Epistemology
Existence and non-existence can both be said to exist in some sense. Non-existent things are said to be unable to show themselves in reality. These objects appear to have linguistic form but not physical form. Perhaps these are existentially broken objects; they have aspects of existence, but not those that can push them pass the existence threshold. Language is flexible enough to bring the idea of non-existent objects to the mind based on properties with no solid connections. If the ontology allows absurdities, the epistemology doesn’t appear to participate in it, save perhaps the ontology itself as presented as an epistemology.
How do we balance the thing, its opposite, and its negation? Nonexistence appears to be the opposite of existence itself, and not of the thing. It appears that it must exist that the thing must exist or not exist. Existence being a necessary property of a thing and its negation says nothing about the thing’s opposite. The opposite of a thing appears to be those in its family that generate significantly different results. The properties of the elements in a family present themselves in the relationship between mind and world as the mind attempts to correlate epistemology to ontology.
The unequal relationship between epistemology and ontology generates uncertainty. From the epistemology’s point-of-view, there is a conflict between existence and reality. When a thing is real and exist, it is considered true or actual. What are things which don’t exist but are real? Can they be said to exist in the future or past, thus being real but not existing currently? Perhaps these things exist in nonexistence, thus they are real there and not here? And what of those things which are not real but do exist? Can they be said to be fiction, since people will say they exist in some sense but not in the one which makes them real? Non-reality and nonexistence appear to lead to non-being. Non-being, from the epistemology’s point-of-view, is beyond all hints of awareness. These are being which appear forever unknown to those who can know anything.
The letter appears to exist in ontology in the same sense as number, in that anything that is one in number is also a word in letter. All phenomena appear to be in some sense nameable. Such makes an epistemology equal to the ontology theoretically possible, though impossible without omniscience. Since to explain the ontology is to equate words to what is, one can give the whole a name and be done with it. However, one can only confirm the parts by observations of them, and they appear to have some type of infinity. Without the complete truth, one doesn’t have the Truth. Though unobtainable it is still a goal to pursue.
The models and theories of the mind must mimic the world for there to be truth. The law must mimic ethics for there to be justice. This is typically dependent on Kantian Politics and whether virtue has any power. The mind judges its grasp of the world on its frequency of correct predictions. Likewise, the mind judges its grasp of ethics based on its frequency of producing good outcomes. Knowledge is used both in epistemology and ethics. Whereas the value of knowledge in epistemology is truth and falsehood, the value of knowledge in ethics is good or bad. Ethics may further its distance from epistemology by being more concerned with action than knowledge. Although, knowledge as a prerequisite for action is necessary for one to be an ethical agent. It would appear that Ontology is indifferent to truth, Epistemology is indifferent to virtue, and Ethics is indifferent to beauty.
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Saturday, October 17, 2020
PWIP 36
Epistemology
One may observe how anything that can possess an epistemology understands itself. We can’t hide from our own knowledge, only hope to forget it or bury it deep in our subconscious. Knowledge in the form of rules and patterns are easier to follow. Every things’ place possesses meaning. Existence itself appears to have an omnipotent spontaneity with every place being filled with (something, anything, everything(?)). Though having an epistemology that can replicate the ontology in its totality is impossible, the goal is still necessary to pursue.
We may discover the values in existence by separating ourselves from it. We see ourselves as no longer belonging to the world but to ourselves. The falsehood generates distinctions that further separate the epistemology from the ontology from the epistemology’s point of view, all remains one to the ontology. We can’t claim we are the Ontology, so it appears true that we are separate from it in some sense. Order manifests itself out of the relationships made in the separation of the ontology from a whole into parts. The ontology molds the epistemology, it is an epistemology, and it transcends epistemology.
The most basic form of information is motion. The falsehoods in motion relate to differences between the world as it is and the world as it is given or understood by the senses. Distance presents itself as a problem throughout epistemology. The distance between the mind and the world confuses what is in the world and what is in the mind. There’s temporal distance between observations and the explanations for them. Mental distance between concepts can make it difficult to make the connections needed for understanding to function.
Ethics Build
The aspects of a being that appears to give them ethical value are suffering and belonging. Suffering can be a negative state of being meant to promote survival in biological machines. Belonging refers to a relationship between the owner and owned. Animals have a sense of belonging to themselves that other beings (e.g. rocks) don’t appear to possess. Such may be a result of the DNA’s inclination towards survival, equilibrium, a particular pattern in the world, or something of the like. The individual extends their sense of the self by belonging to his/her self. An uninformed state of nature may find it difficult to identify objects of ethical value. Our problem isn’t an inability to identify belonging, but rather a lack of utilitarian math. Suffering is not mere pain, it appears to be the intent to harm for the sake of harm and destruction. In this light, there’s a distinction between unethical acts, actors, and environments. Each form of the unethical state is bad, only the actors can take blame for actions or environments.
The difference between Kantian Politics and Relativism Aesthetics is the difference between individualism and collectivism. This is the problem that presents itself in ethical dynamics. We must contend with the question of how much of ourselves are we willing to give to the group? And how much of the group belongs to an individual? Groups are similar in functionality to individuals but with more power. Groups with virtuous psychologies are more predictable because their rules for behavior use less probability. Groups can appear ethical because their numbers follow a strict program for action. Actions based on tastes can contradict ethical principles. Unethics spreads rapidly when Kantian Politics is based on a group’s taste, who themselves would say they belong to a particular individual. The tension between individualism and collectivism comes from the authority of belonging. An unethical kantian politics is unstable due to the malicious belligerence of vice. Wisdom being a virtue grants the virtue psychology the ability to communicate the reasons for his/her right to act. Those who actively pursue vice are typically easier to identify than those who fall into vice through neutrality.
Eclecticism Ethics
Kantian Politics
The aesthetics of the world allows for no strict duplicates. All beings appear to have their own experiences. Despite that, equality, fairness, symmetry are still ideals to look towards when stabilizing a system. Maths can make everything one. The representative of the group, the government, is judged on its math rather than its aesthetics. Do the leaders of the group provide for the group? If all members were of perfect virtue makeup, the group is stable regardless of conditions. Equals need no functional leaders.
Utilitarian Mathematics
The brain measures the value of beings. The mental weighing is scaled up in economic systems, but essentially one can make an ordering of preferences that can be transformed into arithmetic. Utilitarianism is concerned with a preference ordering that prefers the good. We see that math deals with many aesthetic conflicts. Agents can vote, compete, or gamble to settle disputes. Aesthetics is important because everything with function needs a form or appearance. Ethics may require justified ownership.
Ownership can’t merely be who found what first or keeping what one has always had. Utilitarianism plays a major role in belonging as ethics requires everything to be in service to the greater good. Capitalism attempts to mix kantian politics, relativism aesthetics, and math to create a system that doesn’t require virtue. Without virtue, all acts end in self-destruction.
Relativism Aesthetics
Ethics also desires freedom (in as far as it is obtainable in the ontology). There is a preference ordering for one’s own taste. Conflicts tend to erupt between one’s own taste and the good. No form is bad in of itself. It’s a form's relation to another agent that makes it so. Given what appears in reality, it is very difficult to operate without doing vice. This is because knowledge can be difficult to hide from. Once one is no longer innocent of the vice in one’s taste, one is aware of the bad one has done, is doing, and may do. Yet we all are artists. And to only be allowed to make copies of the world is an injustice.
Ethics seems to contain the mundane. We find it in many places of safety and protection. A type of nihilism seems to be contained in the mundane. Ethics becomes void when there are no negative states. One is thus able to pursue one’s taste uninhibited, which is not mundane. But one does this without risk, which is mundane. Such protection or lack of pain is a type of negated freedom, and positive nihilism. Pain seems to want to take meaning with it when it is removed.
Virtue Psychology
There is perhaps less of a need for virtuous agents to use science to discover which rational beings have ethical value from which don’t. A virtuous agent is passive and would only move to help another. The ultimate objective is to help whatever needs help. Individuals with the ability to communicate are quite easy to help. We must balance it with other systems. These other systems can be found in epistemology. The passivity, as opposed to neutrality, allows the virtue agent to avoid doing harm, rather than simply ignore it whenever it occurs. An active virtue agent may scour space for vice or harm. Though the ideal of the perfect virtue agent is impossible, the ideal of vice is self-destructive.
Ethics Dynamics
The outcomes of ethical dynamics are along a spectrum of peace, mercy, conflict, and suffering. The complexity of the system increases with the number of agents, who themselves vary the power of virtue and vice with their choices of either one. The simplest case of the system is peace, in which all agents choose virtue. The more difficult cases of the system involve mixed strategies, unequal power, and the outcomes of mercy or conflict. And, of course, when vice wholly overcomes virtue there is suffering.
A third individual in the equal power game can create an imbalance of power. In a three-person game where there is unequal power either two agents have more power than one or one agent has more power than two. The agents with the most power dictate the outcome of the game. The imbalance of power generates suffering or mercy. Though virtue agents want to make equals out of other agents, there are more opportunities for virtue to prevail when it has more power than vice.
Virtuous agents are trustworthy, and therefore deterministic. Malicious agents are probabilistic, as they can choose to add to the power of either agent. The case is complex, with allegiances to either type being unstable. Agents who play vice are more stochastic in their behavior since they need not obey ethical rules. They can use the tools of virtue as means to ends in vice. Intentions are bad when the goal is malicious. Some can have good intentions but bad knowledge or skill and thus windup with an action that is a vice. The distinction in the origin of vice may change the means but not the end of preventing or stopping suffering.
One may observe how anything that can possess an epistemology understands itself. We can’t hide from our own knowledge, only hope to forget it or bury it deep in our subconscious. Knowledge in the form of rules and patterns are easier to follow. Every things’ place possesses meaning. Existence itself appears to have an omnipotent spontaneity with every place being filled with (something, anything, everything(?)). Though having an epistemology that can replicate the ontology in its totality is impossible, the goal is still necessary to pursue.
We may discover the values in existence by separating ourselves from it. We see ourselves as no longer belonging to the world but to ourselves. The falsehood generates distinctions that further separate the epistemology from the ontology from the epistemology’s point of view, all remains one to the ontology. We can’t claim we are the Ontology, so it appears true that we are separate from it in some sense. Order manifests itself out of the relationships made in the separation of the ontology from a whole into parts. The ontology molds the epistemology, it is an epistemology, and it transcends epistemology.
The most basic form of information is motion. The falsehoods in motion relate to differences between the world as it is and the world as it is given or understood by the senses. Distance presents itself as a problem throughout epistemology. The distance between the mind and the world confuses what is in the world and what is in the mind. There’s temporal distance between observations and the explanations for them. Mental distance between concepts can make it difficult to make the connections needed for understanding to function.
Ethics Build
The aspects of a being that appears to give them ethical value are suffering and belonging. Suffering can be a negative state of being meant to promote survival in biological machines. Belonging refers to a relationship between the owner and owned. Animals have a sense of belonging to themselves that other beings (e.g. rocks) don’t appear to possess. Such may be a result of the DNA’s inclination towards survival, equilibrium, a particular pattern in the world, or something of the like. The individual extends their sense of the self by belonging to his/her self. An uninformed state of nature may find it difficult to identify objects of ethical value. Our problem isn’t an inability to identify belonging, but rather a lack of utilitarian math. Suffering is not mere pain, it appears to be the intent to harm for the sake of harm and destruction. In this light, there’s a distinction between unethical acts, actors, and environments. Each form of the unethical state is bad, only the actors can take blame for actions or environments.
The difference between Kantian Politics and Relativism Aesthetics is the difference between individualism and collectivism. This is the problem that presents itself in ethical dynamics. We must contend with the question of how much of ourselves are we willing to give to the group? And how much of the group belongs to an individual? Groups are similar in functionality to individuals but with more power. Groups with virtuous psychologies are more predictable because their rules for behavior use less probability. Groups can appear ethical because their numbers follow a strict program for action. Actions based on tastes can contradict ethical principles. Unethics spreads rapidly when Kantian Politics is based on a group’s taste, who themselves would say they belong to a particular individual. The tension between individualism and collectivism comes from the authority of belonging. An unethical kantian politics is unstable due to the malicious belligerence of vice. Wisdom being a virtue grants the virtue psychology the ability to communicate the reasons for his/her right to act. Those who actively pursue vice are typically easier to identify than those who fall into vice through neutrality.
Eclecticism Ethics
Kantian Politics
The aesthetics of the world allows for no strict duplicates. All beings appear to have their own experiences. Despite that, equality, fairness, symmetry are still ideals to look towards when stabilizing a system. Maths can make everything one. The representative of the group, the government, is judged on its math rather than its aesthetics. Do the leaders of the group provide for the group? If all members were of perfect virtue makeup, the group is stable regardless of conditions. Equals need no functional leaders.
Utilitarian Mathematics
The brain measures the value of beings. The mental weighing is scaled up in economic systems, but essentially one can make an ordering of preferences that can be transformed into arithmetic. Utilitarianism is concerned with a preference ordering that prefers the good. We see that math deals with many aesthetic conflicts. Agents can vote, compete, or gamble to settle disputes. Aesthetics is important because everything with function needs a form or appearance. Ethics may require justified ownership.
Ownership can’t merely be who found what first or keeping what one has always had. Utilitarianism plays a major role in belonging as ethics requires everything to be in service to the greater good. Capitalism attempts to mix kantian politics, relativism aesthetics, and math to create a system that doesn’t require virtue. Without virtue, all acts end in self-destruction.
Relativism Aesthetics
Ethics also desires freedom (in as far as it is obtainable in the ontology). There is a preference ordering for one’s own taste. Conflicts tend to erupt between one’s own taste and the good. No form is bad in of itself. It’s a form's relation to another agent that makes it so. Given what appears in reality, it is very difficult to operate without doing vice. This is because knowledge can be difficult to hide from. Once one is no longer innocent of the vice in one’s taste, one is aware of the bad one has done, is doing, and may do. Yet we all are artists. And to only be allowed to make copies of the world is an injustice.
Ethics seems to contain the mundane. We find it in many places of safety and protection. A type of nihilism seems to be contained in the mundane. Ethics becomes void when there are no negative states. One is thus able to pursue one’s taste uninhibited, which is not mundane. But one does this without risk, which is mundane. Such protection or lack of pain is a type of negated freedom, and positive nihilism. Pain seems to want to take meaning with it when it is removed.
Virtue Psychology
There is perhaps less of a need for virtuous agents to use science to discover which rational beings have ethical value from which don’t. A virtuous agent is passive and would only move to help another. The ultimate objective is to help whatever needs help. Individuals with the ability to communicate are quite easy to help. We must balance it with other systems. These other systems can be found in epistemology. The passivity, as opposed to neutrality, allows the virtue agent to avoid doing harm, rather than simply ignore it whenever it occurs. An active virtue agent may scour space for vice or harm. Though the ideal of the perfect virtue agent is impossible, the ideal of vice is self-destructive.
Ethics Dynamics
The outcomes of ethical dynamics are along a spectrum of peace, mercy, conflict, and suffering. The complexity of the system increases with the number of agents, who themselves vary the power of virtue and vice with their choices of either one. The simplest case of the system is peace, in which all agents choose virtue. The more difficult cases of the system involve mixed strategies, unequal power, and the outcomes of mercy or conflict. And, of course, when vice wholly overcomes virtue there is suffering.
A third individual in the equal power game can create an imbalance of power. In a three-person game where there is unequal power either two agents have more power than one or one agent has more power than two. The agents with the most power dictate the outcome of the game. The imbalance of power generates suffering or mercy. Though virtue agents want to make equals out of other agents, there are more opportunities for virtue to prevail when it has more power than vice.
Virtuous agents are trustworthy, and therefore deterministic. Malicious agents are probabilistic, as they can choose to add to the power of either agent. The case is complex, with allegiances to either type being unstable. Agents who play vice are more stochastic in their behavior since they need not obey ethical rules. They can use the tools of virtue as means to ends in vice. Intentions are bad when the goal is malicious. Some can have good intentions but bad knowledge or skill and thus windup with an action that is a vice. The distinction in the origin of vice may change the means but not the end of preventing or stopping suffering.
Monday, October 12, 2020
A Philosophical Work in Progress IX
Individuals accept or attempt to reject characteristics given to them by nature. All objects possess some property which makes them known, I believe. If x were an object with no properties, one could just claim it is contained in the empty set, for even the term “object” wouldn’t apply to it. Language itself doesn’t seem to allow one to express a non-property. Words are either understood or not; and when they are understood, they are typically understood as the role they play in what is being communicated. Thus it would appear that an object must possess a property of some sort to exist. People possess many properties, e.g. potentiality, age, race, thought patterns, culture, income, language, employment, beliefs, physiology, philosophy etc.. Some properties are perceived as companions, while others are seen as enemies.
To identify with particular aspects of one’s self is reasonable. But perhaps one shouldn’t be too intimate with accidental, unintentional qualities, which any quality not obtained by the will appears to be; albeit even extreme possession of one’s own will is a limit to one’s self by applying value inaccurately. An obvious example of accidental qualities is gene inheritance, no one decides beforehand what genes they get, we all simply make use of what we are given. No one can choose their fundamental physical structure, for one would first need to know about the world and one’s self in order to know what qualities are desirable. Such would require that one exist before coming into existence, or that one should possess knowledge of existence before having come into existence. All beings seem to rely on beings in existence to generate their existence or bring them into existence. This condition, which is perhaps cause and effect or something similar, has many forms. This constant generation appears to constantly change while still maintaining somethings constant/unchanging. Thus we come into existence in this biological condition which has evolved/changed over time, where one’s beginnings depends on others. And as one can not split off one’s self into multiple beings of a single consciousness, one can only choose one path, though one may perceive many. “What is the rational course of action?”, seems to be a reasonable question; and though the imposition of rationality appears to limit freedom, any forced denial of its use seem just as oppressive.
Perhaps this is all an attempt to escape bias, obtain a broader worldview, and a more efficient way of thinking. For the most reasonable way of thinking would be to think like God, or any being with efficient thinking. Science can help to fill in more than half of one’s epistemology; though most of science is the work of history and random curiosities. The simplest expression of epistemology is perhaps logic, which establishes the notion of having a notion and deciding to accept of reject notions or ideas. Ethics requires a solemn look into situations. Yet the real ethical dilemmas and examples one perceives (pass rape and murder) are almost comical, if there effects didn’t cause such distress. Biologically, all we do is perhaps for sex, psychologically it is all to escape pain, but these are “simple” pursuits. Philosophy seems to encompass everything. Adherence to any particular notion/idea is a denial of many others, one should perhaps show caution for what one excludes.
So what is really being done in the action of communication? The mere appearance of one’s self to another gives away information of the self, actions and words seem to add information one could not have known with just the mere appearance of the self. Such information usually consist of the self’s physical, psychological, and chronological condition/ing.
Understanding and responding to the actions of others is always possible, in that our domain of physics will always produce an outcome, i.e. reality has a limit to its possibilities. This existence, however, must be an error if no God or perfection exist, but I can’t say for certain that such things don’t exist, or rather I can’t supply sufficient proof that they don’t exist. Philosophy, which is everything, should allow one to contain all possibilities, both the existence and nonexistence of perfection or God and their implications on the world and self.
One can not merely reflect on one’s self to know one’s self, but one must also observe and reflect on the world. One may continue such a process until one is satisfied with the results, such is typical for those biological beings whom know their next move. To reflect constantly on everything is perhaps the curse of a philosopher. Maybe one can choose when to be satisfied and when not to be, or whether such a notion even matters, for such is somewhat derived from the biological entity. To identify one’s self with any particular being is limiting, even if one list every particular factor of one’s self, for perhaps it is the unlisted, unable to be listed, or resilient to being listed items which truly define the self
Passive morals seem quite clear to most individuals, e.g. don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape are simple propositions to understand, in that when one knows the action, one knows what to negate or simply not do. If one wishes to know why such rules are in place, one must question the source of the rule. Active morality are actions one should perform or ought to perform. These appear to cause more harm in the world because it appears to force the self to act in an indignant way. These and other sorts of ideas which come from various minds are intimately connected with the psychology of the mind it is contained in to the point that neglecting the ideas are mentally painful.
The mind maybe able to accept any notion in theory, but the contrary maybe the case when it comes to application, as one must go beyond imagination and vague thinking. Any moment of one’s self is the best simplification of all the current knowledge available to consciousness. Though we are all prone to error, there’s an idea which we hold as fundamental and it differs from being to being. Ethics seems to require that all individuals follow the same law, but such limits freedom. How much control does one have in choosing one’s limits? Should one give one’s self to a notion of what the self thinks is good?
To identify with particular aspects of one’s self is reasonable. But perhaps one shouldn’t be too intimate with accidental, unintentional qualities, which any quality not obtained by the will appears to be; albeit even extreme possession of one’s own will is a limit to one’s self by applying value inaccurately. An obvious example of accidental qualities is gene inheritance, no one decides beforehand what genes they get, we all simply make use of what we are given. No one can choose their fundamental physical structure, for one would first need to know about the world and one’s self in order to know what qualities are desirable. Such would require that one exist before coming into existence, or that one should possess knowledge of existence before having come into existence. All beings seem to rely on beings in existence to generate their existence or bring them into existence. This condition, which is perhaps cause and effect or something similar, has many forms. This constant generation appears to constantly change while still maintaining somethings constant/unchanging. Thus we come into existence in this biological condition which has evolved/changed over time, where one’s beginnings depends on others. And as one can not split off one’s self into multiple beings of a single consciousness, one can only choose one path, though one may perceive many. “What is the rational course of action?”, seems to be a reasonable question; and though the imposition of rationality appears to limit freedom, any forced denial of its use seem just as oppressive.
Perhaps this is all an attempt to escape bias, obtain a broader worldview, and a more efficient way of thinking. For the most reasonable way of thinking would be to think like God, or any being with efficient thinking. Science can help to fill in more than half of one’s epistemology; though most of science is the work of history and random curiosities. The simplest expression of epistemology is perhaps logic, which establishes the notion of having a notion and deciding to accept of reject notions or ideas. Ethics requires a solemn look into situations. Yet the real ethical dilemmas and examples one perceives (pass rape and murder) are almost comical, if there effects didn’t cause such distress. Biologically, all we do is perhaps for sex, psychologically it is all to escape pain, but these are “simple” pursuits. Philosophy seems to encompass everything. Adherence to any particular notion/idea is a denial of many others, one should perhaps show caution for what one excludes.
So what is really being done in the action of communication? The mere appearance of one’s self to another gives away information of the self, actions and words seem to add information one could not have known with just the mere appearance of the self. Such information usually consist of the self’s physical, psychological, and chronological condition/ing.
Understanding and responding to the actions of others is always possible, in that our domain of physics will always produce an outcome, i.e. reality has a limit to its possibilities. This existence, however, must be an error if no God or perfection exist, but I can’t say for certain that such things don’t exist, or rather I can’t supply sufficient proof that they don’t exist. Philosophy, which is everything, should allow one to contain all possibilities, both the existence and nonexistence of perfection or God and their implications on the world and self.
One can not merely reflect on one’s self to know one’s self, but one must also observe and reflect on the world. One may continue such a process until one is satisfied with the results, such is typical for those biological beings whom know their next move. To reflect constantly on everything is perhaps the curse of a philosopher. Maybe one can choose when to be satisfied and when not to be, or whether such a notion even matters, for such is somewhat derived from the biological entity. To identify one’s self with any particular being is limiting, even if one list every particular factor of one’s self, for perhaps it is the unlisted, unable to be listed, or resilient to being listed items which truly define the self
Passive morals seem quite clear to most individuals, e.g. don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape are simple propositions to understand, in that when one knows the action, one knows what to negate or simply not do. If one wishes to know why such rules are in place, one must question the source of the rule. Active morality are actions one should perform or ought to perform. These appear to cause more harm in the world because it appears to force the self to act in an indignant way. These and other sorts of ideas which come from various minds are intimately connected with the psychology of the mind it is contained in to the point that neglecting the ideas are mentally painful.
The mind maybe able to accept any notion in theory, but the contrary maybe the case when it comes to application, as one must go beyond imagination and vague thinking. Any moment of one’s self is the best simplification of all the current knowledge available to consciousness. Though we are all prone to error, there’s an idea which we hold as fundamental and it differs from being to being. Ethics seems to require that all individuals follow the same law, but such limits freedom. How much control does one have in choosing one’s limits? Should one give one’s self to a notion of what the self thinks is good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)