To a sound judgment, the most abstract truth is...

[coberst]

“To a sound judgment, the most abstract truth is the most practical.”

 

“To a sound judgment, the most abstract truth is the most practical.”—Emerson

 

A useful metaphor for comprehending the meaning of abstract truth would be—‘Abstract Truth is Chemical Compound’.

 

An abstract idea is composed of both individual concepts and other abstract concepts just as a chemical compound is composed of individual atoms and molecules.

 

An example of a most abstract truth might be found in John Rawls book “A Theory of Justice”. Rawls concludes that an apt metaphor might be ‘Justice is Fairness’.

 

I guess that every child develops many concepts of fairness as s/he grows up. “Mom, Chris is cheating.” “Mom, Chris always takes the bigger piece of cake.” “Pick on someone your own size.” The abstract concept ‘fairness’ would contain many other abstract concepts and individual literal concepts. There would also be additional abstract concepts making up the abstract metaphor ‘Justice is Fairness’.

 

Of course one must examine the meaning of “a sound judgment”. I would say that Critical Thinking skills are a necessary but not sufficient component of sound judgments. Since everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker I would have to define several different levels of critical thinking.

 

A level one critical thinker is a ‘trust but verify’ critical thinker. A level two critical thinker is one who has taken the college course Logic 101 or has studied this subject matter on their own. The level three critical thinkers I call CT (Critical Thinker). This is a student of rational thinking who has mastered Logic 101 plus the character traits and attitude of sound critical thinking.

 

Can you think of an abstract idea that might be more practical than ‘justice is fairness’?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Ah, now we speak of John Rawls.

 

It seems to me that Rawls ultimate judgement about what makes a society just is largely equivalent to "love thy neighbor as thyself" written on a social scale.

 

Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.

 

An 'equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic rights' is basically that no single person has a claim to any MORE rights than anybody else.

 

Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

 

In other words, where there are inequalities, everyone should have an equal chance to obtain them, and those inequalities should not be excessive.

 

Now Rawls started from the "original position" which was basically that if you didn't know if you would be strong or weak, or talented or incompetent before you entered a society, you would make sure that the society wouldn't disadvantage you before entered.

 

Rawls of course, was talking mostly about political philosophy, and arrived at the idea that societies should be fair since that is what everyone would want for themselves if they were to enter a society "blind." But I think the concept is extendable to the realm of moral philosophy.

 

If, in an interaction between two or more individuals, you didn't know WHICH individual you were, how would you want the situation to play out?

 

In other words - "Put yourself in the other's shoes." "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love thy neighbor as yourself."

 

The difference between 'the other' and 'you' is one of locality of consciousness and limitation of experience.

 

TFS

[coberst]

TFS

 

I agree generally with your assesment of Rawls theory. The book goes on and treats in detail many aspects of moral or political philosophy. Moral and political considerations are very closely aligned. His metaphor 'justice is fairness' seems to me to be right on the mark. And like you say it is much like the "Golden Rule" and Kant's Categorical Imperative.

 

 

Your statement "The difference between 'the other' and 'you' is one of locality of consciousness and limitation of experience." I do not agree with, however. The difference between you and me is much more than locality of consciousness and experience. The difference between the two of us is the most importance difference in the world for each of us. It is this difference that will eventually destroy our species and the planet.

 

The very best book that I have read about these matters is "Beyond Alienation" by Earnest Becker.

[rocket art]

TFS

 

The difference between the two of us is the most importance difference in the world for each of us. It is this difference that will eventually destroy our species and the planet.

 

The difference between the both of you is who will be the one who is not 'aware' of the similarity between the other. This 'unawareness' is the difference that will eventually destroy your species and world with continued attachment to divisiveness.

[coberst]

Rocket Art

 

If we do not bridge this gap with some form of social morality that is acceptable to all people we cannot survive. We must find a way to create an ideal to which to strive and the ideal must be compatable with all ideologies. Does that seem possible? Americans think that freedom and democracy are such ideals but such does not seem to be the case.

[rocket art]

Rocket Art

 

If we do not bridge this gap with some form of social morality that is acceptable to all people we cannot survive. We must find a way to create an ideal to which to strive and the ideal must be compatable with all ideologies. Does that seem possible? Americans think that freedom and democracy are such ideals but such does not seem to be the case.

 

Freedom will always be an ideal compatible with all, what is required to maintain it is justice and responsibility and not the lack of it at the excuse of freedom itself. In the light of awareness sweeping today, America is exposed with secret manipulative forces that thrive on ignorance to maintain their grip, and supress profound knowledge from Ideal Past such as 'sacred geometry' (and yet so innately known to us it starts even while we are in mitosis stage) that only secret fascists manipulating the country knew, with the rest of the unaware populace, and humanity subjected to their selfish manipulations with such knowledge.

[TheFaithfulStone]

What?

 

Coberst:

 

I suppose that I should have phrased that as a "should" and not an "is." I suspect that if we could all really know that other people are "sites of personhood" that we would be less likely to kill each other, than if we all secretly suspect that everyone else is just an animated bag of meat, and we are the only TRULY conscious being.

 

I'll look up that book - I haven't read it.

 

TFS