Are 'Superior' and 'Inferior' Properties Ever Found in Nature?

[Sunstone]

Are 'superior' and 'inferior' illusions and/or constructs of the human mind, or are they actual properties found in natural objects? If they are properties of natural objects, what is their physical composition or make-up? If they are emergent properties, what is their substructure?

Is an elephant in any way superior to a mouse? If you say an elephant's size renders it superior to a mouse, then precisely how does size convey superiority/inferiority?

NOTE: We are NOT using 'superior' and 'inferior' here as synonyms for larger or smaller, etc. This is not about comparatives! The question is, is there an intrinsic property of things that makes them superior (or inferior)?




_________________________________________
And now for some nostalgic British ship ballast music....

 

[Spirit of Light]

Are 'superior' and 'inferior' illusions and/or constructs of the human mind, or are they actual properties found in natural objects? If they are properties of natural objects, what is their physical composition or make-up? If they are emergent properties, what is their substructure?

Is an elephant in any way superior to a mouse? If you say an elephant's size renders it superior to a mouse, then precisely how does size convey superiority/inferiority?

NOTE: We are NOT using 'superior' and 'inferior' here as synonyms for larger or smaller, etc. The question is, is there an intrinsic property of things that makes them superior (or inferior)?




_________________________________________
And now for some nostalgic British ship ballast music....

I would say it is only in the human mind. build by ego

 

[epronovost]

"superior" and "inferior" traits are contextual and relative descriptors and assesments or characteristics a bit in a same way that big or strong are. They describe some sort of advantages or disadvantages in a competitive setting. A mouse is superior to the elephant in a "entering very small tunnels" contest, but the elephant s superior in a "knocking down adult trees" contest.

 

[Sunstone]

"superior" and "inferior" traits are contextual and relative descriptors and assesments or characteristics a bit in a same way that big or strong are. They describe some sort of advantages or disadvantages in a competitive setting. A mouse is superior to the elephant in a "entering very small tunnels" contest, but the elephant s superior in a "knocking down adult trees" contest.

That does not address my question, but you have probably nailed how most people will interpret the OP. You can trust folks to stick to first impressions, rather than think things through. We all do it.

 

[dianaiad]

Superior and inferior require three things...the two being compared, and the thing that causes the comparison.

As eponovost just wrote, it's all relative, and depends utterly on what the comparison is. A mouse is absolutely superior if the task is entering small tunnels, and the elephant is utterly superior to a mouse in a a mouse squishing contest.

My friend, with her incredible excess of melanonin, is vastly superior to me in a 'how long can you stay outside without FPS 5000 sunscreen" and I'm superior to her in a 'who looks better in make up with an underlying blue shade". She can wear yellow and orange. I can't, never have and never will. Oh, I swim better than she does, and I knit better, but she is superior to me in weaving and in painting.

So....it depends, doesn't it?

Maybe the concepts 'superior and inferior' need four points of view: the two being compared, the thing they are being compared about....and an observer who makes those judgments.

Not that an observer is always required, mind you. (musing her and going off on all sorts of tangents) I'm thinking about Darwin's finches here. The superior bird..the one which develops the beak required to gather food in a particular niche, survives. Those that don't, don't.

Hmnn. Don't get me thinking philosophical thoughts. Makes my brain hurt.

 

[Vouthon]

I don't tend to think that value judgments, which are subjective and often contingent attributions, exist in natural properties and I can't really see how they could apply to them. Science has to do with quantitative methodology.

To regard something as "superior" and "inferior" is qualitative to me, which is to say a human conceptualization in our mind (our "qualia"). Note how I say "to regard" impulsively, because I just take it as a given that this is a conscious activity which doesn't really tell me about what's "out there".

You can show a neural pathway light up in the brain when someone tastes paprika (quantitative) but you can't, through any current scientific instrument, capture the feeling or subjective experience of the spicy taste of paprika itself and whether this "tastes" superior or inferior to something non-spicy (qualitative). You have to rely on the report of the individual for what that quality feels like, and that's inherently subjective.

So, no, I would have to say that I think superior/inferior are of the human mind. I'm loathe to call them "constructs", since we don't really understand what consciousness is at the moment and how it fits into the physicalist paradigm of the natural sciences.

But yes, I'd say that in my opinion "superior" and "inferior" are human determinations rather than formal properties.

Evolution, for example, is a purposeless-driven process of adaption to environment. It just "is" and I don't think it operates according to one species adapting in a certain way being "superior" or "inferior" to another species adapted to a different environment in a different way.

Humans assign value and worth to things based upon our experiences / feelings / ideas / convictions.

 

[shmogie]

Are 'superior' and 'inferior' illusions and/or constructs of the human mind, or are they actual properties found in natural objects? If they are properties of natural objects, what is their physical composition or make-up? If they are emergent properties, what is their substructure?

Is an elephant in any way superior to a mouse? If you say an elephant's size renders it superior to a mouse, then precisely how does size convey superiority/inferiority?

NOTE: We are NOT using 'superior' and 'inferior' here as synonyms for larger or smaller, etc. This is not about comparatives! The question is, is there an intrinsic property of things that makes them superior (or inferior)?




_________________________________________
And now for some nostalgic British ship ballast music....

To answer your question, it depends.

It depends upon context, superior to what, and why? Who or what determines superiority and inferiority?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Are 'superior' and 'inferior' illusions and/or constructs of the human mind, or are they actual properties found in natural objects? If they are properties of natural objects, what is their physical composition or make-up? If they are emergent properties, what is their substructure?

Is an elephant in any way superior to a mouse? If you say an elephant's size renders it superior to a mouse, then precisely how does size convey superiority/inferiority?

NOTE: We are NOT using 'superior' and 'inferior' here as synonyms for larger or smaller, etc. This is not about comparatives! The question is, is there an intrinsic property of things that makes them superior (or inferior)?




_________________________________________
And now for some nostalgic British ship ballast music....

I think it's relative.

One day you're the cat.

Next day you're the mouse.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You know one of my favorite quotes I've heard came from the movie Circle of Iron a movie encompassing the philosophical side of Bruce Lee.

Man with flute : "A fish saved my life once".

Cord: "How"?

Man with flute: "I ate it"


When you think about predator (superior) and prey (inferior) analogies, it would be worth noting to find that one simply cannot do without the other.

Without the prey the predator dies.

Without the predator, the prey then becomes the predator awaiting its own prey, bringing the relationship full-circle where one is really not in reality superior or inferior to the other.

 

[sun rise]

As has been pointed out: superior/inferior is a value judgement. It's part of the compare/contrast functioning of the intellect which judges based on various criteria.

 

[sun rise]

You know one of my favorite quotes I've heard came from the movie Circle of Iron.

"A fish saved my life once".

"How"?

"I ate it"


When you think about predator (superior) and prey (inferior) analogies, it would be worth noting to find that one simply cannot do without the other.

Without the praise of predator dies.

Without the predator, the prey then becomes the predator awaiting its own prey bringing the relationship full-circle where one is really not Superior or inferior to the other.

That fish story is a traditional Sufi humorous teaching tale by "Mullah Nasruddin".

 

[Twilight Hue]

That fish story is a traditional Sufi humorous teaching tale by "Mullah Nasruddin".

I'm not sure where it came originally.

It's good wisdom all the same.

 

[Polymath257]

In essence, you are asking if there is a partial order (a way of comparing) of 'value' that is, more so, a total order (every two things can be compared).

The problem is determining what 'value' means and if it is independent of human ego. My personal view is that it is not, but am quite willing to consider the possibility.

Then, the question is whether 'value' is a total order. Since total orders are pretty rare among partial orders, I would be inclined NOT to think this is the case (in other words, the value of two things, even if well defined, may not be comparable).

 

[Daemon Sophic]

"superior" and "inferior" traits are contextual and relative descriptors and assesments or characteristics a bit in a same way that big or strong are. They describe some sort of advantages or disadvantages in a competitive setting. A mouse is superior to the elephant in a "entering very small tunnels" contest, but the elephant s superior in a "knocking down adult trees" contest.

That does not address my question, but you have probably nailed how most people will interpret the OP. You can trust folks to stick to first impressions, rather than think things through. We all do it.

Sorry @Sunstone , but @epronovost is correct. It is contextual.
If there is a “misinterpretation”, then I suggest revising the OP.

As for that...

........

NOTE: We are NOT using 'superior' and 'inferior' here as synonyms for larger or smaller, etc. This is not about comparatives! The question is, is there an intrinsic property of things that makes them superior (or inferior).

This last sentence of this last paragraph suggests that you are discussing absolutes.
Then No. There are none.

But I would have to say that such evaluations of superior and inferior do not occur in the minds of (the vast majority) of humans, without reference to context.

Titanium armor alloys are not better than paper-mâché in anyone’s mind when considering how to best construct piñatas, but if someone is firing .50 calibre rounds at me, my vote goes to the armor plating. Neither is intrinsically “superior” or “inferior” to the other without context, whether in reality or in the minds of humanity.


PS - Nice song.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would say it is only in the human mind. build by ego

Agree.
I'll add that they're value judgements.

 

[Quintessence]

That does not address my question, but you have probably nailed how most people will interpret the OP. You can trust folks to stick to first impressions, rather than think things through. We all do it.

How is one supposed to interpret it?

Terms like "superior" and "inferior" are inherently contextual and comparative by matter of definition. The only exception I can think of is if you're for some reason thinking about this like some sort of math equation, but even there operators are effectively a proxy for context and comparisons.

You're going to need to explain what you're going on about here.

 

[atanu]

Are 'superior' and 'inferior' illusions and/or constructs of the human mind, or are they actual properties found in natural objects? If they are properties of natural objects, what is their physical composition or make-up? If they are emergent properties, what is their substructure?

Is an elephant in any way superior to a mouse? If you say an elephant's size renders it superior to a mouse, then precisely how does size convey superiority/inferiority?

NOTE: We are NOT using 'superior' and 'inferior' here as synonyms for larger or smaller, etc. This is not about comparatives! The question is, is there an intrinsic property of things that makes them superior (or inferior)?




_________________________________________
And now for some nostalgic British ship ballast music....

It is all gold. But we can fashion different jewellery each better suitable for certain purpose-function.

Superior-inferior, except in application/non application of wisdom, is value judgement that often depends on social and other factors. So, dharmic thoughts and actions are inherently superior to non-dharmic egoistic thoughts and actions.

YMMV.

 

[exchemist]

Are 'superior' and 'inferior' illusions and/or constructs of the human mind, or are they actual properties found in natural objects? If they are properties of natural objects, what is their physical composition or make-up? If they are emergent properties, what is their substructure?

Is an elephant in any way superior to a mouse? If you say an elephant's size renders it superior to a mouse, then precisely how does size convey superiority/inferiority?

NOTE: We are NOT using 'superior' and 'inferior' here as synonyms for larger or smaller, etc. This is not about comparatives! The question is, is there an intrinsic property of things that makes them superior (or inferior)?




_________________________________________
And now for some nostalgic British ship ballast music....

The terms superior and inferior are sometimes, esp. in anatomy, used to denote structures that are above or below others. More generally, if you define an axis of some kind, you can position physical entities on the axis and thereby order them.

Once they have been ordered like this, you can apply the terms superior and inferior to them, whether you mean that one is, in terms of the chosen axis, "better" than the other, or whether you simply mean above or below.

Bu they are all human descriptions of relative positions on a chosen axis.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, on one hand, New Zealand is inherently inferior , but on the other, it's an unnatural abomination, so I'm not sure wheter that's a yes or no to the thread question.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are 'superior' and 'inferior' illusions and/or constructs of the human mind, or are they actual properties found in natural objects? If they are properties of natural objects, what is their physical composition or make-up? If they are emergent properties, what is their substructure?

Is an elephant in any way superior to a mouse? If you say an elephant's size renders it superior to a mouse, then precisely how does size convey superiority/inferiority?

NOTE: We are NOT using 'superior' and 'inferior' here as synonyms for larger or smaller, etc. This is not about comparatives! The question is, is there an intrinsic property of things that makes them superior (or inferior)?

The concept of superior is connected to choice is it not? That does not make it untrue. If I choose one thing over another then that means it is superior. I can be wrong. I can make a mistake, but I can be right. Therefore it may be superior. If it may be superior then it may be inferior. The difference is what is chosen, and since the choice is real so is the superiority within that choice but possibly beyond that choice.

There is another consideration: Sometimes choosing things makes them superior. When this happens does it mean the thing was not superior previously? When did it become superior? Was it before it was chosen or after? You can say 'After'. You can say 'Before'. Either way it has been chosen, so the superiority can't be considered intrinsic.