Social Contract - 1st topic of discussion

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

. . . compare it to the analogy of a network of neurons (for lack of a better word, I was thinking dots but whatever). . . .

It is said that the neuronal structure is determined, like every aspect of the organism, by the DNA code. However, DNA does not contain enough code to specify the arrangement of the neuronal structure of the Central Nervous System. Not even close. So, some kind of autonomy might be happening.

At some point the neurons achieve some organization of their own and the conscious mind appears. This might be analogous to society, where at some point of population level a state appears. Then the state adopts a form of government and the government declares war on South Ossetia and eventually a different government replaces that government. It's just an analogy and we should have no reason to assume that the state would have anything like a moral law in its constitution.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Because I think the social contract can be hindered under making a linearity/uniformity; potential taken away, so potential can vary.

Hi Holiday, I think this question describes a contradiction. I think the reason for this is because this has two levels and you look at it as 'flat' (one level). That is what is called a 'paradox'. I am not going to go deeper into paradoxes in this topic....well...maybe just a little... It would be well worth a private topic (in the subforum of: philosophy of language, uncategorized, Ludwig Wittgenstein, etc.).

Interaction between the social contract and the structures of sciety
I thinkwhat you are saying on the limitation of potential is true from a certain perspective. That perspective is potential in the sense of possible actions that an actual situation may come to realise. In that sense the creation of a law against trainrobbery makes it less likely that people will commit trainrobberies and therefore the potential for trainrobberies is diminished. I ment potentiality in a different manner though.

Potentiality is that which exists as the conditions for actuality. Immanuel Kant states that potentiality consists of space and time. Without space and time no seperations can exist and therefore nothing can take place. Actuality has the necessary need for space and time. That is why potentiality is conditional for actuality. Reality is that which we are trying to describy by seperating potentiality and actuality. Perhaps a deeper discussion on this matter might be best done in a new topic.

In that sense actuality has such an effect on potentiality that the two together create reality; the thing which exists. In our discussion we can view the social contract as potentiality and the physical reality (its interactions) as actual. The interactions such as torturing people to death for taking a non-empirical point of view (the inquisition) has had the effect that Monarchies could continue its existence for a century or two before being overthrown by revolutions. Such actions influence the potentiality to privide the conditions for the expression in actuality that we know as (historical) reality. It has not diminished potentiality. The social contract in itself has remained unchanged. The souvereign will; the expression of the social contact in actuality, has changed though. And it is this change which has brought forth our (historical) reality.

The seperation of different 'levels'
One can observe different ontological 'levels' in just about everything. I think the ontological 'levels' can be most clearly be seen in the search for origins of any kind. If we think of creation we might conclude a 'God', or a big bang as the 'start' of all things. Good questions might be: "what has started the big bang then?", or "What has created 'God' then?" Such solutions to the problem point directly towards a regressus (unfortunately I can find no good online explanation of this term), which means that every answer raises another question (usually the same question). This would not happen if we would accept 'creation' to exist in a different way; in the sense as space and time exist in a different way then actuality. Apparently there are different sets of rules for different things in reality.

In our discussion the social contract depicts the interaction of all 'actuals'; the soverein being the resultant of the definitions in actuality. The social contract not being actual is not limited by actuality. It's expressions (the actual interaction forms) are directly dictated by it though. There are several ways of explaining this phenomenon, this is only one. Perhaps ontolgy might make a good topic as well.

Ethical formulations and forms of state
As I said previously certain ethical formulations stimulate certain forms of state. I think a very obvious one is that the ethical consequences of religions are the foundation of theocracies and monarchies. A less obvious one might be that virtue ethics promotes oligarchy. Utalitarianism on the other hand promoted the creation of colonies and, in a small way, the foundations of republics.

I suppose it is needless to stipulate that the changing ethical views of a populace would warrant a change in the setup of their stateform. A good example might be that Monarchies gained their powerbase by religion. It was said that 'God' put these monarchs on the throne and that either one was a king from birth or one was no king at all. During the renaissance the works of Aristotle were recovered for western Europe. Aristotle reasoned that if this was true then no rightfull king existed, or everybody was a rightfull king. Jean-Jacques Rousseau for instance took a simular position, leading to the French Revolution, overthrowing Louis XVI and forming a monarchy.


================================================== ============================================
I am going to halt here for a moment to see what you make of this, Holiday, and to see where you want to go from here.

Arjen

[Holiday20310401]

[quote=Arjen;21455 I think the reason for this is because this has two levels and you look at it as 'flat' (one level).[/quote]

All these new topics. I'm starting to think we need a philosophy of society sub forum. I like paradoxes.

Originally Posted by Arjen

I thinkwhat you are saying on the limitation of potential is true from a certain perspective. That perspective is potential in the sense of possible actions that an actual situation may come to realise.

I've given such an abstract, confusing view of my view of potential haven't I.
I thought that actuality has no potential and that reality was a way of perceiving the actuality with potential. However, if you mean the other potential, then reality is separating the potential of actuality by making it have potential.(real).

Originally Posted by Arjen

In our discussion we can view the social contract as potentiality and the physical reality (its interactions) as actual.

Sounds like a plan.

Originally Posted by Arjen

Ethical formulations and forms of state
As I said previously certain ethical formulations stimulate certain forms of state. I think a very obvious one is that the ethical consequences of religions are the foundation of theocracies and monarchies. A less obvious one might be that virtue ethics promotes oligarchy. Utalitarianism on the other hand promoted the creation of colonies and, in a small way, the foundations of republics.

I agree, especially studying the crusades, I have seen that. And I hate theocracies, caste systems, fascism, and monarchies, the old versions anyways. (Apparently Canada is a constitutional monarchy, lol).

Perhaps ethics has in social terms been the pretense of 'rights'. People seem to view one another as rather the same, and if they get attached to the structure of society they live in, they begin to view it as justified, or at least forget its flaws. So a flow of increasing rights will cause a change in state, because the state controls the movement of rights when the public is innate.

Originally Posted by Arjen

I suppose it is needless to stipulate that the changing ethical views of a populace would warrant a change in the setup of their stateform. A good example might be that Monarchies gained their powerbase by religion.

Protestant movements.

Originally Posted by Arjen

During the renaissance the works of Aristotle were recovered for western Europe.

I didn't know that actually. Any other philosophers who's works have not been recovered?

So ethical changes have no influence on the social contract, just the sovereign will which controls the flow of the social contract.

I suppose I understand most of what you said, don`t have much to add here. You can decide where to move on if you'd like.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Arjen

The Social Contract as a thought-object
As Mr. Fight the Power points out the social contract is not something which exists as a physical object. It is, therefore, not clearly present and arguments stating that it does not exist at all can be well defended. The social contract does exist a thought-object however. What I mean is that there is no physical contract stating that a certain group of people is part of that contract, and it certainly does not have any signatures on it.

The social contract is a bogus concept as well.

[Holiday20310401]

I don't think that would matter if it was, because such a concept is meant for understanding how society works and there happens to be reason for developing patterns which rely on defining potentially bogus terms.

Besides, what makes it so unreal?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I don't think that would matter if it was, because such a concept is meant for understanding how society works and there happens to be reason for developing patterns which rely on defining potentially bogus terms.

Besides, what makes it so unreal?

For one, a cursory look at the natural history of humans and human nature shows that the origins of society have little to nothing in common with social contract model.

In fact, never has it been the common manner of social organization for rational individuals to come together on common norms and laws to be followed. Rather social organization was formed through memetics, where behaviors and norms are molded and spread based on their success in reproducing themselves. A look at early civilizations nearly always show that social traits are directly related to the resources that support the society and not to any sort of rational deliberation between the members of the society.

Even now, amongst the new members of society, the process by which we adopt moral norms occurs unconsciously long before we are of appropriate age to enter into rational contract and are certainly not formed free of the social norms of ancestors.

The social contract requires basically a tabula raza point in social development. As with everything else, there is no such point.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Even now, amongst the new members of society, the process by which we adopt moral norms occurs unconsciously long before we are of appropriate age to enter into rational contract and are certainly not formed free of the social norms of ancestors.

As stated before the social contract is not a contract in the literal sense. It is a contract which stipulates the existance of things. One dos not need to do anything to be a part of it; just 'exist'.

The social contract requires basically a tabula raza point in social development. As with everything else, there is no such point.

That tabula raza is the social contract. The defining goes on in actuality; the laws or religions and such.



So, you are right, but you are taking the definitions in the 'wrong' way.

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I've given such an abstract, confusing view of my view of potential haven't I.
I thought that actuality has no potential and that reality was a way of perceiving the actuality with potential. However, if you mean the other potential, then reality is separating the potential of actuality by making it have potential.(real).

Close, but no cigar. Reality s both potentiality and actuality. For a knowledge on it one has to seperate reality into actuality and potentiality. Knowledge can be acquired on actuality though. That is why sometimes people think actuality is the only thing which exists; apart from that it is the only observable attribute of reality. Anyway, perhaps we should a topic on the terms.

I agree, especially studying the crusades, I have seen that. And I hate theocracies, caste systems, fascism, and monarchies, the old versions anyways. (Apparently Canada is a constitutional monarchy, lol).

Does that mean you do like democracy and communism?

Perhaps ethics has in social terms been the pretense of 'rights'. People seem to view one another as rather the same, and if they get attached to the structure of society they live in, they begin to view it as justified, or at least forget its flaws. So a flow of increasing rights will cause a change in state, because the state controls the movement of rights when the public is innate.

In my opinion you should try to look at it from another perspective. People view things from their experiences, so a form of state would be 'good' when it conforms with that. Seeing as experiences occur constantly what people deem 'good' or 'normal' will change continuously. Once what people deem 'good' has changed in a way that would define the form of state as 'bad' the form of state will follow to conform to the peoples views.

The thing of it is that people are alway 'innate' to the present form of state at their birth; by the very definition of it. Still revolutions take place.

I didn't know that actually. Any other philosophers who's works have not been recovered?

I wouldn't know; they haven't been recovered.

I guess so though.

So ethical changes have no influence on the social contract, just the sovereign will which controls the flow of the social contract.

The soverein will controls the expression of the social contract. Like I said: view it in 'levels'. The scoial contract itself exists on another level and cannot be influenced by actuality. It is completely stable.

An example might be a real contract:

The contract consists of papers with letters on it. That is stable. The letters and their meanings change though, but that has no impact on the contract itself: it exists as is, paper and letters.

I suppose I understand most of what you said, don`t have much to add here. You can decide where to move on if you'd like.

I think we should make a sidestep to paradoxes. What do you think of that?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Arjen

As stated before the social contract is not a contract in the literal sense. It is a contract which stipulates the existance of things. One dos not need to do anything to be a part of it; just 'exist'.

The defining feature of a contract is agreement. One must not only exist, one must consent, otherwise, the "contract" analogy is nonsense. We could just as easily call in the "social imprisonment".

That tabula raza is the social contract. The defining goes on in actuality; the laws or religions and such.

What?

People do not agree to contracts and then proceed to work out the stipulations.

I think this discussion needs to backtrack and work out just what a contract is.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties in which they consent to a set of obligations and forbearances.

The social contract is a model which tries to understand society (or at least just society) as rational individuals consenting to interact by set laws. Because consenting means that people are acting by their own will, and only free individuals consent, it is considered to be a just creation of social structures.

[Arjen]

Mr Fight the Power, I am trying to explain to you how this term is used in philosophy, not to discuss the regular definition of the word contract.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Mr Fight the Power, I am trying to explain to you how this term is used in philosophy, not to discuss the regular definition of the word contract.

I know the ideas behind the social contract and those we are talking about did not change the definition.

The entire point of the social contract is that government and law is justified when individuals consent to it.

The way you are portraying the argument doesn't make sense.