Abstract -Justice -Exists as Real

[Iwannaplato]

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

Lovely, I think Nagel's great.

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'.

Sure, keep repeating that, now more or less the third time in thread.

None of your responses justify....

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.

But I give up. What you lack in actually justifying here you make up for in repeating things that do not justify what you said. It's certainly one way to respond, though it does nothing for anyone in any philosophical sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Lovely, I think Nagel's great.

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'.

Sure, keep repeating that, now more or less the third time in thread.

None of your responses justify....

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.

But I give up. What you lack in actually justifying here you make up for in repeating things that do not justify what you said. It's certainly one way to respond, though it does nothing for anyone in any philosophical sense.

From 'View from Nowhere"
"The right attitude in philosophy is to accept aims that we can achieve only fractionally and imperfectly, and cannot be sure of achieving even to that extent." page 10

The above is implied throughout the book which means at attitude of no absoluteness, OK it mean no absoluteness of an absolutely mind-independent reality.
Note 'absolute' in two senses in this case.

The term 'absolute' is also used as in absolute monarchy, absolute temperature, absolute value, and absolute whatever; however these are not the absolute in the absolutely-absolute sense.

[Iwannaplato]

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

Lovely, I think Nagel's great.

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'.

Sure, keep repeating that, now more or less the third time in thread.

None of your responses justify....

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.

But I give up. What you lack in actually justifying here you make up for in repeating things that do not justify what you said. It's certainly one way to respond, though it does nothing for anyone in any philosophical sense.
[/quote]

From 'View from Nowhere"
"The right attitude in philosophy is to accept aims that we can achieve only fractionally and imperfectly, and cannot be sure of achieving even to that extent." page 10

The above is implied throughout the book which means at attitude of no absoluteness,

If we applied that to your assertion that an absolute mind-independent reality, it would not go so well for you.

Further, several times I have quoted from Nagel in this thread. Those quotes go directly against your assertion.
What did you do in relation to those quotes?
Nothing.

Third, he is talking about epistemological caution and the process of gaining knowledge. HE IS NOT MAKING A FUCKING ONTOLOGICAL CLAIM.

Why does it piss me off?

Because I raised that issue before, but because you have so little integrity, you did not respond to that. You just repeated your position. So, I have an option. When you repeat the same confusion, do I type the same thing again and see if a miracle occurs and you actually respond to that.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but you don't even respond. YOu don't even integrate, in the vast majority of posts, what I write in your response.

So, I am left with the choice of repeating unresponded to issues, when you do the same thing again, without every explaining the point I raised.

You want to know part of the reason people get insulting with you. It is because you don't respond with integrity.

Yes, some people may be outraged by the idea of objective morality or anti-realism and they insult you, perhaps even first.

I don't care about what position you have, what gets to me is that you simply do not respond to points made.

So, I have the choice of just seeing it as pointless to respond, which perhaps you will interpret, and you have done this, as meaning I and others had nothing to say. Or I repeat myself for the nth time, in the fantasy that perhaps this time you will actually engage with the point.

He did not make the ontological claim you said he did.

And even more galling,

First you defend that he did assert it.
Then you say you never claimed that he did.
Now you are back to claiming he has this position.

You have set yourself against scientific realism many times, but here, a scientific realist has made an antirealist ONTOLOGICAL claim. He did not. It is not implicit and it is not entailed in what he said. He is urging epistemological caution. And asserting there is no mind independent reality is not being epistemologically cautious. Of course, if you did actually interact with that distinction between suggesting epistemological caution and him supposedly making an absolute ontological, perhaps I would change my mind, but you don't do that. Perhaps if you responded to the quotes of Nagel's where he clearly does not rule out what you say he does, we would have both learned more. I am not saying your lack of interacting the arguments against you means you are wrong. I mean, precisely that you repeatedly to not interact with arguments you quote and then simply repeat, in new paraphrases, perhaps with a new link, your original position.

This pattern has gone on for years now. And you cannot imagine, clearly, how much optimism I have had that at some point you would actually notice that you are not responding to arguments other people make and that you would start actually focusing on their points.

I'm sure you see me as someone who is unfairly treating you.

See if there is some way you can manage to actually consider that you may have a problem in the way you respond to people, as a general rule with exceptions, that you do not really engage with their arguments.

I'll ignore you for a while so I avoid nasty posting.

[Atla]

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

Whenever he says stuff like this, it means he read the whole thing in three minutes using a super-secret technique passed down in his family through generations.

[Atla]

This pattern has gone on for years now. And you cannot imagine, clearly, how much optimism I have had that at some point you would actually notice that you are not responding to arguments other people make and that you would start actually focusing on their points.

Why did you have so much optimism though? Whyyyyyy?

[Iwannaplato]

This pattern has gone on for years now. And you cannot imagine, clearly, how much optimism I have had that at some point you would actually notice that you are not responding to arguments other people make and that you would start actually focusing on their points.

Why did you have so much optimism though? Whyyyyyy?

I think this is the answer. It's not related to VA (or Iambiguous or Age). They fall into the category human. I project myself onto them. It would hurt to continue, so they wouldn't. At some point, without admitting it, they'd have to change the pattern. The cost of not being aware would be too much. Or the embarrassment - as it slowly drifted in. Or they'd have to leave. Yes, anyone can be unaware of certain things about themselves and what they are doing, but when they hear the message from diverse people who may not even agree on very much at all, it will have an effect. To deny it, too much pain and psychic energy.

I hope you understand what I mean when I call this projection. I am not projecting qualities that I have but think of as bad. I am imagining that really other people are like me, to varying degrees. It's not about being good or honorable. It's not I'm great and they aren't. It's just I can't imagine that they wouldn't find this so painful, they'd have to stop in one way or another.

This is false.

[Atla]

This pattern has gone on for years now. And you cannot imagine, clearly, how much optimism I have had that at some point you would actually notice that you are not responding to arguments other people make and that you would start actually focusing on their points.

Why did you have so much optimism though? Whyyyyyy?

I think this is the answer. It's not related to VA (or Iambiguous or Age). They fall into the category human. I project myself onto them. It would hurt to continue, so they wouldn't. At some point, without admitting it, they'd have to change the pattern. The cost of not being aware would be too much. Or the embarrassment - as it slowly drifted in. Or they'd have to leave. Yes, anyone can be unaware of certain things about themselves and what they are doing, but when they hear the message from diverse people who may not even agree on very much at all, it will have an effect. To deny it, too much pain and psychic energy.

I hope you understand what I mean when I call this projection. I am not projecting qualities that I have but think of as bad. I am imagining that really other people are like me, to varying degrees. It's not about being good or honorable. It's not I'm great and they aren't. It's just I can't imagine that they wouldn't find this so painful, they'd have to stop in one way or another.

This is false.

The trick is to realize that not all humans are human, not all people are people. This also means though that this world truly isn't fundamentally "good".

[Iwannaplato]

Why did you have so much optimism though? Whyyyyyy?

I think this is the answer. It's not related to VA (or Iambiguous or Age). They fall into the category human. I project myself onto them. It would hurt to continue, so they wouldn't. At some point, without admitting it, they'd have to change the pattern. The cost of not being aware would be too much. Or the embarrassment - as it slowly drifted in. Or they'd have to leave. Yes, anyone can be unaware of certain things about themselves and what they are doing, but when they hear the message from diverse people who may not even agree on very much at all, it will have an effect. To deny it, too much pain and psychic energy.

I hope you understand what I mean when I call this projection. I am not projecting qualities that I have but think of as bad. I am imagining that really other people are like me, to varying degrees. It's not about being good or honorable. It's not I'm great and they aren't. It's just I can't imagine that they wouldn't find this so painful, they'd have to stop in one way or another.

This is false.

The trick is to realize that not all humans are human, not all people are people. This also means though that this world truly isn't fundamentally "good".

I mean, I know these things. It's just that parts of me are still stunned.

[Atla]

I think this is the answer. It's not related to VA (or Iambiguous or Age). They fall into the category human. I project myself onto them. It would hurt to continue, so they wouldn't. At some point, without admitting it, they'd have to change the pattern. The cost of not being aware would be too much. Or the embarrassment - as it slowly drifted in. Or they'd have to leave. Yes, anyone can be unaware of certain things about themselves and what they are doing, but when they hear the message from diverse people who may not even agree on very much at all, it will have an effect. To deny it, too much pain and psychic energy.

I hope you understand what I mean when I call this projection. I am not projecting qualities that I have but think of as bad. I am imagining that really other people are like me, to varying degrees. It's not about being good or honorable. It's not I'm great and they aren't. It's just I can't imagine that they wouldn't find this so painful, they'd have to stop in one way or another.

This is false.

The trick is to realize that not all humans are human, not all people are people. This also means though that this world truly isn't fundamentally "good".

I mean, I know these things. It's just that parts of me are still stunned.

Yeah I think it's because somewhere deep down you still don't know it. Somewhere you still think that the world is somehow "good". It didn't truly hit you yet, and maybe that's for the best.

[Iwannaplato]

The trick is to realize that not all humans are human, not all people are people. This also means though that this world truly isn't fundamentally "good".

I mean, I know these things. It's just that parts of me are still stunned.

Yeah I think it's because somewhere deep down you still don't know it. Somewhere you still think that the world is somehow "good". It didn't truly hit you yet, and maybe that's for the best.

I suppose it could be the case. There are upsides to this - and I don't mean that I evade terror; unfortunately not. Ever go stone running in a stream or river. You often have to land on the first stone as if you definitely are getting the other foot on the next. I do mean this literally. I was always good at stone running. But I also mean it metaphorically. The down side is staying to long with things that are not working.

I say, was good, cause I'm no spring chicken. I like ankles connecting feet to legs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Lovely, I think Nagel's great.

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'.

Sure, keep repeating that, now more or less the third time in thread.

None of your responses justify....

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.

But I give up. What you lack in actually justifying here you make up for in repeating things that do not justify what you said. It's certainly one way to respond, though it does nothing for anyone in any philosophical sense.

From 'View from Nowhere"
"The right attitude in philosophy is to accept aims that we can achieve only fractionally and imperfectly, and cannot be sure of achieving even to that extent." page 10

The above is implied throughout the book which means at attitude of no absoluteness,

If we applied that to your assertion that an absolute mind-independent reality, it would not go so well for you.

Further, several times I have quoted from Nagel in this thread. Those quotes go directly against your assertion.
What did you do in relation to those quotes?
Nothing.

Third, he is talking about epistemological caution and the process of gaining knowledge. HE IS NOT MAKING A FUCKING ONTOLOGICAL CLAIM.[/quote][/quote]
You're the stupid B.STARD Id..T [tit for tat].

Someone can claim God exists [ontologically] [say 99%] but somewhat implied he is not too sure [51-99%] [epistemologically].
This I believe is Nagel's position; as a realist he has an ontological claim, but he is not dogmatic [epistemological, emotional, psychological, etc.] about it.

In other cases, one can be agnostic with ontological claims i.e. around 50/50.

[night912]

Discuss??
Views??

Justice is a thought and thoughts are real. Thoughts are of a corporeal nature in the sense that they exist physically, but not physically like a chunk of wood or a rock. They are a more subtle form of physicality, like the wind is physical but more subtle than a rock. This relates to the conclusion here, it’s an important premise to make the point, a premise being one of two starting points to make a point, and knowledge being the other.

The physicality of thought is simple to experience and everyone does, although because of assumptions about the nature of the world, not everyone notices the subtlety of the experience concerning the thought, where thoughts come from, and where thoughts go.

Thoughts have various sources, such as in a chain of one thought beginning with a memory and connecting to present experience. Or, a thought can begin as a rationale. The source to consider for the point of the conclusion of this is, a thought can have an external origin.

The simplest way to consider this is through the experience of an outside thought. An outside thought is one that is not of your own making. It comes from out of the blue, so to speak. Out of thin air. This thought is a transmission from an outside source, not through any of the five senses, but through the sixth sense, which is the mind sense. The mind senses the world without the other five senses, and the beginning of this is picking up thoughts that originate outside of the skin.

Conclusion of the previous proof, based on the evidence of knowledge: Just as thoughts external to the skin can be perceived with the mind sense, many minds transmitting the same thought are a strong transmission that can be perceived in a gross, meaning unsubtle, way.

Everyone experiences this, although everyone does not parse the phenomenon according to an organized, rational framework or commonly experienced FSK, because a lot of what is going on is connected to what is personally emotional rather than concepts.

Therefore, a commonly held physical thought by a society, such as the physical principle of justice made simple by the first experience of injustice as a child (hey, that kid took my toy!) is a physical thing that requires a most subtle instrument to detect, and that subtle instrument is the brain-mind connection.

When an entire society carries the same physical concept of justice, that is a powerful transmission that any mind sense can detect, and if ignored then it is ignored with knowledge that injustice is being done, which is also a physical thought.

I have heard that Elon Musk created a physical apparatus, a machine-mind connection, that can transfer physical thoughts to a computer screen, without voice or fingers, which is akin to the point, which is continuous transmission and reception of the physical thought of justice.

Thoughts are merely manifestations of the brain, mind and self; they can be disorganized or organized.

Organized thoughts spring from something physical and organized in the brain and mind.
The point is the brain/mind are "programmed" via evolution with various 'software programs" i.e. algorithms that enable organized thoughts. Take for example the various hardwired inherent instincts, the later sense of self, intelligence, etc. which are features of human nature.

Noted your points re "physical concept of justice".

My point is the sense of justice is represented by a 'software program' that all humans inherited via evolution as as essential part of human nature.
This sense of justice is active in varying degrees in humans.
This sense of justice is represented by its neural correlates and it enable thoughts of justice to emerge.

In this sense, justice as an algorithm in the brain/mind exists as real in ALL humans, thus universal.
Justice is thus both physical and abstract.

The sense of Justice is so glaring evident within humanity.
Who denies this?

It can even be verified within certain species of monkeys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

You talking about two different things as if they are one in the same. The concept of "justice" is not the same thing as the actual physical justice, which you haven't demonstrated that it exists.

Your analogy about justice being an algorithm in the brain/mind exists is a false analogy. This is because you're now talking about the algorithm for justice existing, but that's not the same thing as justice itself.

Here's an analogy of your analogy:
The Sims World physically exists since there's a physical video game called "The Sims" that exists.

[Walker]

Physical justice: Think bad and bad is what you get.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........

You talking about two different things as if they are one in the same. The concept of "justice" is not the same thing as the actual physical justice, which you haven't demonstrated that it exists.

Your analogy about justice being an algorithm in the brain/mind exists is a false analogy. This is because you're now talking about the algorithm for justice existing, but that's not the same thing as justice itself.

Here's an analogy of your analogy:
The Sims World physically exists since there's a physical video game called "The Sims" that exists.

???
I raised the OP so I know what I am talking about [& on topic] relative to the OP.

PH's view that Justice does not exist is based on
the idea of 'justice-in-itself' or justice in platonic form.
To reify such justice as real is delusional.
So I agree such 'justice-in-itself' does not exist.

PH and you are ignorant of one's own view and is dogmatic in denying 'justice' do exists as real in any other ways which is practical and positive to humanity.

It is evident, the concept of "justice" is accepted and applied in practice as real.
As such, it is wise philosophically to understand what this sort of real justice is about.
This is the sort of real practical justice [FSERC-based] I have presented which is inherent in all humans and positive to the progress of humanity.