Everybody is perfectly equal
09 Jan 2009 22:46
09 Jan 2009 22:46
09 Jan 2009 22:46
09 Jan 2009 22:46
nav_first.pngFirst: blog:1
My first blog!
Edited: 06 Nov 2011 11:49 by: James Kanjo
Comments: 2
Tags: ads blog css facebook first free myspace program programming wiki wikidot
nav_prev.pngPrevious: blog:10
2009, tis a year of revelations!
Edited: 06 Nov 2011 11:50 by: James Kanjo
Comments: 2
Tags: apple comparison mac os revelation revelations self-discovery windows
Last: blog:77
Wikidot: CSS Per Category
Edited: 04 Mar 2012 05:54 by: James Kanjo
Comments: 3
Tags: programming wikidot
nav_last.png
Next: blog:12
What is Utopia?
Edited: 07 Jul 2011 12:42 by: James Kanjo
Comments: 28
Tags: editor heart newspaper philosophy school st-pauls utopia
nav_next.png

Today I posted my theory of perfect equality in a forum. Then I realised that I should be posting it here as well.

Everybody is equal because where one person is lacking, they have something else fulfilled, just as the next person. More explained, everybody has a container of skills that is the same volume as everybody else's, and everybody's skill container is full to the top.

Let's take this example to explain my point. You are an awesome marathon runner, but an awful mathematician. Your skills in running is 80% of your skill container, and you skills in mathematics is 20%. 80%+20%=100%. Somebody else in your maths class is overweight and unfit… however, this person is brilliant at mathematics. Mathematics=95%, Marathon running=5%. You both have different skills, but you are both equally talented.

In reality, there are thousands upon thousands of skills in every person. The difference between being very good at something and very bad at something may be only a difference of .005%. But essentially, everybody is as talented as the next person. It is also notable that people's talents can change (become better at something, but get worse at something else)

I have also self-criticised my theory. Flaws include:

  1. Children — who are fresh in the world and are yet to develop their talents;
  2. Intellectually disabled people — they are unable to exhibit their talents, and therefore their talents count for nothing. This is why we must have sympathy for the intellectually disabled… it isn't their fault they can't use the full capacity of themselves;
  3. There is no pin-point age where a person becomes an equal in the world — at what stage does a person completely fill up their skill container is completely up to them and their experiences;
  4. People can be good at something that is bad, or is frowned upon — this means that the person is a lesser person in society, and is not equal.

I should elaborate on the final flaw. An example of this is the fact that somebody could be very good at being evil. But evil is a bad thing, so whilst an evil person's container is as full as a non-evil person, society would find it difficult to accept the evil person as a being with equal qualities. More to the point, your skill of being evil is frowned upon, and not practically useful, so it is ignored. Ignoring this skill is ignoring the percentage it takes up in the skill container, meaning the skill container is less than 100%. If the skill container is less than 100%, then the person is clearly not an equal in society.

Using the above reasoning upon the second flaw, if a person is unable to exert a talent, then the talent is ignored, bringing the skill container to less than 100% etc, etc. This sort of thing happens all the time, however. For example, if you have a beautiful face and are involved in a disfiguring accident, then you are unable to exhibit your skill of beauty. For this reason, people shouldn't rely on particular talents in life, but instead embrace all of their talents, for what does it matter if we lose 1 of our thousands of talents?

Perhaps I should modify my theory to eliminate its flaws.

~ James Kanjo

Comments:

Add a New Comment
or Sign in as Wikidot user
(will not be published)
- +
All content on this page is subject to the guidelines outlined here