Are Some People Superior To Others?

[SQAAD]

I remember Leo saying years ago that every person has actually Zero worth or something along those lines. 

It's pretty evident that we are not all the same. But do these differences make a person superior to other? 

The ego can justify whatever atrocities by using this superiority rationalisation. You see inhuman behavior being done to people who are considered less intelligent and etc. 

It's this twisted logic that because i am superior and way more intelligent or whatever else then i should be able to do whatever I want to you because you are beneath me. 

I would like if Leo elaborated more on this topic in the future. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by SQAAD

[Twenty]

The people of the past. 

The previous me is more superior than I am now. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Twenty

[happyhappy]

@SQAAD nobody is superior to anybody. and at the same time, everybody is superior to everybody.

we humans like to think of us as special and at the top of the chain. but in an absolute view, we are just as equal to a maggot on the trash. 

but, in survival we need to look for the best, strongest, wisest and thus bring natural selection to play. therefore the society will always have a preference to strength, power , strength and success .this is how we survive as a species. and there is nothing good or bad about it. weaker ones will have to die for better ones to come. this is what runs the whole show !

[SQAAD]

@Medhansh

14 hours ago, Medhansh said:

It depends on the context.

Society wise, hell yes. Bill Gates is definitely superior to you: money, fame, power wise. Society is a pyramid scheme.

Ethically, those in power should not be allowed to exploit people beneath them. But in reality, it happens. This is just how survival is. The strongest animal in the jungle wins. He can do whatever the hell he wants. And society is just a sugar-coated jungle. 

In the absolute sense, we are all the same consciousness. So no chance of superiority/inferiority here. 

Yes in the relative sense we can compare and claim that X person is wiser or taller or whatever else. 

But also you could look  everyone as having the same intrinsic value. Meaning that if i am stronger or smarter than you that's not actually something i should brag about. 

For example the reason Elon Musk is so gifted is because his parents were exceptionally gifted. He did not do anything to earn that. Of course i consider him more gifted than me. That's not the issue. 

If Elon was born in some other country with different parents he would not be who he is now. 

Despite the underlying differences we all have the same worth because of no free will and oneness. 

Nobody really can brag or take ownership of his attributes and skills. Its just a matter of luck.

I am more conscious than the average Joe but this is because i was lucky and stumbled upon spirituality and psychedelics. Therefore I don't consider myself intrinsically as better than others. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by SQAAD

[Yarco]

Some people are taller than others. So by their very nature they're superior at reaching for objects that are higher up unassisted. We can keep it as simple as that.

There are people that are both superior and inferior to me in terms of height, intelligence, physical strength, and limitless other factors.

Being intrinsically better at something is inherently superior by definition. If you had the option, you'd never choose to be worse at something beneficial.

Whether it's something to brag about is up for debate. Whether being naturally gifted at something makes you superior, I don't think is up for debate, it's just a fact.

Being superior in no way means you need to commit atrocities or treat them as less than human. You can recognize that someone is inferior without seeing them as less than yourself. Right now you might be seeing the word "inferior" as a loaded term with more baggage than it deserves. If you're a better artist or chess player than your friend, do you suddenly want to kill them?

Equality of opportunity is a noble goal. Giving everyone a chance. Equality of outcome is naive, putting people undeserving in positions they shouldn't be, just to meet a diversity quota.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Yarco

[Terell Kirby]

Depends on the context.

Relatively speaking, yes .. but the idea of what is superior is subjective to each individual. So there is really only partial truth to whatever conclusions and judgements that get projected onto others from a limited POV.

Absolutely speaking, since there are no distinctions in reality, total equality is all that is left. Superiority becomes just another flimsy human construct from this POV.

[Preety_India]

Objectively yes. 

Subjectively no. 

[Terell Kirby]

2 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Objectively yes. 

Subjectively no. 

I think you got it backwards 

[Ananta]

This is a zero sum reality. You win some, you lose some and just when you think you're up, then you're back down and vice versa.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Ananta

[Preety_India]

17 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

I think you got it backwards 

I don't think so. 

[SQAAD]

@Yarco

41 minutes ago, Yarco said:

Some people are taller than others. So by their very nature they're superior at reaching for objects that are higher up unassisted. We can keep it as simple as that.

There are people that are both superior and inferior to me in terms of height, intelligence, physical strength, and limitless other factors.

Being intrinsically better at something is inherently superior by definition. If you had the option, you'd never choose to be worse at something beneficial.

Whether it's something to brag about is up for debate. Whether being naturally gifted at something makes you superior, I don't think is up for debate, it's just a fact.

Being superior in no way means you need to commit atrocities or treat them as less than human. You can recognize that someone is inferior without seeing them as less than yourself. Right now you might be seeing the word "inferior" as a loaded term with more baggage than it deserves. If you're a better artist or chess player than your friend, do you suddenly want to kill them?

Equality of opportunity is a noble goal. Giving everyone a chance. Equality of outcome is naive, putting people undeserving in positions they shouldn't be, just to meet a diversity quota.

It's not something to brag about and that's not a matter of debate if you realise the truth of no personal agency, no free will. 

Nobody would say that i am proud to be 6 feet tall because you didn't do that. It just happened for you. Same goes for everything. 

If you work 10 hours a day, you don't really do anything. You are just witnessing a movie. 

If you are born with ridiculous levels of consciousness like Ramana Maharshis, that just happened for you. 

In this sense we all have the same value. Despite the differences which some are superior than others for survival. 

There are superior differences relatively but  a person or an entity can never claim to be superior than another entity since they both did nothing to have what they have. 

In other words I can claim to be smarter or taller than you but I can't claim to be a better human being than you. That would be delusional. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by SQAAD

[Yarco]

14 hours ago, SQAAD said:

It's not something to brag about and that's not a matter of debate if you realise the truth of no personal agency, no free will. 

A lion is a superior predator compared to an ostrich. It doesn't matter if it's born that way and had no choice in the matter, it's still superior.

14 hours ago, SQAAD said:

In other words I can claim to be smarter or taller than you but I can't claim to be a better human being than you. That would be delusional. 

We both agree on this part. But if this is all you're talking about, then it renders the rest of the conversation useless.

In the example I made above, we have to agree on basic concepts like what a predator is, what defines a good or bad predator. There are a number of underlying assumptions like that a better predator can kill larger and more prey, which is automatically baked into the conversation if you're a regular person living in society with common experiences.

Yes good and bad are ultimately subjective. Although I'd argue that it doesn't really matter if it's subjective if the majority of people in society agree with it. Otherwise you could say that if you're naturally born with an urge to kill people, then it isn't better or worse than not killing people. You still have to play by the ruleset of society. If society says something is superior, it's de facto superior whether that makes sense or not. It will take tremendous strength and energy to try and oppose that.

If you go down the subjectivity rabbit hole into postmodernism, you end up at a confusing place where most concepts like gender, sexuality, and age no longer exist and everything is on a spectrum. The reason we label stuff as superior, inferior, good, bad, man, woman is because it's helpful in our lives to compartmentalize things into boxes to simplify the world. Otherwise anything can be anything. Then nothing has meaning.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Yarco