The problem is abstraction

[iambiguous]

@Faust

But I repeat myself: What on earth are you trying to convey here? Philosophers and dogs and wolves? Okay, philosophers are surely permitted to go there.

Taxonomy requires abstraction. There are debates among taxonomists about whether or not a fox is a dog, or if a coyote is. In fact, taxonomy varies around the world, because it is decided upon by different bodies. But it doesn’t matter much if it’s taxonomy. It matters if it’s about causation or god, for instance. At least it matters to some. I know you have no idea what i am talking about, but that’s not my fault.

Okay, granted. But then I’m back to this:

But language would seem to have been invented first and foremost not to tackle any particular epistemological concerns that might crop up among philosophers as a result of inventing langauge, but as a means to communicate the things that people actually do from day to day. Starting of course with sustaining the existence of the community itself. Words that revolve around acquiring food and water and shelter. Words that revolve around reproduction and defense.

But sooner or latter these abstractions are going to get around to the question, “how ought we to live?” Abstractions embedded in conflicting wants. Abstractions embedded in conflicting assessments regarding how to procure basic needs. Abstractions embedded in conflicting assesments regarding the right and the wrong thing to do.

It’s not for nothing that most scientists don’t concern themselves with classification once those things that they are able to classify [with great precision] make contact with the is/ought world.

Here they tend to boot things of this nature over to the ethicists in the field of philosophy.

And that’s where I come in here by and large.

But what of the misunderstandings and mistakes made regarding abstraction when the discussion shifts to the moral quandaries embedded in issues like the rights of animals in relationship to interactions with human beings?

@Faust

Like what? Which mistakes?

Exactly my point. Abstraction and reification can come into play when the discussion shifts to particular mistakes that are said to be made by those who embrace opposing sets of assumptions regarding any particular set of conflicting goods in any particular context.

That’s where I wish to take the exchange.

This part:

When we go beyond thinking about this morally and are confronted existentially with conflicting goods intertwined in actual human behaviors that clash. How “simply” this is all noted is not really the part that interest me the most.

@Faust

Thinking about conflicting goods is not beyond thinking about morality. Moral thinking must consider conflicting goods. “Goods” in this context belongs to morality. What on earth can you be talking about except moral goods?

Another “general description”. An “assessment” entirely up in the clouds that encompass any number of “intellectual contraptions” we encounter here.

Whereas I am more inclined to “illustrate the text”:

I’m curious how this technical language is relevant with regard to the chief components of my own moral philosophy: identity, value judgments and political power. Pertaining to a particular context.

@Faust

You are the only person who can figure this out. It would require that you learn.

Come on, this point can be made to anyone who embraces one or another rendition of the “good”. And any number of them will insist that those who oppose their own value judgments can “figure it out” if only they will “learn” to think as they do.

Then I’m back to shifting the discussion into a more substantive exchange: figuring what out regarding what conflicting behaviors in what particular context?

…is just that: a very general description of meaning and abstraction.

@Faust

What’s your point? It’s “my” thread and I’ll post what I wish.

Sure, if that is actually where you want to take this.

What on earth does it mean for skillful philosophers to be better at employing abstraction when the language that they use makes contact with a particular set of conflicting goods like abortion or animal rights or gender roles?

@Faust

They can avoid reif… oh wait. I’ve already explained all that. I don’t think I can make it much simpler.

Then I’m back to this part:

How “simply” this is all noted is not really the part that interest me the most.

Though, by all means, we can just leave it at that and move on to others who are more inclined to think about all of this as we do.

[Faust]

Scientists do nothing but classify. If an event can’t be placed into a class, scientists have no idea what to do with it. You can try to boot science “back” to philosophy, but that’s not what actually happens.

Abstractions can come into play at any time. Language was indeed invented to be able to make abstractions. That’s why names are a particular interest of philosophers. Because within language they are anomalous. A special case. So special that even Russell kicked his own ass over them. But my questions about mistakes is not your point at all. I want to know some of these mistakes. particular examples. It was not a rhetorical question.

Another “general description”. An “assessment” entirely up in the clouds that encompass any number of “intellectual contraptions” we encounter here.

Now i’m calling bullshit. Ban me, motherfuckers, but that’s just bullshit. You make it general when you talk about “conflicting goods”. It’s nonsense to respond to a general claim that you made in anything but a claim that is just as general - or is at least about that original general thing. “Morality” is a general term. Your response is just crap.

Come on, this point can be made to anyone who embraces one or another rendition of the “good”.

You are equivocating between “the good” and “goods”. I’d explain the difference, but you would only huff and puff about technical terms. Automobile mechanics use technical terms - are you offended by that?

The fact is that knowledge does not exist without abstraction. It doesn’t drop from the sky and it’s not rooted in a fractured ego. Existentialism is a personality disorder (a general opinion, not directed at you in particular). The insane clown Heidegger and his posse was so fucked up by Being that he never went anywhere, philosophically. Kierkegaard got it right - but he was a psychologist. You are not and never have been discussing philosophy, but have been discussing a personality disorder.

But again, you cannot know anything without abstraction. Only particulars exist in the empirical world and abstractions exist only in human thought. You can argue all you want, but you will never even comprehend my thesis until you realize these simple facts. Abstractions, explicit or implied, are required to talk about particulars in any meaningful way. This is not even philosophy - it’s linguistics.

Your thesis is like bad science - it is not refutable, not because it is true, but because it is not testable. As long as you don’t even recognize your own abstractions, your own generalizations, you will not even know what you know. You are making any knowledge, under any conception of knowledge, impossible.

Thinking about conflicting goods is not beyond thinking about morality. Moral thinking must consider conflicting goods. “Goods” in this context belongs to morality. What on earth can you be talking about except moral goods?

Yes, this is a general description. These are all abstractions. This is why language was invented, why it is useful, and how knowledge comes to be. Or anything remotely resembling knowledge. But if you don’t know that morality, by any definition, must consider conflicting goods, you know nothing about morality. It’s axiomatic and definitional.

[iambiguous]

@Faust

Scientists do nothing but classify.

And that’s because they wrangle with the either/or world. And, there, classifying something as either this or that comes…natural?

@Faust

Abstractions can come into play at any time. Language was indeed invented to be able to make abstractions. That’s why names are a particular interest of philosophers. Because within language they are anomalous. A special case. So special that even Russell kicked his own ass over them. But my questions about mistakes is not your point at all. I want to know some of these mistakes. particular examples. It was not a rhetorical question.

Again, that is basically my point. Science uses language/abstraction to connect the dots between words and worlds. The words either correspond to the world or they don’t. Mistakes are made or they are not. The words used to build a rocket either take the astronauts to the Moon and back or they don’t. But what about words exchanged back and forth regarding whether the government ought be spending billions of dollars for that instead of for solving problems right here on Earth. Where is the exact fit between words and worlds there?

In fact, only when science goes after the really Big Questions do their words/abstractions become increasingly nore speculative and problematic.

Whereas when philosophers/ethicists who probe the question “how ought one to live?” exchange words/language/abstractions, who is really to say when mistakes are being made? With regard to particular conflicting behaviors in a particular context?

Here we can only take our words/language/abstractions out into the world and test them against the meaning of others.

Another “general description”. An “assessment” entirely up in the clouds that encompass any number of “intellectual contraptions” we encounter here.

@Faust

Now i’m calling bullshit. Ban me, motherfuckers, but that’s just bullshit. You make it general when you talk about “conflicting goods”. It’s nonsense to respond to a general claim that you made in anything but a claim that is just as general - or is at least about that original general thing. “Morality” is a general term. Your response is just crap.

Wow. Where is this “reaction” coming from? And, yes, it is but one more “general description”!

Morality is a general term. But the term can be yanked down out of the intellectual clouds we often encounter here and probed in regards to behaviors and contexts in which the word might be applied. Testing its use value and exchange value. Along with other such general terms as freedom and justice.

But then [in my view] it’s straight back up into the clouds:

@Faust

You are equivocating between “the good” and “goods”. I’d explain the difference, but you would only huff and puff about technical terms. Automobile mechanics use technical terms - are you offended by that?

The fact is that knowledge does not exist without abstraction. It doesn’t drop from the sky and it’s not rooted in a fractured ego. Existentialism is a personality disorder (a general opinion, not directed at you in particular). The insane clown Heidegger and his posse was so fucked up by Being that he never went anywhere, philosophically. Kierkegaard got it right - but he was a psychologist. You are not and never have been discussing philosophy, but have been discussing a personality disorder.

And you accuse me of huffing and puffing.

Clearly, I have struck a nerve. And, in my view, it revolves by and large around the fact that you still refuse to take even outbursts like this “down to earth”.

Let’s focus the beam on a specific set of circumstances in which behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. Intertwine the meaning of abstraction and personality disorders and fractured egos and existentialism into that discussion. You choose the context.

Just let it be about an instance in which the possibility of “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty” rears its troubling head regarding what the existentialist William Barrett described as “rival goods”.

In other words, not just more of this…

@Faust

But again, you cannot know anything without abstraction. Only particulars exist in the empirical world and abstractions exist only in human thought. You can argue all you want, but you will never even comprehend my thesis until you realize these simple facts. Abstractions, explicit or implied, are required to talk about particulars in any meaningful way. This is not even philosophy - it’s linguistics.

Your thesis is like bad science - it is not refutable, not because it is true, but because it is not testable. As long as you don’t even recognize your own abstractions, your own generalizations, you will not even know what you know. You are making any knowledge, under any conception of knowledge, impossible.

Note to others:

You tell me: What on earth is this supposed to mean? How is it applicable to your own interactions with others when values come into conflict?

Let’s take this part…

@Faust

Yes, this is a general description. These are all abstractions. This is why language was invented, why it is useful, and how knowledge comes to be. Or anything remotely resembling knowledge. But if you don’t know that morality, by any definition, must consider conflicting goods, you know nothing about morality. It’s axiomatic and definitional.

…out for a spin and zero in on situations in which an axiomatic and definitional understanding of morality comes up against the manner in which I construe human interactions here as revolving more around my own understanding of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.