Frames of Objectivity
If you place a piece of coal on water it will sink.
If you put it on earth it will sit motionless.
If you put it in mid air it will fall. (Unless perfectly balanced in space between two separate gravitational forces - if such a perfect balance is humanly, or mathematically possible)
If you pit the piece of coal into fire, it will burn.The point?
The placement of an object in different mediums yields different results.
What about the placement of an idea into different frames of reference?
See my post below for an example involving murder.
The challenge is to find the frame of reference which provides the most objective 'result' when analysing the given idea. Perhaps an initial question to ask is whether the answer will vary depending on the idea, or whether there is one grand framework which would provide the most objective 'result' for every given idea.
Before even that can be answered however, one needs to create and define the set of 'frameworks'. This, at first glance, is a difficult thing to do. Must it be done by 'listing', or can it be done by defining a collection of (not necessarily finite) subsets? Well, let's give it a go and see what we can come up with. Here's my start:
- Subset of all religious frameworks.
- Subset of all legal systems.
- Subset of all socio-political frameworks (i.e types of government - democracy, monarchy, communism, autocracy, despotism etc.)
- Subset of all variations on the above contained in the personal codes of all (human) individuals.
- Subset of all frameworks not already included in the above list which contain an overriding paragon (such as Darwin's theory of evolution in which the overriding paragon is survival).
- The absolute framework (by which I mean, the total absence of any framework, or 'anarchy'.)
- Pure free-will. (Any different to 'anarchy'?)
- Chaos Theory. (Or 'anarchy with imperceptible order').
- Determinism. (Fate - meaning all our actions are pre-determined).
- Buddism. (Which in my view isn't a religion in the relevant sense).
That's all I could I could think of in five minutes, so I'm sure there are plenty more. Of course, in truth, to find 'THE' objective framework (for everything or any given idea) one would need to consider every framework, though perhaps the subsets could be dismissed as a group in some cases.
Well, that's an attack on the first stage of this important question. Suggestions and input would be very welcome. When adding to the list bear in mind that 'Subset of all philosophical frameworks' does not count, it's cheating!
posted by Matt McGrath at 5:28 am
14 Comments:
You've raised an important issue, and have gone about it in a systematic way. What is interesting in listing out the various possibilities, is the sheer diversity of the results, often blatantly contradictory. Objective evaluation is tricky business, but I think a good starting point is to the examine the diversity in and of itself. Looking at individual frames of reference is valuable, sure, but looking more theoretically at the nature and fundamental origins of these frameworks is equally worthwhile. Doing this is actually an element I'm building upon in my new blog, reachable through the URL below. I'm trying to sift out the Purpose of human existence and life, partly using the techniques I've described above. Just as much as getting a broad stroke of human purpose across cultures and across history is important for answering the question, so will an examination of the very nature of their diversity.
A grand framework, capabable of 'legitimately' subsuming all other competing frameworks? Sounds like a case for Hobbes' 'Leviathan' to me...
Hobbes, reacting to 17th century religious conflict, offered a political and linguistic solution to your problem of 'neutrality'. Hobbes held that human beings naturally existed in a state of internecine war. The only way to stop this war, and to live in a state of peace, was to contract with all other combatants to surrender individual autonomy to a single sovereign individual.
By following the dictates of the sovereign's framework, all people could agree on what words such as 'murder' or 'liberty' meant. This meant there could be no conflict between competing wills, or individual interpretations. The autonomy of individual interpretative 'subsets' is said to be freely surrendered and re-presented in the sovereign, thereby making the 'grand framework' of the sovereign into a freely willed representative entity, rather than a coercively enforced ideological despotism.
Under this system, it would not matter what the 'subsets' were. The only thing that matters is the interpretation of the sovereign system - which is held to be a guarantee of 'objective neutrality' - the best possible system in the interests of all; the only system that could remove the 'natural' conflict between different systems.
Obviously, there are all sorts of problems with this sort of philosophy, mostly stemming from the fact that nobody likes to be told what to do - much less what to think...
... and that it's fundamentally subjective - at the mercy of the sovereign.
It's a sort of self-defined objectivity, which is really a paradox. Or is it? Maybe that's a subject for another day.
Simon - Are you Roman's son?! I took a look at your blog... I'll comment on it in a while... But slow down, you're writing far too much too quickly for people to digest - several posts a day is more than people can or will read!
(Mind you, I'm a bit too slow these days...)
Thanks for the comments though guys, much appreciated. I think Alex has supplied a new (theoretical) subset:
11. The subset of universal sovereign decree.
Heh don't worry, I won't post four times a day normally. Especially since my posts are longer than your average site's. This is my first blog, and I wanted to have some meat on there before I sent it out. My plan is about 2 posts per week. Thanks for the concern, though, nonetheless.
I note you didn't deny being Roman's son...
How's about a small donation to the cause?! lol
Honestly, that's because I had no idea what you were talking about, and thought you were making some reference I hadn't heard of. Who's Roman? I'm not his son, that's for sure!
Roman Abramovitch? Only the richest man in the entire world... Owns Chelsea Football Club and half of Russia. Recently sold even more assets for several billion pounds. More money than any man could comprehend...
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok. I was once at Heathrow Airport and the check-in guy looked at me oddly and said "ahh... the famous surname..."
Fact is, his name is without the "t". Believe me, I looked into it when I first heard about him. Not often you have the off-chance of a multi-billionaire relative. And you're right; if I was his son, I'd be a jerk not to spot you a few mil.
You amaze me with your complete lack of true understanding. You are only thinking in the material world, not in the mental realm. Therefore you are restricted greatly in the possibilities that you can discover a true sense of purpose in life. What is life, oh ignorant one? What will you do with yours? Pretend to understand things that are out of your grasp? Your work is done poisoning the minds of our people through a meaningless metaphor. Why must you pretend so?
I grow weary of this. Stop this nonsense, and no harm will come of it. If you wish to discover what life is about, find it on your own.
"You amaze me with your complete lack of true understanding. You are only thinking in the material world, not in the mental realm."
11. Set of all mental realities.
Done. But really, all you've created is an infinite set of undefined possibilities. Unless you elucidate upon your point somewhat I am none the wiser.
"What is life, oh ignorant one? What will you do with yours? Pretend to understand things that are out of your grasp?"
You may certainly call me ignorant, I don't think I could conceivably deny it. I certainly don't 'pretend' to understand anything, I merely 'try'.
"Your work is done poisoning the minds of our people through a meaningless metaphor. Why must you pretend so?"
Who the hell are 'our' people? Identify yourself and be a man. Your stylistic attempt at attractive prose are nothing more than prosaic senseless masturbations. Why must I pretend what?
"I grow weary of this. Stop this nonsense, and no harm will come of it. If you wish to discover what life is about, find it on your own."
The answer to this problem of yours is simple enough, and I, the simple grasshopper, would not seek to point it out to you, master.
The brand reputation that Karbonn has in its intangible asset has worked in this venture as well. Besides the workability, mobiles are the specialists in showing your right fashion statement. From smart phones to normal usage one, Karbonn is really zeroing on the cost effective mobiles. Visit www.rightshopping.in/g/itb.asp?C=Karbonn-Mobile-Phones&b=Karbonn&cid=1
You've raised an important issue, and have gone about it in a systematic way.
Obviously, there are all sorts of problems with this sort of philosophy, mostly stemming from the fact that nobody likes to be told what to do - much less what to think..
You've raised an important issue, and have gone about it in a systematic way.
Obviously, there are all sorts of problems with this sort of philosophy, mostly stemming from the fact that nobody likes to be told what to do - much less what to think...
You've raised an important issue, and have gone about it in a systematic way.
Obviously, there are all sorts of problems with this sort of philosophy, mostly stemming from the fact that nobody likes to be told what to do - much less what to think...
Post a Comment
<< Home