Social Contract - 1st topic of discussion

[Holiday20310401]

Reply to Consciousness and the world that I realized what some good stuff for discussing the Social Contract.I think anyways.


Yes but aren't we talking about the environment, not the consciousness now. I mean the environment as a product of consciousness. Reality converted from actuality by consciousness, in that without it we would only perceive actuality, and only perceiving actuality is the defining difference in whether a being would be conscious or not.

I think you are trying to say that we tend to advocate with the social style already in place rather than to change or have a "differing" potential on the social contract; like what Plato said.

I think there can be a law made about describing the truth of the environment, a correlation between the artificial systems and natural systems. We can describe one of the systems by correlating to the other system's paralleling qualities; society with the universe. And so as society is a product of our insight, the environment is a literal product of "in" "sight", lol. Hope you know what I mean.

There seems to be a causal link between the two kinds of systems, differences must lie in linearity. Society depends on mingling of varying potentials, and causes but consciousness provides the underlying unification of such a cause for linear effect. Society only works that way, as the universe is always governed by the same forces of nature dependent on the fact that dimension is absolute, providing linear cause.

Consciousness provides linearity by the variable of "virtue" put in place, suggesting that consciousness is a product of emotion, so much more illusive in its own meaning. So virtues are absolute within a margin I suppose, because emotions are the same within all human beings, generally. Emotions could be translated to matter, energy; and force allows for the matter and energy to be broken apart into sections (literally for that matter); and virtue attained by how dimension displays itself. Absolute dimension allows for absolute causality resulting in absolute virtue within a margin.

So, the potential of everything; society, environment, is determinable through looking at ourselves, ability for self awareness, and as a stretch, product of consciousness.

Well that was a little off topic for opening... Sorry. (But I hope that connecting society to universe will be applicable to the discussion).

According to Arjen on post #15 of thread Discussion of Capitalism, Socialism, Liberalism, Democracy, Communism, the UN, .. , " The social contract is the interaction (or lack thereof) between a number of people, not the formula for it".

So the social contract in unavoidable?, everybody who is part of the society contributes to its potential and its intentions, but rather the intentions seem to be the job of the sovereign, right? And as society acts feudally, expansionism, it becomes harder to deviate from the society; since everybody is unified by the intent of self benefit, we all choose to become a society under the assumption that it will have more positive implications than negative. Urbanization being an example, due to industrialization.

What my first questions are with the seemingly opposites of war and virtue, can there exist neutrality, in that a social contract does not exist? And is the plausible outcome ethical?

Actually, does a social contract, that results in the virtue of population growth, have the inevitability of breaking apart into smaller societies; which is inversely related to the Casimir force, lol. There must be a maximum and minimum threshold for potential (annihilation result; person's intent absolutes).

Anyways, I'll have a lot more to add later.

[Holiday20310401]

For example, if a society is to progress then the social contract must change to suit other changes. But the social contract can't change without outside or underlying changes, and that results in insight. Perhaps that is the reason for war. I mean humanity has often come to realizations in wars. For example, the protestants came to realize the prospect of liberty a little more clearly after the crusades, and the Roman Catholic Church was rejected of much of its influence until later on, by which it never retained nearly as much of its original status.

So as long as the social contract results in a sovereign there will be change in that society because it will try to change other societies just as others will change them. So, ironically, people's ignorance, causes virtue to be attained at the cost of another's. And ignorance is a quality much like emotion, get rid of it and society wouldn't lineate, common goals, and wouldn't work.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

You are examining all of this in a vastly different context than I did.

As such, I am lost.

Your post bears the mark of someone thinking while they are typing, so I am asking you to please be more concise: What are you trying examine here?

I will say this, though: The social contract is bogus. There is no such thing, and when human nature is taken into account, it does not make for a reasonably model of social structure.

There is simply no way for a person to create in himself a system of rational valuation free of the roles he or she has been relegated to in society.

[Holiday20310401]

Then we shall have to start with something more specific. Lets just start with the structure of society and why a social contract can't exist. It seems to me that people mimic eachother and thats a contract in itself, to stay as a part of society for the benefit of oneself.

Also, yes, I think when I type sometimes. My mind is crazy, why I never tell people I'm smart. If you thought as you typed perhaps you will understand what I said. I leave ambiguity in there, lol. It's open to debate whatever the I'm trying to say. Basically I am trying to show the view of the social contract and I thought at first we could go flat out with potential, and a way of finding the truth of such society by examining other systems; but that seems to be complex.,?

Yeah, you're right though. My posts seem very incoherent. Sorry.

[Arjen]

Allright, I am going to try and get this topic back on track. After Holiday's diversionary tactics ( ) that will be hard to do. I do recognise what he is saying though. It seems as he is filled with ideas, as if they form bubbles within him, and are bursting out sometimes. It just makes coherent discussions difficult. So, I am going to go a little bit more into the social contract theories by first describing the general workings and then describing two distinct theories, which are often set out against eachother. After that I will give my own opinion in the matter and try to work my way into the ethics a little. I think the link with consciousness is there, only so far off that we will have to start several more topics to be in any way clear on that subject. I am also going to ask a moderator to move this topic into the ethical subforum because the social contract is part of ethics and not, as will become clear, part of politics.

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 that which embraces all individual wills of the people in it, forming it into a combined will so to speak. The resultant of the individual wills is named 'sovereign'. A person can be part of a social contract and thereby influencing the sovereign will without even knowing it. In effect everything influences everything after all, so when we seperate things in the sense that Holland (I am from Holland) has a seperate social contract we have to realise that there are more social contracts to take into account. After all it can only be said to be true that Geore W. Bush does have an impact on the Dutch sovereign will. So, when seperating in social contracts we should be aware that the sovereign will of the bridge club may very well be influenced by the sovereign will of the soccer club and that this is accepting the dominance of the dutch sovereign will as a whole because when a conflict should arise between the two clubs the clubs look to the legal system the dutch sovereign will has agreed upon.

In effect it can be said that the sovereign will is that form of interaction which is realised by all the individuals defined as part of the social contract. Sometimes the sovereign will allows a certain government to govern it. At other times the sovereign will decides to overthrow the government. Here the difference between the social contract and the government ruling is visible. A government can be a part of a scoial contract, but it does not have to be. A sgroup of people can live in anarchy, but still have dealings with eachother. I would like to point out that not all social contract theorists see that seperation though, as will be described below, in a short summary of some social contract theories.

Popular social contract theories
Locke
John Locke was the first to come up with the term social contract. I think John Locke earned his reputation from Holland back to England by his 'two treatises of civil government', which justified the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 that deposed James II and enthroned William and Mary. Although everybody agreed that James II had a flawless hereditary claim to the claim of the throne of England, almost everybody agreed that it was intolerable to have a Catholic King on the throne on a mostly protestant country.

Locke's starting point is the state of nature, which he insists must have been a historical fact. His state of nature is a situation in which men lived together according to reason , without a common superior on earth. This does not equal a state of war according to Locke. God, in creating men as rational beings, has acquainted them with the laws of nature, which 'forces' people to be helpfull and well disposed to one another. Thus a community is already formed. Only exceptionally does a malignent being invade the rights (life, health, liberty and posessions) of another, going against the law of nature. The wronged party is at liberty to punish the evildoer.

Hobbes
Thomes Hobbes writes in his 'Leviathan' of another state of nature. In his state of nature he envisions a war of all against al (bellum omnium contra omnes), which leads to the common necessity of a 'head' on the body of men; a head on the Leviathan. Hobbes' social contract therefore necessarily includes a government to protect all against all, thus 'legalising' the British monarchy.

Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau perhaps has the most well developped social contract theory. His theory starts in a state of origin. This state of origin consists of 'noble savages', who live in seperation, only interacting now and again (for hunting or mating reasons). Because of this interaction amour-propre develops from amour-de-soi; out of a love of self self-esteem develops. In the same way out of self preservation egoïsm develops. This takes place by sharing the benefits of the hunt, only to notice the appreciation given in return for it. Thus the idea of having a lot to give seems 'good' and so the drive for the gain of posessions develops (corruption).

In the same way the interactions of the social contract facilitates the corruption of men into the formation of governments. Rousseau describes in an envisaging manner a process of the privitisation of everything in the world; clearly seperating the difference between natural and political inequalities in his 'Discours sur l'origine de l'inégalité parmi les hommes'. In his 'Social Contract' Rousseau describes a state which would be as closely aligned with the social contract as possible, in his opinion. It is remarkably close to the Roman empire, in its republical era. The election of a government play an important role in the contract because it is an expression of the sovereign will.

Personal Opnion
In my personal opinion any government is a deviation from the social contract, be it needed or not. Any government is a form of chaos within the natural order, trying to force a certain behavorial pattern onto the populace which is self-destructive by its nature, although certain benefits may be had before it destructs itself.

A government creates its own revolution, there can be no revolt without it.
~Lenin

Ethics
Ethics being guidelines for forms on conduct, the social contract is the very basis of ethical formulations. In it all the modes of conduct of the individuals enveloped in it are made into a resultant guideline for the group. When the ethical views of the group change the government will have to change as well, which depicts how little the government actually governs, but rather follows the populace.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Arjen

As Mr. Fight the Power points out the social contract is not something which exists as a physical object.

I figured that.

Originally Posted by Arjen

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

So the contract is more so a product of instinctual developments of humanity/society. It is mutual with social interaction.

Originally Posted by Arjen

The social contract is that which embraces all individual wills of the people in it, forming it into a combined will so to speak. The resultant of the individual wills is named 'sovereign'. A person can be part of a social contract and thereby influencing the sovereign will without even knowing it.

I agree that whoever has an influence on the whole society's will, or the combined will is what makes up the sovereign.
And the public can be uniformalized by manipulation of the major influences; corporations, media, and government all work to taint the will so as to create a sovereign in favor of their virtue. But then who really is sovereign? It would make sense that if the public has no self control they have no individual grasp and potential on what the sovereign turns out to be.

Originally Posted by Arjen

In effect it can be said that the sovereign will is that form of interaction which is realised by all the individuals defined as part of the social contract.

So what is the formula for the interaction? There has to be some patterns.

Originally Posted by Arjen

Sometimes the sovereign will allows a certain government to govern it. At other times the sovereign will decides to overthrow the government.

Are you saying that the public has majority influence on the social contract, and that it can always? It would be hard to define such majority influence but generally I see social interaction as a product of rights/liberty, which is controlled by the government. The public has the potential to have rights whenever they please but they simply can't whenever they want because the public is apathetic and blind at times.

So in Germany back when Hitler was trying to get power through fascism, the people chose for Hitler's dictatorship feeling that it would bring progress to Germany's situation, and past. Hitler was insane so the past may have had nothing to do with his real feelings about the Jews but the public allowed for Hitler's sentiments through blind faith in the past.

There seems to always be a negative outcome in blind faith, and its correlation to the past, which strives to endure through tradition, rather than the positive implications of change that people ignore for the simple sake of progress.

So it is better to have no government as an end result if you tend to agree that everyone should have equal sway in society. I personally believe that sway should be correlated to intellect so as to assure virtue through wisdom. That seems like a rational ideal to me.

And there really is no fine example of a society in which the government deserved a higher potential on the sovereign will, right?

Originally Posted by Arjen

Here the difference between the social contract and the government ruling is visible. A government can be a part of a scoial contract, but it does not have to be. A sgroup of people can live in anarchy, but still have dealings with eachother.

I thought anarchy was sovereign will that had no government/state/bureaucracy... so you'd be right but it seems to me that a government has to not exist otherwise it is undoubtedly going to be of influence.

Originally Posted by Arjen

Locke's starting point is the state of nature, which he insists must have been a historical fact. His state of nature is a situation in which men lived together according to reason , without a common superior on earth.

Perhaps realisation occurs when the people have just had a war. And the state of nature is a state of public's realisation that causes what can be basically be said as anarchy, because people want a reestablishment of rights or at least major change.

Originally Posted by Arjen

Hobbes

I have to disagree with him morally. It would be better to achieve a state of nature without the government. But logically I guess, I don't see how its going to be possible.

Originally Posted by Arjen

In the same way out of self preservation egoïsm develops. This takes place by sharing the benefits of the hunt, only to notice the appreciation given in return for it. Thus the idea of having a lot to give seems 'good' and so the drive for the gain of posessions develops (corruption).

And as a product of ego and separation from other groups, along comes culture (good), and religion (bad).

Originally Posted by Arjen

In my personal opinion any government is a deviation from the social contract, be it needed or not. Any government is a form of chaos within the natural order, trying to force a certain behavorial pattern onto the populace which is self-destructive by its nature, although certain benefits may be had before it destructs itself.

I agree entirely. Which is why I don't like the aspects of socialism, because it will turn into people hating the government a lot. Higher taxes seem obvious with socialism for one thing.


And aside from that I think there is a pattern with the states of social order. Being that of barbarism to feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism. Barbarism and feudalism was about expansion and sp****d out focus on production and wealth. Forts would be built along borders of territory, villages sp****d out so as for little interaction(also due to transportation differences back them). Capitalism and Socialism seem to be the result of the ability to focus wealth and production, due to science increase?; and so maybe it will go back to expansion. Globalization for example, expanding until the economy flows in a way that we are basically under one nation. And then focusing again with major capitalism of the one world nation. And as a force against this evolving social progress that could be a product of socialism getting out of hand would be totalitarianism.

And despite the totalitarianism notion the social interactions would always increase, which is bad probably because war exists because of ego with social interaction.

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

Each person is like a neuron and some neurons are connected via synapses, electrical signals being the potential that could be compared to as social interaction, as that is the potential on our actions anyways.

But neurons are only connected to so many other neurons. And we strive for every neuron to be connected to every other neuron, like a 4D system, but as such being an asymptote.

We change social systems so as to make more connections, and because we want to get as many connections as possible, we have a government or state that creates MANY more connections. And the government acts as a master neuron, it gets bigger because it is linked to more neurons, and as such, it has more potential on other interactions, indirectly of course.

But still, the government may create more connections of neurons but the people are still gaining their own connections through memory, the past, or by science/technology. And when we reach enough connections without aid of government we need a new method of organization, a new system. So we'll switch (due to memory/science/technology mind you) from capitalism to socialism.

And communism is when all neurons are connected to all other neurons but under the rule of some master, even if the public is in lead of it. And Anarchy is the end result being that all neurons are connected to all other neurons but not by the aid of a master neuron.

This means that every neuron has the same number of connections as another; no master neurons that are connected to a billion others.

And what is better; being a part of social contract, the will, or being separated? A neuron part of the network, having potential to the overall being, consciousness, or not doing anything for the progress of humanity at all?

But we are still growing and learning from the past, and so we develop new neurons, new people, population growth. So progress is forceably restrained by technological progress.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Holiday

So the contract is more so a product of instinctual developments of humanity/society. It is mutual with social interaction.

I think a more accurate way to say this (although you most likely mean the same) is that the social contract is based on the existence of several entities capable of interaction within certain defined limits. The shape the social contract takes consists of the factual interactions; the creation of a soverein will. That soverein will may be shaped by the combination of strengths in the sense of state or secluded 'social contracts' within bigger social contracts.

I think you are making a valueble point concerning the lack of understanding of being part of the soverein will and therefore being unaware of the influence one can have/has. I think that is a reason why the state is being sold as 'the social contract' in itself. As if the influence one can have is only important when choosing 'leaders', instead of in the acts one undertakes every day.

Originally Posted by Holiday

So what is the formula for the interaction? There has to be some patterns.

I am unsure what the limitations of interaction really are.Is it not true that we are in fact influenced by a butterfly flapping its wings somewhere in China? I think you are moreover looking for a formula for what would influence what actions in which way so to speak. I think that this is not important in the end because humans have the possibility to form any occurance into any reaction. It merely depends on what 'state' one finds within oneself. But that might be a topic for another time.

Concerning the sovereign and the state.
Because the state is made up out of people interacting in certain ways the state is, by its very nature, submissive to the social contract in itself. The moment the social contract changes the state will have to follow. If it does not follow quick enough a revolt or revolution will unvariably be the result.

The state does have the ability to set a stage for interactions and in that sense does have a strong influence on the social contract, however, it can never dictate its wishes to the sovereign will in the sense that the sovereign will dictates its wishes on the state.

Aesthetical ideal, teology and deonthology
I had mentioned the aesthetical ideal before. It is a kind of thought-object concerning 'the beautifull and the sublime' in the narrow sense, but a thought-object of 'the good' in the wide sense. Such ideals, or thought-objects are used as 'goals' in our reasonings if we are not carefull. Ethics based on certain set values (which are wielded as 'goals') is called teleology (telos=goal;end). Teleology focusses on the results of ones actions.

I personally am a deontologist. Deontologists focus on the actions in themselves, but also take into account the results of those actions. While lying is not something a deontologist would do of his own accord, a deontologist would lie to nazis concerning the hiding place of a number of jews because of the results of telling the truth. But a deontologist would not lie for personal gain, while a teleologist would lie only for personal gain, although sometimes altruïsm might be considered as personal gain.

I think this teleology and deontology set out against eachother might be a very nice new topic. I have really only scratched the surface here.

The state of nature, anarchy and state-forms
I think that a lot of different philosophies exist concerning the state of nature. Unfortunately this seems to be inescapable. some believe the state of nature to be purely hypothetical and others consider it to be a historical fact for instance. The same goes for anarchy. Some consider anarchy a bellum omnium contra omnes, as Hobbes did. It seems to me that anarchy in itself is merely the absence of state and that in this absence of state a coëxistence of men living according to reason could exist, as well as a bellum omnium contra omnes.

Perhaps the difference between these two situations lies in the way one percieves one's fellow man: in hope or in fear. When one hopes to be able to live together one has a good chance of doing so, while when one fears to become engaged in a bellum omnium contra omnes one has a good chance of starting a physical fight out of self defence in fear of being hurt; thus completing a pygmalion effect.

Like you I think there are patterns all over the place in this topic. The pattern concerning the rotation of stateforms has occured to me as well. As if a continuous process would create a cycle of life for the 'human collective'. The origin of which might be anarchy, followed by despotism, then monarchy, republic, democracy, communism, totalitarianism and back to anarchy again...only to start over again. When I look at the world's history I see that a lot of different transitions take place as well. It has made me come to think that there is a certain potential from which all these forms can emerge. Perhaps that potential is the social contract and the stateforms are the different forms the sovereign will might take; as if they exist on two different 'levels'.

================================================== ================================================== ===

I am going to leave it at that for today. It is getting late and perhaps this covers a lot for one post. If there is anything essential from your post that I have not addressed, please do restate it. I hope that the concept of the social contract has become clear to you (even if details may escape you now because of a lack of experience with the thought-object). Perhaps it is trime to start deeping into differences on ethical behavior so we can move towards the ethical ideas which are needed to support particular forms of state...or whatever else you fancy.

[Holiday20310401]

Well I'm eager to get to the ethics, and I've got a clear idea of the social contract.

But I doubt I could get rid of the analogy I made in my mind. It will be intrinsic to my thoughts for the discussions, sorry. I will have to do some research on this thought object stuff though.

Perhaps we can talk about what ethical ideas are required for certain states, and how that affects the sovereign will, and the social contract. Maybe there is a pattern between varying ethical ideas, and when applied the change in potential from the state to the sovereign, and social contract itself.

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

[Arjen]

I'll go into this deeper tomorrow probably (I have to work today as well...unfortunately). For now try to realise this:

the social contract is the potentiality in which everything can take place. That cannot change. Any expression of it in actuality (such as states, religions or perhaps ethical values) can only influence the soverein will; not the social contract in itself.

Perhaps this comes down to the exact definitions one wields, but I think you will see the difference I am making. I'll get back to this tomorrow I think. I gotta run now.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

. . .
I will say this, though: The social contract is bogus. There is no such thing . . . .

If it is a contract it would have the usual contractual parts such as signature by both or all parties. This lacks even that, so might be more the nature of a covenant. An offer one cannot refuse.