There appear to be two “scales” in ethics. There are the extremes of good and bad. These scales don’t allow for gradation, a thing is either good or bad, and there is no middle ground. This can perhaps be called a classical scale. The second kind of scale is Aristotle’s golden mean. Instead of the good being one end of two extremes, it is the midpoint between two vices.
Let’s relate these scales to economics. In the traditional scales, being poor is seen as bad, and being rich is seen as good. This is, of course, because the rich hold much of the power in society, and thus influence values. The golden mean would entail that there’s an ethical place that exists between being impoverished and being filthy rich. Society doesn’t think there should be a ceiling for wealth and a floor for poverty. This runs into the virtue of fairness, which requires a kind of equality and proportionality. Everyone should get what they need. If there’s more than what is necessary then an equal and proportional distribution is made. This appears to run into the problem of merit and ownership, i.e. distributing according to work done (or some other criteria) and distributing according to authority over goods.
In order to be active in ethics, one needs a well-formed epistemology. Most people have corrupted epistemologies due to religion and other faulty ideologies. Religion is particularly heinous because it gives people the belief that they have an ultimate truth, destroying positive traits like humbleness, curiosity, and open-mindedness. They believe they know the ontology, which is profoundly absurd. They think belief in a thing they claim is omniscient somehow also gives them powers of omniscience. Many of these laypeople, being uneducated in philosophy, have no sound justification for their beliefs. The unsophisticated, informal methods of reasoning found in holy books (mostly fallacies of appeals to authority) are used for real-world problems.
Lies are easier to generate than the truth. Both are related to language and communication. Once one has a language that can express enough content, one can generate any piece of information and claim it is true. Obviously, obtaining the truth requires more than the mere communication of information.
People will by default appeal to the truth, rarely does one see them put in the work to express it proper. This is because the truth is multifaceted and complex. I can’t say I have the truth, merely that I seek the truth and discover what I hope are aspects of it. There seems to be a hierarchy of the truth. At the top of the hierarchy is big T Truth. This is ontology, the all, it is the dynamics of all things. We’ve spoken of the hierarchy because it is the same as philosophy.
Next is the process of discovering truth, which is perhaps akin to a flowchart or algorithm. First, is one coming from a place of ignorance or some knowledge, that is to say, is one building a foundation or upon a foundation. There’s likely no true pure ignorance without being part of nonexistence. The first tools for discovering truth are those provided by the body, primarily reason, the senses, and movement. The next tools are perhaps those discovered by reason itself, mainly mathematics, logic, and science. The next part is perhaps knowing which sources one can trust. One would need to record who is consistent and whose predictions come to pass.
Tuesday, June 21, 2022
Thursday, January 27, 2022
PWIP 44
One of the more difficult problems for the human is how resources should be distributed. Every animal seems to have to deal with the problem of resources in one way or another. They must somehow obtain nutrients. Many “lay claim” to a space or territory. They will defend their resources with violence.
There is perhaps an economical-like process in the brain. There are patterns and cycles in nature that affect the lifestyle of biological beings. Most animals are swayed by nature because of a lack in their physical structure, cognitive capabilities, social skills, and/or other features such as these. One may dominate nature to one’s desire, assuming one has the ability to do so safely. Although good economics is the efficient use of resources. The other generates the problem of ethics, which spreads through practically all interactions with the other, including economical interactions. Best practices are left to the business class, who may be practical, and even limited by the law, but not bound to ethics.
One would perhaps need to start from what the humans need and work backward from there. Like other animals, nutrients and space seem first. Ancient humans were known to hunt, farm, settle, and migrate. This is all pre-civilization, and thus before any formalization of mental content.
There appears to be a set of highly efficient ways to live in any given area that can be discovered through the scientific method. This notion can be extended to the planet and beyond. There are certain aspects of life the human would focus its attention towards in order to live well, though this isn’t an exhaustive list they are; medicine, technology, matter sciences, and brain sciences. The earth and the biological material seem resilient to destruction, the human is comparatively less so.
The resources society uses are represented in monetary exchange. An item’s value appears to represent its scarcity, desirability, and the resources put into the item. This generates for the merchant what seems like a game-theoretic problem of whether an individual who didn’t want the item then wants it now, and whether the individual that did want it before wants it again.
America has what seems like a nested rule. The federal government is on the top, then the state government down to the local level. Institutions run all the way through, so below the local level government there are businesses, schools, places of worship, etc., then finally personal homes. Yet we see the business class taking control of many aspects of life.
Proof of post-scarcity is the amount of waste. There seems to be massive waste from overuse and underuse. Technology makes it easy to reproduce perfect copies of images and sounds. This seems to have ended the scarcity of certain types of artists. The sun provides massive amounts of harvestable energy. We only use a fraction of the energy from the sun we could be using. We have enough knowledge and capability with farming to provide food for everyone. Not only do we not provide for everyone, but we waste tons of food. We can actively and passively teach everyone many different arts, but we force people into myopic lanes. It is a post-scarcity world, yet the humans do not act as if it is so. Perhaps the waste is based on an acknowledgment?
There is perhaps an economical-like process in the brain. There are patterns and cycles in nature that affect the lifestyle of biological beings. Most animals are swayed by nature because of a lack in their physical structure, cognitive capabilities, social skills, and/or other features such as these. One may dominate nature to one’s desire, assuming one has the ability to do so safely. Although good economics is the efficient use of resources. The other generates the problem of ethics, which spreads through practically all interactions with the other, including economical interactions. Best practices are left to the business class, who may be practical, and even limited by the law, but not bound to ethics.
One would perhaps need to start from what the humans need and work backward from there. Like other animals, nutrients and space seem first. Ancient humans were known to hunt, farm, settle, and migrate. This is all pre-civilization, and thus before any formalization of mental content.
There appears to be a set of highly efficient ways to live in any given area that can be discovered through the scientific method. This notion can be extended to the planet and beyond. There are certain aspects of life the human would focus its attention towards in order to live well, though this isn’t an exhaustive list they are; medicine, technology, matter sciences, and brain sciences. The earth and the biological material seem resilient to destruction, the human is comparatively less so.
The resources society uses are represented in monetary exchange. An item’s value appears to represent its scarcity, desirability, and the resources put into the item. This generates for the merchant what seems like a game-theoretic problem of whether an individual who didn’t want the item then wants it now, and whether the individual that did want it before wants it again.
America has what seems like a nested rule. The federal government is on the top, then the state government down to the local level. Institutions run all the way through, so below the local level government there are businesses, schools, places of worship, etc., then finally personal homes. Yet we see the business class taking control of many aspects of life.
Proof of post-scarcity is the amount of waste. There seems to be massive waste from overuse and underuse. Technology makes it easy to reproduce perfect copies of images and sounds. This seems to have ended the scarcity of certain types of artists. The sun provides massive amounts of harvestable energy. We only use a fraction of the energy from the sun we could be using. We have enough knowledge and capability with farming to provide food for everyone. Not only do we not provide for everyone, but we waste tons of food. We can actively and passively teach everyone many different arts, but we force people into myopic lanes. It is a post-scarcity world, yet the humans do not act as if it is so. Perhaps the waste is based on an acknowledgment?
Thursday, December 2, 2021
PWIP 43
How to discover truth
One has to train one’s intuition to have a good taste for truth. One can’t trust one’s self. I may forget relevant information. I may not understand the information presented. I could have a structural limitation hindering my search. One has to prove one’s self to the truth. Truth is attached to existence. Math and logic can show which actions have the highest probability of achieving a particular state of affairs. Science possesses a structured view of the world. These concepts are the beginnings of a good intuition of the natural world. Yet, truth and existence are perhaps biconditional. In a sense, the work of discovering truth is completed once one exists. There seems to be a search for something more than bare truth.
People, in general, can’t be assumed to know (or sometimes tell) the truth. Certain people can be trusted, though they must prove themselves to the truth as well. Experts can be trusted, but one almost needs to be an expert oneself to know if the other is an expert or not. Most people stick to their own specialty because of the lack of resources, such as time, money, sufficient amount of foundational knowledge. It would seem every generation of civilization has individuals with varying degrees of knowledge of particular subjects. The civilization doesn’t optimize for learning and knowledge exchange. Some knowledge seems inevitable because of the nature of the world, while other less biting knowledge are acquired by coincidence.
Mathematics becomes more and more important the higher up in the scope of understanding one goes. One also needs logic, which are innate to any system that seems to work. Math is easier to comprehend, it’s the application of numbers. This perhaps allows for numerical truths to be grounded on firmer grounds than other types of truths. Practically everything in our civilization has intentional numerical properties. Every object has dimensions, an amount produced, a value, etc. Maths allows us to perceive a uniformity in nature.
Logic is compact representatives of truths. Truth is always whole and parts, so logic is both deconstructable and constructable. Logic doesn’t create the truths of the world, the truths are generated results of terms mixing. If "A and B become C" is a fact of the world, then that fact becomes a logical truth in the world that can be broken down or used to build other truths. Formal logic also has a history of humans discovering many logical systems. So logic finds itself a part of many systems while itself also being a system.
Technology helps with discovering truth. It has better sensing, analysis, and calculation abilities than the typical animal. It also shows the variety of configurations matter can take. Computer programs allow for the externalization of sights and sounds that can be generated in the animal mind and external world. Programming languages are formalizations of mechanical logic. Mechanical logic, like those found in computers and other electric devices, require proofs to be conceived as languages, which are the devices themselves or an expressed system. The loose logic found in a natural language requires adherence to the syntactical rules, but any claim can be presented without proof (it’s just many people interrogate whatever they perceive as false).
Creativity is a part of the discovery of truth. Though it appears as a choosing between the many configurations the world can take. When others aren’t able to predict the configuration another chooses, they may consider the act as creative. Creativity can be denying the obvious for surprise effects. In a sense, creativity goes against logic, since the individual doesn't pick criteria based on functionality but rather based on aesthetics. Yet, it may be an unformalized logic of design based on individual ability and preferences. Natural language is useful in places like these where there is no set logical representation or mathematical formula, none beyond perhaps the reasoning from creativity.
One has to train one’s intuition to have a good taste for truth. One can’t trust one’s self. I may forget relevant information. I may not understand the information presented. I could have a structural limitation hindering my search. One has to prove one’s self to the truth. Truth is attached to existence. Math and logic can show which actions have the highest probability of achieving a particular state of affairs. Science possesses a structured view of the world. These concepts are the beginnings of a good intuition of the natural world. Yet, truth and existence are perhaps biconditional. In a sense, the work of discovering truth is completed once one exists. There seems to be a search for something more than bare truth.
People, in general, can’t be assumed to know (or sometimes tell) the truth. Certain people can be trusted, though they must prove themselves to the truth as well. Experts can be trusted, but one almost needs to be an expert oneself to know if the other is an expert or not. Most people stick to their own specialty because of the lack of resources, such as time, money, sufficient amount of foundational knowledge. It would seem every generation of civilization has individuals with varying degrees of knowledge of particular subjects. The civilization doesn’t optimize for learning and knowledge exchange. Some knowledge seems inevitable because of the nature of the world, while other less biting knowledge are acquired by coincidence.
Mathematics becomes more and more important the higher up in the scope of understanding one goes. One also needs logic, which are innate to any system that seems to work. Math is easier to comprehend, it’s the application of numbers. This perhaps allows for numerical truths to be grounded on firmer grounds than other types of truths. Practically everything in our civilization has intentional numerical properties. Every object has dimensions, an amount produced, a value, etc. Maths allows us to perceive a uniformity in nature.
Logic is compact representatives of truths. Truth is always whole and parts, so logic is both deconstructable and constructable. Logic doesn’t create the truths of the world, the truths are generated results of terms mixing. If "A and B become C" is a fact of the world, then that fact becomes a logical truth in the world that can be broken down or used to build other truths. Formal logic also has a history of humans discovering many logical systems. So logic finds itself a part of many systems while itself also being a system.
Technology helps with discovering truth. It has better sensing, analysis, and calculation abilities than the typical animal. It also shows the variety of configurations matter can take. Computer programs allow for the externalization of sights and sounds that can be generated in the animal mind and external world. Programming languages are formalizations of mechanical logic. Mechanical logic, like those found in computers and other electric devices, require proofs to be conceived as languages, which are the devices themselves or an expressed system. The loose logic found in a natural language requires adherence to the syntactical rules, but any claim can be presented without proof (it’s just many people interrogate whatever they perceive as false).
Creativity is a part of the discovery of truth. Though it appears as a choosing between the many configurations the world can take. When others aren’t able to predict the configuration another chooses, they may consider the act as creative. Creativity can be denying the obvious for surprise effects. In a sense, creativity goes against logic, since the individual doesn't pick criteria based on functionality but rather based on aesthetics. Yet, it may be an unformalized logic of design based on individual ability and preferences. Natural language is useful in places like these where there is no set logical representation or mathematical formula, none beyond perhaps the reasoning from creativity.
Monday, November 22, 2021
PWIP 42
Thoughts on Logic
Every proposition contains terms. The terms are defined using propositions. Perhaps one could consider the collection of all the terms with definitions the epistemic dictionary. There are actual dictionaries for languages and other subjects. Individuals contain in themselves certain symbols that they can give a kind of definition for. The terms are organized according to their epistemic closeness. This generates a knowledge network or web. Chains of propositions appear to form superstructures, like narratives and sciences.
Negation causes many problems in the search for truth through logic. All linguistic propositions can be negated through some kind of rejection response (though meaningful rejections come from informed justifications). Dissent can occur when terms conflict with each other. An object’s opposite may mix with it to produce a new object, or its negation leads them both to the null set or falsehood.
Epistemology is a subset of ontology. Everything that is discovered or is discoverable is innate to ontology. Ontology seems to be in control of all things since it is existence and existing is being what one is. Epistemology contains some parts of ontology. What does it mean for there to be ontological objects outside of epistemology? Some objects are perhaps unknowable. The dictionary could be the subset of epistemology that deals with knowable objects.
On the difference between “and” and “or” in logic and natural language
Can I clarify these concepts in my own mind? The term “and” means a term A is generated while a term B is generated. The term “or” means a term A can be generated, a term B can be generated. In logic (informal logic--since I’m no logician) “and” and “or” are binary functions that can span multiple terms. The term “and” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when all terms under its purview are true. The term “or” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when at least a few, but not all, of the terms under the function’s purview are true. In logic, changing the interpretation of the truth functions concerning the term “or” can result in the inclusive “or” or the exclusive “or”. The inclusive "or" appears to include the "and" function, whereas the exclusive "or" does not.
“And” seems to imply a time period. If the case is one can choose A and B, does the “and” change when one somehow takes A and B at different times; maybe A and B are taken at the same time, or A is taken then B is taken? The natural language (English language at least) doesn’t distinguish between the time beyond some condition on the “and,” such as simultaneity or ordering. A kind of “and” seems to exist between all terms. Relationships seem to be cases of “and.” It could be the logical “and” is implicit whenever multiplicity is involved.
Every proposition contains terms. The terms are defined using propositions. Perhaps one could consider the collection of all the terms with definitions the epistemic dictionary. There are actual dictionaries for languages and other subjects. Individuals contain in themselves certain symbols that they can give a kind of definition for. The terms are organized according to their epistemic closeness. This generates a knowledge network or web. Chains of propositions appear to form superstructures, like narratives and sciences.
Negation causes many problems in the search for truth through logic. All linguistic propositions can be negated through some kind of rejection response (though meaningful rejections come from informed justifications). Dissent can occur when terms conflict with each other. An object’s opposite may mix with it to produce a new object, or its negation leads them both to the null set or falsehood.
Epistemology is a subset of ontology. Everything that is discovered or is discoverable is innate to ontology. Ontology seems to be in control of all things since it is existence and existing is being what one is. Epistemology contains some parts of ontology. What does it mean for there to be ontological objects outside of epistemology? Some objects are perhaps unknowable. The dictionary could be the subset of epistemology that deals with knowable objects.
On the difference between “and” and “or” in logic and natural language
Can I clarify these concepts in my own mind? The term “and” means a term A is generated while a term B is generated. The term “or” means a term A can be generated, a term B can be generated. In logic (informal logic--since I’m no logician) “and” and “or” are binary functions that can span multiple terms. The term “and” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when all terms under its purview are true. The term “or” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when at least a few, but not all, of the terms under the function’s purview are true. In logic, changing the interpretation of the truth functions concerning the term “or” can result in the inclusive “or” or the exclusive “or”. The inclusive "or" appears to include the "and" function, whereas the exclusive "or" does not.
“And” seems to imply a time period. If the case is one can choose A and B, does the “and” change when one somehow takes A and B at different times; maybe A and B are taken at the same time, or A is taken then B is taken? The natural language (English language at least) doesn’t distinguish between the time beyond some condition on the “and,” such as simultaneity or ordering. A kind of “and” seems to exist between all terms. Relationships seem to be cases of “and.” It could be the logical “and” is implicit whenever multiplicity is involved.
Thursday, February 4, 2021
On News
There’s certain qualities news has that could be considered. News can be true or false and good or bad. News, for the most part, is a message about events. The message is delivered through a medium. Messages can be delivered through notes, gossip, television, loudspeakers, telephones, online media. News appears to have a significance to the present. Past events with no current significance would be deemed moments in history rather than news. Though one can’t know the future in the same way one knows the past, there can be news concerning the future in the form of plans. The most trustworthy information is perhaps one’s own experience. Albeit without a well-informed worldview one may not have a sufficient understanding of events. It seems difficult for one to construct a message that can adequately express events without the necessary understanding. Once constructed the message doesn’t appear difficult to replicate, a repetition of the message would suffice. When trying to parse true news from false, one must consider the fact that homo sapiens can error intentionally or unintentionally. There are various levels of news based on understanding, and various domains that use news.
Communities appear to spread news based on some importance threshold. There’s perhaps more ability to confirm the truthfulness of community news due to the locality, though perhaps one may not have the authority to request answers for certain questions. Religion is another institution that uses news. Those whom some god/s has deemed worthy deliver the messages of said god/s. This news can be difficult to confirm because of the weak connection between the source, content, and receiver. The state uses news to deliver commands and the current state of affairs. Identifying the lies of the state may be dependent on one’s intelligence. Major events are harder to cover up than minor events, but one may be too remote from either to obtain the appropriate facts. Science uses the news. Events are expressed in very specific ways to make understanding uniform (or more uniform than merely speaking the same language). Receivers are asked to repeat events to confirm the truth of the conclusion of the messages. Other domains that use the news don’t typically have this ask, in many cases such an ask is impossible.
Communities appear to spread news based on some importance threshold. There’s perhaps more ability to confirm the truthfulness of community news due to the locality, though perhaps one may not have the authority to request answers for certain questions. Religion is another institution that uses news. Those whom some god/s has deemed worthy deliver the messages of said god/s. This news can be difficult to confirm because of the weak connection between the source, content, and receiver. The state uses news to deliver commands and the current state of affairs. Identifying the lies of the state may be dependent on one’s intelligence. Major events are harder to cover up than minor events, but one may be too remote from either to obtain the appropriate facts. Science uses the news. Events are expressed in very specific ways to make understanding uniform (or more uniform than merely speaking the same language). Receivers are asked to repeat events to confirm the truth of the conclusion of the messages. Other domains that use the news don’t typically have this ask, in many cases such an ask is impossible.
Wednesday, January 6, 2021
PWIP 41
Ethics Economics
Objects have different values across domains which are weighted by importance, or something like that. They are objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, and subjective domains. There’s a range of actions an agent can choose from that are within ethics, which is from perfect to good enough. Out of all possible objects appropriate ones are chosen and compared. The generation of ethics is dependent on what resources it has to work with.
Hopefully, I’ve pointed at some concepts I believe are part of ethics. The objective domain contains these things but attempts to deal with utilitarian maths in a practical way. Objects have various values and knowing which has the highest objective value at any given time depends on the relationship between values. One would need to put a value on all aspects of one’s life. Some values aren’t concerned with ethics, while others are, they all have an impact on ethics nonetheless. They appear in one another and interfere with each other. The objective value contained by an object relates to its high impact on helping others. It takes some intelligence to know what set of objects is virtuous at any given moment.
The second meaningful domain appears to be functionality. It has the next highest weight because it is some kind of function, e.g. pain, that brings about the need for ethics. We see existence first as that which can’t not work. It works even in nonexistence. We fall into pragmatism here, for anything without use appears contrary to all causes. However, use floats around everywhere like existence and is also problematic because of this. Ontology uses All to bolster itself, and epistemology seeks to know All for the sake of knowing. Mere existence brings use, but ethics doesn’t need the All.
The universal domain starts to bring in notions of abundance/scarcity, supply/demand, and nature/technology. Anything with high universal value would be most abundant in the environment, and therefore economically cheap. However, these objects can be reconfigured or alternatively used to generate more value. Objects that are less universal are like aesthetics, they can tend towards conflict. Technology helps to deal with the problem of scarcity by creating exact duplicates. Technology itself is not universal, however, as the intelligence to make machines and factories isn’t abundant among all objects. Whereas nature has no demands only supplies, technology has many demands.
Various objects have use by different groups of ethical agents. The common use and view of economics is by a collective. The leaders, laws, and beliefs (some of which are within ethics, some not) influence the movement of value. Leadership as a role has a value. Beliefs as reasons for actions also have their own value. When there is conflict between a significant mass of individuals, there is a division in the collective. If all individuals conflicted with every other individual, then there would be no collective. As we see individuals give (willingly or not) allegiance to other individuals, a collective can be generated with enough connected networks of allegiances.
The individual is the abstract notion of being one. As such it appears to be situated at the center of freedom/choice. Being stripped of distinct parts it appears to take many forms. The individual also fills whatever container it appears in. The individualistic domain has a contentious relationship with the collective. Many collective beliefs are objects of an individual, but not an individual qua individual, but an individual qua person. If the collective isn’t mostly virtuous agents, then the individual need not sacrifice for it, or at least there’s no blame from ethics either way. One virtuous individual is of more value than many vice agents, but no virtuous agent would sit still with such a predicament. The virtuous individual’s obligation is to ethics rather than the self.
The physical domain of objects has been of high value throughout history. Many physical struggles must be overcomed before one can seek more psychological value. The past needs physical representations so it isn’t disputed by the present. It is the physical manifestation of the self, other, and object that makes the world impactful and a pressing matter. Communication to the other must occur over the physical medium. And we see the physical appear in the pragmatic. Advances in technology and science have brought about more nonphysical objects. Whereas these were mostly stories and ideas in the past, now there is digital information and its various forms.
The personal domain appears to value those objects which are considered part of one's identity. The notions of consumer and producer are seen here. That which one produces or consumes one assumes control over. One has one’s own supply of objects which are no longer considered as mere parts of the world. Thus what has personal value may be valuable in this sense only to one individual, or many individuals who share, or it may be valued by one because it is valued by another who is valued. The personal adds history and narrative to the individual.
The psychological domain is in a sense the most important. There probably wouldn’t be a need to instantiate ethics without positive/negative feelings and pleasure/pain. Without intelligence, there would be no way to the functional much less the objective, though that is psychology used in a particular way. Psychology is generated by the brain, the physical structure. As such there are physical correlations to psychological events. There’s not enough knowledge about the brain to place all exact causes on specific effects. The physical contains the psychological, and the psychological consumes the physical since there appears to be detection of the world. Psychology doesn’t appear wholly owned by the person, as it is something for the most part built by nature.
Those objects which apply pleasure to the senses have high aesthetic value. Beauty comes in many forms which have been pointed out to be problematic. Ontology welcomes All, there is no need for the struggle between beauty and ugliness. In epistemology, there are distinctions made between existence and nonexistence, as well as truth and falsity. Beauty/ugliness can be applied in epistemology, but the outcomes aren’t as simple as truth is beauty and falsity is ugly.
Vice needs a vehicle to operate. There are certain objects used to harm others. There are objects which cause harm but aren’t used by agents. Agents may claim certain items good that are not. The intent to harm rises subjective value, but there can be harm without intent or awareness of vice. This value may perhaps best be understood as blame. Yet though we may blame a certain bad event on nature, nature doesn’t act intelligently. The subjective is related to the hard problem of consciousness, in that we seem able to choose between rationality and irrationality, logic and illogical, and virtue and vice.
Objects have different values across domains which are weighted by importance, or something like that. They are objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, and subjective domains. There’s a range of actions an agent can choose from that are within ethics, which is from perfect to good enough. Out of all possible objects appropriate ones are chosen and compared. The generation of ethics is dependent on what resources it has to work with.
Hopefully, I’ve pointed at some concepts I believe are part of ethics. The objective domain contains these things but attempts to deal with utilitarian maths in a practical way. Objects have various values and knowing which has the highest objective value at any given time depends on the relationship between values. One would need to put a value on all aspects of one’s life. Some values aren’t concerned with ethics, while others are, they all have an impact on ethics nonetheless. They appear in one another and interfere with each other. The objective value contained by an object relates to its high impact on helping others. It takes some intelligence to know what set of objects is virtuous at any given moment.
The second meaningful domain appears to be functionality. It has the next highest weight because it is some kind of function, e.g. pain, that brings about the need for ethics. We see existence first as that which can’t not work. It works even in nonexistence. We fall into pragmatism here, for anything without use appears contrary to all causes. However, use floats around everywhere like existence and is also problematic because of this. Ontology uses All to bolster itself, and epistemology seeks to know All for the sake of knowing. Mere existence brings use, but ethics doesn’t need the All.
The universal domain starts to bring in notions of abundance/scarcity, supply/demand, and nature/technology. Anything with high universal value would be most abundant in the environment, and therefore economically cheap. However, these objects can be reconfigured or alternatively used to generate more value. Objects that are less universal are like aesthetics, they can tend towards conflict. Technology helps to deal with the problem of scarcity by creating exact duplicates. Technology itself is not universal, however, as the intelligence to make machines and factories isn’t abundant among all objects. Whereas nature has no demands only supplies, technology has many demands.
Various objects have use by different groups of ethical agents. The common use and view of economics is by a collective. The leaders, laws, and beliefs (some of which are within ethics, some not) influence the movement of value. Leadership as a role has a value. Beliefs as reasons for actions also have their own value. When there is conflict between a significant mass of individuals, there is a division in the collective. If all individuals conflicted with every other individual, then there would be no collective. As we see individuals give (willingly or not) allegiance to other individuals, a collective can be generated with enough connected networks of allegiances.
The individual is the abstract notion of being one. As such it appears to be situated at the center of freedom/choice. Being stripped of distinct parts it appears to take many forms. The individual also fills whatever container it appears in. The individualistic domain has a contentious relationship with the collective. Many collective beliefs are objects of an individual, but not an individual qua individual, but an individual qua person. If the collective isn’t mostly virtuous agents, then the individual need not sacrifice for it, or at least there’s no blame from ethics either way. One virtuous individual is of more value than many vice agents, but no virtuous agent would sit still with such a predicament. The virtuous individual’s obligation is to ethics rather than the self.
The physical domain of objects has been of high value throughout history. Many physical struggles must be overcomed before one can seek more psychological value. The past needs physical representations so it isn’t disputed by the present. It is the physical manifestation of the self, other, and object that makes the world impactful and a pressing matter. Communication to the other must occur over the physical medium. And we see the physical appear in the pragmatic. Advances in technology and science have brought about more nonphysical objects. Whereas these were mostly stories and ideas in the past, now there is digital information and its various forms.
The personal domain appears to value those objects which are considered part of one's identity. The notions of consumer and producer are seen here. That which one produces or consumes one assumes control over. One has one’s own supply of objects which are no longer considered as mere parts of the world. Thus what has personal value may be valuable in this sense only to one individual, or many individuals who share, or it may be valued by one because it is valued by another who is valued. The personal adds history and narrative to the individual.
The psychological domain is in a sense the most important. There probably wouldn’t be a need to instantiate ethics without positive/negative feelings and pleasure/pain. Without intelligence, there would be no way to the functional much less the objective, though that is psychology used in a particular way. Psychology is generated by the brain, the physical structure. As such there are physical correlations to psychological events. There’s not enough knowledge about the brain to place all exact causes on specific effects. The physical contains the psychological, and the psychological consumes the physical since there appears to be detection of the world. Psychology doesn’t appear wholly owned by the person, as it is something for the most part built by nature.
Those objects which apply pleasure to the senses have high aesthetic value. Beauty comes in many forms which have been pointed out to be problematic. Ontology welcomes All, there is no need for the struggle between beauty and ugliness. In epistemology, there are distinctions made between existence and nonexistence, as well as truth and falsity. Beauty/ugliness can be applied in epistemology, but the outcomes aren’t as simple as truth is beauty and falsity is ugly.
Vice needs a vehicle to operate. There are certain objects used to harm others. There are objects which cause harm but aren’t used by agents. Agents may claim certain items good that are not. The intent to harm rises subjective value, but there can be harm without intent or awareness of vice. This value may perhaps best be understood as blame. Yet though we may blame a certain bad event on nature, nature doesn’t act intelligently. The subjective is related to the hard problem of consciousness, in that we seem able to choose between rationality and irrationality, logic and illogical, and virtue and vice.
Tuesday, December 15, 2020
PWIP 40
The relationship between the object, other, and self changes when moving through philosophical domains. For ontology, all that exist is one object, there are no distinctions between the three. Some event brings us to the realization that we have been made other to the totality of existence. It is a calculation made by the brain. We discover the notion of otherness that was somewhere possible. One finds one’s self in the totality as a part. Epistemology perceives distinctions and one can only hope one’s brain is sufficient to understand epistemology.
One can perhaps conceive a self as an other to ontology when pondering on the parts of the ontology that one controls and the parts one does not control, this typically coming in the form of oppositions, e.g. pleasure/pain, gain/loss, positive/negative. Would the self perceive itself as an object apart from the world if it had no conflicts with it? The nihilism of ontology presents a major problem for an object that cares for itself. Ethics places a high value on the self and other selves. Though the hard problem of consciousness presents feelings as something redundant to machines, it appears to be a useful tool in distinguishing the difference between a self and an object. Words and intelligent acts could have the same effect, but considering the history of the collectives of decision-makers, they are likely to consider intelligent nonsentient beings to be of equal value to sophisticated rocks.
The relationship between self, other, and object generates a problem of economics. Individuals own and produce objects. These objects can be exchanged for other objects from others. Individuals desire to avoid losses, thus they will attempt to trade less for more or equal for equal. Any item with the exact same dimensions as another is considered a duplicate of it and can be considered equal. There is no reason in trading an equal with another because it doesn’t change one’s state. The option is to trade lesser for more, which can only be done through deceit from the lesser owner, or sacrifice from the greater owner. One can also trade an object of different dimensionality but equal value. One can give more of a lesser item to compensate for the lower value. If one item is a fraction off from another, pieces of the lesser item can be given if that doesn’t destroy the item's integrity.
Objects have different values depending on time, place, individual, and domain of value. These domains have a specific order of priority in ethics, so objects have a value based on a domain and the domains have particular weights depending on their place in the priority. Ethics appears to weigh the weights as ordered: Objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, subjective.
Kantian politics and virtue psychology don’t appear to have a self as separate from the collective. In relativistic aesthetics and utilitarian mathematics, we see the self manifest itself as a shaper of the world, and a unit, scale, measure, and calculator. There is an objectively optimal state which we call Utopia. Such can only be achieved by intelligent means through physical and psychological force. The ideal or perfection isn’t always obtainable, thus one may settle with what is good enough or functional. Of course, since ethics is only generated between more than one agent, objects/products with universal use are most prized. A cohesive group of individuals, i.e. the collective, have more value than a single individual (assuming all are virtuous). This gives objects that can serve the whole more import than objects that can only serve a part. Obviously, every individual can’t use everything everywhere all the time, nor is any product always appropriate for every task. Physical products take precedent to psychological ones as unembodied objects, i.e. objects with no interaction with reality, have no use. Personal objects pertain to one’s identity and appear to be valued more than merely pleasant or beautiful items. Vice agents have their own weight, which is the subjective, as some objects have a function that lends itself more towards harm.
One can perhaps conceive a self as an other to ontology when pondering on the parts of the ontology that one controls and the parts one does not control, this typically coming in the form of oppositions, e.g. pleasure/pain, gain/loss, positive/negative. Would the self perceive itself as an object apart from the world if it had no conflicts with it? The nihilism of ontology presents a major problem for an object that cares for itself. Ethics places a high value on the self and other selves. Though the hard problem of consciousness presents feelings as something redundant to machines, it appears to be a useful tool in distinguishing the difference between a self and an object. Words and intelligent acts could have the same effect, but considering the history of the collectives of decision-makers, they are likely to consider intelligent nonsentient beings to be of equal value to sophisticated rocks.
The relationship between self, other, and object generates a problem of economics. Individuals own and produce objects. These objects can be exchanged for other objects from others. Individuals desire to avoid losses, thus they will attempt to trade less for more or equal for equal. Any item with the exact same dimensions as another is considered a duplicate of it and can be considered equal. There is no reason in trading an equal with another because it doesn’t change one’s state. The option is to trade lesser for more, which can only be done through deceit from the lesser owner, or sacrifice from the greater owner. One can also trade an object of different dimensionality but equal value. One can give more of a lesser item to compensate for the lower value. If one item is a fraction off from another, pieces of the lesser item can be given if that doesn’t destroy the item's integrity.
Objects have different values depending on time, place, individual, and domain of value. These domains have a specific order of priority in ethics, so objects have a value based on a domain and the domains have particular weights depending on their place in the priority. Ethics appears to weigh the weights as ordered: Objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, subjective.
Kantian politics and virtue psychology don’t appear to have a self as separate from the collective. In relativistic aesthetics and utilitarian mathematics, we see the self manifest itself as a shaper of the world, and a unit, scale, measure, and calculator. There is an objectively optimal state which we call Utopia. Such can only be achieved by intelligent means through physical and psychological force. The ideal or perfection isn’t always obtainable, thus one may settle with what is good enough or functional. Of course, since ethics is only generated between more than one agent, objects/products with universal use are most prized. A cohesive group of individuals, i.e. the collective, have more value than a single individual (assuming all are virtuous). This gives objects that can serve the whole more import than objects that can only serve a part. Obviously, every individual can’t use everything everywhere all the time, nor is any product always appropriate for every task. Physical products take precedent to psychological ones as unembodied objects, i.e. objects with no interaction with reality, have no use. Personal objects pertain to one’s identity and appear to be valued more than merely pleasant or beautiful items. Vice agents have their own weight, which is the subjective, as some objects have a function that lends itself more towards harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)