Justice is an abstract concept

Forums: Philosophy, John Rawls
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Justice is an abstract concept

I love chocolates, I love freedom, I love mom, I love my dog, I love April in Paris, etc. When we abstract (disassociate from any instance) we remove the contingent (unpredictable). Is the emotion attached to each one of these abstract ideas exactly the same? I suspect no one knows or can know.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,371 • Replies: 14

No top replies

Sheesh coberst, I'm starting to think you should change your nick to Captain Obvious.

Is justice an abstract concept? Yeah, by definition...

You remind me of this song by Manu Chao...

Quote:

Me gusta la moto, me gustas tu.
Me gusta correr, me gustas tu.
Me gusta la lluvia, me gustas tu.
Me gusta volver, me gustas tu.
Me gusta marihuana, me gustas tu.
Me gusta colombiana, me gustas tu.
Me gusta la montaa, me gustas tu.
Me gusta la noche, me gustas tu.

Is the emotion attached to each idea exactly the same? Even without fully understanding the physical processes that give rise to emotion there seems to be a fairly straightforward answer...and that is that there are a whole bunch of different types of emotions we can have, and we are usually experiencing some combination of them at any given time...but without being able to easily describe a complex emotional state completely, we resort to abstract names for emotions, which may refer to primitive emotions or to certain combinations of emotions, but obviously not everything given the same general name has the exact same mixture underneath. Duh.

0 Replies

You love chocolate. Well, I take it away from you and eat it. You will cry saying it is unfair and and call out for justice.

0 Replies

Re: Justice is an abstract concept

coberst wrote:

Does Rawls say what happens after that? Having determined via the veil of ignorance what justice means, does Rawls opine about what one should do with this knowledge?

0 Replies

Re: Justice is an abstract concept

Shapeless wrote:

coberst wrote:

Does Rawls say what happens after that? Having determined via the veil of ignorance what justice means, does Rawls opine about what one should do with this knowledge?

Yes, his book is well worth reading.

0 Replies

Not only is justice an abstract term, it is also one of the most questionable, ranking high up there with words like god, heaven, hell, anarchy, communism and so on. Tons of ideas that are questionable when it comes to the exact truth of them.

I suspect that to most people justice means 'satisfaction'. Praticularly when it is the ego that has been bruised and demands justice.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I suspect that to most people justice means 'satisfaction'. Praticularly when it is the ego that has been bruised and demands justice.

Personally, i suspect that to most people justice means revenge. The retributive aspect of systems of "justice" is what seems to motivate most people, who holler about someone getting off, or not getting a long enough sentence of incarceration. Anciently, people had exact standards of what any particular individual is worth, and what you'd be obliged to pay if you harmed or murdered them. My reading of history is that for most people, "justice" is about retribution. It is satisfaction as you say, but what must be satisfied is the send of the proportion of the crime by those injured by the crime.

0 Replies

Re: Justice is an abstract concept

coberst wrote:

Yes, his book is well worth reading.

That is reassuring. Can you give us a primer on what Rawls has to say about how one uses this knowledge?

0 Replies

Re: Justice is an abstract concept

coberst wrote:

You have got to be kidding. Of all the idiotically mistaken readings of Rawls, that has to be the most idiotic. I'm sorry that you wasted all that time reading A Theory of Justice; clearly, you did not understand one word of it. I strongly urge you to stop posting threads where you expose your ignorance of Rawls and his philosophy, as there is the danger that some of the more impressionable here might take you seriously.

Anyone else who might be interested in learning what Rawls actually thought about the "veil of ignorance" and the "original position" should check here.

0 Replies

Re: Justice is an abstract concept

joefromchicago wrote:

coberst wrote:

You have got to be kidding. Of all the idiotically mistaken readings of Rawls, that has to be the most idiotic. I'm sorry that you wasted all that time reading A Theory of Justice; clearly, you did not understand one word of it. I strongly urge you to stop posting threads where you expose your ignorance of Rawls and his philosophy, as there is the danger that some of the more impressionable here might take you seriously.

Anyone else who might be interested in learning what Rawls actually thought about the "veil of ignorance" and the "original position" should check here.

I see no significant disagreement between my post and your reference. Perhaps you could help us by clarifying the matter.

0 Replies

Re: Justice is an abstract concept

coberst wrote:

And your point is...?

0 Replies

Pardon the digression, but if something can be known 'in the gut', doesn't that imply that the knowledge is physical? That it is not an abstract derived from thought, but a biological preference?

Do you believe in such things? I am not sure I do.

This 'gut feeling' we all have sometimes is not a sixth sense, as I see it. Nor is it something we're born with.

In earlier discussions with some of the same participants as in this thread, I've argued that reason alone does not paint our world-picture. There is emotion involved where our reason fails to encompass, around the edges of reason, filling in blanks and bridging voids between the knowns, so that the total image is one of coherency and apparent calm.

So in many ways to say that we can know justice 'in the gut' is to trust to faith just as it would be if we were to leave the whole matter to god.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Pardon the digression, but if something can be known 'in the gut', doesn't that imply that the knowledge is physical? That it is not an abstract derived from thought, but a biological preference?

Do you believe in such things? I am not sure I do.

This 'gut feeling' we all have sometimes is not a sixth sense, as I see it. Nor is it something we're born with.

In earlier discussions with some of the same participants as in this thread, I've argued that reason alone does not paint our world-picture. There is emotion involved where our reason fails to encompass, around the edges of reason, filling in blanks and bridging voids between the knowns, so that the total image is one of coherency and apparent calm.

So in many ways to say that we can know justice 'in the gut' is to trust to faith just as it would be if we were to leave the whole matter to god.

0 Replies

Justice is an abstract concept

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know