Justice Might is Right Thrasymachus Equations

[Mike Dubbeld]

Here is an idea I came across tonight and have not really thought about it much but I am sure it is a very profound analogy that I only need yet beat out – which I intend to do this moment to some degree. Have you read The Republic or at least remember the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus - which you very well might - where Thrasymachus says 'Justice is the advantage of the stronger' - meaning 'might is right' or if you are the ruler what you do WILL BE ‘just’.

You could debate this in any number of ways as has been done for 2300 years but my new twist is that this superficial expression by the Sophist Thrasymachus (scary when you can spell these things without looking...) is precisely what mathematics is to physics. According to Swami Vivekananda science is 'surface science' or the 'science of appearances.' In agreement I suppose with like Kant. In other words, F = ma or force = mass x acceleration which is Newton's second law says that force is the product of mass times acceleration. But IS as used here is the 'is of attribution.' mass x acceleration (ma) is NOT a synonym for force. Force is described quantitatively by units given describing this relationship. Just like this book is red. Red is not a synonym for book. This also is a use of the 'is' of attribution. If I say, a bachelor is an unmarried man, bachelor is an synonym for unmarried man so that is the 'is of identity.' We could say bachelor = unmarried man. But = in the sense F = ma is like book = red. Red is a property of the book and not the book itself. ma is a property/description of force and not force itself.

Now, take Thrasymachus definition of justice. Might is right. (shortened paraphrase)

Might = right. or Right = might. He is imposing the quality of might as ability to do harm if you disagree as 'right'. Might is not a synonym for right. Might is a property that is a measure of 'right' imposed upon it by Thrasymachus in the same way I could say a red book is orange. I have imposed my belief that the property of orange should be attributed to the book. And if I will call up the troops to behead you if you disagree, I am sure you will agree my definition of the red book being orange is the 'right' one. That F = ma is also a description of force. But I could impose my definition of force as F = Gmm'/r^2 (which is Newton’s law of universal gravitation). Neither is ‘wrong’. Both describe (attribute – as the ‘is of attribution’) force. For the book it need not be a might is right thing. It might be red-orange to me and orange to you. A matter of opinion. But in ALL These cases orange, red, F = ma,
F = mm’/r^2 properties are attributed to force from which we may get something quantitative. (There can be agreement on the frequency of the electromagnetic waves that produce red vs orange).

The point being that mathematical equations only DESCRIBE force. They do not tell you what force IS. NO ONE knows what matter, energy, gravity, or light IS. We can only describe it and predict their behavior using mathematics. Newton had this problem trying to explain ‘action at a distance’ - how gravity behaved. He had to abandon physical explanation in favor of description and prediction. And that is what physics is based on today. (Newton was embarrassed by this and said 'hypothesis non-fingo' I frame no hypothesis - because his laws did not explain gravity but only described and predicted its behavior). See note 1 for exactly what Newton said.

Thrasymachus forces the definition of right into his ‘might’ box conception/definition. Science forces its understanding of the Universe into its equations. The equations are models of phenomena. So is Thrasymachus definition of justice. Some models fit better than others……

Mike Dubbeld

Note 1
‘In his letter of February 25, 1692 to the Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley, Newton did write:’

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which the action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers.”
Mathematics the Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline p56

‘'Science must seek mathematical description rather than physical explanation. Moreover, the basic principles must be derived from experiments and induction from experiments. In accordance with this philosophy, Newton, influenced also by his teacher Isaac Barrow, changed the course of science by adopting mathematical premises in place of physical hypotheses..’ p51 ibid

So this sort of thing did not come about from quantum theory. Quantum theory just increased the difficulties that already exist.

[NightLord]

To the equation relationship, it's just semantics. Mathematics is no different than any other language; we create a word and apply it to an item or concept in order to facilitate organized understanding of said item or concept. Once one has learned the language, one can effectively communicate with anyone else that knows the language.
And by taking the words of that language, and arranging them properly, one can explain/describe just about anything.

[leo54321]

My have my own views on Thrasymachus, which is admittedly more general.

Ultimately our moral values should take us beyond 'Might is right'. You can argue such moral values have no independent basis, or are inconsistent. Nevertheless, there seems to be an element of human nature which can and should fight against the brutal, almost deterministic nature of survival of the fittest. One can argue about their basis, but one can see a battle between, say, Christ and Buddha on one side with their message of universal love and Thrasymachus and say, Hitler on the other.

Surely it is the hallmark of a civilised society that it protects it's weaker members ? I would argue true humanity can, and should prevail over Thrasymachus' doctrine, despite being difficult to disprove or shake off.

[NightLord]

Throughout Nature we see how the "Survival of the fittest" scenario is beneficial. A wolfpack grows stronger and more efficient when it's not wasting time/resources on those that can't fend for themselves, or be productive to the pack. In this instance, one could argue that the "pups" fall into the weaker category, yet even the animals seem to understand the concept of it's 'young' compared to the mature and worthless.
In a forest, one tree will prove stronger than those surrounding it and survive because it received more sunlight and nutrients from the ground than those surrounding it. In the end, the weaker trees die off and now the stronger tree has access to even more resources, which means it will be around a VERY long time.

When you say 'Our' moral values, that becomes a question all it's own.
And exactly how does one define 'weaker'? Given a choice on whom to 'protect', what basis do you use to prioritize who deserves said protection?

[leo54321]

Originally Posted by NightLord

Throughout Nature we see how the "Survival of the fittest" scenario is beneficial. A wolfpack grows stronger and more efficient when it's not wasting time/resources on those that can't fend for themselves, or be productive to the pack. In this instance, one could argue that the "pups" fall into the weaker category, yet even the animals seem to understand the concept of it's 'young' compared to the mature and worthless.
In a forest, one tree will prove stronger than those surrounding it and survive because it received more sunlight and nutrients from the ground than those surrounding it. In the end, the weaker trees die off and now the stronger tree has access to even more resources, which means it will be around a VERY long time.

When you say 'Our' moral values, that becomes a question all it's own.
And exactly how does one define 'weaker'? Given a choice on whom to 'protect', what basis do you use to prioritize who deserves said protection?

To be blunt, in nature yes, in human society no.

I agree using 'Our' moral values is vague. One could use 'Human Rights' as an example.

I conceded that on a precise level moral definitions can be inconsistent; indeed they are much debated and difficult to pin down. However, what I'm trying to say is we have choices of philosophy at a more general level.

To take an extreme example, Hitler decreed part of the human race as 'weaker' and attempted their genocidal destruction. Thrasymachus might say that this is fine, let him go ahead. The weaker will go to the wall, and rightly so. Others might say that it should not happen because it is fundamentally immoral, and that we should consider what is moral if possible.

[NightLord]

And yet, we DID say go ahead. We pitted ourselves against Hitler and he lost... the strongest prevailed.

[NightLord]

P.S. I'm thinking we're a hell of a lot better off for it, too.

[galatomic]

Originally Posted by MikeDubbeld

‘'Science must seek mathematical description rather than physical explanation. Moreover, the basic principles must be derived from experiments and induction from experiments. In accordance with this philosophy, Newton, influenced also by his teacher Isaac Barrow, changed the course of science by adopting mathematical premises in place of physical hypotheses..’ p51 ibid

Wouldn't you agree that Einstein was no different in his mathematical description of space/time in the General Theory? By using non-Euclidean geometry he "describes" how the "void" is warped around objects with mass. He gives no explanation of why or how the "void" could be warped.

galatomic

[Mike Dubbeld]

Originally Posted by galatomic

Wouldn't you agree that Einstein was no different in his mathematical description of space/time in the General Theory? By using non-Euclidean geometry he "describes" how the "void" is warped around objects with mass. He gives no explanation of why or how the "void" could be warped.

galatomic

Spacetime turned out to be flat except near massive objects. GR only corrects for this. The value for G is known with great precision. Spacetime is an empirical thing. The significance of non-Euclidean geometry is most often associated with Kant and his assumption like Euclid that it alone described what God had in mind/described physics without other possibilities. Euclidean geometry was how the mind imposed order on the universe. Deduction using that sacred geometry was a gift from God. No more. Gravity waves and the dragging of spacetime is the only things remaining for testing GR.

Too much is made out of saying Kant was wrong. Euclidean geometry was all he knew and was used for 2100 years successfully/could not be refuted up until non-Euclidean geometry. Kant and Euclid turned out to be basically right. Even if space is not flat, it is so flat it serves no purpose experimentally to say it is not flat except as corrected around massive bodies. Kant only used what he had available and his general idea was quite right. We impose order on the universe and space and time are a priori.

No one believes knowledge is not possible as Hume and relativism and solipsism would have us believe that knowledge and order are not possible in the universe. It is our very nature to seek order in the universe as minds that have used generalization of phenomena into categories to make sense out of the situation fast - and survive.

But it is deeper than that. The soul as Atman is Perfect. We intuitively know this and such knowledge is not possible if under solipsism conditions. Thrasymachus must sacrifice knowledge to believe in Sophistic relativism and he is trashed by elenchus refutation by Socrates as soon as he accepts the notion that 'to err is human'. By doing so he admits of the possibility of non-error. But there can be no error/non-error in a relativistic world. What you call error I call non-error.

By admission of negation Thrasymachus is forced into accepting Socrates refutation of might is right. He could have chosen not to participate/accept the premises of Socrates question of whether rulers make mistakes. But he did participate/take the bait - stepping into a world where 'mistakes' are possible. Even Thrasymachus was not prepared to publicly admit mistakes were not possible by humans. But as a Sophist Gorgias would have chided him because Gorgias the Chief cheese Sophist would have said no mistakes are possible/it is not possible for the ruler or anyone else to err.

That is likely why Aristotle starts what later became known as his metaphysics 'All men desire to know...' Meaning Aristotle would similarly trash the Sophists relativism as well - even though he did not believe the technique of the Sophists was somehow 'evil' like Plato. (Yes, all attorney's are evil... Had Socrates been smarter he would have lived for another day, recognizing it was not worth dying for these idiots and used Sophism against them (in dialect fashion) Socrates was ironically seen to be a Sophist corrupting the youth of Athens after loss of Athens to Sparta in the Peloponnesian War.

After I wrote the initial post, I reflected on it an came to the logical conclusion that what I am saying is that justice can be 'law of the jungle' and 'might is right'/Nietzsche 'will to power' stuff. Then the following day/today I was listening to Argumentation the Study of Effective Reasoning by Zarefsky and I was speechless to hear him tell of someone else that concluded the same thing I did! It was concluded in the early part of the 20'th century when Logical Positivism was in its heyday (recall LP basically denounces all adjectives as nothing more than states of reports of the glands via the senses - I like Cokes/you like Pepsi - equally good. 'Like' is a 'value judgment'. If something doesn't have a 'referent' it is meaningless.) by Wayne Booth --

'--has suggested that this whole view has led to what he calls 2 "modern dogmas". And of course, this use of the term "dogma" is no accident. He's going to suggest that, in a kind of ironic, if not perverse, reversal, our emphasis on certainty [like Descartes/analytic geometry/axioms/theorems/formal logic deduction/quest for certainty] in reasoning leads us to accept things as dogmatic matters of faith. He said one of these dogmas he called "scientism," by which he meant the belief that nonscientific claims were all of equal value, because there was no way to verify them. There was no way to deduce them. There was no way to know them with certainty, so one’s as good as another. “I like democracy. You like totalitarianism. Equally good.’ And the other dogma he labeled “irrationalism,” which was the belief that things that couldn’t be decided with certainty could be decided only by force; the stronger would prevail. The emphasis was on the act of will.’ p28 Argumentation the Study of Effective Reasoning by David Zarefsky.

Which is what I arrived at above with Thrasymachus justice = might. F = ma.

After that Zarefsky goes into Toulmin, Perelman, Hamblin, Grootendorst critique of formal logic deduction applied to effective reasoning. Basically he shows how it does not work and Descartes quest for certainty using axioms and theorems is a misguided approach to everyday problem solving because such an approach is only useful for things like mathematics and geometry. This effectively trashing the so-called ‘scientific method’ and this method of acquiring knowledge since Plato through Newton right up to the early 20’th century whereupon Logical Positivism led to its collapse/downfall.

Today science has no special claim to knowledge despite its long history of falsely believing so. That went out the window in the 20’th century with Logical Positivism being found to be self-referentially incoherent, Gödel, non-Euclidean geometry and quantum mechanics Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. And more recently non-Locality voodoo. The Universe is probabilistic/not determinist and it is therefore inappropriate to use deduction (mathematics)/formal logic to attempt to understand reality. Due to this false believe that formal logic deductive reasoning is the model to be applied to all phenomena, the West has formed a whole incorrect form of language associated with this dogma and now has great difficulty escaping this self-created trap. Informal logic is based on probability and uncertainty and is the more appropriate model. This implies the following:

Content cannot be separated from content.
Seer cannot be separated from seen.
Experimenter cannot be separated from experimented upon.
Experiencer cannot be separated from experienced.
We add order to the Universe.
We see more than the physics of the situation.
The Emperor is wearing clothes.
God does play dice with the Universe

Zarefsky shows how the millennia old question of how to bridge the gap between the subjective and objective is by informal logic and agreement – which is in agreement with yoga as the only reality the mind can ever know is by virtue of agreement. (There is another bridge that works at a deeper level/transcend the mind in yoga - concentration)

Mike Dubbeld

[Mike Dubbeld]

Originally Posted by leo54321

My have my own views on Thrasymachus, which is admittedly more general.

Ultimately our moral values should take us beyond 'Might is right'. You can argue such moral values have no independent basis, or are inconsistent. Nevertheless, there seems to be an element of human nature which can and should fight against the brutal, almost deterministic nature of survival of the fittest. One can argue about their basis, but one can see a battle between, say, Christ and Buddha on one side with their message of universal love and Thrasymachus and say, Hitler on the other.

Surely it is the hallmark of a civilised society that it protects it's weaker members ? I would argue true humanity can, and should prevail over Thrasymachus' doctrine, despite being difficult to disprove or shake off.

Nobody believes relativism is correct. When Hume revived Sophist relativism it was greatly disturbing to the renaissance where mathematics and physics was starting to explain things even in the heavens. They were not about to drop everything for some silly philosopher. Kant turned out to be their hero by ascribing the mind to operate according to Euclidean Geometry and that space and time were a priori – innate – something within us all that made order possible from one person to the next to a certain extent.

My post is a wake up call to show that mathematics and science are not be-all-end-all enterprises and have limits. There are lots of people in FC that deny this. When all you have in your tool box is a hammer, you tend to see everything else as some kind of nail…. 

The bottom-line of philosophy always was how to objectify the subjective. When Kant died his epithet was ‘The starry sky above us. The moral law within us.’ That was Kant’s mystical encryption for generations to follow that would better understand the problem – that HE DID UNDERSTAND IT. So did Plato and Socrates – ‘What is justice?’ – objectify the subjective. Justice is a Kantian noumena – an object of and by itself unbiased by the mind and unknowable by the mind because we see all things through our rose-colored glasses. Justice is a wave in quantum theory. But 35 miles per hour is a particular form of justice (as voted upon/agreed upon) in a particular community as being a just law. This 35 MPH is a ‘popping of the wave function’ into a particle/particular form of justice from out of its ‘wave-form’. The Kantian noumena becomes a phenomena – the object + the bias we give it as minds.

I have greatly enhanced my discussion of Thrasymachus in my response to Galatomic. Socrates did not think much of the Sophists but he nevertheless used his own set of tricks in speech. In dialect, when you ask a question such as ‘What is justice?’ It presupposes by implication certain assumptions. It assumes this question CAN be answered. This as opposed to Protagoras the Sophist ‘Man is the measure of all things’ – relativism – assumes this question CAN NOT be answered. One man’s justice is another man’s injustice. What is justice in Athens is not justice in Sparta. Let a thousand flowers bloom… To escape the vicious relativism of the Sophists Socrates goes uses the Elenchus refutation – refutation by counter example. If all things are relative as the Sophist says, then what the Sophist says is also relative. And that means Socrates absolute position on knowledge is also possible/Protagoras could not for instance deny Socrates was wrong using his own theory of knowledge.

Equations are similarly superficial expressions with limited value. Science has no special hold on reality. I can describe force one way with my equations. You can describe force another with yours. Both are a way of describing force. Neither is the way. Absolute knowledge cannot be had by a mind under any circumstances but we can aspire to it. But just because you have an equation for it does not make it in any sense absolute! Agreement by minds is the only reality that ever was or will ever be for minds whether it is agreement the emperor is wearing clothes or whether it is to x number of decimal places in a physics experiment. But I believe in yoga and the soul has no limitations like the mind.

I am currently working on Meno/’can virtue be taught? question’. This is where Plato brings in ‘transmigration’ – reincarnation. ‘The search for truth? Well, if you know what it is you are looking for, then you have no need to go about looking for it. If, on the other hand you do not know what you are looking for, you have no basis upon which to conduct a search for it.’ Barbarian/Pythagorean theorem/recollection of what we already know – yoga.

Mike Dubbeld

[Mike Dubbeld]

Originally Posted by leo54321

My have my own views on Thrasymachus, which is admittedly more general.

Ultimately our moral values should take us beyond 'Might is right'. You can argue such moral values have no independent basis, or are inconsistent. Nevertheless, there seems to be an element of human nature which can and should fight against the brutal, almost deterministic nature of survival of the fittest. One can argue about their basis, but one can see a battle between, say, Christ and Buddha on one side with their message of universal love and Thrasymachus and say, Hitler on the other.

Surely it is the hallmark of a civilised society that it protects it's weaker members ? I would argue true humanity can, and should prevail over Thrasymachus' doctrine, despite being difficult to disprove or shake off.

My perspective is yoga.
Surely you are quite right. It is due to the association and identification of man with his body (instinct/survival) and mind of logic and reason attempting to satisfy his instinctive desires that leads to confusion. We are not our minds or our bodies. Both of these belong to the universe but we do not as immortal souls. We can control our mind with our will. Perfection is our nature as Atman in yoga (and all the things that go along with it). The universe has a purpose - freedom of the soul from it by experience. Since Perfection is our nature we aspire toward it. In some people the instinctive (horse of desire) wins out and our instinctive nature reins. In others our spiritual nature wins out and we are spiritual. But all 'humans' know subconsciously of their Perfect nature whatever turns out to be the ruling force in their lives. Life is a cosmic learning game.

Sometimes I just find myself in these intellectual affairs in metaphysics and science but my entire case rests on yoga. Both Western philosophy and science are shallow compared to yoga. The West in general does not even know the appropriate questions as far as I am concerned.

Mike Dubbeld

[leo54321]

Originally Posted by NightLord

P.S. I'm thinking we're a hell of a lot better off for it, too.

Yes, in other words, the society based on helping the weaker prevailed. Thrasymachus was wrong, and rightly so !

[NightLord]

Seems to me that it's the same end, just a matter of perspective on how we got there.

[burgersoft777]

Originally Posted by leo54321

Yes, in other words, the society based on helping the weaker prevailed. Thrasymachus was wrong, and rightly so !

And it continue's to this day..My fear is that it is a temporary state that we will again fall from our good-will into that place where badness dwells.
I see the future of the computer and I think it needs to be kept open and for everyone once you get a large closed group you get trouble..A new empire based on the computer could be a new rome or babalon. Life is to short for overlong posts, but do you see the danger yet, little cards of plastic, in/out
done with compassion (thats the lie we always tell our selves) Lets try to rule it out !

[burgersoft777]

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

My perspective is yoga.
Surely you are quite right. It is due to the association and identification of man with his body (instinct/survival) and mind of logic and reason attempting to satisfy his instinctive desires that leads to confusion. We are not our minds or our bodies. Both of these belong to the universe but we do not as immortal souls. We can control our mind with our will. Perfection is our nature as Atman in yoga (and all the things that go along with it). The universe has a purpose - freedom of the soul from it by experience. Since Perfection is our nature we aspire toward it. In some people the instinctive (horse of desire) wins out and our instinctive nature reins. In others our spiritual nature wins out and we are spiritual. But all 'humans' know subconsciously of their Perfect nature whatever turns out to be the ruling force in their lives. Life is a cosmic learning game.

Sometimes I just find myself in these intellectual affairs in metaphysics and science but my entire case rests on yoga. Both Western philosophy and science are shallow compared to yoga. The West in general does not even know the appropriate questions as far as I am concerned.

Mike Dubbeld

The path of correctness is intresting, yoga is far more structured than most any other path. learning ,experiance it helps to make sence of our lives. We are learning machines, as above so below, therefore learning is what it is about.It requires very little faith to believe, yet it is still firmly in the manner of something believed it is possible to doubt even this gem of wisdom !