/lit/ - Literature

In which capacity, exactly?

>>6166778
I'll let you decipher that, because I have a hard time making sense of it at all.

Can OP justify the notion that he shouldn't be purged immediately?

>>6166785
No, but it doesn't seem to me that anything we do has to be justified.

>>6166783
Treated "equally" in what respect, exactly? There's a huge difference between saying everyone is entitled to a trial, and saying everyone should wear the same size shoe.

>>6166776
No, no one can justify that. Not even /lit/.

>>6166789
That's exactly what I want you to discuss. Generally people have the notion that we all should be treated "equally", but what does that actually mean? By what mechanisms, how does equality work? How do we justify it? I want an explication of the idea.

>>6166793
Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding

Leftism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Inequality

>>6166804
Do you know of any responses to Nietzsche?

>>6166817
Nietzsche is more concerned about the harmful psychological implications, for us as a society (and individuals), of equality ideology, rather than the "truth" of equality.

>>6166789
Not really. Aren't people sometimes deemed unfit to stand trial?

Don't certain groups claim they're not responsible for their actions due to history? Isn't this the same principle as being deemed unfit to stand trial, except in a two thumbs up way?

Equality is bunk, even when egalitarians run things. It's philosophical nonsense and opportunism.

>>6166844
No one talked about the "truth" of equality; does the thread state that?

>>6166844
Nietzsche believed in the factual falsehood of equality. Don't try to sidestep the (implied) question by answering a different one.

>>6166846
Think about it this way: how much would you feel that equality is bunk, if you were the one being oppressed, a second class citizen, or murdered/tortured/otherwise treated poorly?

>>6166857
But I'm not; neither is he. Of course we would agree if we were oppressed. We aren't.

>>6166793
Equality under the law is what you've been hearing about. This is why we can use the other legalese term "justify"
It's a matter of "justice" to be treated fairly.
Yes it is subjective, but the idea is to find a better way to live with each other. Hardships and discord have resulted from the unequal ways we've treated other in our long history. Turns out being nice is a good thing and everybody appreciates it.

>>6166846
>Aren't people sometimes deemed unfit to stand trial?
In which case they cannot be convicted.

>Don't certain groups claim they're not responsible for their actions due to history?
Among whatever other reasons are handy.

>Equality is bunk, even when egalitarians run things. It's philosophical nonsense and opportunism.
True, but the anti-equality camp also is largely bunk because they tend to explain away any complex issue with "people are not equal". So both sides tend toward superficiality, and in this respect both are necessary unless either one can stop being imbeciles.

>>6166857
Not him, but I'm an impoverished black male that grew up in a trailer in the ghetto that my dad sold weed out of and I don't believe equality is a realistic or natural idea either.

>>6166861
I'm entirely aware, but the implied subtext of the question is "Why can't I mistreat my inferiors?"

>>6166867
Appeal to nature a shit.

>>6166857
I am done with that nonsense. I see no reason to lie to myself. And I also see no reason to lie on behalf of a group that was only weighing me down.

I'm now an individual opportunist rather than a self-deluding ideological one. I leave group action to the cattle.

>>6166867
>A trailer in the ghetto

Holy fuck! I had no idea these two shitholes had merged! Oh my god! What in the fuck kind of world is this when niggas have trailers in the fucking ghetto!

>>6166854
You really don't know the first thing about Nietzsche if you think he was concerned about objective truth.

>>6166865
Justify equality under the law, then. Why can't the law be that this anon gets twice what everyone else does?

>>6166866
>In which case they cannot be convicted.
Then there's patently NOT equality under the law.

>True, but the anti-equality camp also is largely bunk because they tend to explain away any complex issue with "people are not equal". So both sides tend toward superficiality, and in this respect both are necessary unless either one can stop being imbeciles.
I'm generally anti-equalitarian, and I don't even have to explain anything. There's no reason for me to give a fuck about other people. There doesn't have to be justification or rhyme or reason.

>>6166877
>Then there's patently NOT equality under the law.
Yeah, it is, since anyone who is deemed unfit to stand trial cannot be convicted.

>I'm generally anti-equalitarian, and I don't even have to explain anything. There's no reason for me to give a fuck about other people. There doesn't have to be justification or rhyme or reason.
Okay, so you're a moral nihilist. You should probably read Stirner or Sade if you're this edgy.

>>6166867
So then you believe power should be taken, without regard to the other man? Or do you believe in cooperation, just an unlevel playing field?

>>6166871
>Appeal to nature a shit.
The naturalistic fallacy is a specific case of the is-ought problem. If one accepts the is-ought problem, they can't justify equalitarianism without appealing to emotions/basic emotional sense. I am completely unbending that I'm a superior person and so my moral sentiment is that I should get everything. Is there any "equalitarian" response to me, or do you just have to force me down, Machiavelli-style?

>>6166871
>I'm entirely aware, but the implied subtext of the question is "Why can't I mistreat my inferiors?"
There is no implied subtext. Inferring subtexts is a fancy way of saying "straw man".

>>6166884
> Is there any "equalitarian" response to me, or do you just have to force me down, Machiavelli-style?

Nah, you're just a cunt. Everyone has a part to play.

>>6166890
Take a look at OP's picture again.

>>6166892
>Nah, you're just a cunt. Everyone has a part to play.
Great, you've really justified your position. Idiot.

>Take a look at OP's picture again.
Obviously Nazism is just a special case of anti-equalitarianism.

>>6166871
Okay, even if you don't want to appeal to nature that still doesn't change the fact that equality isn't realistic. Each man is born under different circumstances in different backgrounds and is a unique man all to himself. Each man can be granted the same rights as another by the state but to suggest that each man can be treated equally is absurd unless we can reduce a man's background and circumstances to be equal, which we can't, hence unrealistic. Humans are individuals, we are all different. To say each human deserves to be treated equally is ideological due to this fact.

>>6166898
Out of interest, why are you arguing against equality? I don't believe that Ubermenschen would be posting on the literature board of a Cambodian carrier-pigeon training mail bulletin in the wee hours of the morning.

>>6166861
I was and do not.

>>6166866
>In which case they cannot be convicted.
In which case they are privileged, or subject to a law of their own (privi-leg-ium.)

>So both sides tend toward superficiality, and in this respect both are necessary unless either one can stop being imbeciles.
This is true. I tend towards classism more so than racism, since I think it better reflects biological reality, but even classism is a crude generalisation. Call it a guideline.

>>6166875
A little histrionic, anon. Visit /pol/ to see how it's done.

>>6166876
He believed that even basic nouns were excessive generalisations, convenient lies at best. Surely that extends to the noun "human," to ethnic nouns, and informs his entire philosophy?

>>6166909
...To be clear, I'm not the black fellow. Just sniping to amuse myself.

>>6166881
>Okay, so you're a moral nihilist. You should probably read Stirner or Sade if you're this edgy.

That's not what moral nihilism means, dude.

>>6166909
>Hurr durr muh /pol/
>POLE
>PPPOOOOOOLLLLLLLEEEEEEE

Jesus christ dude give it a fucking rest for once in your life. I live in an area with trailer parks. "The ghetto" is generally synonomous with "the projects". I was unaware you could somehow stick a doublewide into somewhere called "the ghetto". I mean I guess you are black but you seem articulate so please work on not letting your inborn eternal butthurt cloud your mind.

>>6166904
Because I feel as if I'm obligated to be a voice of reason among young black individuals. These are beliefs I hold to be true. A black man should not automatically be granted inalienable freedoms simply for existing, as many of us seem to believe, but then again neither should a white man. It's on a man to man basis, a basis of which skin color ultimately plays no inherent factor.

>>6166920
Would you prefer enslavement to your hated equality?

>>6166927
If the enslavement was colorblind and rational, perhaps. To say I "hate" equalityis rather steep and untrue; I simply believe equality is unobtainable today and in the near future. Much like I believe that a human being able to fly separate from a machine is absurd and unrealistic, but it'd be neat to see it.

>>6166904
What kind of question is this? Why do anything?

>>6166927
Sure, if that was the dichotomy, but that's not the world I live in so I don't have to give a fuck about that.

>>6166937
So what would you prefer to replace equality?
>>6166942
I'm interested in why he's holding his contrarian position.

>>6166884
I believe, ideally, that power should be a cooperation between the lower man and the higher man to achieve a balanced and healthy relationship between the two. A symbiotic relationship between slave and master, so to speak. Though in reality, nothing is keeping the stronger man from simply taking the power as he has the means to do so.

>>6166953
>I'm interested in why he's holding his contrarian position.

Being selfish is contrary to the interests of others a priori, that doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid position to take.

>>6166958
I agree, but I see it more than the master can't simply take all the power or face mob rule.

>>6166958
So, neo-feudalism? Why is this preferable? If this were put into law, and you became a subject rather than a master, would you be happy?

>>6166953
See
>>6166958

Symbiotic relationship between slave and master versus abusive parasitic relationships that africans and americans saw in the past. Perhaps now that we have seen from history this backlash and animosity that comes from abusive relationships, the higher man will consider a symbiotic relationship before simply seizing the power, as there are in fact consequences.

>>6166965
>would you be happy
Assuming it was truly symbiotic, I can't imagine why I wouldn't. I have no issues being a lower man assuming it's fair to me as well as the higher man and it's not based on arbitrary factors such as skin color.

>>6166965
No, you keep making that point but that's not relevant. Nothing is superior to being the master, which I intend to be.

>>6166975
I appreciate your sincerity.
>>6166977
What if a stronger master subjugated you?

>>6166981
>What if a stronger master subjugated you?
I don't expect any would, but if they tried then it will be a test of fate. If I lose I lose, and I'll be an advocate of equality.

>>6166984
While I'm not opposed to neo-feudalism in the symbiotic, utopian conception discussed ITT, I fear that in reality it would be more or less corporations owning their workers, etc.

>>6166990
Sure, but it would be so cool to be an owner, wouldn't it?

>>6166994
I doubt the coolness of being an owner would outweigh my moral qualms with this situation.

>>6166990
Poor black guy again. Of course that's how it'd be. Like I originally said, this is all ideal. In reality, we'd ignore history like we tend to do and be left with some aborted situation that would no doubt garner some sort of violent revolution considering the amount of animosity that's already built up in the working class and minorities.

>>6166998
But what if I have no moral qualms? There's no justification for equality, after all.

>whole thread approaches idea of "equality" from perspective of one's perception
>if I explain how belief originates I'll explain that it's right or wrong
>only one anon approaches the theoretical framework of "equality" and its validity/invalidity
>gets shunned for it

/lit/ pls. We should only be concerned if "equality" has any theoretical worth, not what it means to any given people

>>6166804
Didn't Locke base the idea that all men are equal on the idea that they were all created by the Christian God?

>>6167005
>There's no justification for equality, after all.
Well, there is the all-men-are-equal-in-the-eyes-of-God argument, but I'm not sure such an eloquent gent such as yourself would accept that.

I personally feel that equality is a good thing because, at the expense of a few selfish bastards, the majority of people are comparatively happier. I don't normally like utilitarian arguments because of things like utility monsters or how it's unquantifiable, but here, it can apply.

I'd like you to define equality in your own words for the purposes of this argument, though.

>>6167011
Yeah let's argue semantics for an entire thread like the autists we are. Hurr define equality!!!!!!
I feel as if the people in this thread are agreeing roughly on what equality in a modern context means. If you want to argue definitions and semantics and stroke your autism, go ahead and make a thread for it. Otherwise take your medication and eat your applesauce while the grown ups have a discussion.

>>6167028

>mom, i'm projecting again!

Yes, we all agree what "equality" means. That's a good start. Now we know what we're working with, let's see if "equality" by this definition is a valid and therefore desirable inclusion to modern political paradigm. Justify it. Why people should be equal? Are they? Is it an inherent property if yes?

That's what should we be doing now.

>>6167050
Not that anon, but refresh my mermory, what's the answer to this>>6166789

>>6166909
>He believed that even basic nouns were excessive generalisations, convenient lies at best. Surely that extends to the noun "human," to ethnic nouns, and informs his entire philosophy?
It did, but he would object very strongly to his view be considered "factual". He's said before that what he is doing is not examining "the truth", but *his* truths, and that he thinks the idea of striving for "objective truth" is misguided at best, and the better option is to philosophize "with many eyes", that is, through as many perspectives as possible. If Hegel is the Christian reading of Heraclitus, Nietzsche is the atheist or perhaps pagan reading, human perception is just a prism of reality, and we just get fixed on one color at a time and think we've found "the truth".

>>6167050
Just a fleeting glance at history, should tell you it is not an inherent property, which is why the contemporary West is valuable, because it is probably as equal as people will ever be in the history of humanity.

>>6167075
Nietzsche didn't reject objective truth at all. He believed it was simply wrong to esteem it as the greatest goal, hence "the gay science"

>>6167016
Equality is hard for me to define because the notion is borderline incoherent, but generally it's about deciding some quantifiable traits of man are best equal.

>>6167098
Not him but, he kind of did. He didn't think there was anything that was essentially true, but that there was differing perspectives only.

I'm pretty sure he didn't believe in absolute nor objective truth.

>>6167103
>best
How so?
For whom?

>>6166776
"Treated equally" can mean pretty much everything from free icecream to genocide so you need to be more specific.

>>6167105
I've definitely read convincing papers that rejected Nietzsche as a perspectivist.

I think you're confusing absolute Truth with a capital T with objectivity. Nietzsche seemed to reject the absolute, idiotic sort of truth, but to say he rejected objectivity altogether is patently against the goal of the gay science.

It's important to note that Nietzsche read lots of scientific papers and wrote on them. Nietzsche also speaks highly of truth. His vocal attacks on truth are more directed at Platonic idiocies than science

>>6167110
"Best" generally being the subjective whims of whomever is speaking.

>>6167122
>His vocal attacks on truth are more directed at Platonic idiocies than science

Well, he contradicts himself, because he says multiple times that the philosopher's "will to truth" is a mistake, and yet he claims to have found truth several times.

Who knows with him seriously, I gave up understanding him a long time ago.

>justifying the biggest mistake of the 20th century

shiggy diggy libs

>>6167129
The will to truth is exactly what I'm talking about: the drive for "absolute", unchanging and purely objective truth. He doesn't reject objectivity because he clearly thinks the world can be understood that way. Nietzsche more seemed to say that locking yourself inside all day reading books on science was a mistake because doing so will never unlock the absolute truths of the world.

E.G., Newtonian physics are really good at predicting many phenomenon, and Nietzsche directly advocated that sort of objective approach. What he would reject is someone saying that Newtonian physics are the ultimate truth of life, or that Newtonian physics is "the language of the universe".

>>6167141
Oh right I see.

So in other words, he saw the scientists fervent quest for meaning in scientific endeavours as causing nihilism?

I'm guessing that's what your hinting at.

>>6167152
I would say yes.

>>6166877
>Justify equality under the law, then. Why can't the law be that this anon gets twice what everyone else does?
It is already this way for the most part.
Justify that it should remain the same or actually go backward.

>>6167089

The very thing I was asking. You're coming off a premise that "equality" is a positive, desirable concept. And I'm asking why? You're saying:

1. Equality is not an inherent property.
2. Coming off a premise it's a desirable thing.
3. You say that by "glance at history" we may determine if "equality" is a inherent property or not.
4. By that I think you mean by "glance at history" we may determine that "equality" was in most political systems not included to the political paradigm and therefore the-state-of-being of society wasn't equal.

What I want to know is if "equality" is an essential human property that should be an imperative for a political action. Laws, human history aside. I want the essence.

>Is human "x" equal to human "y" by virtue of them both being humans? To what degree?

If the answer is 'yes' then their "equality" is an inherent human property independent from current-state-of-being of society and should be an imperative for political action to transform the system to fit the property. If the answet to the question is 'no' then "equality" is not an inherent human property and should not be an imperative for a change of political system nor paradigm.

>>6167122
>There are no facts, only interpretations.

>What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."

>What are man's truths ultimately? Merely his irrefutable errors.

>>6167227
Also, Nietzsche employed the term "objective truth", but in a completely opposite sense than is normally used.

>to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation for its future "objectivity" -- the latter understood not as "contemplation without interest" (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one's Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge.

>the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be.

>>6167227
>quoting an essay he never published

Nietzsche doesn't even advance a theory of truth in that essay. Again, Nietzsche doesn't reject objectivity you aardvark.

>>6167232
>Also, Nietzsche employed the term "objective truth"

I'm fairly certain Nietzsche wrote in German, not in English. In either case, I'm not going by his wording

>>6167227
>What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms

Exactly why analytics can't stand the guy. Socrates would hate him too. He even writes like a sophist. Everything is in flux and his definitions never appear in clear shape of form.

Also I think that this nigga >>6167221 formulates in the greentext piece a good question to validate concept of equality. Question to which I personally answer no.

>>6167221
>You're coming off a premise that "equality" is a positive, desirable concept.

Well it is, simply because humans value themselves. We are empathetic creatures that do not, for the most part, like to see suffering in other humans and will seek to alleviate it, and inequality can be a form of suffering, or lead to suffering.

>If the answer is 'yes' then their "equality" is an inherent human property independent from current-state-of-being of society and should be an imperative for political action to transform the system to fit the property. If the answet to the question is 'no' then "equality" is not an inherent human property and should not be an imperative for a change of political system nor paradigm.

That's not really true though. Does something need to be objectively true for it to have a political imperative?

Defining a well-lived life can be hard to define objectively, yet we make it our politically collective goal to create societies that make it possible to live well-lived lives.

>>6167242
>Exactly why analytics can't stand the guy. Socrates would hate him too. He even writes like a sophist. Everything is in flux and his definitions never appear in clear shape of form.

"On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" was never published by Nietzsche. It wasn't finished, either. Presumably he didn't finish it, disagreed with it in the end or didn't think it fit with his philosophy.

In any case, it's been amplified and overstated by people who want to use Nietzsche for alternate purposes. It's not definitive of his work and it's meaning for him is very skeptical.

Nietzsche liked science very much, and though objective pursuits were good, as well as objective comparisons of people. Don't listen to the idiots.

>>6167250
>Well it is, simply because humans value themselves. We are empathetic creatures that do not, for the most part, like to see suffering in other humans and will seek to alleviate it, and inequality can be a form of suffering, or lead to suffering.

Inequality does not mean suffering.

>>6167256
>In any case, it's been amplified and overstated by people who want to use Nietzsche for alternate purposes.

Not him, but ehm, everything Nietzsche has ever written has been "amplified and overstated" or otherwise misused.

He's probably one of the most misunderstood philosophers of all time, and the more I read him, the more it seems like he wanted it that way.

>>6167227

>>6167260
>Inequality does not mean suffering.

Like I said, it can be a form of suffering, or it can lead to it.

>>6167261
I mean that essay is even more than normal, because Nietzsche never published it. It's no more than a scrap of thought he wrote down, and yet people use that to structure his whole philosophy

You're right though, I definitely think Nietzsche wanted to write for everyone

>>6167264
Not necessarily. It's a false equivalence.

>>6167275
Not really. Can you give me examples where inequality makes people happy?

I doubt you'll find it.

>>6167232
By the way, I definitely think you're confusing objectivity with objective Truth. They are not the same thing.

>>6167285
Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter whether people are happy. It's my subjective whim that people should be happy, and that's the only affect it has.

It doesn't matter if inequality would cause global starvation and suffering, you can't justify equality without an unreasoned appeal to a person's sentiment. The whole point of this thread, though, is that "equality" ends up being patently about obfuscating personal desires as objective rules.

Yes, there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy and are not billionaires. This isn't even a mildly impactful question

>>6167297
>you can't justify equality without an unreasoned appeal to a person's sentiment. The whole point of this thread, though, is that "equality" ends up being patently about obfuscating personal desires as objective rules.

So fucking what? A million things are dealt with the same way, everything from law, economics, family structures, culture, religion.

Every single thing that humans do is inextricably linked to our emotions and our concept formation.

The fact that you are autistic and think it's a cozy thought that you might one day rule the world as a Fief with millions of serfs under you doesn't change that you faggot.

>>6167312
Lol hyperbole much, you angry cunt? Look, I know you're going to fail to justify equality because it's an intrinsically unjustifiable stance, but getting angry and throwing a tantrum isn't going to alter my perspective.

Yes, I want to live a life of unfair advantage, and no, I don't want everyone else to suffer. So that's my goal, and you can't really say that's a wrong way to live. So either accept Machiavelli as the Prima scholar on morality, or move aside and spend the rest of your life complaining

>>6167326
>Yes, I want to live a life of unfair advantage

So do I, sometimes.

But other times I want to share the cake, because I'm not a narcissistic sociopath.

>>6167329
Then share your slice of the cake over here and let me be a narcissistic sociopath. Man.. Tastes good.

>>6166776
>i read the title as:

Can /lit/ justify the notion that black people should be treated equally?

>>6167332
Do whatever you want. But as far as I'm concerned, equality is just another word for human solidarity, and yes, it is an axiom, and thus hard to argue for without appealing to sentiment.

But you already knew that which is why you came into this thread, because you wanted your autism vindicated, which is fine.

You have a good day now.

>>6167342
Thanks, I will.

>>6167263
Nietzsche's use of science doesn't natural philosophy subject to strict Baconian method,, it means shit like The Gay Science.

>>6166776
You can't truly justify equality, you can only refute inequality. Essentially just because the ruling ideology likes to impose neat, static divisions between groups of people doesn't mean that those divisions are accurate in any sense of the word, and should not be taken as a direct model of social relations simply because those in power will it to be the most appropriate and apparently beneficial structure

>>6167241
>Nietzsche doesn't even advance a theory of truth in that essay
He doesn't, but semantic theory and deconstruction certainly does, at least in regards to the ever-obscuring chain of signifiers which make Truth inaccessible