Post by Tra_XxX on Feb 18, 2008 18:31:14 GMT -5
Are we made equal? Tell us your thoughts and feelings 
I have two viewpoints concerning this question; my initial reaction would be to say no, we are not made equally. If we are equal then why do some people portray adeptness at mathematics which others cannot achieve? Why do some people get ill whilst others remain healthy? Directly viewing the world it appears we are not equal to me.
Yet, whilst pondering this, it appears that we could be equal but in a relative sense. Imagine, for instance, we have a set of scales and on one side of the scales we have 5 ounces of flour and on the other side we have 5 ounces of flour. The scales would tell us we would have equality and this appears to be true as each side accommodates an equal amount of flour. Now let us say that one side had 3 ounces of sugar and 2 ounces of flour whilst the other side keeps its 5 ounces of flour. The scales would be in balance again but, naturally, the amounts of flour and sugar on the scales vary. If we were to apply this to individual equality then we might suggest that the flour could be mathematical adeptness and sugar could be linguistic adeptness. Each side of the scale represents a person and the amount of flour and sugar on each scale represents their attributes concerning mathematical adeptness and linguistic adeptness. Let us suppose that each person is only allowed to have a combination of flour and sugar that adds up to 5 ounces in weight. The person with purely flour will obviously exhibit superior mathematical adeptness over his counterpart with less flour but more sugar than he, and the other scale with the more sugar will exhibit a higher level of linguistic ability over the other scale with no sugar. Therefore, despite an obvious imbalance between the individual attributes of a person, as a whole these two scales are balanced. Applying this to the real world would obviously complicate the issue but could it not be possibly that this sort of relative equality could be the case for all men? This would also include wealth, health and artistic ability as attributes of a person.
Despite the fact that the relative equality hypothesis sounds reasonably sound abstractly, in practice it might be somewhat different. A rich person with lots of wealth and very good health might have become this person via his intellectual adeptness in all fields. But would this man be balanced by a truly brilliant linguist? How do we balance the attributes; how do we decide how much each one weighs? In reality, therefore, it is assailable and unjustifiable in terms of evidence; it really only sounds nice.
That's my view anyhoo...
I have two viewpoints concerning this question; my initial reaction would be to say no, we are not made equally. If we are equal then why do some people portray adeptness at mathematics which others cannot achieve? Why do some people get ill whilst others remain healthy? Directly viewing the world it appears we are not equal to me.
Yet, whilst pondering this, it appears that we could be equal but in a relative sense. Imagine, for instance, we have a set of scales and on one side of the scales we have 5 ounces of flour and on the other side we have 5 ounces of flour. The scales would tell us we would have equality and this appears to be true as each side accommodates an equal amount of flour. Now let us say that one side had 3 ounces of sugar and 2 ounces of flour whilst the other side keeps its 5 ounces of flour. The scales would be in balance again but, naturally, the amounts of flour and sugar on the scales vary. If we were to apply this to individual equality then we might suggest that the flour could be mathematical adeptness and sugar could be linguistic adeptness. Each side of the scale represents a person and the amount of flour and sugar on each scale represents their attributes concerning mathematical adeptness and linguistic adeptness. Let us suppose that each person is only allowed to have a combination of flour and sugar that adds up to 5 ounces in weight. The person with purely flour will obviously exhibit superior mathematical adeptness over his counterpart with less flour but more sugar than he, and the other scale with the more sugar will exhibit a higher level of linguistic ability over the other scale with no sugar. Therefore, despite an obvious imbalance between the individual attributes of a person, as a whole these two scales are balanced. Applying this to the real world would obviously complicate the issue but could it not be possibly that this sort of relative equality could be the case for all men? This would also include wealth, health and artistic ability as attributes of a person.
Despite the fact that the relative equality hypothesis sounds reasonably sound abstractly, in practice it might be somewhat different. A rich person with lots of wealth and very good health might have become this person via his intellectual adeptness in all fields. But would this man be balanced by a truly brilliant linguist? How do we balance the attributes; how do we decide how much each one weighs? In reality, therefore, it is assailable and unjustifiable in terms of evidence; it really only sounds nice.
That's my view anyhoo...
But for the top setters it's a good thing because things go a bit faster. You'll never stop people comparing themselves to others, but if we could then I think it would be the optimal method of schooling.
