Kuznetzova wrote:This paragraph is a jumbled mess -- indicating very muddy thinking. Perhaps you wrote this in haste, or maybe you were very tired (or drunk).
Your first sentence refers to some sort of extrinsic, objective inferiority. But then the second sentence says it is a "judgement directed against an other organism." Well, which one is it? Is superiority an extrinsic objective phenomenon, or is it just a passive judgement fleetingly made by a mortal?
No, jean, you missed my point. Judgment itself is
objective. It is a social and biological phenomenon. For example, when you see two little underage girls, and you find one "prettier" than the other, do you believe that you are making a conscious effort to pass judgment on beauty, or is it an
unconscious judgment? Kant dealt with judgment by asserting a priori and a posteriori forms of human knowledge and intellect.
Your brain selects data,
using other data. The exact methods of human judgment remain unknown and philosophical, a matter of neuroscience and understanding biology, genetics too. However, it does not matter
how you judge, whether it is conscious or unconscious, you still act as though you had judged, beauty. And you did, and you do. Beauty is one of the most readily accessible human judgments, because it is most immediate. It is superficial, and not skin deep. It is above the skin, it is the skin. It is your most immediate and recognizable access to the power of another person or individual. Beautiful people have real worth, in every society, and it is not as "subjective" as people believe. It is not confined to just culture, but to genetics and biology too.
Kuznetzova wrote:Then things get worse. You refer to superiority and inferiority as being equivalent to a utility for a particular organism. Well cold viruses have "utilized" me quite effectively to make copies of themselves. The virus found my warm, wet eye surface "useful" and therefore used it for its own ends. Does that make me the "inferior" organism, since I was simply used by the virus? I'm certain my blood has been used by mosquitoes who later went on to reproduce. They were the superior user who utilized poor little inferior me for their own ends -- or is that not what you meant?
Every superior/inferior
judgment requires a context. If you want to talk about the superiority of an organism to
invade another organism, then yes, the virus is "superior" than you. But, the human body has viruses of its own, and these viruses can also spread, making the human body "superior" with respect to its own viruses.
Thought is a form of virus. If I spread thoughts, on the internet, and they spread quickly through a population, and there is no resistance against them, then this is another form of a superior "virus". Stronger and more popular ideologies tend to spread this way. Consider "science", consider authorities all people take for granted, don't these thoughts "spread like a virus" quicker than all other thoughts and ideas? Yes, they do, which is why people believe the world is spherical, round, and they accept this idea, this thought, as true. It is another form of a virus.
Kuznetzova wrote:What then, does Atthet mean by "inferior" and "superior"? Does he believe that things which are strong, violent, competitive, independent (,and male) qualify as superior? And further, if his answer is "yes" to that question, then does he suppose there is a direction to evolution? (Perhaps a direction towards faster, stronger, more competitive, and more violent?) If that's what he believes and thinks, he should say so.
There are various forms of power, strength, speed, wealth, charisma, intelligence, etc
People tend to favor the forms of power that they can improve and access higher levels of male competition. Females, women, compete against each other, in terms of
seduction, and
beauty, which are again, other forms of
power. Women make men their primary objective, in terms of acquiring power. Men do not, necessarily, do the same. A man finds power by directing himself against nature herself, not against women necessarily. This is why men are interested in industry, exploration, and warfare, while women are not.
Women are naturally cowards, naturally stupid, and naturally
inferior in many areas in life. Women, instead, to compensate for this, have developed
superior forms of socializing, making friends, and thinking in terms of "group think", rather than as individuals and independents. Women are the opposite, dependent, meek, frail, and within their stupidity, often unintentional, claim innocence, or "ignorance is bliss". This also demonstrates an innate female privilege, based on nothing more than gender. And the ideology of feminism reveals this fatal flaw, and gives rise to a stronger form of control over the very weakness women want to deny.
