Human equality

Very quickly, for I have little time to write today…
All men are not created equal…Sure, I’ll buy that; but in what crucial way do they differ? The color of their skin? Their height? The sex? Their strenght; that some see, some are blind? What does it matter when we all shall die? When all hunger; when all fall ill? The joy of a mother at seeing her newborn is not absent in Australia and present in Italy. Shakespeare is not a product of England for the consumption of the english but a cultural achievement of humanity in general.
What then is the great importance in asserting that men are not equal?

To justify the assault on a clear Other, on that animal which is not you, or yours. It is a device to give a clean conscience to an in-group by exalting the contrast between themselves and an Other.
No. Not all men are created equal, but our differences are superficial, gain and lost in one generation or two and not an essential matter where man is an alien to another man, or man from woman, or a woman from another woman. It is a lack of perspective that causes this confusion; willed on the expectation that a greater control has been gained over chaos.
It is not that equality requires faith but that inequality does.

Yes, I can imagine that you have a very busy life, always in a hurry - how noble!

Note the wonderful metaphor this American uses!

Oh, but you’re not gonna die, you will live eternally in the bosom of Jesus Christ, you nihilist.

I guess that is why he was such a passionate patriot.

(Come on, crowd, let’s all respond with honest indignation.) “But that’s evil!”

Perhaps you are just superficial, lost in one generation or two, and not an essential matter.

Halleluyah!

I would rather a million normal men died that one superman may live.
The differences between little men may be superficial, but the differences between little men and great men run deep.

“the differences between little men and great men run deep.”

No they dont. Not objectively at least. There is no such thing as a “great man” or a “little man” but only your subjective classifications based on arbitrary criteria. :smiley:

Omar is the purest result of spectacle.

He’s hollow.

Btw, never underestimate the power of ‘supermans’ symbols. They are food ‘for thoughts’ for people like Omar.

+1 point to American Den.

“Before Death, all men are equal” - omar’s God is Death!

There is no such thing as “objectively”. Again, you are condemning reality by your nihilist standards. You are a moral nihilist, as am I, but you have not (yet) gone beyond good and evil. I, for one, am not a total nihilist, but only a moral nihilist (i.e., I don’t believe in a moral world order; which is not to say I don’t believe in any world order at all!).

Oh but I do believe in a world order. Just one that is empericly verifiable and not reliant on arbitrary values. Though you may already understand this, I think the diffirence between me and most other people is that I do not attempt to fit my conception of reality into my values, rather I attempt to fit my values into my conception of reality. And I find that they do not belong there. Nor do any values. My emperical analysis of reality leads me to a valueless conception of “objective” reality (by objective I mean the reality out there apart from the observer.) Values in my conception are apart from that reality and have their own seperate nature. And according to my understanding of values, they are, by nature, unjustifiable through logic. My conceptions of these things are very firm, I do not have any doubts about their nature and I have given them very thorough consideration and found them to be sound. To make me change as you suggest I might, you would have to convince me that my conception of the nature of values is false.

The curious thing is… I think you may share my conception of value. And yet you go on talking about reality in a manner that, at least to me, seems to imply a contradiction with my conception of value. Maybe I am simply misunderstanding you, maybe you do not actually share my conception of value, or maybe you are reasoning incorrectly.

Do you honestly believe that?

Molto presuntuoso di te che, dopo poco, voi dirigete la vostra attenzione a argomenti sopra la vostra stazione.

But I do love the fact that no intelligence is required in your babbling. I am “hollow”, you say. That does not refer at all to my argument. You are hollow.
BTW, I did not even write “Superman”. Projection. Keep your shit off me motherfuk.

Oh and for those to whom I did not reply…there was nothing to reply to.

Supposing there is a reality apart from the observer (i.e., everything does not just exist within my mind), is not the observer a part of that reality? If not, to what realm does the “mind” belong? From what realm are values derived? Are you a substance dualist?

It is true that, from a height, human beings are too small to be spotted, much less distinguished. From an even greater distance, the earth cannot be spotted, much less distinguished from, say, Mars. Human life is meaningless, and herein all men are equal, to each other and to everything else: equally meaningless. On the other hand, we are men; we do not have a godlike perspective. As we must necessarily look at existence from our perspective, this is the only angle from which we can discern, or project, meaning in it. Only a human being can justify his life and, thereby - as everything is inextricably connected -, justify existence. Such a human being is Nietzsche’s Superman, who is the goal and the meaning of life for all those human beings - the vast majority - who cannot justify their own existences, and whose happiness justifies existence itself.

Who said “Before Death all men are equal”? Looks like you’re having a party inside your little nazi mind and you did not invite anyone else…elitist to the point of insanity!

“Supposing there is a reality apart from the observer (i.e., everything does not just exist within my mind), is not the observer a part of that reality? If not, to what realm does the “mind” belong? From what realm are values derived?”

It is a bit confusing the way we talk about it, but notice that you talk of a reality apart from the observer, and then mention that the observer is a part of the reality. It seems to be contradictory but thats just a failure of the language. The point of all this is dependancy. We say that there is a reality apart from an observer to indicate that the reality does not depend on the observer. Remove the observer, and the rest of reality remains, though the observer was still considered a part of reality (this is ofcourse, as you mention, supposing there is a reality and not just somethings existing in a mind) Well, according to my understanding of the nature of value, value is completely dependant on the observer. Without an observer, there is no value. Take out the observer from reality, and you take out any potential for value.

Values as I understand them are derived from certain proccesses inherent in the human (and maybe other kinds of) observer, and reliant on observation. Without having something to observe and being capable of observing, no values will be generated. But given something to observe, the variety of values capable of being generated are near infinite. Which value will be generated depends on an incalculable amount of circumstances, including the state of the observer. An important aspect of my understanding of the nature of value is that human logic cannot generate original value. Logic relating to value relies and operates upon original values as premises, sometimes generating conclusions which could be deemed logicly generated values. But some other process, not logic, must generate original value. And this process has, as I said, an incalculable amount of variables, including the state of the observer. This makes it impossible to actually atribute any of the values to reality, and makes it impossible to employ logic to ascertain the “truth” or “falsity” of values.

What, for that matter, is the difference between a human being and a lion? Shall not both die? Do not both hunger? Do not both fall ill? The joy of a mother seeing her newborn is not absent from the lioness, is it?

^^The average lion has more courage and is more beautiful?

There’s a certain heady romance to Nietzschian rhetheric which is fun and indeed life affirming.

But break it down! whats on “offer” here I think it’s pretty typical of a completely false binary (very common in philosophy!)
This is a choice/opposition that is never seen and has never been seen!!!

Maybe a million normal folks have to live, humdrum, petit bourgeoise “Christian" lives and as a reaction to this maybe some some can “evolve” out of this muck to be “supermen”/“knights of faith” (Kierkegaarde’s super ethical superman).

BUT Super men (and women) aren’t generated from corpses.

krossie

Nothingness: Yes, I do really believe it.

The existence of the little man is guaranteed. And yes, that existence plays a part in bringing about the superman. As I’ve said elsewhere on this forum, one cannot fully comprehend the meaning of the word ‘Dionysian’ without having first suffered greatly at the hands of decadent ideals (although, strictly speaking, this doesn’t require the actual existence of decadents).
Enlightened people were all unenlightened in the beginning. But I would choose one actual superman over a million of those who might one day become the superman any day of the week.

Impious’s view is Heraclitean and thereby Nietzschean:

“One is tens of thousands to me, if he be the best.”
[Heraclitus.]

The word here rendered as “tens of thousands” is murioi, literally “tens of thousands”, but metaphorically “countless” (cf. “myriads”). And the word here rendered as “the best” is aristos.

Hail Nietzsche!