Since my post isn't getting approved I will post it here.

I want to have a honest debate with you about equality of opportunity and discrimination as I believe almost everybody, including philosophers, gets it wrong or so my impression. My viewpoint: men(including women obviously) are not created equal and should be actively discriminated for or against for your own benefit or/and for the benefit of society.

1. Men are not created equal
   We have different genetics, height, brain size, health, talents and etc. etc.
2. Men exert different amount of effort with varying constancy in their pursuits. Self-evident and confirmed by observation in real world.
3. Therefore, even if everything else(circumstances usually out of control of the individual) is equal, outcomes will not be equal. This is the best outcome for everybody as we come to enjoy fruits of the most talented and hardworking(Michael Jordan, CR7...).
4. We have limited resources. Limited space, money, teachers... and even teachers have limited amount of time.
5. As we know that different individuals will produce different results we should invest our limited resources mainly into the most talented, hardworking and dependable people as they will yield the best results. Investing into average or mediocre people will give only mediocre results. Not only it's not useful, it's harmful as it diverts valuable resources from the most talented and hardworking people.

Basically this. This is just proof of concept, one might have more reasons to discriminate. I believe the idea that we shouldn't discriminate is very harmful. From my own life experience, quality of your life will be greatly determined by your ability to discriminate. You should try to keep smart, talented, hardworking, trustworthy people close to you and give no chance to people who lack those attributes. Real world agrees with me. Universities admit the best students, coaches accept to train only the most talented and dog breeders breed only the dogs with best qualities. But, I'm curious what you all have to say.

How is that a paradox.

I was reading After Virtue by MacIntyre and came across "emotivism". MacIntyre's thesis in this book is that moral language that exists today has suffered a loss due to the Enlightenment project; 16th century philosophy from Hume to Diderot, Kant to Kierkegaard. This period led to what is known as emotivism, which originated in the early 20th century. An emotivist would say that all moral judgments are expressions of feelings, preferences, and attitudes. To put it colloquially: something is right "because I said so".

According to MacIntyre, emotivism has crept into our current political discourse, bureaucracies, etc. I am fascinated by his arguments on the social context and implications of emotivism, and thought that it would be interesting to share here.

Well, my response was to query how the poster was determining "levels of technology" and/or what qualifies as "technology" in his/her assessment.

Arguably, "fire", the stirrup, the plough, wood and stone implements, the concept of the lever, the concept of "the wheel" may all be considered to be "technology", indeed foundational technologies that preceded the "Age of Metal".

I should also point out - a fact that you are also aware of - that trade was not contingent on the development/existence of cities. Trade routes existed between pre-urban (and even between nomadic systems) human habitations, which may or may not have been permanent.

What I'm thinking of is the Münchhausen trilemma.

One must accept these limitations in human power in order for one to enjoy (derive meaning, a consistent wholeness in self) in this passing of life, and frankly this is something we are already doing, but many feel controlled by the conscription of others' meaning instead of their own they create through this passage.

Edit: Here's a great quote that unrelatedly talks about this:

>"The problem arises when people are so fixated on what they want to achieve that they cease to derive pleasure from the present. When that happens, they forfeit their chance of contentment." - Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

Even on the societies that are based on "force" You still need to have complience from the masses. Otherwise your structure crumbles.

Even in dictatorships You still have some democratic participation by desing.

Perhaps in the time of hunter-gatherers where every person had to pull their own weight we were equality driven but even then, I doubt it. A variation of equality? Sure, but we were still likely dominated by strong central figures of authority. Otherwise, the establishment of states and major cities lead by singular kings wouldn't have become our defacto political organizational method for most of our recorded history.

It's a nice idea to want to believe that equality and fairness are at the root of our nature as a people but when it comes to governmental systems everything points to the exact opposite; that we're drawn to authoritarianism for one reason or another from personal feelings to your average person simply not caring all that much as long as it doesn't affect themself.

Those two things go with eachother.

Like op said. When there is a need for Manpower You cannot aford to treat other like "less like".

For example durango WW2 many women went to work while the men were at war. The needs of war outweight the centuries of disctimination.

In the same way disctimination can only happens when there is structure to wrap around. Everyone can chop a tree the same way but only a few would be able to make a good pot.

No, the premise of the argument isn't "we should try to believe what's true", it's "we should only believe what's true". A determinist can maintain the former while rejecting the latter. In fact, I don't see why anyone would accept the latter. There are situations where it's impossible to believe only the truth (say, if you're being tricked or lied to in a convincing manner), so saying we have a moral obligation to believe only the truth is absurd (at least, if you accept that ought implies can).

But of course, more generally, a determinist won't accept that ought implies can if by "can" you mean that we have free will to do one thing or the other. But again, that's just obvious.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

In this talk, philosopher Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad challenges the politically powerful notion of individualism via two Sakskrit concepts: TheSelf and The Person. Far from delivering on the moral imperatives it claims -tolerance and equality – individualism has contributed to a widespread inequality of expression of agency and values. But it is built on an incoherent sense of what makes us who we are. If the individual is defined via the concept of the self, as individualism appears to require, it is distinguishable from others formally, but lacks the rich interiority we hold makes us who we are. If we are to retain that rich inner life – all of our desires, experiences, memories etc - we do so via the concept of the person. But what defines a person is not their distinction from all others, but rather their intersectional connection with countless others.

If the above argument is correct, then determinism either entails that all of our beliefs are true, or that we shouldn't try to believe what is true. I assume most determinists would deny that we should try to believe what is true, given those options. But if they do that, then they undermine the entire basis of rational discussion and argumentation. So, they have no basis for saying anyone should believe determinism, or, indeed, accept any arguments for anything.

Rationality is about making choices for good reasons. Determinism is incompatible with making choices for reasons at all. The argument is pointing out that this doesn't just negate the legitimacy of moral judgment, or even prudential judgment, but of epistemic judgment as well. Determinism entails that all human beliefs are arational. This entails that all enterprises seeking to judge or affect people's beliefs are as well.

Determinism is incompatible with everything we know about ourselves as rational and moral beings. It's a wildly implausible view. There are also absolutely no good arguments for it. The fact that modern support for naturalism gets people to believe it anyway is comparably as embarrassing to the fact that followers of Parmenides got talked into believing that people can't move. Crappy methods lead to crazy results the followers of them are blind to.

We can walk. We can choose whether to walk or run. We can be irrational and immoral in our choice to walk to a drowning child instead of run. We can be irrational in any choice to believe in whatever crappy view forces us to deny any of these things. Determinism forces us to deny obvious facts about human nature, and it renders rational discussion and judgment impossible. It's a really stupid view. People who choose not to recognize this are wilfully blind to the obvious entailments of their view. It's important not to let that blindness spread to others.

Has anyone read The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity, by David Graeber and David Wengrow?

Their argument is simply - people, going back into the archeological record as far as it can be taken, seem to organize themselves into various forms of group dynamics based off of a balance of environmental needs, individual and group choice, and also tradition which spring from the mix. Through history those conditions can and do change, and so new choices and forms are adopted. Sometimes, even changing organizational dynamics depending upon the time of year between small "egalitarian and democratic" bands to large and cohesive proto-states complete with rigid hierarchies. Also, examples of the exact opposite occuring are presented, depending upon the time period and the groups being examined.

They also argue that anyone stating that previous societies were "politically equal" or "egalitarian" or any such "proto" term tend to simply make caricatures off of small sample sizes and/or outdated archeological evidence.

Modern theorizers who tend to make such sweeping statements often seem to use cherry-picked, outdated data in order to support their own modern, current political views in order to advance the narratives for their preferred agendas.

What to you mean? Sure, they "held regular seasonal meetings where multiple groups would converge on a single ritual site" but how that means they did not need caravans?

Do you even know from where the ingridients for bronze were brought from in bronze age? all the way from turkey and afganistan.
How do you imagine hunter-gatherers carrying rocks from afganistan to egypt or middle east for no reason?
Why do you think bronze age had bronze? Because they had resources to direct to metal works. What resources? Food and time for people who dedicated themselves to metalworks. The hunter gatherers just could not invest the required effort for researching how to work metals. Only something like golden nuggets, or maybe sometimes using meteor iron. But there is a catch - there is too little of both for everyone. So gold/iron knife or arrow point remained a local and very treasured tool - but never led to other metals in hunter-gatherer societies

There is nothing about people born with a disability that makes them incapable of cooperation.

> It ignores the likelihood that force, physical or coercive, applied by the few over the many is much more likely to resolve non-compliance than expecting individuals to simply look out for the group.

No, it just means that a small number of individuals have very few resources to prevent people from simply leaving without a larger state apparatus.

>Statements like "Undemocratic institutions are unsustainable over the long term" ignore both recorded history and studies of more primitive cultures which still exist today.

"Primitive" cultures that exist today are almost always highly egalitarian compared to even modern "democratic" cultures.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I never said that. I just said that we rely on perception to decide what is true and what is not. "I know X" is an interpretation that may be right. Every claim of knowledge is an interpretation.

There is nothing in particular that makes a life "worth living". Life is our soul's experience in the physical realm here on earth, so everything you experience in this lifetime, good or bad, enhances the soul. Pleasant experiences are no more important than unpleasant ones.

Here's the problem today though. All of the technology we have created that generates frequencies (radio, WiFi, satellite signals) interferes with our soul's connection to the Creator and weakens our control over the more animalistic behaviors of our human host bodies. Indeed, it can be so bad that it disconnects the soul from the host completely and you wind up with people who commit heinous atrocities. I believe the coupling during gestation can also be corrupted and you wind up with female souls in male host bodies and vice versa. There is a positive side to this last point in that it reconciles faith with homosexuality. You can be who you are and, regardless of what other people or organizations think of you or how they attack you, you are still accepted and loved by the Creator and will return to the garden when your soul is freed from your physical host.

>Hunter gather societies

I was not talking about hunter gather. I am taking about full blown civilization with Cities.

>they were generally speaking more compassionate than we are today

This is very recent developments we trying to commercials every thing. From mentor to friendship every thing can be bought and sold. And on being generous they were only generous to in group members because they expected same kind of generosity in return. Which is commonly known as barter system.

Now your getting into the Phil of mind (my bread and butter) I will say I don’t necessarily think AI will bring the question of animal intelligence much more into light than it already is. What I typically hear as a rationale for AI intelligence over animal intelligence is that because we created it, it can have equal to our intelligence. I could see it bringing the question of animal intelligence a bit more into the discussion, but honestly I think it’s already is pretty prominent in the discussion.

Hunter gather societies generally held regular seasonal meetings where multiple groups would converge on a single ritual site, where knowledge, tools, resources and culture could be shared and bartered.

You do not need established cities or caravans