Argument against the idea that philosophers should focus on universals

[elzoog]

To be a philosopher like Stefan, you would also have to concern yourself with things that are NOT universal because ONLY those kinds of things are actionable.   Consider for example, I am an evil person so that the statement "Brian Dean is evil" is true.  If "Brian Dean is evil" is universal, then I will always be evil.  However, if "Brian Dean is evil" is not universal, then it's possible I could change.

 

Thoughts?

[Mister Mister]

The definition of evil is the universal.  "Brian is evil" is a specific instance of that concept.  "Evil people can change to not being evil", is a hypothesis, which if true, would also be a universal, which could then be applied to this specific instance.

[sweathog1]

We live in a world of paradox is that universal/microcosmic/microscopic  enough?. Want to see God look for truths which are paradoxal.  Ya might want to read up on some of Chesterton's stuff  Truth and Paradox or some of Scott Peck  musings of paradox

[shirgall]

Is it "all philosophers should not use universals" or "some philosophers should never use universals"?

[rosencrantz]

The definition of evil is the universal.

 

No, it's not. Nobody is evil in the universal sense. Is Brian evil when he sleeps, has lunch, brushes his teeth, takes a dump? There are specific instances when Brial behaves in an evil way and you may choose to avoid him or defend yourself against him.

[EclecticIdealist]

The definition of evil is the universal.  "Brian is evil" is a specific instance of that concept.  "Evil people can change to not being evil", is a hypothesis, which if true, would also be a universal, which could then be applied to this specific instance.

Evil is subjective, or at the very least an inaccurate and ambiguous term for what may actually be meant (such as vindictive, malicious, taking delight in the misery and misfortune of others, etc.)

[thebeardslastcall]

We live in a world of paradox is that universal/microcosmic/microscopic  enough?. Want to see God look for truths which are paradoxal.  Ya might want to read up on some of Chesterton's stuff  Truth and Paradox or some of Scott Peck  musings of paradox

All paradoxes are theoretical and conceptual, not actual and real. There are no true paradoxes in reality. Thinking there are is insanity and why people believe in Gods.

 

Evil is subjective, or at the very least an inaccurate and ambiguous term for what may actually be meant (such as vindictive, malicious, taking delight in the misery and misfortune of others, etc.)

Saying evil is subjective is saying there are no objective ways to measure or judge an action as evil. Saying or thinking someone is evil doesn't make someone evil and is exactly what evil would think or say if the action or person wasn't evil. Thus saying evil is subjective I'd count wrong on two counts at the least.

[sweathog1]

All paradoxes are theoretical and conceptual, not actual and real. There are no true paradoxes in reality. Thinking there are is insanity and why people believe in Gods.

 

Saying evil is subjective is saying there are no objective ways to measure or judge an action as evil. Saying or thinking someone is evil doesn't make someone evil and is exactly what evil would think or say if the action or person wasn't evil. Thus saying evil is subjective I'd count wrong on two counts at the least.

 

 

Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man.

Bertrand Russell

In the Upanishads we read,

“Through sitting still, I travel far.”

Jesus, Lao Tzu and Buddha had similar phrases as they instructed us in one form or another that we conquer by yielding, gain strength through weakness, are exalted by being humble, are made free by becoming a servant, and only lose that which we cling to.

 

Might be a step to far down the road towards insanity but perhaps getting rid of the ego gets rid of illusory dichotomies

[EclecticIdealist]

Saying evil is subjective is saying there are no objective ways to measure or judge an action as evil.

 

That is a correct. There are no objective ways to measure or judge an action as evil as there are no objective standards of evil. All standards of evil are subjective, even though such standards are commonly held by a majority of people on a majority of topics. One can objectively state whether a particular action is judged by a particular society as evil, or according to a particular religious teaching or ideology, or even to a personally held moral sentiment, but that is akin to saying, "Rotting fish tastes awful." 

 

Saying or thinking someone is evil doesn't make someone evil and is exactly what evil would think or say if the action or person wasn't evil.

Thinking someone is evil makes that someone evil in the mind of the person holding such a sentiment. To merely claim that someone is evil, especially if one does not think that they are evil sounds like a malicious thing to do, which is a motivation for behavior that most people would consider evil, but it is by no means the only standard by which people might consider something or someone evil. Many people would consider callous indifference to the suffering of others to be evil, but such behavior would not generally be considered malicious.

 

Thus saying evil is subjective I'd count wrong on two counts at the least.

You can count it wrong all you'd like, but it won't make it so even once. Moral sentiments of good and evil are subjective, even when such sentiments are held by the vast majority of, or even all members of, any given society. If you believe otherwise, the burden of proof is to show that there exists an objective moral standard of good and evil that exists independent of anyone's belief (or disbelief) in it.

[elzoog]

The definition of evil is the universal.  "Brian is evil" is a specific instance of that concept.  "Evil people can change to not being evil", is a hypothesis, which if true, would also be a universal, which could then be applied to this specific instance.

Yes, but for Brian to become good, the concept of "Brian is evil" can't be a universal.

Is it "all philosophers should not use universals" or "some philosophers should never use universals"?

I would say that it's fine if philosophers consider universals but that only non-universals can be acted on.  If X is universal, then it will be true no matter what you do.  

[dsayers]

I think shirgall's point is that philosopher's shouldn't focus on universals is stated as a universal. It's a performative contradiction.

 

As RoseCodex pointed out, "Brian is evil" is not a universal. Universal means the same in all instances at all times. Here, "Brian" is not all instances.

 

Also, the word evil is being while undefined. It's a term of judgement, so perhaps not the most precise. To me, behaviors can be immoral and in order for a person to be evil, they would have to frequently and deliberately exempt themselves from standards they put forth for others.

 

Philosophy is a method by which to determine that which is true in the realm of ethics/morality. To arrive at the conclusion that Brian is evil, you must first define evil, then assuming your definition has a moral/ethical component, test to see the identity of that component. If Brian frequently and deliberately puts forth property rights as a standard for others, but violates them himself, then the absolute claim that Brian is evil would be true. Here, universality comes into play in that property rights cannot be valid and invalid at the same time.

 

The fact that Brian could change isn't really relevant to the titular claim.

[Mister Mister]

Yes, but for Brian to become good, the concept of "Brian is evil" can't be a universal.

 

 

"Brian is evil" isn't a universal concept, it's a particular instance

[RichardY]

Argument against the idea that philosophers should focus on universals.

 

To be a philosopher like Stefan, you would also have to concern yourself with things that are NOT universal because ONLY those kinds of things are actionable.   

Like Plato's allegory of the Cave? A similar example IMO would be Stefan's Youtube videos vs the MSM leading people further down into the Cave.

 

should: As an assertion of one's Will and also an implication of choice. There must be another option/s real or imagined with some aesthetic(preference) element included. In terms of health Stefan has used an example of a Medical Doctor and the absurdity of not making a distinction between sickness and health. The should IMO is fine, but I think an aesthetic case would be reasonable.

 

 If "Brian Dean is evil" is universal, then I will always be evil.  However, if "Brian Dean is evil" is not universal, then it's possible I could change.

 

Thoughts?

If "Brian Dean is Evil" then there is something about Brian's Will that is Evil. "Brian Dean is Evil" is also tautological, while giving an Objective definition of Evil, kind of like in the movie "Time Bandits".

[shirgall]

I think shirgall's point is that philosopher's shouldn't focus on universals is stated as a universal. It's a performative contradiction.

 

Indeed, both of my restatements of the premise also had universals, for ironic effect.

[RichardY]

Except the original poster never said that a philosopher should never or not focus on universals.

 

What if, the original poster had said "Philosophers should (only) focus on things that are universal." Would that not be something more similar to Maths or Science? Focus, would also be implying some sort of weighted value system. 

 

Headshot failed on the performative contradiction.

[shirgall]

Except the original poster never said that a philosopher should never or not focus on universals.

 

Then what does this mean?

Argument against the idea that philosophers should focus on universals

[Tyler H]

What would be an example of a non-universal concept that philosophers could focus on? "Redness" or if nouns exist?

 

Philosophy doesn't determine if Brian is evil but what actions are evil as applied to universal standards. Philosophers, if they wish to be such, should focus on the truth; the truth is universal.

[elzoog]

Except the original poster never said that a philosopher should never or not focus on universals.

 

What if, the original poster had said "Philosophers should (only) focus on things that are universal." Would that not be something more similar to Maths or Science? Focus, would also be implying some sort of weighted value system. 

 

Headshot failed on the performative contradiction.

 

Yes, the key phrase in my OP is "you would also have to concern yourself"  Which of course means that you can consider universals, but you would also have to concern yourself with things that are not universal.

 

As to the earlier post about the analogy of the cave, to be honest, my thinking is kind of more aligned with Nagarjuna's "Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way"

Then what does this mean?

Argument against the idea that philosophers should focus on universals

 

Means the same thing as "Philosophers should solve how to eat pee and drink poop."   It's an argument that I never made to begin with.

What would be an example of a non-universal concept that philosophers could focus on? "Redness" or if nouns exist?

 

Philosophy doesn't determine if Brian is evil but what actions are evil as applied to universal standards. Philosophers, if they wish to be such, should focus on the truth; the truth is universal.

For example, "I am lazy" or "Microsoft is an unethical company"

Then what does this mean?

Argument against the idea that philosophers should focus on universals

Sorry, I should have titled this thread more carefully

[dsayers]

you can consider universals, but you would also have to concern yourself with things that are not universal.

In the realm of human interaction, that which isn't universal is subjective/opinion/preference and of no value in the consideration of whether a BEHAVIOR is internally consistent or not.

 

For example, "I am lazy" or "Microsoft is an unethical company"

Lazy is not a behavior. Microsoft is not a sentient entity.

 

It doesn't appear that you're talking about philosophy at all.

[elzoog]

In the realm of human interaction, that which isn't universal is subjective/opinion/preference and of no value in the consideration of whether a BEHAVIOR is internally consistent or not.

 

Lazy is not a behavior. Microsoft is not a sentient entity.

 

It doesn't appear that you're talking about philosophy at all.

 

 

"BEHAVIOR is internally consistent or not." If a BEHAVIOR can be changed, then it isn't universal.  Also, a BEHAVIOR depends on others.  If there is no B to act on, then A can't act and therefore can't have a BEHAVIOR.  

 

 

[dsayers]

If a BEHAVIOR can be changed, then it isn't universal.

Numerous people have pointed out to you that a single person or behavior is an instance. I have already defined universal as being true in all instances at all times. You're telling me I'm wrong by agreeing with my position. Perhaps YOU should define what universal means.

 

Also, a BEHAVIOR depends on others.  If there is no B to act on, then A can't act and therefore can't have a BEHAVIOR.

Perhaps you should define what behavior means. To me, a behavior is anything externally observable that you voluntarily do with your body. So when you bathe yourself, you are not acting upon another, but you are engaging in a behavior. I've never heard a definition of behavior that requires another person. It is true that behaviors that are binding upon others are eligible for moral consideration. Is this what you meant to communicate?

[elzoog]

Numerous people have pointed out to you that a single person or behavior is an instance. I have already defined universal as being true in all instances at all times. You're telling me I'm wrong by agreeing with my position. Perhaps YOU should define what universal means.

 

Perhaps you should define what behavior means. To me, a behavior is anything externally observable that you voluntarily do with your body. So when you bathe yourself, you are not acting upon another, but you are engaging in a behavior. I've never heard a definition of behavior that requires another person. It is true that behaviors that are binding upon others are eligible for moral consideration. Is this what you meant to communicate?

 

Okay, let's take the behavior of killing a cat.   If "Brian kills cats" is universal, then Brian will always kill cats.   That follows from YOUR argument that a universal, and I QUOTE "as being true in all instances at all times".  So "Brian kills cats" would have to be "true in all instances at all times." if it's universal.   So if later on, Brian decides to not kill cats anymore, then it can't be universal.

 

"To me, a behavior is anything externally observable that you voluntarily do with your body."  In that case, behavior can't be universal because it depends on being observable and voluntary.   If it's impossible for someone else to observe, then it can't be a behavior according to YOUR definition.  I don't need to define "behavior".  I'll simply let you define it and show that it is not universal according to YOUR definition.

 

For more arguments regarding "behavior", see:

 

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/Dependent_Arising.htm

 

Particularly in the section "Chapter 2--Examination of Motion"