|
| Thread: The strong and the weak |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 20, 2008 03:33 AM |
|
|
The strong and the weak
Throughout numerous debates in the OSM, the question of strength and weakness came up. People have said that the strong are exploiting the weak. People have said that the strong have a duty to carry the weak. And so on.
A few questions:
1. What is strength?
2. What is weakness?
3. Do the strong have the duty to carry the weak? Why or why not?
4. Should the strong forcibly control the weak for the weak's own good?
5. Do the strong have the right to control the weak for their own (the strong's) benefit, regardless of whether it's good for the weak?
6. Do the concepts of strength and weakness depend on each other to exist? (That is, would a group of equally strong people be the same as a group of equally weak people?)
My answers:
1. Simply put, strength can come from many sources, but its main source is a combination of confidence and some kind of level of ability or specific ability (mental [including willpower] or physical). Strength is confidence in oneself and the knowledge of the extent of one's powers/abilities. Strength is self-reliance (which, it must be added, is different from self-sufficiency).
2. Weakness is lack of strength. Its most common manifestation is lack of confidence and/or the lack of self-reliance. Weak people are either slothful to the point where it really hurts them, completely lack confidence in themselves, and/or are extremely reliant on others at a level that should only occur in childhood.
3. No, the strong do not have a duty to carry the weak any more than the weak have the duty to carry the strong. Why would they?
4. No. Except in the case of children, people should be left to be and let manage for themselves.
5. Do the strong have the right to physically torture, beat, or imprison the weak? No, of course not.
6. Kind of. Strength is a comparative quality. On the other hand, a group of strong people and a group of weak people would be completely different from each other, even if there was the same variation of strength within each group.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 04:10 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 04:10, 20 Nov 2008.
|
A few questions:
1. What is strength? High strength is having power over the majority.. For instance compared to regular humans this guy is strong physically
There are other levels of strength aswell.. How strong is america really? Maybe substantially compared to the terroists but how strong are the terrorists asfar as espionage compared to intelligence? Fairly strong but they use the strength in nature of being able to hide easily.. I could hide from anyone, I've been doing it for years. I know how to get new names but I wouldnt need to at the weak level of their intelligence.
2. What is weakness? Weakness is similar to strength and its all about "comparrison" compared to what?
3. Do the strong have the duty to carry the weak? Why or why not?It depends.. really depends on who your referring too. I'll use instects vs humans for example. It should be our duty to avoid senseless killings but should we feed them and nurture them if they arent our pets? No They are good on their own. As a matter of fact they are stronger than humans in some respects.
4. Should the strong forcibly control the weak for the weak's own good?This is another big one on it depends on whom.. Children need to be forcefully controlled so they are raised right and dont die doing stuid things. A drug addict weak from his addiction however cant be forced to change. What if the weak hurt the weaker? What if the weak hurt the strong using the strength they have? Like terrorists...
5. Do the strong have the right to control the weak for their own (the strong's) benefit, regardless of whether it's good for the weak?I dont believe the weak should be encaged, perhaps stabled as far as animals go but not encaged against their own will, hardly seeing the sun of day besides out those creepy factory windows.
6. Do the concepts of strength and weakness depend on each other to exist? (That is, would a group of equally strong people be the same as a group of equally weak people?)My favorite question so far.. Yes, it's all about comparison. I wish I had some firm definitions to work with. Lets say human physique. If everyone had the same strength, would they be strong or weak? We would probably look to animals on the physique level and say we are kind of weak but stronger in intelligence.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 04:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It should be our duty to avoid senseless killings
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with this statement, I'd like to ask you one question: why do you think so?
Quote:
perhaps stabled as far as animals go but not encaged against their own will, hardly seeing the sun of day besides out those creepy factory windows
That's... not exactly what I meant.
And you're thinking too much in terms of physical strength. There are plenty of physically strong people who are actually weak.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 04:55 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 04:58, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Well, when speaking about insects, I can see little kids stepping on ants for no reason like I used too.. Those are senseless killings from the weak/strong over the strong/weak.
I only used physical strength from time to time in examples.. I know theres a ton of different strengths and weaknesses.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 04:58 AM |
|
|
Instead of mainly concentrating on the physical side of strong/weak, why not think a bit more about a persons mental strength and weakness?  I mean, you can be physically strong but if you go out and bully someone then you are kinda mentally weak (well imo anyway).
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 05:06 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 05:08, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Examples of strength..
The amount of sugar in my tea make koolaid power 
"I can bench like, 420" so what are your other strengths? "I can bench like.. 420"
Strength in numbers.. 100 level 3's vs one level 99. "PILE!!!!"
Strength in tripping out to outer space without freaking out telling the cops frogs are chasing you and you cant go home. Or posting ant.com thinking it was Gods search engine for the chapters of your life.
Strength is asheeras knowledge of many things HC related
Strength is in the power of Mozilla vs IE..
Strength is in IE being sold on nearly every pc sold.. freaking, stick it to the customers
Strength is in the mean people in schools who think its cool to pick on the weak.
Strength is reputation
Strength could be almost anything
The list goes on, the list is very strong compared to my feeble output.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 06:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1. What is strength?
In the assumed context of the question, strength is the applied force of you changing the world around you.
Quote:
2. What is weakness?
The lack of applied force to change the world around you.
Quote:
3. Do the strong have the duty to carry the weak? Why or why not?
I am a staunch individualist. I think the strong have a duty to 'carry' the weak, provided that the weak aren't weak simply because of their own laziness. However whether somebody wants to fulfill that duty or not is in their hands. This approach promotes personal responsibility, which on a grand scale, is beneficial towards society as whole.
Quote:
4. Should the strong forcibly control the weak for the weak's own good?
No. If the weak insist on remaining weak and facing consequences for their actions, then that is their decision. Certainly, efforts and incentives can be made to persuade them otherwise. But forcefully carrying them takes away personal responsibility and is a large waste of revenue. This doesn't include cases such as children since they are still physically and mentally growing, and you've got to let them be parasites for awhile before they can become independent and productive.
Quote:
5. Do the strong have the right to control the weak for their own (the strong's) benefit, regardless of whether it's good for the weak?
No. This kind of crude cycle is inevitably weak for a society. The 'strong' (which in this case often are simply 'the lucky') make themselves richer and the poor poorer. This hinders the poor's ability to hone and apply their talents to the world. The way to balance this kind of thinking with staunch individualism to to institute some kind of imperishable constitution to guarantee certain rights and checks. That way you can promote personal responsibility while at the same time protecting people from being totally screwed. Although, as can be seen by recent history, governments have a way of simply ignoring pesky documents such as constitutions, and the strong exploit the weak anyway.
Quote:
6. Do the concepts of strength and weakness depend on each other to exist? (That is, would a group of equally strong people be the same as a group of equally weak people?)
I believe that a mixed society of strong people (people with much potential) and not so strong people (people with not so much potential) is convenient for allowing people to fit in wherever their talents belong. Pending a world where machines can take care of all mundane tasks, somebody needs to do the dirty jobs. So a system of leaders and supplicants is efficient.
And to get at your question: the scale of strength to weakness is determined by how people do compared to their peers. So if everybody were equally talented at something, we would no longer perceive it as talented. And if everybody were equally inept at something, we would no longer perceive it as inept.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 07:44 AM |
|
|
Strength and weakness is first and foremost a question of whether it's coming from the person itself or from the outside condition. If you are born poor in a poor country your personal strength may be used up just for surviving. If you are born rich in a rich country you may be weak but still manage pretty well.
Which means that the general condition will decide about what strength and weakness is in fact all about.
Generally spoken, the problem with strength is the following: Nature and history show that if the strong are playing on their strength (basing everything on it), all is well for the strong as long as they are strong, but should their strength ever fail them the weak will simply tear them apart because of this.
Think of the following:
If the strong do nothing for the weak, then the situation is as follows: the strong do NEED the weak, because without the weak there would only be strong and then they would lose their relative strength. On the other hand the weak - since the strong do nothing for them - do NOT NEED the strong, because all they do is keeping them weak.
This simply means the following: if the strong do NOT use their strength to help the weak, the weak have EVERY reason to try and dispose of the strong. The strong, on the other hand, have ALL reason to keep the weak.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 10:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1. What is strength?
The opposite of weak, in this case its pure power.
The strong can simple be the people with the greater advantage
Quote:
2. What is weakness?
The opposite of the strong.
The ones at a disadvantage.
Quote:
3. Do the strong have the duty to carry the weak? Why or why not?
The strong have the duty to not abuse the weak, because we got morals.
Quote:
4. Should the strong forcibly control the weak for the weak's own good?
Maybe, leading people on the right track tend to be considered moraly good 
Quote:
5. Do the strong have the right to control the weak for their own (the strong's) benefit, regardless of whether it's good for the weak?
At point 3, abuse.
Quote:
6. Do the concepts of strength and weakness depend on each other to exist? (That is, would a group of equally strong people be the same as a group of equally weak people?)
So long the strong exists there will be the weak because their polar opposites.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 10:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1. What is strength?
I think that human strength is:
Physical strength: Ability to exert a lot of force (relative, of course - compared to other of one's kind would be the best since even the best bench presser is plain @ss weak compared to, say, elephant)
Mental strength: Ability to withstand things without losing one's confidence, sanity or good mood
Quote:
2. What is weakness?
Relative term meaning behavior or feature preventing us from exerting lots of force or withstanding certain events without getting depressed or irresolute.
Quote:
3. Do the strong have the duty to carry the weak? Why or why not?
No, but it's nice when really strong guys become teachers of some sort (gym trainers for example) to make it possible for all people to benefit from their talents.
Quote:
4. Should the strong forcibly control the weak for the weak's own good?
They already do It's not really ok, but it's just how it happens. Physical or verbal abuse is all around.
Quote:
5. Do the strong have the right to control the weak for their own (the strong's) benefit, regardless of whether it's good for the weak?
Assuming all people are equal, no. We have complex community rules which makes it not ok. If we were just animals obeying the law of nature - yes.
Quote:
6. Do the concepts of strength and weakness depend on each other to exist? (That is, would a group of equally strong people be the same as a group of equally weak people?)
Almost every future of humanity (height, weight, etc) can be presented as gauss curve. Physical strength definitely works like that, although the number of physically weak is probably higher because of famine in certain parts of the world. it would be better to say that strength distribution for people of one population takes the form of a gauss curve.
As for mental strength, I think that the distribution takes the form of a hyperbole. Most people are weak and susceptible to abuse of some sort. Only a few are resistant.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A few questions:
1. What is strength?
2. What is weakness?
3. Do the strong have the duty to carry the weak? Why or why not?
4. Should the strong forcibly control the weak for the weak's own good?
5. Do the strong have the right to control the weak for their own (the strong's) benefit, regardless of whether it's good for the weak?
6. Do the concepts of strength and weakness depend on each other to exist? (That is, would a group of equally strong people be the same as a group of equally weak people?)
For once, i will bite it. Second, I did not read my fellow Russian's (who says he can stop at anytime from drinking vodka, but I bet he couldn't if he would come to visit ), because I did not want to be influenced in any way.
1. Manipulation. Manipulation is better than weapons, economy or strength.
2. Being manipulated, and not Allowing it to go your way (see nr. 1)
3. No, they do not. Their duty is to take advantage of the weak.
4. Forcibly control? Yes. For the good of the weak? No. For the good of themselves, yes.
5. Of course. You are just trying to squeeze just how much Nietzsche we know/like here, mate
6. I may have not understood your exp there, my friend but: yes, they depend on eachother. If i am strong, i have to relay on someone weak. And viceversa. It's a compromise of human law.
____________
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 07:59 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 20:14, 20 Nov 2008.
|
1. Strength is simply one's capability to attain power in one or many of its forms.
2. Weakness is one's incapability to attain power in one or many of its forms.
3. Such thing as duty doesn't exist. If someone is given a duty he may only accomplish it by his own will, because he understands the consequences that will occur if he doesn't.
Or then he just believes that he has a duty and will accomplish it for the sake of his belief. But in reality, duty doesn't exist, only in minds.
4. Same thing... Should they? Do they have a duty to do so? No, because duty doesn't exist.
5. Is it right? It depends totally on one's morale. There are different ethical beliefs, but there is no universal right or wrong. If I would say something here, it'd be just an expression of my own morale and I can't prove it to be correct.
6. Allow me to get into mathematics. Between two numbers there is always average. Let's say the average are the people who are neither strong nor weak. Let's give them a value 5. Then let's give a value to the strong, a 7. If the strong, the other antonym, is two numbers higher than the average, then the weak must be two numbers lower, they are 3.
Now we have two opposites and the average. What if there wouldn't be weak at all, only normal and strong people. Could the strong still exist?
We have to delete number 3 because they are weak and they don't exist. What we have left? The average, 5 which is now the lowest number to exist and the strong, 7 which is the highest.
But no, this is not possible because between two numbers there is always average which is now 6. And if 6 is the average, 5 can't be it anymore. So what is 5? It is below average and everything that is above average is strong. So 5 is the weak.
The answer to the question is yes. They can't exist without each other and there is no deny to that because it's based on the laws of mathematics which are universal.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 08:29 PM |
|
|
I will only answer question 3
Quote:
3. Do the strong have the duty to carry the weak? Why or why not?
Hmm let me say up front that there's nothing forcing you to do either way (well in IDEAS I mean). "duty" is a concept but not all agree. Why would you have such duty? For this purpose I will take an animal vs human example (animals = weak, humans = strong). Because obviously depending on your choice you'll end up with 3 different attributes:
1) If you do "carry" the weak then you are already trying to use your strength for something better than they could! This already marks you off as using your gifts for something other than they could, because you are in fact, 'better'. Better is not just brute-force efficiency. It's a mental concept and the ability to understand that (due to our reasoning capabilities). In short, you are better than them.
2) You don't carry the weak but don't mistreat them either. You are somehow neutral -- not better than them, but not necessarily worse, even though you CAN reason above them.
3) You exploit the weak, knowing their limitations. You are a complete disgrace IMO, because you can reason otherwise. Saying "but that psycho would do the same to me in return if he had the chance!" doesn't cut it, because then you have to ask yourself: "if he is a psycho, can he reason the same way as you do? that is, can he CHOOSE like you do??". If the answer is NO, then he is more innocent than you for his actions -- even though you might need to STOP him it doesn't mean you have to do to him what he does to you, if you want to be civilized that is. You have to be understanding of the situation.
Depending on the above, if you want to be better than an animal, I suggest you use your 'better' gifts to do what they don't, that is to help them and understand their inferior situation, not ignore it or exploit it. This is what makes one better than another -- for we can be given all sorts of gifts, but what we DO with them marks us. If we use our gifts to do what the "inferior" can do (albeit more efficient perhaps) then we are no better -- in fact, we can be WORSE. Take a look at animals vs humans: we can understand their 'inferior' situation. They cannot. We can make grand decisions regarding what to do with them. They cannot. Therefore we should be understandable. If we exploit the weak, then we are in fact even WORSE since we could have done otherwise and we can reason in that context.
How can we be better otherwise? We'll be in fact worse because we deny the possibility that they do not have.
But there's also the saying: "Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you'll feed him for the rest of his life."
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 08:34 PM |
|
|
Well I'll just answer 1.
Strength comes in many forms, not just brawn, muscle, and intelligence as some put it in this thread. Brawn, agility, knowledge, conviction, charm... these are all strengths, and there are many more. I think Totoro put it the best.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
5. Of course. You are just trying to squeeze just how much Nietzsche we know/like here, mate
Yeah and I don't
it's not a coincidence he was Hitler's favorite philosopher
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 08:59 PM |
|
|
yeah, but he did not understand much of Nietzsche's philosophy anyway.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 09:43 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:46, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Strength comes in many forms, ...charm...
That's only against the weak MINDED, not the 'weak' per se 
I think the important strengths that we have, but we do not give much respect for (because almost every idiot has a bit of them), is reason, mind, and wisdom. Compared to everything around of course, not only to humans.
Also JJ made a fine point here:Quote:
If the strong do nothing for the weak, then the situation is as follows: the strong do NEED the weak, because without the weak there would only be strong and then they would lose their relative strength. On the other hand the weak - since the strong do nothing for them - do NOT NEED the strong, because all they do is keeping them weak.
This simply means the following: if the strong do NOT use their strength to help the weak, the weak have EVERY reason to try and dispose of the strong. The strong, on the other hand, have ALL reason to keep the weak.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 22:40, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Strong can't exist without weak? Maybe evil (those that abuse their power) strong can't exist without the weak. A perfect society would be to have everyone strong or everyone weak, but since there are strong people and will always be, the former is more acceptable (meaning that the weak should become strong themselves and not be lazy)
Here is a nice quote:Quote:
If everyone was strong, there would no longer be incentive for one to harm another. But strength must be used responsibly. My strength allows me to defend myself from those who would try to take advantage of me, but it doesn't mean I should abuse it.
One of the most important concepts of my faith is that power corrupts. Learning when to apply strength is just as important as learning how to attain it.
____________
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 10:42 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 22:48, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
the strong do NEED the weak, because without the weak there would only be strong and then they would lose their relative strength.
Um the fact that they loose their relative strength does not automatically imply that strong need the weak. They need those weaker than themselves to remain comparatively strong, but being comparatively strong is not necessarily one's goal. And definitely the weak aren't substantial to the survival of the strong. Of course the strong will be worse off without the weak.
Quote:
On the other hand the weak - since the strong do nothing for them - do NOT NEED the strong, because all they do is keeping them weak.
I would like to add that the sole existence of stronger brings up more opportunities for mutually beneficial activity, so unless the weak are completely unproductive(but is such case they do need the stronger to survive), the strong are beneficial to the weak as long as they do not harm them, which of course does not mean that they are needed, but by removing them the weak would be worse off.
Neither side needs the other, but each benefits as long as mutual gains outweighs abuse.
Besides, I do not find the relative distinction between strong and weak to be relevant. Everyone is capable of something, and his/her actions influence others in some way.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:01 PM |
|
|
@Ash: that quote of yours does not have much credit (in fact don't tell me it's from a game? I was expecting more philosophy talk really).
How do you define strong? Strong can ONLY be defined RELATIVE to someone/something else.
If you think that a perfect society has equal strong people, you can just as well say it has equal WEAK people -- makes no DIFFERENCE. In fact, when you think you are strong and there is someone stronger, it's EXACTLY the situation with strong-weak --> in this case, you are weak, and the "stronger" person is strong.
There is no such thing as "stronger" and "strong" unless you have "weak". If you don't have weak, then you become the weak and the stronger becomes the "strong". It's all relative. (even Totoro put this in the laws of mathematics!)
You can't argue with math
Lastly, if you CAN defend yourself, then it means you CAN defend yourself against the WEAK. If someone is stronger you can't defend yourself, then YOU ARE WEAK. You are ONLY strong as long as you can compare yourself to someone WEAKER.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
