ThreeThousandFish
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 10
I have believed in a probably immature, naïve concept for a silent period of time, and I have an urge to express it for the sake of the reception of other perspectives. The concept is not unorthodox, I think, but I wonder if my logical foundation is... sensical, I suppose, to other minds.
I believe there cannot be a universal system or measurment of value or rank among humans, for any & all factors which would affect that value or rank (lifespan, mental/physical potential, current capabilities & stature, relations with other individuals & how that relationship affects the "value" of each of them, inhibitions, interests, industry, habits, et cetera) have significance which is arguable, not constant, therefore they could not compose a system (an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic (presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles) whole) of rank & value. Organization cannot exist if order is indefinite, as it is between every, different perspective & belief.
Value (noun.) 3: "relative worth, utility, or importance"
4: "something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable ("having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities" or "of great service or use") or desirable"
~Elaboration: With the assumption that total mental and/or physical potential is measurable, one may argue that one with greater potential than another human with lesser potential is of greater value than that other human; in contrast, one could assert that one with greater, currently ustilisable capabilities exceeds one without such present capacity, even if it is latent within them.
Furthermore, one may predict that a human with a relatively brief lifespan has great value due to the "preciousness" (however they may justify that quality) of their activities within that period, and an opponent may believe that an extensive lifespan yields more value due to the plethora of opportunities it would provide in comparison to the former. ~
Even if the possible accomplishments and contributions (the value of which also is very debatable) of a human are measurable - if their future somehow is available to knowledge - superiority & inferiority, value, and rank inherently are relative.
Relative (noun.) "a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing"
(Adjective.) "not absolute or independent"
These definitions, again from Webster, indicate that relativity defers appraisal to a concept of reference. In the case of racism, there would be one ideal race to which other races compare, but racism, by the aforementioned rationale, is fallacious, for even within groups that are divisions of humanity "true" value/superiority/rank is arguable at a profound degree (many positions of intricate philosphy, for example, could serve as bases of argument).
I conclude that superiority can qualify in only circumstances of definite and/or singular dimensions, for in such situations the comparison occurs within a vaccum of relativity wherein factors that affect value are scalar or quantifiable (e.g. one who can run faster than another is superior in speed).
---
Merriam Webster's online dictionary defines "potential" simply as "existing in possibility" or "expressing possibility," and to be possible is to be "within the limits of ability, capacity, and realization." I believe there cannot be a universal system or measurment of value or rank among humans, for any & all factors which would affect that value or rank (lifespan, mental/physical potential, current capabilities & stature, relations with other individuals & how that relationship affects the "value" of each of them, inhibitions, interests, industry, habits, et cetera) have significance which is arguable, not constant, therefore they could not compose a system (an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic (presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles) whole) of rank & value. Organization cannot exist if order is indefinite, as it is between every, different perspective & belief.
Value (noun.) 3: "relative worth, utility, or importance"
4: "something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable ("having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities" or "of great service or use") or desirable"
~Elaboration: With the assumption that total mental and/or physical potential is measurable, one may argue that one with greater potential than another human with lesser potential is of greater value than that other human; in contrast, one could assert that one with greater, currently ustilisable capabilities exceeds one without such present capacity, even if it is latent within them.
Furthermore, one may predict that a human with a relatively brief lifespan has great value due to the "preciousness" (however they may justify that quality) of their activities within that period, and an opponent may believe that an extensive lifespan yields more value due to the plethora of opportunities it would provide in comparison to the former. ~
Even if the possible accomplishments and contributions (the value of which also is very debatable) of a human are measurable - if their future somehow is available to knowledge - superiority & inferiority, value, and rank inherently are relative.
Relative (noun.) "a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing"
(Adjective.) "not absolute or independent"
These definitions, again from Webster, indicate that relativity defers appraisal to a concept of reference. In the case of racism, there would be one ideal race to which other races compare, but racism, by the aforementioned rationale, is fallacious, for even within groups that are divisions of humanity "true" value/superiority/rank is arguable at a profound degree (many positions of intricate philosphy, for example, could serve as bases of argument).
I conclude that superiority can qualify in only circumstances of definite and/or singular dimensions, for in such situations the comparison occurs within a vaccum of relativity wherein factors that affect value are scalar or quantifiable (e.g. one who can run faster than another is superior in speed).
---
I used colors within defintions to make easier the distinguishment between certain words & their personal definitions. Thank you for reading this.