|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 1, 2021 23:09:22 GMT
I've been searching for some forums about the subject, unfortunately I'm not sure I've found the answer. Roughly it can be summarised into:
It's completely impossible to know why unfair and unworthy people occupied wrong places, and why they have what they shouldn't have.
One of the many interesting to think on answers I've found from the book of G. Schlesinger (1973):
(I'm paraphrasing it):
If A and B are states of affairs, and one, being in A, complains about it, while if the one had had B he would have been satisfied. So, even if this is true, no necessity for B to be better, than A.
And in this book there's something on the injustice (I'm paraphrasing again): the problem of injustice vanishes when we're going directly into the world of the one (person; so, a personal private world). And it must be clear: more desirable persons or romantic persons types have proper intentions to dream about this or that. While the God's plan seems to be far beyond those – with no exaggeration – tiny and plain desires.
I do like the Schlesinger's book, it is clear and argumentative, but I still don't know – what Talmud says about the injustice and the ways to fix it (or diminish it)? Should injustice be one of the necessary elements in this world? If so, then if a person is being trapped to some not justice conditions he should accept it, right?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 10, 2021 0:56:43 GMT
You argument is if there is A and there is B, if A is better than B but we have only B, so B is better than A?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 10, 2021 8:18:04 GMT
You argument is if there is A and there is B, if A is better than B but we have only B, so B is better than A? Oh, no it's not really my argument, but the Schlesinger's. Not exactly like like that. A and B – are conditions, events, circumstances, etc. Let's imagine a person has trapped into A, and he thinks that he'd better have B instead of A. So, there is A, and no B. But the ontological side doesn't important, because the claim of the person that he'd better have B doesn't implies that B is better than A. To example it: if that person could have chance to live his life twice and to check both cases with A and B, then comparing them the person would have probably found that B was the same or even worse, than A. And at the same time it's also possible that B could have been better, but this wouldn't be necessary. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 10, 2021 15:09:25 GMT
You argument is if there is A and there is B, if A is better than B but we have only B, so B is better than A? Oh, no it's not really my argument, but the Schlesinger's. Not exactly like like that. A and B – are conditions, events, circumstances, etc. Let's imagine a person has trapped into A, and he thinks that he'd better have B instead of A. So, there is A, and no B. But the ontological side doesn't important, because the claim of the person that he'd better have B doesn't implies that B is better than A. To example it: if that person could have chance to live his life twice and to check both cases with A and B, then comparing them the person would have probably found that B was the same or even worse, than A. And at the same time it's also possible that B could have been better, but this wouldn't be necessary. So, the argument is that there is a equivalence because ontologically A, as a circunstance, cannot be considered better than B? But if we consider ethically the ontology of the argument, we see that it comes from a lack of meaning. So it's obvious that is a technicity and not aplied on al fields of logic. It's not universal. Sure, sometimes a particular argument can shows us marvelous content. If circunstances are ontologically equal we can reset our choices, and beggin from zero. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 10, 2021 16:23:15 GMT
Oh, no it's not really my argument, but the Schlesinger's. Not exactly like like that. A and B – are conditions, events, circumstances, etc. Let's imagine a person has trapped into A, and he thinks that he'd better have B instead of A. So, there is A, and no B. But the ontological side doesn't important, because the claim of the person that he'd better have B doesn't implies that B is better than A. To example it: if that person could have chance to live his life twice and to check both cases with A and B, then comparing them the person would have probably found that B was the same or even worse, than A. And at the same time it's also possible that B could have been better, but this wouldn't be necessary. So, the argument is that there is a equivalence because ontologically A, as a circunstance, cannot be considered better than B? But if we consider ethically the ontology of the argument, we see that it comes from a lack of meaning. So it's obvious that is a technicity and not aplied on al fields of logic. It's not universal. Sure, sometimes a particular argument can shows us marvelous content. If circunstances are ontologically equal we can reset our choices, and beggin from zero. Must agree with you in some points, namely: 1) logic and the real life examples are not twins, and it doesn't mean than ethics is entirely formalized 2) Such an inference I've made abovr follows mostly modal logic and modal arguments rules, and it doesn't mean that each ethical categories can be translated with no flaws to modal ones
And vice versa: some of such conditions are taken – as you rightly said – conventionally. It means we can be sure about that for good.
However, following Hume's Guillotine: 'is' doesn't imply 'ought to', we can say that – taking into account the previous discussions – that situation with the person can be drawn as if he guessed about his possible events in a backward way:
The person is in (the situation) A He complains about it
For the person A isn't good He continues: B would be better, than A So – the person concludes – B must be better, than A.
If we tried to convince him that all was good, and no need to worry about, then we could say that B just might be better.
Maybe the person wouldn't agree with us, but we can in turn answer him that his logic isn't valid. If what he thought was:
"There is A" & "A is bad"
"There is no B"
∴ "B is better, than A"
We would point him ona mistake of non sequitur.
Also, I don't think we truly know about universality of logic. We might guess, because the logic itself can prove it – it's an inner language, and it decides about something just formally, using certain rules. Our decision about whether or not logic is universal is a statement beyond what logic can support us. We may be sure about how well-formed this or that proof us, but we don't say anything about the content of the arguments.
So, either this problem is philosophical, or of some other science's subject. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 10, 2021 17:15:46 GMT
But ontology do not resume itself in ontical cathegories. If you are saying logical cathegories, you must go to the end of your reasoning by the same cathegories you follow in the beggining.
So, if an A is B, but B is not the same cathegory as A, what we can conclude by that? That A and B is not cathegorial.
Do you agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 10, 2021 17:52:20 GMT
But ontology do not resume itself in ontical cathegories. If you are saying logical cathegories, you must go to the end of your reasoning by the same cathegories you follow in the beggining. So, if an A is B, but B is not the same cathegory as A, what we can conclude by that? That A and B is not cathegorial. Do you agree? Even if A isn't the same category, it doesn't imply anything about B contextually in ontic.. or as you've said – doesn't resume in it. I usually don't divide ontic and ontology. Yeah, I think I can agree with you on it. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 10, 2021 19:52:55 GMT
You are resuming ontological categories in ontical categories. So, you are dismissing the being in the place of the ontical. It's clear to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 10, 2021 22:49:07 GMT
Not too sure either but from those who follow it ...based on what they said it does seem that it is fairly not good with justice. Triangle are you religious by any chance? |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 11, 2021 0:21:13 GMT
Not too sure either but from those who follow it ...based on what they said it does seem that it is fairly not good with justice. Triangle are you religious by any chance? I was born catholic, was batized but have no faith in catholic religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 11, 2021 1:26:41 GMT
Not too sure either but from those who follow it ...based on what they said it does seem that it is fairly not good with justice. Triangle are you religious by any chance? I was born catholic, was batized but have no faith in catholic religion. It wasn't for you? I hope your family is accepting of that. Religion can be a huge barrier in families. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 11, 2021 2:34:01 GMT
My mother is protestant, but only by himself. She doesn't go to churches.
I believe that some faith is good but excessive faith in something is a problem. I am exagerating, I believe in saints but not agree with the dogma. The catholic faith is based on dogmas? So, I have no faith in the catholic dogma.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 11, 2021 15:58:24 GMT
Not too sure either but from those who follow it ...based on what they said it does seem that it is fairly not good with justice. Triangle are you religious by any chance? It's true, there might be some feeling a person is testing, so with no doubt one may feel sadness or something. And along with it we never know what is good for us. Maybe our lives aren't so bad we might guess about them. |
|
