4 ms·

Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose

mjfl 12y ago
I think there's a disease that infects modern thought that attributes any success to "dumb luck". It makes the pursuit of a better life seem pointless and social inequality seem like an injustice we must point the government at to remedy. I don't think this is a new thought, just the modern flavor of a cycle that repeats itself every century or so. Find the rich man, the jew, the doctor. Sack his residence and take all of his belongings.
- zo1 12y ago
  And the premise that underlies that whole thing: It's unfair due to the wealthy having an unfair advantage because of their wealth. It's the easy answer to a chicken/egg problem, one that suits the agenda. The problem being which came first, wealth or whatever it is that "gives" wealth. Ambition, dedication, drive, charisma, you name it.
  - Heyr 12y ago
    Well, in the case of the real world currently, usually wealth came first. It came first because you can inherit wealth in various forms: either through land, money or even education. Parents being able to afford a way better education for their children offer them far more than those who don't.
ahomescu1 12y ago
I think the fundamental question here is: what is the natural state, equality or inequality? If inequality is the natural state (which I think it is), it can't be a "purpose", it just exists.
- Retra 12y ago
  That is not a fundamental question. We don't care if it is natural or not, all we care about is whether it is acceptable or not. If it is not acceptable, you need a reason to ignore it.
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    The first law of thermodynamics is not acceptable to me, yet it is natural and there's nothing I can do to change or ignore it (I was going to also give gravity as an example, but that one is more complicated).
    - Retra 12y ago
      So what? Small pox is natural and not acceptable to me, but hey: cured. I'm glad that you found an excuse not to violate the laws of nature, but that doesn't mean you don't need a reason. It means you already have one.
      - ahomescu1 12y ago
        Just because there are some things that can be fought doesn't mean that all things you/we deem "unacceptable" can be eliminated. Some things always exist, like the first law of thermodynamics (one example) and drug use (people deemed drug use "unacceptable" and initiated the "War on Drugs", and look how well that turned out). Not everything in life is under our control.
        Retra 12y ago
        No, but it doesn't mean they _can't be_ either. Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant. >Not everything in life is under our control. Who cares!? Are you going to spend your time repeating trivially useless facts? You have said nothing at all that allows you to distinguish between what can and can't be controlled. 'Naturalness' isn't it, for what should be obvious reasons. You do not know what is under your control until you try to control it.
        ahomescu1 12y ago
        > Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant. I disagree. Man-made phenomena can all be fought and reversed (so it's worth trying), but not all natural ones can (so it can be worth trying to fight them, but one must also know when to give up). This started with the statement "Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose", which implies (or at least that's how I interpreted it) that social inequality is some man-made phenomenon, and we'd all be equal if not for some evil overlords "keeping us down". I disagree with this theory.

mjfl 12y ago

I think there's a disease that infects modern thought that attributes any success to "dumb luck". It makes the pursuit of a better life seem pointless and social inequality seem like an injustice we must point the government at to remedy. I don't think this is a new thought, just the modern flavor of a cycle that repeats itself every century or so. Find the rich man, the jew, the doctor. Sack his residence and take all of his belongings.

zo1 12y ago
And the premise that underlies that whole thing: It's unfair due to the wealthy having an unfair advantage because of their wealth. It's the easy answer to a chicken/egg problem, one that suits the agenda. The problem being which came first, wealth or whatever it is that "gives" wealth. Ambition, dedication, drive, charisma, you name it.
- Heyr 12y ago
  Well, in the case of the real world currently, usually wealth came first. It came first because you can inherit wealth in various forms: either through land, money or even education. Parents being able to afford a way better education for their children offer them far more than those who don't.

ahomescu1 12y ago

I think the fundamental question here is: what is the natural state, equality or inequality? If inequality is the natural state (which I think it is), it can't be a "purpose", it just exists.

Retra 12y ago
That is not a fundamental question. We don't care if it is natural or not, all we care about is whether it is acceptable or not. If it is not acceptable, you need a reason to ignore it.
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  The first law of thermodynamics is not acceptable to me, yet it is natural and there's nothing I can do to change or ignore it (I was going to also give gravity as an example, but that one is more complicated).
  - Retra 12y ago
    So what? Small pox is natural and not acceptable to me, but hey: cured. I'm glad that you found an excuse not to violate the laws of nature, but that doesn't mean you don't need a reason. It means you already have one.
    - ahomescu1 12y ago
      Just because there are some things that can be fought doesn't mean that all things you/we deem "unacceptable" can be eliminated. Some things always exist, like the first law of thermodynamics (one example) and drug use (people deemed drug use "unacceptable" and initiated the "War on Drugs", and look how well that turned out). Not everything in life is under our control.
      - Retra 12y ago
        No, but it doesn't mean they _can't be_ either. Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant. >Not everything in life is under our control. Who cares!? Are you going to spend your time repeating trivially useless facts? You have said nothing at all that allows you to distinguish between what can and can't be controlled. 'Naturalness' isn't it, for what should be obvious reasons. You do not know what is under your control until you try to control it.
        ahomescu1 12y ago
        > Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant. I disagree. Man-made phenomena can all be fought and reversed (so it's worth trying), but not all natural ones can (so it can be worth trying to fight them, but one must also know when to give up). This started with the statement "Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose", which implies (or at least that's how I interpreted it) that social inequality is some man-made phenomenon, and we'd all be equal if not for some evil overlords "keeping us down". I disagree with this theory.