Then what do you mean by essential? Equality could come about if the party wishing to create it possesses the most force, a purely contingent outcome
-
-
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
1- All life is essential in that it necessarily exists - outside of arbitrary constructs there is no reason to prioritise one life above another. 2- Equality cannot be "created" by any "party" whether you mean that in the sense of a cohesive political body or otherwise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy
'All life is essential, now give me the house or there'll be violence'
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
Your life is not essential in the sense that you are required or sacred. It is essential in the sense that it NECESSARILY exists. You are confusing the two meanings of the word
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy
I thought god necessarily existed, other beings were contingent upon god for their existence (medieval view) it's just a flux of matter and energy, nothing is necessary. Even if it was it wouldn't mean some people can't be rich and others poor
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
1/ Evidently. Isn't that where we find ourselves today? The question put forward was as to why achieving equality matters. The answer is because it concords with a sensible conception of nature. There is no reason why we should accept the arbitrary hierarchal distinctions which
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy @ParadiseDelayed
2/ are imposed upon us, unless we benefit from them. If we do not, there's no reason why we should, and violence is the simplest (really, the only) remedy to that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy
A sensible conception of nature is that things of complexity and beauty only ever arise through Darwinian processes, equality means everything's equally garbage. Be as violent as you want, though violence tends to breed more not less hierarchy as far as I can see
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
Yes, and a sensible conception of Darwinism does not take natural selection on the simplistic Spencerian conception of "survival of the fittest," more appropriately and stupidly articulated as "dog eat dog".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @w_guppy
Sorry just as you were telling me reality isn't dog eat dog I found some more gruntwork to do... Sounds like you're trying to get ought from is, and your is, the necessity of life or something sounds dubious as well........
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not saying societies have to be dog eat dog at the individual level, the best way I think is that people can go there separate ways and form different societies, the ultimate horizon they will all face is just a selective one, if the more equal societies survive good for them
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.