Which is a bigger insult?
I asked this in the old forum and no answer was satisfactory. Perhaps someone here can help.
Take the two statements below:
1. All men are fools
2. All fools are men
To keep things on track, let's assume to call someone a fool is an insult. I'd like to restrict the discussion to this interpretation because as some, women perhaps, would consider calling someone a man as an insult.:)
Anyway...
Statement 1 is an insult to all men. However, 1 leaves the possibility that there are some non-men who are also fools (women perhaps:) ). So, men can draw some comfort from this possibility.
Statement 2 is also an insult. It says if there's a fool to be found, then that fool is also a man. There's no fool that's not a man. However, here too, men may breathe a sigh of relief because the statement leaves open the possibility that a man may not be a fool.
One important distinction between the mitigating qualities of the two statements re men is
A) For statement 1, men are comforted by the inclusion of others (women, dogs, etc.) in the fool class.
B) For statement 2, men are relieved by the exclusion of some men from the fool class.
My question:
Which is a bigger insult to men, statement 1 or statement 2?
I think I've answered my own question but I'd like to hear your responses. Thanks.
Take the two statements below:
1. All men are fools
2. All fools are men
To keep things on track, let's assume to call someone a fool is an insult. I'd like to restrict the discussion to this interpretation because as some, women perhaps, would consider calling someone a man as an insult.:)
Anyway...
Statement 1 is an insult to all men. However, 1 leaves the possibility that there are some non-men who are also fools (women perhaps:) ). So, men can draw some comfort from this possibility.
Statement 2 is also an insult. It says if there's a fool to be found, then that fool is also a man. There's no fool that's not a man. However, here too, men may breathe a sigh of relief because the statement leaves open the possibility that a man may not be a fool.
One important distinction between the mitigating qualities of the two statements re men is
A) For statement 1, men are comforted by the inclusion of others (women, dogs, etc.) in the fool class.
B) For statement 2, men are relieved by the exclusion of some men from the fool class.
My question:
Which is a bigger insult to men, statement 1 or statement 2?
I think I've answered my own question but I'd like to hear your responses. Thanks.
Comments (74)
Ok, but I'd like you to look at the problem as a man, a class, not as an individual.
But ''all fools are men'' say that the entire class of fools is included in the class of men. I don't know how to word this but what if I were to say ''all evil people are Americans''. This is not true but just assume for the sake of argument. Isn't ''all fools are men'' equally, if not more, insulting?
Why is this important, and how is it philosophy?
The whole binary set up of the statements is useless. Are you actually trying to understand something about the concept of someone being a fool, or are you just playing a game?
Anyway...
1. All men are fools is insulting but men could derive some relief by knowing that there's the possibility of some non-men being fools too e.g women. This mitigating factor is inclusive, as in men are comforted by the possibility that others may be in a similar situation. Psychology?
2. All fools are men is also insulting because there's no fool who's not a man. Think of ''all terrorists are Muslims''. Here the mitigating element is the possibility that some men may not be fools. As you can see, here men are comforted in an exclusive sense i.e. the possibility of some men not being fools lessens the blow. Psychology?
Morally speaking, which point of view is better? Is it better to be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you are (inclusive above) or is it better to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in (exclusive above)?
Sorry if I was harsh; it's just that this is a philosophy forum, and I don't see what philosophical end this question serves. But there are other threads that I would say the same thing about, yours just touched a nerve. Apologies. I consider psychology and morality to be aspects of philosophy, so fair enough.
Quoting TheMadFool
Now, this goes back to my critique. Why does this matter? I don't see how any of this matters in the real world. Why does this question matter to you?
Here's my problem.
To me, both statements are equally insulting. Statement 1 does it directly to ALL men (doesn't require the feeling of belonging or brotherhood but its presence will amplify the insult) and statement 2 does it indirectly to ALL men (requires the sentiment of belonging, brotherhood).
We can't decide, on these statements alone, which is a bigger insult.
That's why I delved into the moral implications of both statements. Statement 1 can be mitigated through inclusion i.e. we feel better in knowing there are others (women?) who're fools and statement 2 can be mitigated through exclusion i.e. we feel better in knowing that some men are not fools.
So, from a moral perspective, statement 1 is a bigger insult because a man's relief is obtained through including others in the same bad situation (foolishness).
As for statement 2, a man is comforted by excluding others from a bad situation (foolishness). This is much better because it's a good thought.
Ok, so I totally misread this, and that's on me. Overworked, sleep-deprived, and slightly tipsy. You may call yourself the Mad Fool, but that's me, for the moment. Let me try again.
To be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you isn't inherently selfish or unselfish. It's selfish if you derive pleasure from bringing others down to your level of misery. But, it's unselfish if you find companionship through suffering that you perviously didn't have, if you were in a state of isolation. This could manifest as someone willingly offering you this companionship out of charity, or it could manifest as two isolated people finding companionship through a shared experience of suffering.
Likewise, to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in could go either way. It would be selfish to feel this way as a way to willingly isolate yourself; there's a masochistic tendency in some of us that derives pleasure form imagining that we're bearing a form of suffering that others are not; this is (psychologically) a need to achieve personhood (through imagined individuality; through the perceived idiosyncratic nature of our own suffering). What comes to mind is the "tortured artist". On the other hand, an unselfish experience of being "comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in" would be a desire that those who fall under your care, those you love, are not subjected to the unique sufferings that you yourself are experiencing. This is because love means, among other things, a desire for the well-being of the loved one. We do all we can to maintain that state of well-being for those we love, and we hope and trust that they reciprocate. We do this because we ultimately imagine our loved ones as having the potential to obtain a state of "true" happiness, which is a spiritual longing not to be overlooked. But this gets complicated; well-being presents itself as a lack of suffering, but there's an inner character to suffering, an esoteric character. Suffering can lead to enlightenment, as well as destruction. Is it really just to attempt to, or to find comfort in, the obstruction of the experience of suffering in others? I tend to take an extreme view; suffering is neutral. As I said, it can lead to enlightenment, or to destruction. Does the potential for destruction merit an attempt from an outside force to obstruct suffering? I think we should protect those we love form suffering at all costs, but we should gratefully accept the suffering that inevitably comes, despite our own futile devices. And why? Because that suffering that comes is inevitable. Wisdom lies in between; protecting our loved ones from suffering, and learning how to grow from the suffering that none the less comes our way.
So, to answer your question, I don't think one of the situations you pose is better than the other. Again, I think it's a false binary concept that doesn't apply to the real world.
See my further comment above.
(Y) Drink but don't Drive.
Your analysis is too, let's say, poetic. It's good - makes sense but it's romantic - impractical. I learned something new though. Thanks for that.
Anyway...let's say I agree with you that the moral dimension of the two statements isn't as clear cut as I thought.
If so, we're back to square 1. Which is a bigger insult, 1 or 2? On what other factors does the decision hinge on?
Quoting Noble Dust
Moslems are faced with the accusation ''All terrorists are Moslems'' and women too face such accusations e.g. ''all women are whores''. May be I'm oversimplifying it but the vilification of Moslems and the objectification of women are real truths in this world of ours.
NYC, baby.
Quoting TheMadFool
How so?
Quoting TheMadFool
Why is the decision of which is a bigger insult something that anything should hinge on? What exactly is the hinge here?
Quoting TheMadFool
Are they/do they?
If everything can be read both ways, there's nothing to pin decision on. In a way, my OP is similar. We can't decide. Paralysis ensues and no thought/action is possible.
Quoting Noble Dust
Well, people seem to instinctively choose statement 1 as the bigger insult. This I've shown is a misconception. So, how do we break the deadlock? We can take it as a purely intellectual exercise or as I've shown, explore the question's moral, psychological, or other implications to make a decision.
Quoting Noble Dust
It seems like it. Why are moderate Moslems engaging in PR battle to restore the reputation of Islam and Moslems? Why do women dislike and speak out about men objectifying them?
I'm just looking at the problem from a perspective that has more to it than what appears prima facie.
Anyway...
How do we decide which is a bigger insult? You think moral analysis doesn't help. So, what's left?
I think the moral angle should work because I think the knife-cuts-both-ways argument of your is flawed. Your argument focuses on outliers and unique cases e.g. masochism and sadism. While I don't deny their existence, they're too rare to bear on the issue. Speaking in general terms, what good and bad, suffering and joy, etc. mean to most of us, I think my solution is not bad.
No, for the same reason as before.
By both ways, then, you mean "poetic"? I can't find much in my post that was poetic other than "futile devices", and maybe "learning how to grow".
Quoting TheMadFool
Are you saying paralysis ensues when writing or speaking gets poetic? I'm really confused here. I guess paralysis is ensuing...
In all seriousness, I'm against our Western insistence on microscopic definition. I think poetry says it better. We'll soon find that the search for exact metaphysical definition only leads to a sort of "metaquantum uncertainty".
Quoting TheMadFool
For the same reason that moderate Christians try to maintain the status quo of conservative Christianity? Really, the political blind spots in regards to Islam are getting annoying. But I was really just responding to the binary distinction you described initially in this context.
Quoting TheMadFool
Did I say that somewhere in my initial mis-reading of your comments? Because I definitely don't think that.
Quoting TheMadFool
I didn't focus on that. My focus was specifically moral practicality.
Quoting TheMadFool
But you haven't.
So that, I could interpret the first as saying that one is not a man until one becomes a fool. Men do need a sense of humor, I mean, we can't expect women to be funny...
1)Do you feel insulted if I call you a fool?
Yes.
2)Do you feel insulted if I call your mother a fool?
Yes.
Which is a bigger insult?
Similarly...
A)All men are fools
This insults a man because he's a man and the statement asserts him to be a fool
B)All fools are men
This insults a man because the statement insults a fellow comrade, so to speak. Like insulting your family (see 2 above).
Can you tell me which is a bigger insult now?
Part of the problem here is ambiguity in the meaning of the word 'men'.
Does 'men' refer to 'mankind', to humanity in general? Or does it refer to males specifically?
If we interpret 'men' in 'All men are fools' as referring to all human beings, then that one seems to be saying that all human beings are fools. Everyone is in the same boat, seemingly falling short of some perhaps unrealistic imaginary standard.
If we interpret it as saying all males are fools, then it would seem to be creating a fundamental value hierarchy within the class of humanity. I guess that I'd personally say that the 'men means males' interpretation of 'All men are fools' is the most insulting. It doesn't seem to leave any possibility of being a male and not being a fool.
"All fools are men' doesn't universalize over 'all men' as easily.
Interpreting 'man' to mean 'mankind', 'All fools are men' would seem to be saying that only humans have the capacity to be fools, not that all of them are. I don't think that's particularly insulting.
Even if we read 'men' to mean males, it's still possible that the vast majority of males aren't fools.
And if we preceded the sentence with something about genius and foolishness being closely related, then that might turn the whole thing on its head.
Statement one is a wider reaching insult. It insults more people. Statement two could arguably be an insult of greater magnitude, as if it applies to fewer people, the implication is that one must meet a higher level of foolishness to be qualified as a fool.
:)
Sorry. There's truth in what you said. There are many sides to an issue. You were right in saying that my moral take on the issue doesn't provide a solution, at least not in the simplistic sense I had in mind.
However, I don't think I'm completely wrong about it. It is bad to derive any sort of satisfaction, no matter how small, from seeing others in a situation as bad as yours. Perhaps someone who knows psychology can dissect this attitude.
Also, it is good to be happy to see others are not in a situation as bad as yours.
Your take on this has been to say this isn't true - that the thoughts/sentiments I described above can be read in both ways - good and bad. Now, this view is only possible if you factor in things like masochism and sadism. If you want to do that, fine. However, this seems wrong to me - like ignoring the majority for the opinion of a fringe group.
Quoting Wosret
Yes, a fine interpretation. (Y)
You raise a good point. How do we quantify insults? Here I appeal to the quantitative reasoning that differentiates ''dislike'' from ''despise'' or ''like'' from ''love''.
Yes, I know right.
''All men are fools'' insults ALL men directly. It's like calling your entire family foolish.
''All fools are men'' insults ALL men indirectly. It's like calling your mother a fool. It's an insult to the family.
Which is worse?
We can't decide because both statements insult ALL men - one directly and the other indirectly.
How's that relevant? The former.
Quoting TheMadFool
But surely you can see that you're wrong to keep saying that [I]we[/I] can't decide, when some of us can and have.
Assuming good family relations and the same insult in both cases, I think that it's worse to insult the entire family, rather than a single member. (N.B. a distinction should be made, for the purpose of clarification, between what could be called [i]insulting[/I] and [i]taking offence[/I], so as to avoid equivocation, such that it can be said that the family might take offence, even if only the mother was insulted).
Similarly, and under similar circumstances, it's more insulting to men to insult all men than to insult some men.
Quoting TheMadFool
But that's not contained in the premise. You're reading that into it. It isn't man vs. fellow comrade or family member - that's nonsense. It's simply "All men are fools" vs. "All fools are men", and I stand by my original answer.
I don't think that there's enough of a basis to infer a difference in quality or degree - it's the same insult, [i]to be a fool[/I] - but there's enough of a basis to infer a difference in quantity, and that's what my conclusion is based on. It's more insulting to men when all men are insulted, and, contrary to what you say, only one statement insults all men. Only one statement is even [i]about[/I] all men.
No, I don't think so. What I was trying to describe is the complexity of these moral problems. Like I said, not wanting to see others suffer as you've suffered stems from a desire to see the ones you love flourish, to see that their well-being is preserved. This is a deeply spiritual part of us. It's implications are wide as deep. But what it doesn't consider is the role that that very suffering plays in the very concepts of flourishing or well-being. Think of the archetypes of light and dark, yin and yang. I'm not prescribing anyone allow suffering that they could prevent; I'm trying to open up a more nuanced understanding of suffering and well-being.
Imagine yourself an American. Take the two statements below:
1. All Americans are pedophiles
2. All pedophiles are Americans
According to you, 1 is more insulting because it talks about ALL American.
What I'm saying is 2 is also about ALL Americans, although it's subtle and not captured by the logical structure of the statement. How did you feel, as an American, when your fellow citizen was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks? It wasn't ALL Americans that were killed. Yet, ALL of America went to war. (Sorry to stoke painful memories here but I needed a good example.)
So, quantity fails to make the distinction which of the two, 1 or 2, is the bigger insult.
Well, looks like we need a different metric to answer my question. Can you think of another way to decide which is more insulting, 1 or 2?
But the reason I tried to show those moral complexities is because I think they show that the question of which statement is more insulting is not relevant, from that moral perspective. Maybe my points were too much of a tangent, but I was trying to get at the underlying moral problems in the situation that you set up here. I still don't think the binary "this or that" is the right way to look at those underlying moral problems.
From that point, if people disagreed with the criteria, they could.
What you are discussing, isn't the degree of badness of an insult, but the way an insult is transmitted socially.
Well, quantity is inherent in the statements, both of which contain ''ALL''. So, asking the question which is a bigger insult seems natural. Most people think ''all men are fools'' is worse than ''all fools are men'' but as I pointed out, both statements insult all men.
Ok. Morality is vague and ambiguous enough to preclude any definitive solution to my problem. Thanks for clearing that up. Can you think of another method to make the distinction I asked in the OP?
But quantity isn't necessarily the measure of how big an insult is. If you say I'm annoying, I might be mildly insulted. If you say I'm a pedophile, I'll be greatly insulted. The latter is a bigger insult, but I'm the only one insulted. It is the degree, not anything to do with quantity in both cases, that determines how big am insult is. So unless you are going to set up specific criteria by which to judge the "bigness" of an insult, then all is left is pointless semantic games.
I can't decide. I tried to think it through, but all I could think about was guns and Twinkies.
Quoting TheMadFool
But in all seriousness, my position remains unchanged and there seems little more to say. It's like we're merely repeating the same act with a different setting, but it's the same old story. If we were to compare 9/11 to a 9/11 in which a greater number of people were killed or injured, and if you were to ask me which of the two would be more harmful to Americans, then I'd answer that it'd be the latter.
And you're inconsistent in your example: you switch from all Americans to all of America. All Americans did not go to war, and if the reason that they didn't was because they'd all been killed in the attack, rather than only some, then that would indeed have been a worse attack, in which a far greater number of people were killed.
Hopefully you won't come back with something like "But what if we were in England in 1645 and you were a Royalist? Which would be worse: that all Royalists are lubberworts or that all lubberworts are Royalists?". My logic isn't going to suddenly change just because you've tweaked the setting.
Quoting TheMadFool
No they don't. Only one does. Stop equivocating.
Well, what do you suggest? What criteria do you think works here?
It is.
I don't know about the insult business, but I think you do have a kind of point here.
There's an implicit comparison between two groups.
Let's say all Americans are fools. It could also be that all non-Americans are fools too, in which case neither group is less foolish. People do often respond to attacks in just this way. If it's unlikely that all people, American or not, are fools, then it is likely that Americans are the more foolish group, maybe very likely, but that's all, and it could be that nearly all non-Americans are fools, and thus Americans are only barely more foolish.
Now let's say all fools are Americans. Then we would have to say there are no fools in the class of non-Americans, and therefore the non-Americans are a less foolish group.[sup]1[/sup] But it's true even if there's only one American fool (I don't see why we should name him), so again maybe Americans are only barely more foolish. Not that it seems likely there's only one fool, so it's also likely that Americans are more than barely more foolish.
(1) leads to squabbling over how many non-American fools there are; (2) leads to squabbling over how many (American) fools there are. Both can result in comparisons that fall on a gradient, including near parity of the two groups, but both making it likely that Americans are noticeably the more foolish group, I think.
(2) sets a maximum to how much of humanity can be foolish; if it's thought that many people are fools, (2) is strengthened. (1) sets a minimum; the bigger the proportion of fools, the weaker (1) gets.
I think which is the more damning claim would have to depend on where you estimate the proportion of fools to fall.
1. To make that really work, you must also assume that there are fools, and therefore foolish Americans, but that's not much a stretch. And in real life the universal carries existential import anyway.
Quoting Reformed Nihilist
How do you see the difference between ''like'' and ''love'', between ''dislike'' and ''hate'', between ''Abraham Lincoln'' and ''Hitler''? I appeal to that sense of discrimination.
I'm looking for something simpler.
So you prefer to remain vague? I already offered two answers that would answer to reasonable interpretations of "bigger", but you didn't like those answers, and preferred your own (strange to ask a question if the only acceptable answer is the one you have already determined). It is a certainty that if the question is non-specific, then the answers will not be specifically correct or incorrect, useful or useless. worthwhile or pointless. That's the nature of questions and answers.
But the matter of insults, the response to them, are vague. Vagueness comes with the territory. I don't know how precise we can make the perception of insults.
I did reply. I dispute that statement 2 is about all men, and I've been consistent in that regard. It's about all fools, not all men. You're taking advantage of an ambiguity to make your point. Let's just agree to disagree and avoid talking past one another.
We can make them as precise as we choose to. Clarity and specificity aren't properties of the world, they're properties of how we speak and think about the world. So when you ask a question, you can assign a clarity to the question by saying specifically what you mean. When you are asking what is the bigger insult, specifically, what are your trying to determine? How could you know that your question was answered? If you don't know this, then I don't think that what you did actually qualifies as asking a question, but instead engaging in a speech act that mimics a question.
If you think in vague terms and ask unspecific questions, then your answers will be imprecise and unclear. Some people seem to prefer this approach, no doubt for many reasons. One of the reasons appears to me to be that they can come up with vague and non-specific answers to nearly any question that are vaguely justifiable, and they can never be shown to be specifically wrong. That offers some sort of social or ego gratification. What it doesn't offer is answers that one can reliably act upon in the world, so in those terms, their answers, and the questions attached, end up being a waste of time. I'd suggest that you'd be better off not embracing this paradigm.
I find statement 2 to be FAR more insulting to me, because it insults my intelligence, not all fools are men, there are fools everywhere, i CAN however sympathize with the statement that all men are fools, because come on, everyone is a fool, obviously.
as for which is more insulting to men, as a gender, the second, clearly, because its explicitly stating that men can be fools where women cant. its drawing an uncharitable comparison against the only other 'group' that we can really be compared against.
Then admittedly I'm not your guy.
Works for me, though. I enjoyed the analysis and it's something I had never thought about. I fully expect to use it again on something else.
No, it does not explicitly state that, and it does not logically follow that women can't be fools. Look again. It states that all fools are men, from which it logically follows that no fools are women.
It's clearly more insulting to a gender to insult every member of that gender by calling them a fool, than to suggest that, as a member of that gender, you might be a fool or you might not be.
All is greater than some, and to call a man a fool is an insult. The rest follows. This is a relatively simple logical test, and some people have failed it, including yourself and TheMadFool who presented it.
But it does follow from (2) that no women are:
1. If a man then a fool.
2. If a fool then a man.
I still say the implied comparison in (1) doesn't have much bite if all or nearly all women are also fools; same for (2) if no or nearly no men are fools.
You could argue that being called a fool is bad whether anyone else is or not, but since the insult is targeted at whole classes (men, Americans, whatever), it's hard for me not to see an implied comparison between members and nonmembers of the class.
Have I failed the test?
Yes, I know.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, but they are just unknown possibilities, so why should I care? The opposite could be true for all we know. We must decide based on the statements, and what can be deduced from them.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
But the question was which is more insulting to members of that particular class. Surely insulting all members of the class, i.e. the entire class, is more insulting to the class than insulting some members of it.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Not as badly as others.
I largely agree, but only that (1) is probably more of an insult. If "All men are fools" is on the table, why not "All women are fools" too? Subtlety has already been tossed aside.
The thing is, we all know that generalizations like (1) are usually, well, stupid. It's more damming of the person saying it. But (2) style claims sometimes fare better. Compare:
1. All humans kill for sport.
2. Only humans kill for sport.
(1) is dumb, but (2) is disturbing if true.
Congratulations. You've passed the test. X-)
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Well, if you look at the table, you should be able to see that the latter is simply not there. You could add it to the table, but then we'd be discussing something else.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Wouldn't the (2) style claim be "All sports kill for humans"?
Anyway, I agree with what you say about those stupid generalisations, about them being damning to the person saying them, and about your example comparison, but these are side issues.
No, the pair of conditionals was (1) sufficient condition and (2) necessary condition, so the other way to say that is "All x are y" and "Only x are y."
Oh wait, you were kidding.
Half-kidding. I was pointing out the mismatch between:
1. All men are fools
2. All fools are men
&
1. All humans kill for sport.
2. Only humans kill for sport.
But obviously "All sports kill for humans" doesn't make sense.
Statement 1 is the greater insult because it is the more comprehensive; it insults all men, both individually and as a class. Statement 2 insults all men as a class, but it does not insult all men as individuals.
Perhaps in my question lies the answer to many other inquiries. The class doesn't get insulted. It's not a person, although I have certain doubts about it. It's always the undividual who's feelings get hurt.
The first one fits into a wider variety of broader views or narratives, some of which are more palatable than others (e.g. Gandalf might say that as a helpful reminder of your limitations).
The second one places a bigger emphasis on sex and implies that no women are fools. I wouldn't necessarily say this is a bigger insult, but its meaning is more narrow and likely causes a different, more specific, kind of reaction.
I think it makes sense to say that a class can be insulted, but obviously not that it can feel insulted.
Edit: re-wrote the whole sentence for clarity reasons.
Yes, there's a difference between the class of men and men. The former isn't a conscious being, so can't be insulted, while the latter is composed of conscious individual beings, who each can be insulted.
This is new to me. I'd think statement 2 is a lesser insult because men are relieved that others (women, dogs, etc) aren't being insulted since they can't be fools. So, men have the choice of assuming a higher moral ground compared to statement 1. Anyway, have a look at Roke's post here and my reply to it above.
Statements don't just exist on their own in some objective dimension. Someone has to say them. The 2nd statement says more about the speaker - specifically that they are a misandrist. This invokes a different reaction with or without any misogyny in play.
I have an exam tomorrow so in an ideal world I should be studying, but I discovered this website just now, so chuck studies; I will just answer this question. xD
1. Any sort of comparison brings in the problem of perception and no perception is absolute, hence according to me it becomes more an opinionated question than that of philosophy.
2. As it is an opinionated question with two choices, we can easily do a breakdown of both the choices and view which segment of population will prefer to divulge in which choice.
3. When we look at the question from the perspective of a relatively insecure, person, someone who puts comfort and stability before his ambition, he would feel that the later one is a bigger insult as he will draw comfort in the first insult that he is not alone in his suffering. He will be ready to accept foolishness as a trait common with all men and will accept or block out the insult dimming the sting of it.
4. The second category of people will feel that the first insult is more, well.. insulting because they are the ambitious people, they are the rebels, they do not want to be bounded by the statement that all men are born to be fools, he will shout and scream against this insult,
A very natural (though odd) test for guessing which category they belong to, give them a seemingly impossible task and tell them that you were not able to do it, hence he will not be able to do it as well. If he tries, then gives up too easily then refer point three or else man oh man you have a point 4 guy right there.
Ps. Now I really need to return to my studies. I have web mining exam tomorrow and there is a shit load to study. :3
.....since insults are on the table ;}
Yer welcome
But we are a competitive species, and do not like the idea that we are a fool, even if it were common to be one. Therefore, the bigger insult is saying that all men are fools.
Re: what it has to do with philosophy.
It's categorical logic, i.e., a hugely important part of philosophy.
As someone who teaches English lit, I think especially philosophy dealing with this sort of close attention to language should appeal to the literary-minded. Which of these two sentences appeared in a poem or dialogue would make a profound difference on the interpretation thereof.
Also, this inspired me to a little dialogue drafting myself:
"You'll always be alone and unhappy, because you think all men are fools!" He growled at her, waving his hand in disgust.
She was taken aback for less than a moment, "That's not true!" Glancing out the window she regained composure and in a more even tone added: "But I do think all fools are men."
With that, she left him to ponder the implications of her statement for himself as well as for mankind.
Quoting iolo
Your word, not mine. Poo-pooing what others spend time and energy discussing, and what some spend their whole careers dissecting, is usually what my younger students do in an attempt to mask their ignorance of a subject.