opaque writings on color
i (un-sarcastically) lawled. Whether you intended this adjectival conjunction as funny or not, it's brilliant
reasoning logic wrote:
Value is a force of nature.
The "law" of gravity is an abstraction; gravity operates as a condition of interacting bodies. The HOV operates, if it operates at all, within the same conditions. Values are not self-generated, they are comprised by interaction.
Let me make a old, cold Marxist point -- value is often a byproduct of use -- including social usefulness. Human beings do often make judgements, but the value of those judgements is determined by the consequences. The usefulness, ie benefit, of those consequences generally determines the value of that initial judgement.
reasoning logic wrote:
Example if I were question whether it is right or wrong for a society to have a huge income inequality gap in it, I would start with the smallest group of people I can think of and continue to build this group of people and see if income inequality would become "a logically right or wrong proposition."
If you could imagine that there were only two people in this world "you and your mother, or who ever you have the most empathy for " now try to imagine this other person having to work longer than you.
Lets say that you happen to be a little more intellectually advanced than your mother and you were able to think of a way for you and your mother to dig a canal that will bring water 3/4 of the way to your home.
Do you think that being you came up with this idea that you should not have to go for water anymore but instead let your mother do the toting? We do have to agree even if she totes all the water it is now less than what she use to.
Maybe you should be able to patten this new idea?
What if it was not your mother but instead your neighbor or a friend, Do you think that someone else should now be a servant of yours?
Lets talk about health care. When does it become logical to have insurance companies in a group of people?
If we were to start with you and your mother it would seem to be a ridiculous idea.
Well, if there were only two people, and health was an issue, and you were a doctor, then i hope that the care of one's mother would not be a huge monetary issue. Insurance companies do not seem to be necessary in that circumstance.
But doesn't the idea of a society of two -- oneself and one's mother, seem a trifle prejudicial? Doesn't that remove the aspect of anonymity that "society" requires.
i'm an advocate for national healthcare, but i think that its inception is a product of the value of other unknown individuals, unbound by sentiment.
reasoning logic wrote:
The problem that I see with dilemmas is that the rest of society who will be evaluating the outcome will view it as immoral in many cases, that is why a universal concept of morality needs to be established. If everyone could understand that wiping the Jews from the earth was immoral there would be no moral need to lie to protect innocent life from the Nazis.
If someone is in a moral dilemma and they thought that they had to make a choice I do not think that their action should be held against them as long as they did everything in their power to find a different solution. the most moral solution.
I know that we can put together some far out hypothetical moral dilemmas but this is reality, " such moral dilemmas coming to light in a world that has established a universal code of ethics and had taught it to everyone, would be in a much better position to deal with the outcome.
Are you insane? The act of hiding Jews from Nazis isn't a far-out moral hypothetical, but a historical fact. The moral value of that, or any other, act is a variable element constantly exposed to evaluation. No universal measure will make istelf available as long as action is undetermined. The HOV is a myth.
Zulus are not color blind and can learn to use our terminology for reporting "blue" versus " green". The significance of the point is that what we call "perception" includes cultural bias and local functionality regarding conceptual mapping. Consider for example that in medieval times the rainbow was "known" to contain four colors as it was thought to be a manifestation of the four gospels! Note also that the arbitrary "seven" colors reported nowadays has a lot to do with the association with the diatonic scale in music plus "the music of the spheres", hence the invention of the category "indigo" to make up "the seven".
BTW, you are correct in identifying "color" as a research microcosm for the study of cognitive concepts, You might be interested in the fact that it was consideration of color which led Wittgenstein to reject much of his own celebrated "logical" work in his Tractatus, in favor of a view of philosophy as "therapy" for exposing and dissipating pseudo-problems created by "language games". From that point of view Niels Bohr's famous comment "You are not thinking, you are just being logical" begins to make sense !
Oh, so you have read "Through the Language Glass"....This thread is going sideways. It's rare, these days, that i find an opportunity to be an ally of yours. Know that i am one today, i think.
So the problem remains whether what we call "value" is relative to the individual as a "system" or relative to the group as a "system". Thus we have not solved issues such as whether "martyrdom" is "moral" which is somewhat disconcerting given the current trend in suicide bombings.
i think that "value" is a product of of the regulative process that an individual consents to when integrating into a social system. Does that make sense?
PS: i think that martyrdom is ultimately amoral, challenging the (former) limits of the moral system in power, while demonstrating the needs that require morality's expansion to satisfy them...Just a perspective tho'...
(And i think that "martyrdom" is a difficult qualification to reach.)