation is just if the system doesnt produce corrupt presidents and prime ministers.

but the good king's son screwed things up and things turn for worse, much the same way a nation suffers if it has corrupt politicians.

yes, it sounds unfair to say some are BORN into palace and others into stables, but as long as the king does his job and his subjects theirs, it's alright, i guess.
 
>>although i do has one thing to say. kings and peasants system was just under a benevolent king and his subjects. just as a good democratic nation is just if the system doesnt produce corrupt presidents and prime ministers.>>

But I don't know of any evidence that these conditions were ever the case.

>>honestly, i cant back up the bullets... other than to say those are my thoughts.
>>

Yeah...I tend to discuss by jumping on things. That's how I operate.

ebola
 
i dont know if these qualify as 'evidences' but i'll give it a shot.

many many years ago, in china, there was a dynasty called 'choon choo dynasty'. i dont know if that is correct pronounciation though.

a king called 'choon' was a very good king and people had good lives. before he died, he said, 'don't give the king's throne to my son, but to a good leader.' but the subjects felt that they couldnt do such, so they let the son take over the throne. this was the beginning of custom of giving the throne to sons of the king. (well, at least that was the case in china)

choo, the son of choon, was also a good king, but his sons were very bad. so the good days of 'choon and choo' were over and mixture of good and bad kings ruled.

this is more of a fable than history. although i am NOT chinese, i believe that. and there are stories like these in many countries which had kings. (king arthur of britain, king sejong of korea, king chulalongkorn of thailand...) they all have a couple of 'good' kings that led the people well.
 
ok, i think i've finally found it... *sighs*

* we all have the equal right to equality, which we are born with.
* we are all born different, which means if you judge/evaluate people's equality by their physical makeup, you will never define all people as equal.
* if you define people by their physical makeup, you will never allow them to have the equal rights they they are born with the right to.

(leaves the additions to this thread to other people and only reads from now on, unless of course interacted with :P)
 
I find it really interesting (and kind of sad, too) that in a discussion where the basic premise (or questioning of a premise) is All men are created equal, not one person has mentioned that fact that If all men are created equal, where does that leave women?

Obviously it's taken to mean that the term 'men' includes women also...i tried to explain this more and ended up rambling incoherently, so I'll stop there :)

I still think that it does show that people aren't created equual or thought of as being equal, and that is inherent in the wording. By essentially ignoring one half of the population straight off, then how can we be equal?


<<Equality is entirely a human made concept. Outside of the human mind, equality does not exist as anything at all. Therefore, as a human made concept, it is entirely up to human minds to decide if it possible, or even plausable>>
I do like Knight Marshall's idea, although I disagree to a point. We're not created equal, or, we are created equal but there are many factors from the moment that we are born that conspire against us. I do hope that we can decide as humans to decide on this concept and believe in it, and actually work towards making it happen. While it often does seem like no one is treated equally and that there's so much injustice in the world, I think it's something nice to aspire to.

Out of interest, back in the days when there was a king and his serfs, what are peoples thoughts on the sitations back then. Do you think that having clearly defined roles (ie nobily or serf/servant/slave) meant that it was easier because people knew their places and there wasn't false hope? or is it better know where we can, ideally and theoretically achieve whatever we want to?
 
since i too live in modern days, i have no idea as how people in the king's days thought of the system.

but from where i live, (a kingdom in South East Asea. i'm born of Far East Asian background though...) kings are revered and admired. the roles are quite clear.

this attitude towards monarchy didnt just appear today, but has been passed down the generations. so, our fathers think the king is cool, and grandfather also thought the king was cool. i'll bet his grandfather thought the king was cool too. history shows that there were some bad kings, but thats just human nature i guess.

so pretty positive attitude towards 'king system' here.
(it's actually the 'democratic' politicans we hate)
 
"All men are created equal" sounds awfully poetic, but in my opinion, less poetic, but more accurate is this:

"No, it's not the case that all men are created equal, but we will be happier and more proud of ourselves as a society if we all strive to obey the Golden Rule.

And by treating others no worse than we would like to be treated ourselves, we are setting up a enlightened society that behaves very similarly to how it would behave if all men were truly created equal."
 
ChoGrass, having just got back from Thailand i can appreciate the real power the monarchy still holds there - daily royal news broadcasts across all channels simultaneously, posters of the (usually benevolent looking) king everywhere. it's interesting, especially in light of the UK's more globally recognised royal family - who basically everyone hates :D

i think the phrase 'all people exist equally' is better than 'all men are created equal' :)
 
What Jefferson is referring to in that passage is the devine right of kings. Prior to the enlightenment, it was pretty much accepted that kingly authority was given to rulers by God. During the enlightenment certaing thinkers (such as Rousseau, Locke ect.) began to question that idea. These thinkers heavily influenced revolutionary movements of the time.
 
I think that we are created equal in a relative state or form. That is, I have a body you have a body, i have strengths and you have strengths. Im tall youre short. Whatever it is that makes us different is only relative to what we are.... The same, people with characteristics that enable us to do different things. Wheither it be math, linguists, or whatever it is you do. If I have my talent you have your talent. and if you suck and i whup ur ass all the time. Thats because youre different, not that we arent equal. There is no level for which to compare ourselves with, so equality is in the eye of the beholder.

:)
 
I think I like mine best... Because th eproblem with problem solvers these days is they spend too much time with the little details not believing in a central divine source. That would spread our energy thin and create dissonance within the parties. That is why, It is important to spend your time following a strict code of ethics. You kick someones ass, it is a good thing. There is never spite or shit like that, just one goal. and one understanding of a true micro vs. macrocosm. You cant have one without the other and the two combined sources dont argue, they just are. People should do the same :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top