So I and Yoepus just had this nice discussion over ICQ...



Yoepus

.. how can the theory be disproved? it simply explains interaction in the context of superiorty and inferiority - it has no conclusion, im clueless as to what it is

Moi

yeah right, no1 befor you had ever thought about human relationships in the context of social status

well they have - but im saying this social status can explain ALL human relationships, i think thats a bold claim

but wont u end up in an egg-chicken dilemma?
social status being derived from relationships, relationships being derived from social status!

not really - because relationships happen when there are more then one person to begin with - and relationships breed social status.so relationships (or contact with other humans) comes first, and then you have superiority and inferiority - which by definition are relative terms

thats what im saying
by relationships u get your social status. but then u go on saying that the relationships ure having are directly affected by your social status.but to get these social-status-breeding relationships ull need some kind of status (determining your superiority/inferiority-position) first. as by your rationale without a status no relationship can exist

the point being you are first netrual to a guy, and then you build your opinion of him - the more you know the stronger the opinion


ill sum it up: whoever ill meet in my life, Ill enter a relationship with him. this relationship will be characterized by my social satus which consequently determines my perception of HIS social status.

but its not just social status - i can be better then you say in wealth, but you can be better then me in say intelligence. Even if we are from different social circles we understand and respect this difference of superiorty - and inferiorty which creates a bond

you are obviously attracted to someone with superior beauty - and you see many couples that one is beautiful one is ugly, how can you explain this?

1. i wish i would but i think its a myth...heidi klum just wont date me
2. IF there would be such a law, then id guess it'd be for the sake of egoistically using the other's status to use one's own

as for 1, ya because you are off par inferior to her - you have nothing to offer he, why would she date you? 2. exactly, the law is horrible when we understand it - but the law still holds

that we're meant to live in endless competition and comparison

i defined human nature as competitive and comparitive by stating that we value every human interaction on superiority and inferiority

that might be a good point actually

and what i am saying is bascially its a law - everything we do can be described in its context - the context of bascially comparison.and that sort of crashes down many wide-held philosophical belives we have now - for one it sort of mitigates equality unless we state it is from a divine orgin


about us not being equal....i always like to believe that eventually we ARE equal for there exist some cosmic law of compensation. he who is stupid, looks better, or is wealthier, or plays the piano..whatever

as for that last comment of yours i belive in equality - this is why this theory is so hard to grasp.but i don't belive in comsic law of final equality - if you look in scripture they say some people are made a heavier life to deal with then others

why? my "law of compensation" doesnt contradict your law of "comparative evaluation " (copyright by trancegiant).
on the one hand if theory 1 is true we should all be friends but on the other hand theory two doesn't say that we care about all aspects (which eventually make up the compensation) equally.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

Ok here is my first go at trying to explain my theory. And the theory is no longer stating that superiority and inferiority can explain everything us Humans do - this has changed to a law. It's just how it is, it holds true universially. The theory goes to understand why this law exist:

I have discovered a law. It states the following; “All human interaction can be described by our perceptions of superiority and inferiority”.

This seems to hold universal. From our love in a family, to lovers, friendship, hatred, jealousy, anger, laughter, and so forth, all these inter-personal interactions can be described in the terms of superiority and inferiority. By definition superiority and inferiority are comparative qualities, and therefore we can compare to one another. But when we do so, it is simply not enough to state that one is superior, or better. But in the same context state token the weight of inferiority carries the shared significance, as it is this notion that you are worse, that leads you to value better.

Let me give some examples that hold the universality of this law, in some of the instances that have been hardest to explain.

For starters, when one sees a couple together, where one of the pair is remarkably gorgeous and the other is just plain ugly, we ask how can this be? In the context of superiority and inferiority it explains attraction in the following way. Lets say in this situation the girl is beautiful and the guy is ugly. Well the guy is attracted to the girl for her beauty which is obviously superior to his. Although he has inferior looks to the girl, the girl is attracted perhaps to his charisma, his charm, or his intelligence, all which are superior to the girls in this regard. For this the lack of superiority and inferiority is mitigated for each side – the girl feels superior because her partner is superior in fields she is inferior, likewise for the guy. This same notion can then be expanded to explain friendship. When an “equilibrium” of sorts is met to when the qualities of our superiority are equal to the superiority of another in the same category, we have a common value, however when it is our superiority that makes up for their lack in inferiority and vice versa, you have a bond. This is why friends, like lovers tend to compliment one another in the sense of their “virtues” – superiorities and inferiorities. The closer this equilibrium is met – to the fact that equality is seen as an understood value between friends, the friendship is stronger. When inequality exists, when it is extended marks a lessening of that very same bond.
From here we have hatred; hatred is simply the in-acceptance of ones superiority or inferiority over others. It does not necessarily bother us that someone is better looking then us – superior in looks. But it does bother us when they are “snobby” – when they refuse to recognizes our superiorities to their inferiorities.
The hardest challenge to explain however is the love in family. Where does this bond come from? It seems apparently impossible to explain how families can love one another fairly unconditionally when many members of the family refuse to recognizes superiorities and inferiorities. However this can mitigate by a certain point; Childhood. As a child, you unconditionally recognize your parents as superiors, and accept your inferiority to them in almost every acceptable notion. From here stems the deep love, the recognition of such. But at a certain age a child comes to bare his own perceptions of the world and here is the test of the families love. Many families come to ruins at this point. The child grows of age, realizes his father say is not as superior as he believed him to be in a certain aspect, and believes himself to be actually superior, and his father inferior. It is at this time that the new recognition of superiority – yes they actually are better then me here, they are wiser in age and wisdom, reinforce our love. Or the breaking of our perceptions of the established superiority and inferiority cause our love to weaken – no he lied to me he is not the strongest man in the world, he is not smart, he’s not clever, and he is actually a low life. The love however has a strong base on the understanding of the superiority and inferiority equilibrium that has been built previously through childhood, and perhaps strengthened such. In the same regard, if we have a break of this love in childhood, and degradation of this love further we come to the other extreme end.

These are just a few examples, but the point I am making is that all human interaction can be described by the law I noted above. Everything can be described by our perceptions of superiority and inferiority. And you may ask so? And so indeed, what does it matter? I will cede two things on this note. First, that many of us do not realize this. As a firm opponent of unconscious thought, I was the least to want to grasp that we – our brain evaluates all our current human interaction on this very basis. Once someone points this out you will now realize what your brain has been doing without realizing. You will compare your interaction, situations with other individuals and witness how your mind values their inferiority and superiority to your inferiority and superiority. The second is that there seems to be a conclusion to the fact that ALL human interactions can simply be explained in the context of two words.

It proves something, the fact that we can describe all human interaction in these two words, of superiority and inferiority, means we live in endless competition and comparison. Now having proved we live in endless competition and comparison, so what? What does this mean?

And for here a true philosopher would have to derive a great conclusion. For me it simply means the following at this point in time. The fact that we live in endless comparative evaluation means that the basic notions of our equality must be questioned at least from an inherent nature or creator origin. If we are created to be comparatively evaluating everything, why is this? Is this a sign of a natural, or divine hierarchy? I do not know. One thing is clear however, feeling superior makes us happy. And we feel superior by sharing in someone else superiority – this makes us happy. But that again begs the same question, why does superiority make us happy? Why is it important, and what is its origin. For this I must still think.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Hello, I've been thinking of a new philosophical thesis and wanted to put it to the mindless crowd out here for though about it. So without further delay: DISCUSS. I will comment as I see fit.

I can't discuss. I'm mindless. You told me so.

quote:

Originally posted by Nalin I can't discuss. I'm mindless. You told me so.

And i'd like to confirm his findings!

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.

Good topic, I'll see if I can get myself to read through it more thoroughly and comment on it when it isn't 2 a.m. with 2 programming assignments i haven't started and 20 more pages of a 70 page paper still to be written all due in about 10 hours.

As for why I am browsing the forums whilst in such a predicament:

awesome thread!

Yoepus, you wrote everything with brilliance

Do you consider this part of your theory? People are your friends ONLY because they think ur better than them and therefore, it would be *beneficial* to be ur friend...

Being very blunt..you think you have friends ? Not initially! You have people who hang around you because you can give them something they want. They don't hang around you becase they want to contribute TO your life but because they can take something FROM ur life.

___________________

quote:

If we are created to be comparatively evaluating everything, why is this? Is this a sign of a natural, or divine hierarchy? I do not know. One thing is clear however, feeling superior makes us happy. And we feel superior by sharing in someone else superiority – this makes us happy. But that again begs the same question, why does superiority make us happy? Why is it important, and what is its origin. For this I must still think.

the first thing i thought of when i read this (and who knows if it makes sense or not) was charles darwin and natural selection; basically, survival of the fittest. superiority makes us happy because it reflects things that we would like to see in ourselves. we seek it out.

one of the purposes of all organisms is to procreate, so therefore its a natural instinct that we seek out relationships with people who may potentially benefit us in this aspect. (this is where the confusion with having friends of the same sex comes in for heterosexuals and homosexuality comes in).
so maybe you could say its our natural drive to tend to gravitate towards people who will help to create more superior, 'fitter' progeny.

___________________

Nice post Yoepus, this time I actually agree with most of what you're saying.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by King_Mack one of the purposes of all organisms is to procreate, so therefore its a natural instinct that we seek out relationships with people who may potentially benefit us in this aspect. (this is where the confusion with having friends of the same sex comes in for heterosexuals and homosexuality comes in). so maybe you could say its our natural drive to tend to gravitate towards people who will help to create more superior, 'fitter' progeny.

Ya I could say that, but it just lackes that meaning to life quality of Philosophy - its just to simple to say. Althought a good argument from a purely natrual perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by melech_mike And i'd like to confirm his findings!

Us mindless idiots can't even read His Majesty's theory, musch less discuss it.

quote:

Originally posted by King_Mack awesome thread! Yoepus, you wrote everything with brilliance Do you consider this part of your theory? People are your friends ONLY because they think ur better than them and therefore, it would be *beneficial* to be ur friend... Being very blunt..you think you have friends ? Not initially! You have people who hang around you because you can give them something they want. They don't hang around you becase they want to contribute TO your life but because they can take something FROM ur life.

Yes, quality philosophy. King Mack, Although your friends take something from your life, you also take things from their lives otherwise you wouldn't consider them your friends. So they are still "friends" in the sense that there is mutual gain from both parties.