Wayne Stollings wrote:
The concept of this thing we call "society" is just that, a concept. It is an abstraction. "Society" isn't out there somewhere. Each individual makes up this thing we call society and society is made up of individuals. You and I are society.
Society CANNOT be an abstraction if you and I are a part of it unless we too are abstractions.
Are we abstractions? As Wei Wu Wei asked, .... "Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 percent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself—and there isn’t one.”
And the initial conversation I was having was with Coby, who said:
And please read again, sows are NOT kept in stalls for three years; only for farrowing."
Yes, for farrowing. What else are they there for? Their purpose is to reproduce. When are they not farrowing? They are schlepped from farrowing crate to farrowing crate. Endlessly until they die. And this is their life! How can you justify it? I am asking you Cobie. Do you hide behind the 'broad shoulders' of so called abstract principles and 'solid people' as Wayne puts it? Are morals and cruelty abstract principles? You seem to have dropped out of the conversation.
Wayne says:" The possible subdivisions may be based on an arbitrary division, but the people are solid and their views can be quantified. This is a physical existence and as such cannot be abstract. Morals and cruelty are indeed abstract principles, but the society which decides which they believe is not."
"The people are solid"? What do you mean by that?
"This is a physical existence and as such cannot be abstract."
Okay. What do you mean by that?
"Morals and cruelty are indeed abstract principles, but the society which decides which they believe is not."
Uhm ... morals and cruelty are abstract, but society is not?
Did we make this up or didn't we. Did we make slavery okay? Was it okay then?
No luv. No. Society decides on morality and cruelty. Society is abstract, but we are not. We are individuals and it is individuals who make up society.
Or is it an abstract principle?
out there right now because, as you say, you and I are part of society.
Only if you hold it as a belief. In the end, you are an individual in spite of the belief in society which remains a concept for individuals such as yourself. Your individuality is not different from the individuality of others.[/quote]
The combined indivuduality creates the society. If it not a belief that others exist or they hold their own ideas.
This thing we call "society" is an abstraction and only true or real as we have imagined it.
We have imagined there are other people besides us who also hold ideas and the concensus of those ideas do not form the belief of that society? How do those imagined people work exactly?
It is a concept and is therefore 'real' but not true. It is a fact, but only because we have placed meaning upon it. Is not reality. It is like nation states. They are a fact ... borders are a fact, but they are not real. We made them up. They are a concept. In actual terms, there are no such thing as borders.
Actually, there are borders. They may be arbitrary but they do exist. Just try to cross one without the proper paperwork and you will se quickly how real they are.
No, society is a reality unless we are an abstract. You claim we are part of society so unless we are not real society is a reality.
No. Nature is not a concept and as human beings are part of nature, we are real too. Society is a concept but mammals are not.
Mammals are a division, which could be considered somewhat arbitrary by some, but a real division. Society is just as real including the divisions contained therein.
Animals are real as are humans. We are real. Trees are real. Flowers are real. The earth is real. Ideas are not real. Ideas make up ideologies which are just that ... ideologies. Capitalism and communism are not real. They are ideologies. We also made up religion and the economic structure. Borders are real because we have made them factual. It is a fact that borders exist, but they cannot generally be seen from space. So they are a fact because we have made them so, but they are not true or real. Just as we have also made nationalities factual, but they are not true or real. There are no such thing as nationalities, except that we have made them a fact ..... for us. There are no such things as nationalities. We made it up. Nationalities are conceptual as are borders.
Borders are real but not real? You are going in circles with this logic. People are real. People are grouped to make up societial divisions, but all people form the overall society. Thus, the society is real. Just as a wolf is real and a grouping of wolves creates a pack a group of people create a society.
There is no language, English or otherwise, that can make ideology reality. Language itself is not reality; it is just language which is made up of letters which are symbols in themselves. Symbols only attempt to represent that which is. But we tend to get lost in them.
You seem to confuse abstract with arbitrary. Language has a physical existence adn as such is not abstract. It may be an arbitrary creation but it is a real creation.
I do not believe that is an assumption which can be supported by any factual reference
There you go again .......
One could posit the slaves probably disagreed, but that would only be the period during which they were slaves themselves.
Of course. I could have been a slave. You could have been one. We would have both disagreed to being abused.
We could have disagreed or we could have agreed that was the was things were in the society at that time. We may not have liked the treatment but we may not have disliked the societal view either. In some societies it was possible to become a free person who could in turn own their own slaves.
So you now agree on the subjective nature of cruelty since slavery is now considered cruel but was not then?
There is no subjectivity in cruelty, only in the manipulation of language. If I were the subject, and you the object.... There is no subject/object .... just us.
Perhaps you should review the definition of the term subjective as you seem to have strayed significantly from it in this "example" if that is what it is supposed to be.
".... since even the religious works of the earlier years supported it .... "
Which is why one should not depend on religious authority, or any other .....
Because the subjective nature of definitions allow for them to change depending on the group and time period. Odd how you now give support to my position after claiming it was incorrect.
Are you dependent on the authority of religion?
No, but it does indicate the perspecitve of the society at the time. The concept of religion is to quantify a moral code based on diety creation.
Will you simply ride the tides of whatever everyone else is saying?
That is how morals are determined for a society. Since morals are an abstract they do not exist other than in the minds of people and it is the combined view of those people that the morals for the society are created. Just as you create the morals you believe should exist. They only exist for you unless you can convince others to accept them and make them part of their beliefs too. In the case of a society and morals the super majority rules.
Seems so. would you have done so 300 hundred years ago? If not, please express yourself. I'm not interested in positions, either yours nor mine. Not interested in scoring points.
It is possible. Growing up with the societal norms my views may have been very different as could yours and anyone else. Our views are based on peer pressure and experience, all of which would have been significantly different 300 years ago. The significance can be condensed into one saying ... Free, white, male, and over 21 that was the major decision maker definition 300 years ago. Since then society has tried to make everyone free, remove racial barriers, become more gender equal, and lower the age of majority to 18.[/quote]