Abstract -Justice -Exists as Real

[Atla]

So he's a realist who thinks realism is impossible, so he isn't a realist?

No seriously, I think VA simply can't process logic. That is so strange.

[Iwannaplato]

So he's a realist who thinks realism is impossible, so he isn't a realist?

No seriously, I think VA simply can't process logic. That is so strange.

Most people are spiders. They may be looking at one strand of the web, but they can feel, to varying degrees, the whole web, even the plant that it's built on. With VA, it seems, it is only the strand he is looking at. I am sure you know the feeling. You argue something and you feeling a nagging sense this is creating tension with some other thing you have asserted. Or you may immediately realize you just caused yourself a problem, there may be a contradiction. We sense, again fallibly, the whole. Even the simple next steps entailed by an assertion, he doesn't seem to be at all aware of. Of course we all miss things that are entailed. We all contradict earlier assertions. But this is like just having everything thrown at a fire, putting out fires using gasoline.

[Atla]

So he's a realist who thinks realism is impossible, so he isn't a realist?

No seriously, I think VA simply can't process logic. That is so strange.

Most people are spiders. They may be looking at one strand of the web, but they can feel, to varying degrees, the whole web, even the plant that it's built on. With VA, it seems, it is only the strand he is looking at. I am sure you know the feeling. You argue something and you feeling a nagging sense this is creating tension with some other thing you have asserted. Or you may immediately realize you just caused yourself a problem, there may be a contradiction. We sense, again fallibly, the whole. Even the simple next steps entailed by an assertion, he doesn't seem to be at all aware of. Of course we all miss things that are entailed. We all contradict earlier assertions. But this is like just having everything thrown at a fire, putting out fires using gasoline.

No, he doesn't even see one strand..

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

Again, could you show where he said that last part?

The non-absoluteness is implied in the title, "The View from Nowhere".
One has to be God to have an absolute point of view of reality.
Read the book for the details.

[Iwannaplato]

Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

Again, could you show where he said that last part?

The non-absoluteness is implied in the title, "The View from Nowhere".
One has to be God to have an absolute point of view of reality.
Read the book for the details.

That is not the same as saying there is no aboslutely mind indepedent reality. That's epistemic caution not an ontological assertion on his part.

As you say, he is a scientific realist. The view from nowhere is his caution about claiming to have a fully objective view. It is not a claim, on his part, that there is no mind-indpendent reality.

As I quoted him before.

"The idea that the world is mind-independent and that we can know this is something that can never be displaced, even by those who claim to reject it."

From "The Last Word" (1997)

"To say that something is objectively the case is to say that it is true independently of what anyone thinks about it."

From "The Last Word" (1997)

What you claimed he had asserted, he had not asserted.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As such, the concept of 'justice' exists as really-real as contingent within a legal FSERC which is translatable to practical use.
The consideration is whether the legal FSERC relied upon is credible and objective.
Therefore, justice is real as qualified within a legal FSERC subject to its credibility and objectivity.

So, we have a trial and two equal populations of people come to differing conclusions about whether the verdict and sentence showed justice. Was there justice or not? Or is justice sometimes like Schrodinger's cat, both there and not.

Where slavery was the law and escaped slaves, under the then current justice system, could be tortured, even killed, and this was considered justice, was it justice, and true and real? And what was that justice made of?

If the majority decides in the future to again have slavery, will it then be a sign of justice to have slaves?

Strawman as usual.
You just want to counter for countering sake without giving consideration in making more intelligent counters thus insulting your intelligence.

The question is whether 'justice' as real or not.

Justice, in its broadest sense, is the concept that individuals are to be treated in a manner that is equitable and fair.[1]
A society in which justice has been achieved would be one in which individuals receive what they "deserve". The interpretation of what "deserve" means draws on a variety of fields and philosophical branches including ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. The state may be said to pursue justice by operating courts and enforcing their rulings.

The fact is there are different manifestation, practices and expression of justice, legal [above example] religious justice, gang justice, moral justice, etc.
Regardless of the outcome, the fact is 'justice' exists and is applied and practiced universally within humanity.
That it is practiced universally within humanity means it must be inherently represented by some universals neural correlates, thus physical and objective.

Even some primates express and manifest it naturally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&t=3s

Justice not is morality per se.
As the moral FSERC increases in credibility and objectivity, it will guide the practice of justice within the justice FSERC with more moral outcome.


Analogy:
There are different manifestations, expressions and practices of sexuality, e.g. heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, high pleasure, drugs driven, sexual perversions, etc. but there is only one main universal sexual drive in all human beings which is represented within the DNA and its neural correlates.

[Iwannaplato]

As such, the concept of 'justice' exists as really-real as contingent within a legal FSERC which is translatable to practical use.
The consideration is whether the legal FSERC relied upon is credible and objective.
Therefore, justice is real as qualified within a legal FSERC subject to its credibility and objectivity.

So, we have a trial and two equal populations of people come to differing conclusions about whether the verdict and sentence showed justice. Was there justice or not? Or is justice sometimes like Schrodinger's cat, both there and not.

Where slavery was the law and escaped slaves, under the then current justice system, could be tortured, even killed, and this was considered justice, was it justice, and true and real? And what was that justice made of?

If the majority decides in the future to again have slavery, will it then be a sign of justice to have slaves?

Strawman as usual.

It's not a strawman. A strawman is if I said you asserted what I wrote. I know you did not. I was describing some problematic, for you, for anyone, consequences that I think are entailed by your position.

And nowhere below to do you address my points. Nowhere.

Entailed means that conclusions other than the ones you have drawn can be made given your assumptions. It does not mean that you accept those cnoclusions as true - that would be a strawman. In fact the entire point is that I assume you do not consider those conclusions correct. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT of this common and useful way of probing someone's ideas.

You just want to counter for countering sake without giving consideration in making more intelligent counters thus insulting your intelligence.

You're not a psychic and your speculation, in the realm of ad hom/insult 1) adds nothing to the discussion and 2) is incorrect.

I was raising problematic implications of your positions. If X is true, then Y. This is a standard philosophical approach. Perhaps I am not correct. Perhaps what I wrote is not entailed by what you have said. But since, as usual, you do not directly respond to anything I said, perhaps you will never know.

The question is whether 'justice' as real or not.

That is one question. But my question was focused on what it means if your epistemological approach is applied to justice. And you did not address this at all here.

The fact is there are different manifestation, practices and expression of justice, legal [above example] religious justice, gang justice, moral justice, etc.
Regardless of the outcome, the fact is 'justice' exists and is applied and practiced universally within humanity.
That it is practiced universally within humanity means it must be inherently represented by some universals neural correlates, thus physical and objective.

And as usual, you restate you position without engaging with what I wrote.

Even some primates express and manifest it naturally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&t=3s

And as usual, you restate you position without engaging with what I wrote.

Justice not is morality per se.
As the moral FSERC increases in credibility and objectivity, it will guide the practice of justice within the justice FSERC with more moral outcome.

And as usual, you restate you position without engaging with what I wrote.

Analogy:
There are different manifestations, expressions and practices of sexuality, e.g. heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, high pleasure, drugs driven, sexual perversions, etc. but there is only one main universal sexual drive in all human beings which is represented within the DNA and its neural correlates.

And as usual, you restate you position without engaging with what I wrote.

NOTHING here engages with what I wrote. Of course, you are free to do that. But my suggestion would be then to not quote what I and others write if you are not going to engage with the ideas.

THERE IS NOTHING IN WHAT YOU WROTE THAT EVEN SHOWS YOU READ WHAT I WROTE.

Nothing in your response engages with anything in what I wrote. For all I or others know, through reading your response, you didn't even read it.

I was pointing out what I see as potential problems if we use your methodology. Both epistemological problems and then in terms of consequences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, could you show where he said that last part?

The non-absoluteness is implied in the title, "The View from Nowhere".
One has to be God to have an absolute point of view of reality.
Read the book for the details.

That is not the same as saying there is no aboslutely mind indepedent reality. That's epistemic caution not an ontological assertion on his part.

As you say, he is a scientific realist. The "view from nowhere" is his caution about claiming to have a fully objective view. It is not a claim, on his part, that there is no mind-independent reality.

I did not state "he claimed there is no mind-independent reality"

This "his caution about claiming to have a fully objective view" is clear-cut Nagel do not promote an absolute view, i.e. he is not dogmatic about it.

[Iwannaplato]

I did not state "he claimed there is no mind-independent reality"

Yes, you did...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:04 am
Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

and you did it again in your previous post, by saying it was implicit. It is not implicit in his position or writings, in fact he directly contradicts it.

This "his caution about claiming to have a fully objective view" is clear-cut Nagel do not promote an absolute view, i.e. he is not dogmatic about it.

He did not assert that there is no absolute mind independent reality - his attitude about his beliefs was not the issue. He does not agree with your position that there is no mind independent reality.

In the last few posts you are trying to say both that he has indicated this and that you never said he did. Clearly you did and while denying you did you keep trying to attribute a position to him, while denying you have done that.

[Atla]

It must be so strange to not have any logic. Like, there are sentences, claims, expressed philosophical positions floating all over the place like soap bubbles. And there is just never any relationship between them. They can't be arranged into any structure. They are just floating randomly and you grab some of them, but can't arrange those either into any structure.

[Iwannaplato]

It must be so strange to not have any logic. Like, there are sentences, claims, expressed philosophical positions floating all over the place like soap bubbles. And there is just never any relationship between them. They can't be arranged into any structure. They are just floating randomly and you grab some of them, but can't arrange those either into any structure.

There's a place for the patchwork strategist, the ad hoc thinker, the bricoleur.
On the positive side this has led to anti-realism entering the discussions here and the tossing out, more often, of interesting (to me anyway) people like Nagel. And that sloppy metaphor of mine about the spider being aware through feel of the whole web, that kind of awareness gets trained. Hey, wait a minute, you said earlier...........From awareness that something doesn't fit to finding it and presenting it (again and again). I have no idea how he was first treated, but it would be great if, anyway, his responses could be, hm, let's see. It seems to me those categories I mentioned above which are neutral to positive work best when the person is in continual exploration and aware that any temporary solution may not fit with other things they've 'built'. Rather than 'You should think more widely and deeper' at the mildest, with worse on the way.

If criticisms and objections could actually be met with interest and curiosity. Oh, you may well be right, let's look into this. I have a gut feeling my core position is right, but maybe Nagel or antirealism, even, or whatever doesn't fit. Let's look at it.

Then: well, how about this?

The improvisational process could in fact be great as part of some colloboration where people with other strengths can then get all analytical and deductive on what is slapped together spontaneously on the workshop table.

[Peter Holmes]

P: There is no view from nowhere. (This is true.)
C: Therefore, there is no thing that is not viewed from somewhere. (This is a non sequitur.)

[Atla]

This "his caution about claiming to have a fully objective view" is clear-cut Nagel do not promote an absolute view, i.e. he is not dogmatic about it.

VA doesn't just conflate mind-independence with absolute mind-independence, he could never even understand the difference.

Absolute mind-independence was refuted 100-150 years ago btw, why would someone need to write a book about it now?

[Atla]

It must be so strange to not have any logic. Like, there are sentences, claims, expressed philosophical positions floating all over the place like soap bubbles. And there is just never any relationship between them. They can't be arranged into any structure. They are just floating randomly and you grab some of them, but can't arrange those either into any structure.

There's a place for the patchwork strategist, the ad hoc thinker, the bricoleur.
On the positive side this has led to anti-realism entering the discussions here and the tossing out, more often, of interesting (to me anyway) people like Nagel. And that sloppy metaphor of mine about the spider being aware through feel of the whole web, that kind of awareness gets trained. Hey, wait a minute, you said earlier...........From awareness that something doesn't fit to finding it and presenting it (again and again). I have no idea how he was first treated, but it would be great if, anyway, his responses could be, hm, let's see. It seems to me those categories I mentioned above which are neutral to positive work best when the person is in continual exploration and aware that any temporary solution may not fit with other things they've 'built'. Rather than 'You should think more widely and deeper' at the mildest, with worse on the way.

If criticisms and objections could actually be met with interest and curiosity. Oh, you may well be right, let's look into this. I have a gut feeling my core position is right, but maybe Nagel or antirealism, even, or whatever doesn't fit. Let's look at it.

Then: well, how about this?

The improvisational process could in fact be great as part of some colloboration where people with other strengths can then get all analytical and deductive on what is slapped together spontaneously on the workshop table.

This is all well, but still it all seems to presuppose the capacity for logic, which VA doesn't seem to have.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not state "he claimed there is no mind-independent reality"

Yes, you did...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:04 am
Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

and you did it again in your previous post, by saying it was implicit. It is not implicit in his position or writings, in fact he directly contradicts it.

This "his caution about claiming to have a fully objective view" is clear-cut Nagel do not promote an absolute view, i.e. he is not dogmatic about it.

He did not assert that there is no absolute mind independent reality - his attitude about his beliefs was not the issue. He does not agree with your position that there is no mind independent reality.

In the last few posts you are trying to say both that he has indicated this and that you never said he did. Clearly you did and while denying you did you keep trying to attribute a position to him, while denying you have done that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:04 am
Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

I read Nagels 'View from Nowhere' before making the post.

When I stated "Nagel is a scientific realist" meant I knew his position is realism, i.e. he believes in a mind-independent reality;
BUT then, he suggested one should not be dogmatic and claim the realism with absoluteness which is why he wrote the book 'the view from nowhere'.