|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
That's why he said "like everything else."
Morality and justice are both definitely human constructs. We have no way to prove what is just or what is moral. It really just is popular opinion. It's impossible to prove there is some universal moral codes or shit like that. You can argue making the most people happy is good, but there is no way to actually prove that that is good or just or moral or whatever. It's all bullshit.
Sanity also fits into popular opinion. Philosophy is clever bullshit. Psychology can be bullshit (see Freud), but lately has been leaning towards fMRIs which can help actually prove things. Logic can be proven mathmatically. Law is definitely made up. Math isn't made up (I don't think, at least. I could be wrong). 2+2 always = 4. |
Kind of my point. None of the concepts directly relate to their intended scopes until you start testing and applying them. Pure mathematics has no connection to the myriad tangible systems mathematics can and does actually apply to. Fractals (See Meriter's Avatar) are an essential part of nature, in terms of complexity and how they function more as a rule that governs it, rather than as an effect, resultant from it. Psychology has its foundation in the desire to understand the correlation between thinking and behavior; the latter of which is more observable while having a definite cause in the former. While there have been many mistaken notions about what constitutes psychology, just as there have been about what constitutes disease, to argue that they exist only in the mind of the beholder belies their actuality. Law, while perhaps the only example of an imposed concept, functions because it is enforced and tested, as to its efficacy, based upon how it satisfies the requirements of the society it was authored to serve. In as much as medicine was invented to cure disease, law is the cure for disorder.
The whole problem I have with the argument was that it's only functional because it divorces the concept from that which it is applicable towards, thereby ostensibly invalidating it. To my thinking, at least, there seem to be our own psychological and physiological responses to the suffering of others that functions almost as a motivation, in the very least, for constructs such as morality and justice to such a degree that they actually inform such constructs.
fMRI's have no less established a link between the lack of an active pre-frontal cortex and the psychopath's behavior - that which we refer to as amoral. Whether morality and justice are thus implied (meaning that we've invented morality because it satisfies our biological imperatives for survival) or because they are actually more innately related to our physiological hard-wiring than we're aware of, I'd argue that they're less imaginary than Blake's argument gives them credit for.
___________________
Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012
|
