Freedom: Virtue or Vice?
Is freedom a virtue or a vice? Americans constantly have it drilled into them that freedom is the supreme good, the only thing that makes life worth living.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Abstract and Complex?
I recently read in a popular book dealing with 'metaphysics' the comment that the author saw things that were abstract and complex. The contrast between the two words abstract and complex immediately struck me as curious. That author repeated his assertion over and over so I am certain he really meant what he said. Being one who loves wisdom, I tried to fathom what one might mean by abstract and complex.
In addition, there is the fact that the author's words seemed to imply that he saw things as both abstract and complex by nature. Things are not abstract by nature; they are individual.
To begin, one must consider that the fundamental reason one forms abstractions is to simplify one's thoughts. Faced with a multiplicity of separate things to consider, men group them together into convenient packages called categories. For example, the billions of men on earth present one with the greatest of variety. For men come in a variety of sizes, colors, nationalities, economic conditions, etc. To add to the complexities, half of mankind are not men, but are man's eternal foe, women!
So what do we do? We reduce the complexity of all those billions into a single word, man. It is certainly easier talking about man than it is to talk about those billions of unconnected things to whom the word man refers. Such is the first and most fundamental meaning of abstract. Something is abstract if it is universal in nature.
Abstraction, of course, presents one with a number of problems, in itself. One begins to worry about such matters as political correctness. Refer to some women abstractly as man, for example, and one is likely to witness a grand fireworks display. But regardless of the dangers inherent in abstraction, it is a necessity for finite intellects. Given the fact that we must form abstractions it is important to be aware of the dangers inherent in their use, especially in casual, politically sensitive contexts.
To say that something is both abstract and complex pulls one in opposite directions. We make abstractions in order to reduce the complexity of Kant’s manifold of sense into understandable packets of meaning. But if when we are done abstracting we are left with something complex, what have we accomplished?
There are, of course, other meanings for abstract. Another possible meaning of abstract is that something is not concrete, meaning that it is not an object of sense; it cannot be touched or felt. But in this case, once again, the author implied that he meant things one could see. Thing seen are necessarily objects of sense.
Something might be Categorically abstract in the way that an action is more abstract than is a natural body; or the way that time is more abstract than is action. Something is Categorically abstract to the extent that other things participate in it. Natural bodies participate in action; actions participate in time; etc.
Since the book I was reading was ostensively about ‘metaphysics’ I can not completely eliminate this as a possible meaning, though it is not clear how one can, for example, see an action – except in the sense that one sees a body acting. Nor can one see a time – except in the sense that one sees a body at a certain time. Indeed, one normally sees bodies and only bodies. Categorical abstractions such as action or time are understood, not seen.
Commonly, of course, one may hear people say something like, “I saw him walk across the room.” But in fact, his walking is a conclusion drawn by watching a man over a period of time. It is not something directly seen. Nor is a period of time directly sensed. That time has passed is a conclusion drawn from observation and not an observation, itself.
Another meaning of abstract is theoretical. Things are often both theoretical and complex. Einstein’s theory of Relativity is an example. But once again, it is not clear how something theoretical can be seen.
Another meaning of abstract is nonrepresentational. For example, abstract art is art that is not intended to represent natural bodies. Such a meaning is perfectly compatible with seeing. Abstract art is certainly something that one may touch, feel or see. And often such works of art are complex.
In the context of this book, however, it is clear that the author didn’t intend to imply that he was referring to works of art or of anything artificial or contrived. Rather, he meant natural bodies, though of a very unusual aspect. Nevertheless, this last meaning seems to be the only one truly relevant.
In addition, there is the fact that the author's words seemed to imply that he saw things as both abstract and complex by nature. Things are not abstract by nature; they are individual.
To begin, one must consider that the fundamental reason one forms abstractions is to simplify one's thoughts. Faced with a multiplicity of separate things to consider, men group them together into convenient packages called categories. For example, the billions of men on earth present one with the greatest of variety. For men come in a variety of sizes, colors, nationalities, economic conditions, etc. To add to the complexities, half of mankind are not men, but are man's eternal foe, women!
So what do we do? We reduce the complexity of all those billions into a single word, man. It is certainly easier talking about man than it is to talk about those billions of unconnected things to whom the word man refers. Such is the first and most fundamental meaning of abstract. Something is abstract if it is universal in nature.
Abstraction, of course, presents one with a number of problems, in itself. One begins to worry about such matters as political correctness. Refer to some women abstractly as man, for example, and one is likely to witness a grand fireworks display. But regardless of the dangers inherent in abstraction, it is a necessity for finite intellects. Given the fact that we must form abstractions it is important to be aware of the dangers inherent in their use, especially in casual, politically sensitive contexts.
To say that something is both abstract and complex pulls one in opposite directions. We make abstractions in order to reduce the complexity of Kant’s manifold of sense into understandable packets of meaning. But if when we are done abstracting we are left with something complex, what have we accomplished?
There are, of course, other meanings for abstract. Another possible meaning of abstract is that something is not concrete, meaning that it is not an object of sense; it cannot be touched or felt. But in this case, once again, the author implied that he meant things one could see. Thing seen are necessarily objects of sense.
Something might be Categorically abstract in the way that an action is more abstract than is a natural body; or the way that time is more abstract than is action. Something is Categorically abstract to the extent that other things participate in it. Natural bodies participate in action; actions participate in time; etc.
Since the book I was reading was ostensively about ‘metaphysics’ I can not completely eliminate this as a possible meaning, though it is not clear how one can, for example, see an action – except in the sense that one sees a body acting. Nor can one see a time – except in the sense that one sees a body at a certain time. Indeed, one normally sees bodies and only bodies. Categorical abstractions such as action or time are understood, not seen.
Commonly, of course, one may hear people say something like, “I saw him walk across the room.” But in fact, his walking is a conclusion drawn by watching a man over a period of time. It is not something directly seen. Nor is a period of time directly sensed. That time has passed is a conclusion drawn from observation and not an observation, itself.
Another meaning of abstract is theoretical. Things are often both theoretical and complex. Einstein’s theory of Relativity is an example. But once again, it is not clear how something theoretical can be seen.
Another meaning of abstract is nonrepresentational. For example, abstract art is art that is not intended to represent natural bodies. Such a meaning is perfectly compatible with seeing. Abstract art is certainly something that one may touch, feel or see. And often such works of art are complex.
In the context of this book, however, it is clear that the author didn’t intend to imply that he was referring to works of art or of anything artificial or contrived. Rather, he meant natural bodies, though of a very unusual aspect. Nevertheless, this last meaning seems to be the only one truly relevant.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Rule of law?
Laura Ingraham brought up the phrase, rule of law in connection with the Senate hearings for the nomination of John Roberts to Chief Justice. Mr. Roberts, it seems, is intent on the rule of law.
That's good. But we must ask, "Rule of what law?" As we have pointed out, before, the laws in the United States allowed hundreds of handicapped people to be abused by teachers, social workers and others through Facilitated Communications (or FC as it is called), when it was known that scientific evidence pointed out the falsehood of the claims the abusers were making. Instead of punishing the perpetrators of the abuse, the states punished those who were falsely accused, typically the father of the victim. Frequently, the punishment continued even after the courts admitted that there was no basis for the accusations, since judges in child deprivation cases are given an absolute right to punish the innocent and, in general, parents have no right to appeal even the most horrendous injustices.
Few Americans would believe such things are possible. But they are not only possible but common in the area of family and juvenile law. For state legislatures have given broad powers to judges and severely limited the avenues available to parents to seek a redress of even the most outrageous injustice.
We know of one case in Georgia in which the victim of FC started fighting with the teachers who had abused him. Yet the District Attorney did nothing to punish the abusers. Nor did the juvenile court judge in the case do anything to address the issues raised by the victim's action.
We know of no state laws protecting people from abuse via FC. Why not? The reasons are obvious. For the victims of FC are among the weakest members of society, while the abusers typically are legally-protected, state employees.
Back during World War II, the United States persecuted Japanese-Americans, depriving them of their liberty and property, due to simple prejudice. Eventually, people recognized the injustice of that persecution. We wonder how long it will take the American people to recognize the injustices done to the victims of Facilitated Communications and take action to redress the injustices which were done.
That's good. But we must ask, "Rule of what law?" As we have pointed out, before, the laws in the United States allowed hundreds of handicapped people to be abused by teachers, social workers and others through Facilitated Communications (or FC as it is called), when it was known that scientific evidence pointed out the falsehood of the claims the abusers were making. Instead of punishing the perpetrators of the abuse, the states punished those who were falsely accused, typically the father of the victim. Frequently, the punishment continued even after the courts admitted that there was no basis for the accusations, since judges in child deprivation cases are given an absolute right to punish the innocent and, in general, parents have no right to appeal even the most horrendous injustices.
Few Americans would believe such things are possible. But they are not only possible but common in the area of family and juvenile law. For state legislatures have given broad powers to judges and severely limited the avenues available to parents to seek a redress of even the most outrageous injustice.
We know of one case in Georgia in which the victim of FC started fighting with the teachers who had abused him. Yet the District Attorney did nothing to punish the abusers. Nor did the juvenile court judge in the case do anything to address the issues raised by the victim's action.
We know of no state laws protecting people from abuse via FC. Why not? The reasons are obvious. For the victims of FC are among the weakest members of society, while the abusers typically are legally-protected, state employees.
Back during World War II, the United States persecuted Japanese-Americans, depriving them of their liberty and property, due to simple prejudice. Eventually, people recognized the injustice of that persecution. We wonder how long it will take the American people to recognize the injustices done to the victims of Facilitated Communications and take action to redress the injustices which were done.
