|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 25, 2020 17:00:24 GMT
Justice can be defined but this act of definition would require further and further definition until all phenomenon are connected as part of these subset definitions. Justice, through the same means of defining it, is thus connectivity with connectivity being balance given one part is defined through another. It is the manifestation of connection, through parts, which necessitates an equilibrium occuring with this equilibrium being the leveling of a phenomenon to a point zero state from which it originates.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 25, 2020 18:12:01 GMT
Justice can be defined but this act of definition would require further and further definition until all phenomenon are connected as part of these subset definitions. Justice, through the same means of defining it, is thus connectivity with connectivity being balance given one part is defined through another. It is the manifestation of connection, through parts, which necessitates an equilibrium occuring with this equilibrium being the leveling of a phenomenon to a point zero state from which it originates. How do you define Justice? And why do you think that your definition requires further and further definitions??
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 26, 2020 4:19:54 GMT
Justice can be defined but this act of definition would require further and further definition until all phenomenon are connected as part of these subset definitions. Justice, through the same means of defining it, is thus connectivity with connectivity being balance given one part is defined through another. It is the manifestation of connection, through parts, which necessitates an equilibrium occuring with this equilibrium being the leveling of a phenomenon to a point zero state from which it originates. How do you define Justice? And why do you think that your definition requires further and further definitions?? By manifesting contrasting concepts where one phenomenon is defined through another by their differences. These differing concepts in turn form a new concept and this concept must be defined by a further contrast with this process going on ad infinitum.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 26, 2020 19:16:04 GMT
How do you define Justice? And why do you think that your definition requires further and further definitions?? By manifesting contrasting concepts where one phenomenon is defined through another by their differences. These differing concepts in turn form a new concept and this concept must be defined by a further contrast with this process going on ad infinitum. If you consider justice a phenomenon (something that happens), that's well and good, but you are not defining justice. If I were to define (or to elucidate) justice by a foreign synonym, then indeed I would have to define the latter by another synonym and so on to infinity. So, it's bad to define anything by synonyms. Aristotelian definitions, by genus and specific difference, are not bad; they would require further definitions, if these two terms were incomprehensible words. Of course, for things which are unique and not members of a genus, no Aristotelian definition can be given; only explanatory phrases can be given and, as such, they are sufficient. Suppose that there is only one sun in our world. What do you mean by the word, "The Sun"? If you are unable to describe/define The Sun, that's because either you do do not know much about it, or because the vocabulary of your native(already-made) language is so limited that your mind cannot discover much about The Sun. ( Yes, a given language is not only a system for social communication, but also a lighthouse that enables a person to scan/scrutinize the world, for the creators of that language created it to the extent that they could mentally penetrate or "read" the world. A language bears witness to the intelligence [into-reading] of its creators. Not all world languages are created equally; therefore, it is not true that any language can be translated into any other world language, or that a definition produced in one language can be transposed into any other language. Needless to say, languages are anthropological cultural entities that continue to exist in memory or in books. (An ancient Greek poet referred to written tablets as memory-tablets. And in western Europe, human Memory will be called "tabula rasa" -- a shaven/blank tablet, on which something can be written or impressed.)
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 26, 2020 19:24:17 GMT
By manifesting contrasting concepts where one phenomenon is defined through another by their differences. These differing concepts in turn form a new concept and this concept must be defined by a further contrast with this process going on ad infinitum. If you consider justice a phenomenon (something that happens), that's well and good, but you are not defining justice. If I were to define (or to elucidate) justice by a foreign synonym, then indeed I would have to define the latter by another synonym and so on to infinity. So, it's bad to define anything by synonyms. Aristotelian definitions, by genus and specific difference, are not bad; they would require further definitions, if these two terms were incomprehensible words. Of course, for things which are unique and not members of a genus, no Aristotelian definition can be given; only explanatory phrases can be given and, as such, they are sufficient. Suppose that there is only one sun in our world. What do you mean by the word, "The Sun"? If you are unable to describe/define The Sun, that's because either you do do not know much about it, or because the vocabulary of your native(already-made) language is so limited that your mind cannot discover much about The Sun. ( Yes, a given language is not only a system for social communication, but also a lighthouse that enables a person to scan/scrutinize the world, for the creators of that language created it to the extent that they could mentally penetrate or "read" the world. A language bears witness to the intelligence [into-reading] of its creators. Not all world languages are created equally; therefore, it is not true that any language can be translated into any other world language, or that a definition produced in one language can be transposed into any other language. Needless to say, languages are anthropological cultural entities that continue to exist in memory or in books. (An ancient Greek poet referred to written tablets as memory-tablets. And in western Europe, human Memory will be called "tabula rasa" -- a shaven/blank tablet, on which something can be written or impressed.)
Any act of defining justice requires justice, as an action, to define it thus necessitating justice to define justice. This leaves justice as fundamentally formless at its core.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 26, 2020 21:01:59 GMT
Sorry 9x, but justice is not an action. An action may be just or unjust, but even to say so, there has to be, in the back of one's mind, the conception or definition of justice. "Justice is justice " is a useless tautology, which is a true proposition but does not tell/explain what justice is. Similarly, "2=2" is a true proposition, but 2 is not thereby being defined. "Two" may be defined denotationally by "1+1" provided that we have the notion of Unit/Individual and that the mind is capable of counting, adding, subtracting, and so forth. The whole of mathematics bears witness to the intelligence of its makers. Not all human tribes/societies have the same cerebral abilities. Hence we can say empirically that it's true that not all men or societies are equal in intelligence, and that the promulgators of human equality are simply wrong. (So much anthropology on this Thanksgiving Day. Have a happy one.)
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 26, 2020 22:12:07 GMT
Sorry 9x, but justice is not an action. An action may be just or unjust, but even to say so, there has to be, in the back of one's mind, the conception or definition of justice. "Justice is justice " is a useless tautology, which is a true proposition but does not tell/explain what justice is. Similarly, "2=2" is a true proposition, but 2 is not thereby being defined. "Two" may be defined denotationally by "1+1" provided that we have the notion of Unit/Individual and that the mind is capable of counting, adding, subtracting, and so forth. The whole of mathematics bears witness to the intelligence of its makers. Not all human tribes/societies have the same cerebral abilities. Hence we can say empirically that it's true that not all men or societies are equal in intelligence, and that the promulgators of human equality are simply wrong. (So much anthropology on this Thanksgiving Day. Have a happy one.) Happy Thanksgiving too, justice is an action as it is the manifestation of balance. The phrase "...an act of justice..." pertains to this directly. The circularity of justice is inevitable given the definition of justice necessitates a just definition. Justice thus contains a circular nature that, at its root, is fundamentally empty of form much in the same manner the center of a circle is empty of form. Justice cannot be defined without using justice as a marker for its definition. At the end of the day justice exists because justice exists. To define it any further requires it to be defined through a continuum of definitions thus connecting justice to a myriad of definitions. This means of definition, in defining justice, further defines justice through the manner in which it is define, that is justice is connection. We can see this under the example of Socrates death where the perpetrators, who did not want wisdom, in killing Socrates in turn got rid of the means of wisdom they did not want. In killing a wise man they recieved the absence of wisdom they so deeply desired.
|
|