Whence comes inequality for sapiens?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Whence comes inequality for sapiens?

The very first class distinction was between mortal and immortal; between human and superhuman. For primitive wo/man it was the dead who held most power.

Since the eighteenth century the great minds have formed this question, ‘what is the source of inequality?’ and have sought the answer. Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence into the conflicts of classes and states. Marx capitalized (a pun perhaps?) on Rousseau’s idea to remind us that humanity did not all start out as exploited peons. Today this class and state differential is more abundantly clear.

It has been deduced that power and coercion are not the only culprits here, it is that wo/man harbors an “enemy within”; perhaps the “slave is somehow in love with his own chains”.

Rousseau offered this answer “The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say ‘this is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”

The salient question became ‘not when’ but ‘why’ it happened?

Primitive man recognized differences in talent, strength, and merit and easily deferred to these characteristics. Why—because such characteristics served well the needs of the tribe or community. Certain individuals showed ability for defying death and others wished to share in that immunity.

We see here that he “carries within himself the bondage that he needs in order to continue to live…we are born in need of authority and we even create out of freedom, a prison…This insight is the fruit of the outcome of modern psychoanalysis…it penetrates to the heart of the human condition and to the principle dynamic of the emergence of historical inequality…primitive religion starts the first class distinction…That is, the individual gives over the aegis of his own life and death to the spirit worlds; he is already a second-class citizen.”

“The first class distinction, then, was between mortal and immortal, between feeble human powers and special superhuman beings.”

2

Nice post.

I think the simple answer is the territorialization of land by different races. Primitive man reacted against another race as if it were like an alien animal.

There were no fences built on one’s homeland, but rather between one race and another as they fought for space.

3

detrope

Why do you reject the conclusion of the science anthropology? “The first class distinction, then, was between mortal and immortal, between feeble human powers and special superhuman beings.”

4

During primitive mans time the overwhelming urge was to survive and in those times the odds were stacked heavily against man. As time went on and man developed they then began to master their surroundings. This then left man not strugglling for survival but the struggle then became to what degree would he survive. As time goes on the struggle develops and man creates new ways to demonstrate to his fellow man how well he is doing, this is a ever perpetuating circle. So to answer why and when it developed was when man developed the characteristic of greed.

5

Why do you reject that answer that the science of anthropology gives? "“The first class distinction, then, was between mortal and immortal, between feeble human powers and special superhuman beings.”

6

This couldn’t have been the “first” class distinction. The metaphysics of “immortality” was developed by metaphorical interpretations of natural phenomena that was not yet understood by experimental science. “Immortality” did not dawn on the minds of primitive man, and I suspect that even millions of years passed without it ever doing so.

Most likely the first “confusion before nature” occured when, as Nietzsche explains, primitive man had dreams and in waking…attempted to understand the significance of it, and the suspicious feelings that it was “real” is what confused him the most. In such dreams, a man might of interacted with a dead relative, and when he awoke he would claim that “the dead live on…for I have seen them in my dreams, etc.”

An organized “tribal” effort to understand and explain these dreams is what lead to the first metaphors and myths of immortality.

But “classes” never consisted of a divide between “mortal” and “immortal” until a plan was devised by a ruling class, which I call the sophists, to subjugate the majority, the working class, which was responsible for the production and maintainence of economy. Such a plan was arranged to provide false incentives, rewards, punishments, to the working class so that they might not revolt.

The concept of the anthropological “superhuman” is the next step; God and spirit in the image of man, as man like, as what man can become if he follows the order and rule of the sophists.

No, the first class distinction is always economical, because man is always, first, his material conditions and his civil activities. Once these are established…men rise out of this class not because they were “sovereign,” but because they were cunning. The ruling class’s existence is not a result of real power, but subterfuge; it is kept not because they are strong, but because the working class is weak intellectually, and affraid of the consequences of revolt.

7

Inequality is natural. If you love someone, then you treat them unequally to people you don’t love. Inequality in gov’t is just an extension of our own behavior, which is to treat better those we love than those we do not or don’t know.

8

Just to let you know, I’ll be making my post according to the following definition of class (as I think it is the broadest): a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes.

I don’t share your confidence that the very first class distinction was between mortal and immortal for the following reasons:

  1. Just to filter out any other theories anyone can make about the first class distinction for homo sapiens (we can all make educated guesses about what would be the most significant differences between one homo sapien and another–warranting the interpreter’s label of them as belonging to seperate “classes”)–from man or woman, familiar or unfamiliar (member of group or an outsider) to bipedal or quadrupedal, young or old, hungry or not hungry—we need to focus on the very first class distinction MADE BY homo sapiens.

  2. So, you are arguing that, when the homo sapiens became capable of interpreting one group as being separate from another, and actually thinking about this distinction to determine “why” and/or decide how to act according to their differences (rather than merely reacting to one differently than one would react from the other), the first distinction was mortal versus immortal.

Now, this theory definitely passes #1 above, as far and life and death are concerned, as detrop notes above: the idea of immortality is a pretty advanced concept for the early homo sapiens.

I agree with other content in your post, I think the strongest being:

But none of this supports your thesis.

According to your idea in #2:

  1. Man’s first class distinction (seeing a group as different from another in some important way) was mortal versus immortal.
  2. Man did not interpret individuals according to two or more groups until the moment the first homo sapien suddenly made the distinction between mortal and immortal.
  3. The moment the first homo sapien made the distinction between mortal and immortal was the moment man was able to interpret things according to their similarity or differences to other things.

Here it looks like you are claiming “man” began with the distinction between immortal and mortal.

This can’t be true, of course. Dead versus alive has to come before mortal versus immortal. And, of course, “good” versus “bad/evil”—making its earliest appearances as pain versus comfort, me versus it, them versus us, etc.

It took a LONG time, and A LOT of distinctions before enough nervous systems downloaded to and uploaded from each other enough expressions, words and concepts that a human mind was able to organize the information his brain retrieved from memory (as a result of whatever stimulus) into an idea of immortality.

Btw, detrop, don’t take this as me being some obnoxious grammatician, getting some sick joy of pointing out the writing mistakes one makes, but I got a kick out of this:

I found the idea of a primitive man using “etc”, especially in this context, pretty hilarious.

9

[laughing]

I do that often. Put things inside the quotes when they should outside of them. And still to this day I use “its” to imply both the possessive and the verb function. “It has” and “it is” means the same to me, apparantly.

10

I actually want this, and have requested it in the past. One day I’m going big time, and I’ll need to know how to write and spell correctly.

11

Coberst asked

In my view of life the source of inequality is the source of all other aspects of life: our reactions to the void. The concept of inequality was created some time after our ancestors first asked, “Why am I?” and rather than answering “I am to continue becoming what I am capable of being” decided they were to somehow influence the spirits who seemed to control their lives. When they discovered that weaving the fabric of existence with this early religious/philosophical thread could not fill the void, they answered “the last why” with “I am to have more than my fellow beings”. The thread this notion created has increased in prominence over the millennia to the point specifically financial inequality dominates our fabric of existence; and in my opinion, if we don’t discard this thread along with our religious/philosophical reaction and the other six ways we try to fill the void, we will self-destruct.