|
BANG BALLS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOTHING SHOULD BE IMPOSED
IDEAS NOT LEECHED ONLY CREATIVELY COMPOSED |
|||
 Flickr Archives
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
August 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
February 2009
March 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
January 2010
February 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
Links
Jasmine
|
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The Concept Of Equality. Equality must first start from the personal willingness of experiencing inequality in one's 'should-have-been' equal rights. To speak of generosity, you must first be sacrificial; equality holds the same logic. Often, people speak of equality as the fairness of an issue/thing/object etc. However, man fails to see that with every choice comes a trade off, and this trade off will always be at the expense of another's 'equal' right. Assuming three people, A B and C are debating on an issue; ideal and utopic equality would occur when all three parties are satisfied with the terms and conditions agreed upon. However, with the above assumption having been made, this would not be possible. As such, one out of the three has to compromise, leaving two out of the three 'victors' and the other he himself a 'loser'. For example, a sum of money (let's say $12) is to be divided among the three people A B and C. Common logic would immediately give the figure four (as 12 ÷ 3 = 4). It would not be incorrect to say that the sum of money has been equally shared, for the division of the object was material. It is the following part that complicates the concept of true and pure equality. In this given scenario, ceteris paribus, intangible factors such as income (A and B could be earning significantly less than C and hence they feel that getting $4 is 'unfair'), geography (B and C could be staying in a first world nation where living expenses are much higher as compared to A who lives in a third world country), and the list goes on. So how should this $12 be divided? And what should equality be? If we were to take into account the physical and metric unit of the dollar, we would have been able to 'divide' fairly. But because of intangible complications and 'human nature', our perception of equality is greatly undermined. What was initially equal has now become un-equal! WHY? The fight for survival coupled with greed spurs man to become more competitive, always wanting more and better bargains for himself. In the given example, A B and C may have felt that only by getting $5 each would the deal be equal. However, the metric and physical nature of the $12 limits such a possibility. Hence, should all three of them insist on taking $5 each, all three parties would have (self-perceived) 'un-equal' terms. However, such a phenomenon can be averted should one (C) out of the three step back and give in. Hence, both A and B's desire for equality can be satisfied. On the other hand, C's perception of ideal equality has been compromised. This brings us to the statement "Equality must first start from the personal willingness of experiencing inequality in one's 'should-have-been' equal rights." Do not rejoice as of yet. Just because the majority has achieved 'equality', has equality truly been met? This brings us to the issue of sacrificing the minority. The sacrificial minority should only occur if he is willing to sacrifice his share of equality (in this case C, and bear in mind, if he was able to make this choice, both A and B too would have made this choice. Do you see where this is going?). Should C have been forced into sacrificing his share, such equality can be termed bastardised. Ideally, should all three parties have been willing to sacrifice, no trade off would have been possible. (If you still can't see why, here is the simple break down: 1) A & B win, C loses 2) A & C win, B loses 3) B & C win, A loses; When the above happens, because everyone is willing to lose, no one actually loses, it is the same as no one wins.) Hence, it is evident that only when man chooses so hard NOT to lose, will there be an eventual loser and winner. At this point of time, it is evident that conventional and rational division of a metric and physical unit is unequal (when other factors come into play, else, equality is possible). (1) Similarly, the majority Vs minority concept of overall equality is also not truly equal. (2) Lastly, the everyone is willing to lose notion just leads us back to the start of the whole dilemma. (3) The Concept Of Equality hinges upon the purity of fairness. In many instances, this world has come to agree on the concept of overall equality, though tainted, it is the only viable working module that man can decide with. (2) Not all is loss. Pure equality can be achieved, but sadly, only in inanimate, metric, physical and most importantly mechanical existences, for example the physical division of a twelve-meter string. (1) The last concept of 'let's all lose!' will never occur - then again, maybe in paradise. And even if it does, it just brings us back to the bud of the problem. (3) In all, the actual concept of equality really isn’t that equal. Monday, July 16, 2007
Placidly Flaccid. The difference between man and woman is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlines it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by the arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated – who knows how? – as it were by breathing in ideas, by living rather than by acquiring knowledge. The status of manhood, on the other hand, is attained only by the stress of thought and much technical exertion. -Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Even great men make mistakes - or do they? |
||