Workouts for IPO team

Hello team,
With the frenzy to read and read and read and ... we also need to write a bit. So apart from the essays you have been writing, I need you to practice this: Sketch your argument for these topics into this blog. The argument should be about 10 lines and should roughly have the following structure:
A. What does the author say? Guess all the possible senses of the quote given and meanings thereof and all possible interpretations of the words within the quote.
B. What does the author stress on? Usually philosophical quotes are of the kind A is connected to B. Is the author stressing on the subject (A) of his discussion or the predicate (B) or on the connection between them, or is the stress on a hidden factor to the connection?
C. How does the author justify himself? Usually the quote contains some background to the proposition the author makes. (unless the quote is simply a question, in which case the background is common knowledge)
D. Do you think the justification is appropriate? If yes support; if no, oppose  - with reasoning & examples. (establish the reasoning in this sketch)
E. What do you think? Justify? Sketch your counter-attack (if applicable)

Topics:

1. But to be able to say that a point is black or white, I must first know under what conditions a point is called white or black; in order to be able to say: "p" is true (or false), I must have determined under what conditions I call "p" true, and thereby determine the sense of the proposition. (L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosphicus, IPO 2002)

2. The decisive argument which is employed by common sense against freedom consists in reminding us of our impotence. Far from being able to modify our situation at our whim, we seem to be unable to change ourselves. I am not "free" either to escape the lot of my class, of my nation, of my family, or even to build up my own power or my fortune or to conquer my most insignificant appetites or habits. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, IPO 2004)

3. Does science need philosophy? (IPO 2004)

4. Hedonism, pessimism, utilitarianism, eudemonism - all these systems that measure the value of things taking into account the pleasure or pain that go along with them, that is to say, according to any non-core condition or facts, are seen as if they do not go in depth and being naive. Any man with his constructive faculty in place and a conscience of an artist, can only regard this with irony and pity from a distance. (Friedrich Nietzsche, IPO 2005)

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without common power to keep them all in awe; they are in that condition which is called war and such a war as is of every man against every man.

History has shown us various instances wherein time has witnessed upheavals, revolutions and also establishment of regimes. The concept of common power has evolved and redefined itself from time to time. It is very clear that men do not tolerate tyranny and anarchy- but branding such forms of rule as failures is lot easier than tracing out why did we feel the need for rule. Common power has come up in various processes and all citizens of all states have their own understanding of it. Very few of them are fully aware of this concept. But it is equally clear that all of them, in some proportion need it and accept it.

a) Man- under the common power

The common power is what is generally known as government. It doesn’t imply the natural authority derived from supremacy of some powerful men over the others. This power is created. Men willingly give away a share of their power not to a group of individuals but to some machinery that will be safeguarding this share and utilize in exercising force. A common power is a collective system of securing oneself against regress and infringement and projecting this power in the fear of aggression.

Such a center of power has its functions of two kinds- instigating progress in economic, social and intellectual aspects and regulating the law. The second function is the role of a disciplinarian; it includes issuing rights to every citizen and controlling its violation. This check system watches one for the other. Thus it creates fear in the minds of people; with that people extend their will to the government and develop respect for this authority. Men live in awe of the common power. This sense enforces discipline on the criminal mentality and that is the reason why such instincts aren’t always seen translating into actions. When that happens, the victims have an access to justice and beliefs about unhindered crime are reinforced.

b) When the common power is absent…

Let us consider a situation where there will be no common power among people. Its most natural implication is that citizens won’t be having rights. There will be no provisions that give them social security and economic opportunities. There will be no normal setup for men to have direct or indirect political interaction. But apart from this obvious absence of requisites of a state there would also be crime. Such crime will be the result of brutal and unhealthy competition among men- the want of growth if not development. The powerful [those who have economic or intellectual power] can exploit others and the others will develop latent aggression. There will be some point of saturation where the weak will externally demonstrate the antagonism and thus the much dreaded war will come up.

c) The war

War is about some armed force against another, there is a strong motive to overpower the other. The strength in a war is equated with collective might and is driven by collective desires of men. But when the war is between individuals it is much more disastrous. In a state of absent common power man’s internal motivation will recklessly drive his actions. There will be no external factors that contradict his own ideas of achieving what he aims for. In such a society there will be a victim and an abuser; the abuser will pay no heed to morality and the victim will become hostile towards the abuser because he suffers. There will be no one who thinks not only form his own perspective but overall and thus initiate a course of action; actions that not only put an end to instances of exploitation but end the war. Why is it so that such individuals come out with force when such wars take an ugly form? Isn’t crime- overt or covert a form of such war? In absence of common power men violate each others’ human rights, then there is revenge; there is constant insecurity and uncivil race.

d) Necessity of this condition

A necessary war in the absence of common power implies: 1- man only follows given disciplinary system 2-man naturally has no understanding about societal peace.

If men need disciplinary systems, they also need minds to conceive of it and hands to form. If self-discipline is easy, then most men think alike. But different people have independent actions and almost all of them have social desires. But this very understanding of posing limits for oneself and introspecting about ideas of rights- of oneself and others is not easily acquired by every man. Thus when he gets educated about the inseparability of his lone self and his social self, he extends support to any such disciplinary system. But if he remains uninformed of the need of common power, he may not discard the warring desires. Also there will be clashes of interests and the war will get worse if there is no intervention at that point.

This brings us to the crucial point of the topic- is it man’s natural tendency to be at war with other man?

We speak of transition from state of nature to a civil society and never think about a civil society without a government. Has it ever happened in history that before common powers came into being there was peace? The primitive man had his groups with whom he shared interest, later they became sects and communities. But there was conflict among this disjoint sect. Let alone the fact that they weren’t aware that these sects aren’t really disjoint and we all are members of human family; the primitive people took ages to come together for sharing mutual benefit too. There are instances in history where common power had lost its form, like the French society before the French revolution. The ineffective common power bred class hatred, where every individual partook of the outrage because she felt the need to wage a war as a struggle for life.

Being human doesn’t naturally and by sense of it implies being in a state of war. But such unchecked struggle for survival along with some subjective ideas of development is equivalent to that. Why can’t men think of progress and devise their own ways of achieving it without infringement on others rights [even when they don’t know it as a legal term]? Their desire to live can and has resulted into certain collectivist ideas that have shown substantial results to their own ends. But men tend to go for the easier route of not thinking- about others and themselves in turn. Man isn’t wild but can always choose not to change. Common power is acceptable to him- something to look at, a known standard to determine future actions.

Natural law is a highly impractical concept. Some of men will stick to their ways and some will have stronger inclinations to alter. In such a situation the backward thinkers can’t blamed for what their ambitions should be.

a) Conclusion:

i- Human beings collectively aim for establishing common power when they feel the need for it. This concept is acceptable to them and by consensus they hold it in awe.

ii- Without common power men may tend to be in a state of war with one another. Even if some of them think differently, at a large in society it is almost unattainable to have all individuals follow such thinking.

iii- Throughout history we have seen such wars because of absence of common power [also effective in action] and such wars where men participate only out of outrageous anger towards each other.

What we call ‘laws’ are hypotheses or conjectures which always form a part of some larger system of theories and which therefore can never be tested in isolation.

Generally we speak of laws and theories as different forms of generalized scientific set of norms. Hypotheses and conjectures are considered to be propositions that aren’t a law yet. We get a general idea that all these are the components of a belief system. In science all these terminologies have different significance.

a)What is a Law?

A law is a set of generic notions that generally takes the form of a mathematical equation. Every component of a law has independent meaning and the structure of it gives relationship between them. Laws are universal in nature. They are proven from their derivation and thus are generally accepted to be true. This derivation process of the laws is the same to every formalism. Sometimes laws are derived from sets of observation; the direct implication of what is observed is considered to be true while sometimes observations are compressed and components of law are abstracted out. Laws originate in physics, mathematics, social science and even in psychology. On what grounds does one establish a law and the procedure of making it gives us the primary idea of how valid a law is.

b) What is theory?

Theory is understood to be a bigger set of laws; but a theory isn’t composed of random unconnected and independent laws about varied subjects. Theory pertains to one subject of enquiry and explains multiple phenomena not only by relating them to one another but also by providing common axioms supporting them. Theory comes from ‘theoria’ meaning perspective. A theory gives a perspective to its subject matter and rationalizes it. A theory is different from a law as a law will provide explanation ‘why’ and a theory will describe its other aspects completely.

c) What form does a law hold?

Laws state themselves in a similar way, like given a therefore b. A law by definition cannot be illuminating enough to give complete account of a and b. Also being a law doesn’t necessitate the fact that it works only in the provided cases. It is because a law is proved in a particular way, it is accepted by logic. When we consider a law to be correct we hold certain criteria for it. Law is a proposition as long as it isn’t proven. To be a proposition should be verifiable. Proven to true in many cases or all known cases it becomes a law. But such a law is thus naturally open to newer methods of verifiability. Thus law will no more hold the status of a true, rigid and consistent statement.

One can argue that law is the best possible explanation to what and how one sees nature to be. E.g. law of psychological consumption states that consumption is function of income. Here the law aims at giving the determinants of consumption that are influenced by income. Thus the proposed law is subject to individuals to be verified. It will stand in every case as long it works but still won’t entail consumption and its determinants; one counterevidence will disprove it, though many won’t prove it. Thus it becomes a hypothesis- proven proposition that hasn’t been disproven yet. Take Aristotle’s law of identity: a is a. It is a conjecture that is not disproven and is unproven but still considered to be correct. The semantic advantage in ‘a is a’ makes it a law.

d) Laws-a part of a larger belief system

Laws require a proof and proof implies scientific method. The foundations of our present understanding of science rest on axioms. We hold certain facts to be indubitable; they don’t have to be established methodically. But they themselves do not compose the laws.

There comes the relation of a law with its theory. Theories are constructed- they are representations of reality. They provide understanding of the world from a position; if x is explained by theory A and theory B of which theory A gives a wider perspective to understanding of all factors related to x then it is a better theory. The theory will speak about all angles about the given phenomenon. Laws are formulated about elements of a theory. E.g. law of gravitation is derived from the theory of gravity. Its mathematical side is abstract but the concept of gravity as explained in its theory is carried forward in the law as well. Thus the definition of gravity as given by the theory will set certain parameters for gravity to be expressed in and as certain terms; the law should equate gravity with all those factors to be consistent with the theory. Why is this required? Because a theory is based on axioms. These axioms are unquestioned and considered to be self-evident; they provide bases to the theory.

e) Sets of theories

If theories a, b and c rest on the same axioms, they shouldn’t be inconsistent with each other. The difference between theories a, b and c will be that their subject matter is different; thus they won’t be seen to be contradicting. But if state information about common issue or if the laws derived from them give different answers to the same question then there is inconsistence. Theory is not illogical construction on some basis; every proposition in a theory should be derived from the earlier. Deduction is the valid formalism in creating scientific theories. The logical necessity makes it necessary that every theory in a set, formed on the basis of common axioms, gives consistence among each other. Further if theory a is based on theories b and c, then they all lie in one set, there is consistency among them, theory a also may not follow directly from the axiom on which they rest but is not in contrast with it.

f) A law without its theory

Any law applied without its conditions will give untrue results. E.g. in the above example of the psychological law of consumption, one has to have an understanding of what ‘consumption’ means in the General theory of economics [that autonomous consumption isn’t a part of it]. If one ignores the natural conditions about testing the truth-value of laws, he will investigate about x and get an answer about x’, which will be a’ when a was expected by the law. E.g. if we want to test if only one line can pass through two points, then we must consider a plane in Euclidean geometry.

This seems to be compressed conditioning for someone who wants to learn what facts are, but how else have we developed knowledge in history? Man even when he thinks unbiased doesn’t store observe, understand and store every bit of reality he sees as his knowledge. It is out of his capacity. Forming representational knowledge is quite natural to him and works well to predict future when it can be determined. Having multiple sets of theories benefits our understanding; we can adopt that set which indefeasible and infallible.

It is because of its better set of axioms, that such a set will give realistic perspective of the world. So every implication of those theories will conjecture guesses about various subjects- these will be laws. Such laws will be unfalsified as long as their testing method doesn’t lie upon different set of axioms. This doesn’t mean that creating counter-examples can be restricted by such basic contradictions in axioms. One can build up such a counter-example and put every theory of a particular theory to test, e.g. a skepticist can establish hallucination as counterevidence to empiricism. But any theory based upon empiricistic axioms and consequentially the laws don’t stand to be disproved by an instance where perception is questioned [not questionable- as it is always possible to raise that point, but laws don’t follow directly from such basic axioms and have an independent logical structure apart from that].

Conclusion:

1- *Propositions in absence of counter-proof become hypotheses or conjectures. They are laws. They are deductively established from previous theories.

2- *Theories rest upon axioms and those having common axioms are a set giving a particular belief system.

3- *Laws cannot be separated from their previous theories and incidentally the axioms. They are verifiable but cannot be separated from a perspective that defines its components. Thus they should not be tested in isolation.