"So you think you're God?" What if I truly am?

[Kean]

A common theme in the universal advice I have heard throughout my life, from family, friends, religion and self-help communities, is that "everyone is equal, every person has the same value and nobody is more important than others".

While I think that it is important not to feel superior in a strictly social sense (arrogance, narcissism, pretention, ego inflation, etc.) I am reaching the conclusion that in some aspects (or many, depending on the individual) we are in fact better than everyone else and should consciously recognize this!

Let me elaborate.

Each of us has an individual personal history. For example (and merely for the sake of simplifying) One may be fortunate and born with the conditions to become a genius, while another may be less fortunate and born with the conditions to become only half a genius and a good athlete.
Both are human beings and have the same value as such... but isn't the genius better than the half-genius at everything that requires e.g. numeric intelligence, science etc.? And isn't the half-genius better than the genius at an athletic competition?

What I am trying to say is that although we may be equal in a social sense, we might carry out something specific (a task, a role within society, a profession, a sport, a performance etc.) better than everyone else - and this strictly depends on our individual personal history.
We must recognize that we have such individual qualities, vocations, talents, etc. and that more than often we may have developed them better than others, again, depending on our individual life history (this means that, depending on the individual, one may have more talents than others!)

I feel that emphasizing that "everyone is equal" downplays the importance of these individual competitive advantages, and that a bit of healthy pride in our individual qualities can help us being better at them, refining our ability, motivating ourselves and exploring more.

What do you think?

[StuartPE]

I agree. Remember that simpsons episode where the dance teacher asked:

"Now children, what do we call treating everyone as equal when they're clearly not?"
and there is a resounding chorus of "Communism!"

I think that by trying to treat everyone "equally", we try and make them better at their weaknesses. We should in fact be making them better at their strengths.

We are all very specific in what we're good at, and this is just what we're born with. Instead of trying to be better at what we'll never be good at so that we become mediocre, we should forget it and work on our strengths.

As an example, does David Beckham read physics books all day because he's not very good at it, or does he practice football? Which one is going to do him more good?

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Kean

I feel that emphasizing that "everyone is equal" downplays the importance of these individual competitive advantages, and that a bit of healthy pride in our individual qualities can help us being better at them, refining our ability, motivating ourselves and exploring more.

What do you think?

I agree with you reasoning; but I think your conclusion is a bit off...

Everybody is equal. Nobody is alike.

This is the same issue that some people have (had?) with feminists. They confused being equal with being the same. Clearly men and women are not the same. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages. They are still equal (of equal value).

Celebrating differences is good. Remembering that you are the only person in the whole world who is exactly like you is good (there is only one you, nobody is better at being you, then you!).

Remembering that although you can run faster, do math faster and better then other people does not make you better person then them. It just makes you better at math or sports...

[Kean]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I agree with you reasoning; but I think your conclusion is a bit off...

[...]

Remembering that although you can run faster, do math faster and better then other people does not make you better person then them. It just makes you better at math or sports...

What I tried to point out at is that, depending on our individual life history, one person may have overall more advantages than other people have due to an extraordinary life history, e.g. a very open-minded personality, a wise behavior, top math skills and top athletic skills.

Saying that this specific individual is "not better than others" is a bit misleading in my opinion. I'd rather say, "He's a human being like everyone else, but he is extraordinary."

I personally think everyone is unique, but only few are extraordinary and better than others at overall more things than average (and worse in less).

This has no practical implications whatsoever if the person realizing this is not extraordinary, but I think it is also important to be honest and realisitc with ourselves and recognize and accept that only a few people have a higher ability to serve a specific role, purpose, mission, etc.

Example:
Since I was a child, I dreamed of becoming an astronaut. I became a genius at everything regarding science and math, astronomy, etc. and started taking flight classes.
However, there are at least 1000 other people with the same attributes in my country, and two of them have, in addition to everything I offer, also strong physical qualities and military experience.
The Space Agency of my country obviously selects them and not me.

Why? Because, they have more to offer overall.

At that point I can choose to be happy by becoming a mission specialist or some other job in the space industry, but not the specific role I was pursuing at the beginning.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Kean

I feel that emphasizing that "everyone is equal" downplays the importance of these individual competitive advantages, and that a bit of healthy pride in our individual qualities can help us being better at them, refining our ability, motivating ourselves and exploring more.

Originally Posted by Kean

Saying that this specific individual is "not better than others" is a bit misleading in my opinion. I'd rather say, "He's a human being like everyone else, but he is extraordinary."

Like I said, I completely agree with your reasoning (nobody is the same and some people are just better at certain stuff then others. There is nothing wrong with that.

But, they are still equal as a human being, with the same value.

Being equal does not mean "being the same" or "not better than others" That is what I was trying to point out.

[Remiel]

Isn't alot of "Extraordinary" a matter of choice? To pursue our giftings to their ultimate ends rather than ordinary ends?

[Andyee]

Everyone is equal. Geniuses are smart, but they lack (very often) social skills. The non-geniuses are not as bright, but more socially skilled. But the reason, why we think that they are not equal, because there is always competition where one of those groups is bringing the other down

[Karlil]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I agree with you reasoning; but I think your conclusion is a bit off...

Everybody is equal. Nobody is alike.

This is the same issue that some people have (had?) with feminists. They confused being equal with being the same. Clearly men and women are not the same. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages. They are still equal (of equal value).

Celebrating differences is good. Remembering that you are the only person in the whole world who is exactly like you is good (there is only one you, nobody is better at being you, then you!).

Remembering that although you can run faster, do math faster and better then other people does not make you better person then them. It just makes you better at math or sports...

I second this.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Andyee

Geniuses are smart, but they lack (very often) social skills. The non-geniuses are not as bright, but more socially skilled. But the reason, why we think that they are not equal, because there is always competition where one of those groups is bringing the other down

I think you didn't read my post(s) properly, since I'm talking specifically of individual life cases as opposed to stereotypes, and used a genius individual as an example. As a matter of fact, most geniuses that entered history had better social skills than the average socialite.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Like I said, I completely agree with your reasoning (nobody is the same and some people are just better at certain stuff then others. There is nothing wrong with that.

But, they are still equal as a human being, with the same value.

Being equal does not mean "being the same" or "not better than others" That is what I was trying to point out.

OK, but then what do you think is the point of expressing that everyone is "still equal as a human being, with the same value"? What do you think is exactly meant by "value" here, and with what practical implications?

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Kean

OK, but then what do you think is the point of expressing that everyone is "still equal as a human being, with the same value"? What do you think is exactly meant by "value" here, and with what practical implications?

The point is not to feel that one "type" of human is better then others.. what you get if you do that is going back in time where black people were perceived less because of the color of the skin. Only now it might be those who are less intelligent and also not very good in sports (for example).

I am all for celebrating individual differences. Every person has something that nobody else has. This is good and should be celebrated.

But is should not be confused with not being equal value.

"I can pick on/bully my classmates because I am good at sports and they aren't"
"I killed a person, but he was only a homeless person so it doesn't matter"
"(in an office situation) Because I am better at sports I deserve more money"
"He has to work for me for no money because I am smarter then he is"
"We will sent all _those_ people to war because it matters less if they get killed".

Like I said before, your reasoning is sound and I agree. Differences should be clear and celebrated and you can be proud of who you are and what you do/did. It makes you better at something (sports, math, social skills, whatever).
It may even increase your value for society in terms of money or motivation.

But you are still equal to any homeless person as well.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by ssandra

"I can pick on/bully my classmates because I am good at sports and they aren't"
"I killed a person, but he was only a homeless person so it doesn't matter"
"(in an office situation) Because I am better at sports I deserve more money"
"He has to work for me for no money because I am smarter then he is"
"We will sent all _those_ people to war because it matters less if they get killed".

So if I understand you well, by equal value you strictly mean social value, right?
(What I addressed in the first post: superiority complex, narcissism, arrogance, etc.)

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Kean

So if I understand you well, by equal value you strictly mean social value, right?
(What I addressed in the first post: superiority complex, narcissism, arrogance, etc.)

Sort of.

I do mean superiority complex, narcissism etc, but it is not really social value. Because a hard working person is probably more valuable to society then a homeless person..

I mean their value as a living person, as a human being.

Just to make it very very clear: I completely agree with you and the point that you are making. I just thought the conclustion was a bit off; or maybe just wrongly worded for me to understand what you ment.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Sort of.

I do mean superiority complex, narcissism etc, but it is not really social value. Because a hard working person is probably more valuable to society then a homeless person..

I mean their value as a living person, as a human being.

Just to make it very very clear: I completely agree with you and the point that you are making. I just thought the conclustion was a bit off; or maybe just wrongly worded for me to understand what you ment.

I understood that you agree but wanted to know exactly what kind of value we're talking about.

"Value as a living person / human being" as opposed to what? Animals? Or is it something more political as you mentioned before (as in "all races are equal")?

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Kean

"Value as a living person / human being" as opposed to what? Animals? Or is it something more political as you mentioned before (as in "all races are equal")?

We, as humans all have equal value as social, political and conscious beings. We all have the right to exist, seek happiness, develop and express our potential. As a society we have laws which we must all adhere to equally. We have different talents and abilities which we are able to contribute to society as a whole.

Our individual happiness is not contingent upon how much money, talent or position we possess. Those are inaccurate measures of worth or success.

[ssandra]

It is difficult to define this..

I think... value as in having as much right as anybody else to live, breathe, be free and be happy.

Value not opposed to anything, because animals have also value (i don't want to get into the whole more/same/less value than humans because I am not sure about that yet).

It could be political... although it is more than just political... Politics could be wrong as well...

[Time]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Like I said, I completely agree with your reasoning (nobody is the same and some people are just better at certain stuff then others. There is nothing wrong with that.

But, they are still equal as a human being, with the same value.

Being equal does not mean "being the same" or "not better than others" That is what I was trying to point out.

Ssandra, when you say "equal value", what is your criterion for "value"?

A screwdriver has value as a remover of screws, but it is utterly useless as an oar for rowing a boat. Yet all screwdrivers have equal value to a carpenter and a mechanic.

But to say that all people have equal value is to imply that there is some universal beneficiary of this value. If you believe in god, then I guess you're bound to espouse the notion that all people are equal, simply because they are all of equal value to your god.

But if there is no universal observer, no supernatural quantifier of the value of human beings, then how can it be suggested that all human beings really do have exactly the same value?

Why is it unacceptable in our society to acknowledge that there are some, if not many, people who have no value whatsoever except to themselves? Why do we still balk at admitting and expressing this conspicuous truth?

People can labour and work and apply physical effort towards a universal goal, such as the nurturing and survival of the society in which they live. But in all societies there is clearly a large number of people who simply do not do so, by choice. Are lazy, non-contributing people of equal value, simply because they have two eyes, two arms, walk upright, and speak?

Are criminals, who choose to deny the 'rights' of others, of equal value as people who acknowledge and allow others their 'rights'? (I use the word "rights" because most people believe that's what they have.)

Where is their value? What are they valuable for? Why is it thought morally essential to grant them a value equal to another person whose value is demonstrable?

It always grates whenever I hear presumably intelligent people say that everybody is equal. Because it is blindingly obvious that they're not, and it is simply pointless to assert that they are.

[chrisrushton]

everyone has the right to equal opportunities

what you do with them is totally up to you. if you chose to make bad decisions, thats your stupid fault. don't expect people who made good decisions to bail you out all the time.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Time

Ssandra, when you say "equal value", what is your criterion for "value"?

A screwdriver has value as a remover of screws, but it is utterly useless as an oar for rowing a boat. Yet all screwdrivers have equal value to a carpenter and a mechanic.

This is very difficult for me to define, because it has to do with believes and inner feelings. These are difficult for me to express in words, but I´ll try.

But to say that all people have equal value is to imply that there is some universal beneficiary of this value. If you believe in god, then I guess you're bound to espouse the notion that all people are equal, simply because they are all of equal value to your god.

But if there is no universal observer, no supernatural quantifier of the value of human beings, then how can it be suggested that all human beings really do have exactly the same value?

This might be why we disagree, because I believe in something larger than us out there.

My believe is that we are all little bits of a larger parts, and that the total of all our parts is larger than the sum off all parts... Together we are love.

Why is it unacceptable in our society to acknowledge that there are some, if not many, people who have no value whatsoever except to themselves? Why do we still balk at admitting and expressing this conspicuous truth?

maybe because we feel that it is unacceptable and not a truth?

People can labour and work and apply physical effort towards a universal goal, such as the nurturing and survival of the society in which they live. But in all societies there is clearly a large number of people who simply do not do so, by choice. Are lazy, non-contributing people of equal value, simply because they have two eyes, two arms, walk upright, and speak?

In my opinion; Yes

Are criminals, who choose to deny the 'rights' of others, of equal value as people who acknowledge and allow others their 'rights'? (I use the word "rights" because most people believe that's what they have.)

In my opinion; Yes

Where is their value? What are they valuable for? Why is it thought morally essential to grant them a value equal to another person whose value is demonstrable?

Their value is in being part of the whole. As a human being they may not deliver a lot of value, but they are still worth the same as me or you.

It always grates whenever I hear presumably intelligent people say that everybody is equal. Because it is blindingly obvious that they're not, and it is simply pointless to assert that they are.

thanks for calling me intelligent!

For me it is not blindingly obvious that they are not: it is obvious that they are.

This has to do mostly with a different believe in how the world works.

[Time]

Originally Posted by ssandra

This has to do mostly with a different believe in how the world works.

I'll only refer to this last comment in your post, SSandra, because in a way it is the one that answers my question, albeit maybe unintentionally.

I don't think that this, (the relative value of individuals), has anything at all to do with our differing beliefs in how the world works.

Certainly my post was based upon my perception of how the world works, but yours was based on quite the opposite - namely, your perception of a supernatural entity quite outside the world.

I was trying to draw your attention to the reality of the world, (that is, that there are many valueless individuals in it), but you tried to refute that by drawing my attention away from the world and toward the supernatural.

We disagree because we're not on the same page.

[Time]

Originally Posted by chrisrushton

everyone has the right to equal opportunities.

Why, Chris?

What you do with them is totally up to you. if you chose to make bad decisions, thats your stupid fault. don't expect people who made good decisions to bail you out all the time.

Agreed. But why do all people have the right to the same opportunities that you do? Are all people deserving? Or are there people who have relinquished their rights because they have denied them to others? In other words, are there criminals?

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Time

Certainly my post was based upon my perception of how the world works, but yours was based on quite the opposite - namely, your perception of a supernatural entity quite outside the world.

I was trying to draw your attention to the reality of the world, (that is, that there are many valueless individuals in it), but you tried to refute that by drawing my attention away from the world and toward the supernatural.

We disagree because we're not on the same page.

My perception of how the world works, the reality, is my perception of a "supernatural entity" only it is not OUTSIDE the world, but it IS the world and everybody in it. So, this is the reality of the world for me, and I am not trying to get your attention away from it.

If you are talking about how much relative value an individual has for (for example) sports/politics/society/etc. there they have different things to add indeed.

[Time]

Originally Posted by ssandra

My perception of how the world works, the reality, is my perception of a "supernatural entity" only it is not OUTSIDE the world, but it IS the world and everybody in it. So, this is the reality of the world for me, and I am not trying to get your attention away from it.

I don't think we can have a debate, Ssandra, because we can't agree on the meaning of words. I understand the word "supernatural" to mean "above nature". You agree that your perception of the world, or Nature, is grounded in a belief in an entity that is above nature. With respect, I think this is a invalid approach to take.

I don't think one can acquire a full and complete understanding of nature if one limits oneself to perceiving it only as the work of a supernatural entity. How would you account for a supernatural entity who creates lions, then zebras, then decress that the lions must kill the zebras in order to live?

A rational person looks at a tree and sees what he is looking at - namely, a plant. To look at a tree and somehow see evidence of a supernatural force is to merely indulge one's imagination.

One might just as easily see a tree as evidence that aliens have landed here and that trees arose from the seeds of weeds that the aliens carried on their boots.

If you are talking about how much relative value an individual has for (for example) sports/politics/society/etc. there they have different things to add indeed.

No, I'm definitely not talking about value as assessed by a comparison of individual motor skills. Somebody else has mentioned that. I don't think that kind of "value" is the subject of the discussion at all. I leave that to sports announcers and guys who only read the paper to find out the football score!

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Time

I don't think we can have a debate, Ssandra, because we can't agree on the meaning of words. I understand the word "supernatural" to mean "above nature". You agree that your perception of the world, or Nature, is grounded in a belief in an entity that is above nature. With respect, I think this is a invalid approach to take.

I don't think one can acquire a full and complete understanding of nature if one limits oneself to perceiving it only as the work of a supernatural entity. How would you account for a supernatural entity who creates lions, then zebras, then decress that the lions must kill the zebras in order to live?

I think we can always have a debate.. we just do not always have to agree with each other Like I said, we have different worldviews, which is ok.

Supernatural / above nature for me are not the right words to discribe what I mean. It is not super-natural it is natural. It is not above nature, it is nature.

For me we are all part of a larger picture. We are all puzzles pieces of a larger puzzle. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts, that is God for me, and God is Love.

This is just a bit of background info, how I see us all being equal parts.

That is why I say that we are all equal, even if we are not all the same.

[Kean]

My approach to this is holistic as well, but I'll try staying down-to-Earth.

I think that "evil" (I use "evil" as a catch-all word for criminals and lazy people, but not just people, even evil things and events) has a value as a reference measure.

As a saying goes, "How can you appreciate good if you don't know evil?"

One could argue that it would still be better if there was no evil at all.

What I believe, however, is that there is some evil in all of us, in each individual, and it is in the potential of human nature. The pragmatic value of evil is that we know what could happen to us as well, and how to avoid it.

If there were no criminals, we wouldn't be able to define a precise[r] idea of what is fair and just, and we would have no guidance for ourselves on how to become fair and just (as opposed to criminals), how to avoid becoming lazy, etc.

The same goes for "evil" events: if there were no airplane crashes (R.I.P. all the victims of 2009... there were so many this year...), safety engineers would not be able to improve the quality and safety of the airplanes, introduce new policies to improve their efficiency, etc.

I think the value lies in giving us information on what we should NOT become, learning from mistakes, etc.

[Time]

Well, I certainly agree that we can agree to disagree.... (try saying that fast!)

But on this topic, it's kind of pointless for us to argue, because we're never going to be talking about the same things. The debate is about Equality, but we're talking religion. Never a good idea.

But there's bound to be another topic that we can debate sooner or later.

So, cheers for now, Ssandra.