From: naccts (naccts@bowmans.info)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 16:04:38 MDT
I've been thinking that animal evolution resides in the old jungle
law: the survival of the fittest. And this is well reflected in the
supposedly civilised/superior humanity.
It's still all about the domination of the strongest entity (whether
individual or group). And that applies to any human field. By
strongest, of course I don't imply only physical strength but
everything that can provide any edge over others.
The core of my ramblings is this: Isn't it a natural proccess that
there should always be superiors and inferiors? Or else how can there
be any evolution/progress? If all entities were equal, wouldn't that
mean stagnancy and eventually enthropy? Evolution, the way I
understand it, involves changes, differences. I don't want to get
into an argument about racial discrimination, far from that. But I'm
thinking about Nietzsche and the Overman. If we want to evolve, does
that mean that at some time, we will have to consider the rest of
humanity as inferiors (lower on the
intellectual/emotional/physical/etc chain)? How does that fit into
our ethical code of conduct?
I hope that I'm making myself clear enough. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 16:15:19 MDT