Today, I will start a new topic, hopefully not as in-depth and thorough as the Concept Problem 'series' (if you could call it that), but instead a few shorter, easier to understand blogs on the bases of our societies and cultures. As this set of blogs is unrelated to the Concept Problem, of course irt is understandable if black-and-white 'concepts' are utilised for the purpose of argument. After all, the Concpet Problem is simply a theory, as opposed to a righteous belief, of mine.
First, I pose you the question: What forms the foundations of our societies? Of course, our societies are created from the very laws and scoial norms that run and control the behaviour of the many, but what of these laws? Laws are created for the 'better' of our society, but it is never questioned as to why these particular laws, or norms, are the ones that we choose to live by. Are laws decided as a part of some 'greater good', are they simply decided on the whim of the few for the many, or is there a more underlying meaning?
Social norms have been around since the beginning of humankind, and are clearly present in other species as well. Laws are simply these norms written on paper, often for the well-being of the majority. The truth of these laws is that they are simply creations of our behaviour, or more basically, our emotions. However, what are the key emotions that govern society? There are many differing view on this, some say justice and peace, others say greed, among many ideas.
This is a question that I wish to ask you, before I begin investigating 'Laws and Emotions'. What are your beliefs on the laws of societies, and why do you think these emotions, or otherwise, have an impact on society? Please feel free to comment below with your ideas.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Paradox: Belief vs Concept
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
The Argument
This will, hopefully, be the final time I touch upon the concept problem. This post is a response to an extremely strong argument made against the concept problem during the introduction, by Alex Harman; it is an argument that I have been trying to answer for the past few weeks to no avail. This is a shortened version of his argument:
The concept problem suggests that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, essentially non-existent. However, consider this situation:
I believe that the colour I am looking at is blue. Even if at a later time I find that the colour I was looking at was indeed not blue, this does not dispute nor change the fact that I believed that the colour was blue. Surely through this logic, the fact that I believed the colour was blue must be the truth, and therefore truth, and concepts, must exist.
As you can see, this argument essentially uses belief to destroy the idea that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, non-existent. This, however, is not the case. From here on it may get a little complicated, so try and follow carefully.
Revision
First, let us revise the concept problem. The concept problem states (I quote):
'the very reason that (Right and Wrong) are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective'
As you can see, the concept problem does not affect all concepts. In fact, the only concepts that are subject to the rule are opposing, black-and-white concepts, the integral ones that we use in everday society. Now, the source of the problem in the statement that we are trying to overcome is that the problem argument's very basis is the fact that one 'believes the colour is blue'. This is not an argument of whether the colour is blue or not, but instead, an argument that i believed in it, therefore the fact I believed must be true. Subsequently, can belief be considered a black-and-white concept?
Wait a minute...
For those of you who may have realised, belief CAN, in fact, be considered a black-and-white concept. This is due to the fact that there is belief, when one believes in something, and disbelief, when one does not belief in something. So, should this argument not apply? The case is not whether this argument should not apply, but that the argument undoubtedly can not apply. Let me explain.
The Logic Paradox
What are concepts? Concepts are ideas, are they not? That said, concepts are not just ideas. Concepts are ideas that are created by belief. Logically, they are ideas created by the mind, and ideas that we, ourselves, have belief in. And that is the key. We have to have belief in these black-and-white concepts in order for them to exist, it is mandatory for concepts themselves. The argument stated is, as stated before, an argument of whether the belief is the truth or not. For the concept problem to work, however, this belief within the argument has to be non-existent and indifferent. This, in turn, affects the original belief from which all concepts, including the very concept problem itself, originates (This is where it gets difficult...). Therefore, if the argument indeed made sense, it would defy the original belief, therefore destroying the very concept problem that created the argument in the first place (confusing, I know).
Conclusion and the Simple Version
In laymans terms, the argument created by belief is subsequently destroyed by the resulting absence of belief. This, in turn creates a paradox. By applying belief to the formula and disproving it, you destroy the formula (the Concept Problem) itself, therefore rendering the original argument non-existent. In short, it makes no sense.
To me, this is extraordinary. Not only have I found a logical paradox with the help of Alex, but this has also been able to show that my entire argument of the concept problem, starts from, relies on the prescence and existence of belief.
I would like to thank Alex for sending it such a fantastic argument, it has been a real tricky one to dissect and overcome. If any of you believe you have a response or criticism that you can make to my blogs please post (or join and post if you haven't already) your responses in the respective comments section. After all, this blog is designed for intelligent arguments such as these, and trust me, it is a lot of fun once you get into it.
The Argument
This will, hopefully, be the final time I touch upon the concept problem. This post is a response to an extremely strong argument made against the concept problem during the introduction, by Alex Harman; it is an argument that I have been trying to answer for the past few weeks to no avail. This is a shortened version of his argument:
The concept problem suggests that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, essentially non-existent. However, consider this situation:
I believe that the colour I am looking at is blue. Even if at a later time I find that the colour I was looking at was indeed not blue, this does not dispute nor change the fact that I believed that the colour was blue. Surely through this logic, the fact that I believed the colour was blue must be the truth, and therefore truth, and concepts, must exist.
As you can see, this argument essentially uses belief to destroy the idea that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, non-existent. This, however, is not the case. From here on it may get a little complicated, so try and follow carefully.
Revision
First, let us revise the concept problem. The concept problem states (I quote):
'the very reason that (Right and Wrong) are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective'
As you can see, the concept problem does not affect all concepts. In fact, the only concepts that are subject to the rule are opposing, black-and-white concepts, the integral ones that we use in everday society. Now, the source of the problem in the statement that we are trying to overcome is that the problem argument's very basis is the fact that one 'believes the colour is blue'. This is not an argument of whether the colour is blue or not, but instead, an argument that i believed in it, therefore the fact I believed must be true. Subsequently, can belief be considered a black-and-white concept?
Wait a minute...
For those of you who may have realised, belief CAN, in fact, be considered a black-and-white concept. This is due to the fact that there is belief, when one believes in something, and disbelief, when one does not belief in something. So, should this argument not apply? The case is not whether this argument should not apply, but that the argument undoubtedly can not apply. Let me explain.
The Logic Paradox
What are concepts? Concepts are ideas, are they not? That said, concepts are not just ideas. Concepts are ideas that are created by belief. Logically, they are ideas created by the mind, and ideas that we, ourselves, have belief in. And that is the key. We have to have belief in these black-and-white concepts in order for them to exist, it is mandatory for concepts themselves. The argument stated is, as stated before, an argument of whether the belief is the truth or not. For the concept problem to work, however, this belief within the argument has to be non-existent and indifferent. This, in turn, affects the original belief from which all concepts, including the very concept problem itself, originates (This is where it gets difficult...). Therefore, if the argument indeed made sense, it would defy the original belief, therefore destroying the very concept problem that created the argument in the first place (confusing, I know).
Conclusion and the Simple Version
In laymans terms, the argument created by belief is subsequently destroyed by the resulting absence of belief. This, in turn creates a paradox. By applying belief to the formula and disproving it, you destroy the formula (the Concept Problem) itself, therefore rendering the original argument non-existent. In short, it makes no sense.
To me, this is extraordinary. Not only have I found a logical paradox with the help of Alex, but this has also been able to show that my entire argument of the concept problem, starts from, relies on the prescence and existence of belief.
I would like to thank Alex for sending it such a fantastic argument, it has been a real tricky one to dissect and overcome. If any of you believe you have a response or criticism that you can make to my blogs please post (or join and post if you haven't already) your responses in the respective comments section. After all, this blog is designed for intelligent arguments such as these, and trust me, it is a lot of fun once you get into it.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
The Concept Problem Part II: The Rule of Indifference
First I would like to apologise greatly (if you care, that is) that I have not been posting my blog on a regular basis, but yeah, life, stress, work etc. (plus I have had a bit of a mental block and have been unable to edit my posts for publishing)
Besides that, after watching the documentary/film Zeitgeist, I am inspired and raring to start off posting on a regular basis (I know I'm advertising again, but let me just say it is the single best piece of work I have ever witnessed)
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Impossibility of Perfection Round Two
This time I will show an alternative approach to showing indifference, but to do this, we must take into account my first post: The Impossibility of Perfection. As a short, hopefully concise, recap:
To achieve perfection, one must be able to be able to achieve anything, including defying logic. If one then actively defies logic, he has achieved what is not possible. However, since the impossible has HAPPENED, it has become possible. As it has become possible, one has no longer defied logic, and, in turn, is no longer perfect (or, more accurately, was never perfect to begin with)
With this theory of mine suggesting the impossibilities of perfection, I can minimise the impossibilities of perfection to that of concepts.
Rule of Indifference
If this logical standpoint does indeed show a non-existence of perfection, then that consequently shows that perfection is impossible. If perfection does not exist, then the ultimate good is no longer ultimate, and is no longer closer to true meaning of good then the darkest evil are minds can imagine. Difference is now irrelevant and inapplicable to life, essentially, in mathematical terms, 10 – 1 = 0. If there is no goal, no true good, that can be reached from acting ‘good’, then what is considered to be ‘good’ is indifferent from what is considered ‘evil’. Using the idea of good and evil, this ‘Rule of Indifference’ would be considered and described as:
If there can be no perfect ‘good’ and ‘bad’, then there can be no difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’
As such the ideas of good and bad are rendered useless, making us question to what are the definitions of good and bad?
To be blunt, there is NO definition. No one man is closer from good than he is from evil, as these concepts are ill-defined and vague beyond belief.
Application to Real Life
Another question that can arise form this method, however, is whether the ‘Rule of Indifference’ can be used not only for conceptual arguments, but also physical arguments. Can it apply to our society, to our lives?
This is a certain possibility, one could say that:
If there can be no perfect way to live, then there can be no difference between a ‘good life’ and a ‘bad life’
By altering the idea, it is possible not only to use this for the purpose of concepts, but also applying it do everyday ideas and objects (However, since perfection itself is a concept, thus all arguments will contain an a strong conceptual element)
Conclusion
This rule, in my opinion, though not as clear as the Rule of Agreement in Part I, is more definitive as proof of no good or bad. Although with ‘Agreement’, it suggests there is either no difference between Black-and-White concepts, it is minutely possible that there is one correct way to believe, and that all of us, or all but one, have the incorrect belief.
However, with the ‘Rule of Indifference’, it shows that the indifference in ideas and beliefs does exist, and that it is impossible for a single correct opinion to exist within the indifference.
Besides that, after watching the documentary/film Zeitgeist, I am inspired and raring to start off posting on a regular basis (I know I'm advertising again, but let me just say it is the single best piece of work I have ever witnessed)
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Impossibility of Perfection Round Two
This time I will show an alternative approach to showing indifference, but to do this, we must take into account my first post: The Impossibility of Perfection. As a short, hopefully concise, recap:
To achieve perfection, one must be able to be able to achieve anything, including defying logic. If one then actively defies logic, he has achieved what is not possible. However, since the impossible has HAPPENED, it has become possible. As it has become possible, one has no longer defied logic, and, in turn, is no longer perfect (or, more accurately, was never perfect to begin with)
With this theory of mine suggesting the impossibilities of perfection, I can minimise the impossibilities of perfection to that of concepts.
Rule of Indifference
If this logical standpoint does indeed show a non-existence of perfection, then that consequently shows that perfection is impossible. If perfection does not exist, then the ultimate good is no longer ultimate, and is no longer closer to true meaning of good then the darkest evil are minds can imagine. Difference is now irrelevant and inapplicable to life, essentially, in mathematical terms, 10 – 1 = 0. If there is no goal, no true good, that can be reached from acting ‘good’, then what is considered to be ‘good’ is indifferent from what is considered ‘evil’. Using the idea of good and evil, this ‘Rule of Indifference’ would be considered and described as:
If there can be no perfect ‘good’ and ‘bad’, then there can be no difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’
As such the ideas of good and bad are rendered useless, making us question to what are the definitions of good and bad?
To be blunt, there is NO definition. No one man is closer from good than he is from evil, as these concepts are ill-defined and vague beyond belief.
Application to Real Life
Another question that can arise form this method, however, is whether the ‘Rule of Indifference’ can be used not only for conceptual arguments, but also physical arguments. Can it apply to our society, to our lives?
This is a certain possibility, one could say that:
If there can be no perfect way to live, then there can be no difference between a ‘good life’ and a ‘bad life’
By altering the idea, it is possible not only to use this for the purpose of concepts, but also applying it do everyday ideas and objects (However, since perfection itself is a concept, thus all arguments will contain an a strong conceptual element)
Conclusion
This rule, in my opinion, though not as clear as the Rule of Agreement in Part I, is more definitive as proof of no good or bad. Although with ‘Agreement’, it suggests there is either no difference between Black-and-White concepts, it is minutely possible that there is one correct way to believe, and that all of us, or all but one, have the incorrect belief.
However, with the ‘Rule of Indifference’, it shows that the indifference in ideas and beliefs does exist, and that it is impossible for a single correct opinion to exist within the indifference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)