I knew it was only a matter of time before a thread titled "Personality Discussion and Advice" would be converted into something else entirely with Lord J waxing on again about the Golden age and similar matters. As a matter of fact I find such posts interesting and comforting so I like to read them.
Hah! Well, in my own defense, that post to Radical_Dreamer was very much "personality discussion and advice."
Now to compound the offense of off-topic excursion: for you Lord J I recommend finishing, if you haven't already, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. It is the often cited but seldom read definitive text on philosophy of language and since from what I gather you seem capable of understanding contemporary advances in philosophy you may as well complete your understanding of that topic.
I don't like the secret to get out too often, but I do actually read things on occasion. However, suggestions are always welcome, and you're more likely than not to hit on something I haven't read. For what it is worth, I do not hold Wittgenstein or any philosopher above myself, and I am at a point where I am as likely to uncover a good idea from a mook as from a sage. Well, perhaps not
as likely, but surely you get my meaning. Let it suffice to replace your word
complete with
advance, and I will not object.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Well, I guess it depends on what sort of trap you had in mind. But as far as I know, it was an honest curiosity.
I know that if I were a misanthrope and you had asked that question of me I would be tempted at first to perceive it as a mockery or other denigration. Any time a question implies or appears to imply a negative judgment upon us for affirming something we have previously said to be true about ourselves, the temptation to such a perception will likely arise. You were, if I may be charitable, trying to find out if Sajainta approves of humans in principle if not in practice--that is, if, once removed of their considerable baggage, there are humans she likes, with your hypothesis being that the highly exceptional world of fictional characters (some of whom she has spoken favorably about) would likely serve to resolve your question. It is an honest question, but I can see how it could also feel dishonest. And you are so nice a person outwardly, Thought, that sometimes it makes one wonder what you think behind all that geniality. That's one of the inconspicuous perks of being more candid even on negative subjects, as I am. People have no reason to doubt my sincerity, because my sincerity already gets me into all kinds of hot water.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~
What you are lamenting is the cruel fact that many people alive right now do not deserve to live, and many more simply have not earned any appreciable worth as individuals. What you are seeing is that many people alive right now will tolerate, condone, affirm, and promote the acts of evil which you so despise, even when their acquiescence harms them directly, either because they are too stupid, too beholden, or too afraid to know anything better.
Hah, and would I not call ourselves superior for not being among these number, I would at least argue that we occupy a far superior position, one that comes with the perks of self-acknowledged worth and an ethical edge.
The word
inferior seems to be passing out of the American English vernacular. I was considering this the other day, when reviewing some of my writing from a decade ago. I myself have not used that word very often in recent years. Thinking upon it, the word has some of the strongest negative connotations of any word in English. In other words, our culture takes it as a
genuine bad word, and thus usage has declined.
That's too bad, because it's a good word, and there are inferior people out there--not on the basis of sex, or race--but on the basis of their quality of character. In my philosophy, I hold human beings to share total equality in some respects, and none at all in other respects. We all deserve, for example, not to go hungry--unless one deserves the death penalty, in which case they should be executed rather than starved. But when it comes to the merits of our ideas, the contents of our ambitions, and many other things...humans are not equivalent.
It isn't generally useful to declare
superior people. Putting aside the risk of corruption that goes with such titles (though we may presume that the risk is generally lower in truly superior people), superior people also possess the qualities of excellence, and individual excellence can be dwelt upon without disparaging the remainder of humanity. So, when you suggest that we occupy a superior perch for noting these injustices...yes, I think that's right. But I also think it doesn't particularly matter, because the simple observation of said injustices speaks for itself with regard to that particular facet of our integrity of character.
It also generally isn't useful to declare
inferior people, for many of the same reasons in their converse.
Thus, the question appears before us of when it
is useful to do such things. Such declarations are helpful when we have need to make the contrast. In the course of the consideration of how people are unequal, and the significance thereof, we have need to compare people against each other, to better ascertain a better vector for the development of the human condition in ourselves and the improvement of our society. This is most useful when we compare individuals, or small groups. To do so with large groups requires very specific and difficult demarcations--or else we end up replicating the conditions where the words
superior and
inferior ran into trouble originally. To that end, it's also worth noting that, in additional to whatever overall superiority or inferiority a person or group might possess relative to a counterpart, it is possible and probably more useful to determine superiority or inferiority with regard to particular character traits, rather than the character overall.
Lastly, I might note that we could perhaps make the effort to apply superiority and inferiority in the absolute as well as in relative comparisons. I don't typically have the motive to do so myself, but I wouldn't rule it out as inherently inappropriate. For instance, it might be meritorious to declare that closed-mindedness is objectively an inferior trait. Since we are speaking in the absolute here, the "what" in "inferior to what" would have to be the human condition itself, or perhaps even the sapient condition itself--i.e., a trait that is inherently inferior to the cognitive potential of the entity who possesses it.
