Socratic Discussion of Justice

[Scribo 167]

It seems we're straying from the point here. Aristotle says in his Nicomachean Ethics that "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good..." Let us say for the sake of the argument that Aristotle is right. We must establish that justice is perfection of sorts; if we do not, we must question our morals and get into some muddy water. Now, if we are flawed, then justice cannot be an action, as we cannot perform perform it in its perfection. However, we do actively attempt to do so, so let us rather say that justice is a pursuit. This pursuit, then, aims at some good. 

[lizerdgirl108 397]

I'm making this topic for two reasons: to take my mind off my work while still improving my philosophical facilities, and to try to bring more intelligent thought to this forum.

 

          We'll start by discussing Socrates' definition of justice which is outlined in Plato's Rebublic. Justice is first brought up when Cephalus remarks that death makes one think on the injustices one has suffered or inflicted. Socrates then says, "But to this very thing justice, shall we so simply assert that it is the truth and giving back what a man has taken from another, or is to do these things sometimes just and sometimes unjust?" (Republic, 331b) At this point, Cephalus' son, Polemarchus, takes over the conversation for his father, and asserts that Simonides the poet's definition of justice right: justice is to give to each what is owed; that is, to do good to one's friends and harm to one's enemies.

 

          Here I will open the topic for discussion. What do you think of Socrates' question? Of Polemarchus' response? Is justice really that mechanical? Please use the book and quote frequently to support your arguments. We will try to move this discussion in the direction of that in the book. Let us do this in an ordered and coherent fashion, respecting other people's opinions, which is not to say you can't disagree with them.

 Do your own homework. 

[Irontank1v 836]

^Stay on topic guys, im trying figure out whats happening.

[Latvian_troller 63]

Are we talking about Illuminati?

[GoldRock 6,165]

^Yes. Yes, we are.

 

Other readers, note that we both agree that our justice is flawed, and so we both continue to stand by Socrates' second theory about man's justice being "sometimes unjust and sometimes just" on this one. However, we are simply debating how we know we are flawed at the moment.

 

I was making a statement based on your previous assertion, then questioning it. Perhaps I did not pose it in the right way. What I meant to say is, how are we flawed? What are the criteria for knowing? We cannot simply assert that we are so by nature, because then we would be saying we are flawed because we believe we are flawed. If we really are flawed, then our beliefs will be flawed, which means we cannot trust them. If this was so, we must either be perfect, or know we are flawed because of a higher authority.

Ah, I thought you were questioning whether we were flawed or not, rather than if there is any criteria as to why we are flawed. You make a fair point there. I agree that our belief that we are flawed could be flawed in itself, however, that would just prove we are flawed (le paradox again). To see whether there is any criteria for our belief, we could find out what can be defined as perfect; if we are not considered perfect, we must be flawed. However, I think this is where we meet a dead end - whilst we know what "perfect" and "flawed" mean in theory, we can't assign criteria for either groups in practice, since we lack this understanding. This inability to understand the criteria for perfection on Earth is, to me, the criteria for why we are flawed as human beings. Therefore, there is criteria we can use to know we are flawed, and so we do not need access to a higher authority to realise this to be true.

 

It seems we're straying from the point here. Aristotle says in his Nicomachean Ethics that "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good..." Let us say for the sake of the argument that Aristotle is right. We must establish that justice is perfection of sorts; if we do not, we must question our morals and get into some muddy water. Now, if we are flawed, then justice cannot be an action, as we cannot perform perform it in its perfection. However, we do actively attempt to do so, so let us rather say that justice is a pursuit. This pursuit, then, aims at some good.

We had already agreed that our justice is a flawed attempt at pursuing a perfect justice, but you summed it up in a nutshell quite coherently ^_^ We're currently discussing how we know of perfect justice if we are only practising a flawed version, if you wish to join in. I'm arguing that we know of perfect justice since we can assign criteria as to what it is not, and wrecky is arguing that we know of perfect justice due to a higher authority.

Edited September 21, 2013 by GoldRock

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

In response to Scribo's comment: well put, sir. But I would question, how if we were not flawed? Your assertion was based on the fact that "we are flawed," but we could pose that same question given that we are perfect. What then? For if we were perfect, justice would no longer be a pursuit. Necessarily, then, we would perform all other actions perfectly. 

 

In response to GoldRock: you say that the the fact that we don't know we're flawed because we're flawed is proof we're flawed. To one outside our nature, definitely. But that fact that our thoughts, because they are flawed, are not trustworthy, does not mean we know that. Does the fish know it's in water? Does the dog know it's a dog? That is, we cannot logically prove to ourselves that we are either perfect or flawed, as our thoughts do not mirror the truth.

[GoldRock 6,165]

In response to GoldRock: you say that the the fact that we don't know we're flawed because we're flawed is proof we're flawed. To one outside our nature, definitely. But that fact that our thoughts, because they are flawed, are not trustworthy, does not mean we know that. Does the fish know it's in water? Does the dog know it's a dog? That is, we cannot logically prove to ourselves that we are either perfect or flawed, as our thoughts do not mirror the truth.

The answer to both of those questions is yes. However, the fish may interpret what the water is differently to other beings, and the dog could interpret what it itself is differently to other beings. In the same way, we as humans know we are flawed, but what those flaws are could be interpreted differently by us and others. Basically, we are incapable of knowing whether our thoughts mirror the truth or not, since we do not know for sure what the truth is. The only way in which we can prove our thoughts to be as close to the truth as possible (since we can't prove anything entirely) is to eliminate what the truth isn't, and the truth almost certainly isn't that we are perfect (as shown in my paradox, which you described well in the first sentence of your quoted post). For example, the fish almost certainly can't prove that it is not in water, just as the dog almost certainly can't prove it is not a dog.

Edited September 22, 2013 by GoldRock

[Scribo 167]

If we are to get as close to the truth as possible by eliminating that which is not the truth, then we'd need some reference point. But a reference point must have some truth in it, otherwise it cannot exist. That is, the good of a reference point is the truth it holds. We must know this reference point to be able to eliminate falsehoods, which means we must know truth. If we're flawed though, we can't know truth. If we don't know truth, we can't know that which is true (the reference point), and if we don't know the reference point, we can't eliminate that which is not true.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Scribo

[GoldRock 6,165]

If we are to get as close to the truth as possible by eliminating that which is not the truth, then we'd need some reference point. But a reference point must have some truth in it, otherwise it cannot exist. That is, the good of a reference point is the truth it holds. We must know this reference point to be able to eliminate falsehoods, which means we must know truth. If we're flawed though, we can't know truth. If we don't know truth, we can't know that which is true (the reference point), and if we don't know the reference point, we can't eliminate that which is not true.

Partly agreed (the reference point for us being flawed being 'the lack of perfection, as I determined before), However, if this reference point as a human thought is flawed, that just proves we are flawed in itself... Actually, there's a surprisingly simple way to defeat this paradox theory, but I'd just like to see if anyone gets it, before I reveal it.

[GoldRock 6,165]

This kind of died. I win :ph34r:

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

Sorry I haven't replied for so long. I got extremely busy with exam preparation and execution. If you would like to enlighten us with the solution to your paradox, then please do so. Be warned, however, that you make a rather big logical error in your argument. I've also noticed we've gotten rather far off track, so we could attempt to return to the point we were initially discussing, unless the preference is to continue with this. 

[Delta_88 17]

o_O what the hell is goin' on?!

[GoldRock 6,165]

Sorry I haven't replied for so long. I got extremely busy with exam preparation and execution. If you would like to enlighten us with the solution to your paradox, then please do so. Be warned, however, that you make a rather big logical error in your argument. I've also noticed we've gotten rather far off track, so we could attempt to return to the point we were initially discussing, unless the preference is to continue with this.

That's fine ^_^ Yes, I know that rather big logical error.

 

The simple solution to le paradox is to try to prove that we are perfect, rather than proving we are flawed. Therefore, if we are correct, we are perfect. If we are wrong, we are flawed in our thought, and also flawed as we are not perfect. This eliminates the problem of being wrong about the fact we are flawed, and so being flawed in thinking. Simple...

 

OK, we've determined we can't prove for sure whether we are flawed or not. Though we both believe we are flawed, as we are almost certain this is true. Therefore, we both agree that our justice is flawed, in our opinion. Let's move on?

Edited October 2, 2013 by GoldRock

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

Not so. We agree we're flawed. We cannot, however, prove we're flawed. To get around this, we try to prove we're perfect. To be able to prove something, we must have true premises. If we agree we're flawed, though, we cannot conceive of any true premises, thus committing the False Premise fallacy. Our proof then is meaningless.

[GoldRock 6,165]

Not so. We agree we're flawed. We cannot, however, prove we're flawed. To get around this, we try to prove we're perfect. To be able to prove something, we must have true premises. If we agree we're flawed, though, we cannot conceive of any true premises, thus committing the False Premise fallacy. Our proof then is meaningless.

I didn't dispute that - I clearly stated that we agree we're flawed, though we cannot prove so...

[Scribo 167]

I believe the logical fallacy our friend was referring to in your argument was that of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, which states that the fact that something cannot be proved does not constitute the proof of another thing. Thus, you cannot say that we are flawed because we cannot prove we're flawed. Same with not being able to prove we're perfect. You're trying to argue we're flawed through a proof. In  other words, you're arguing we know that fact by our own knowledge and reason. However, you have consented more than once that we can't prove that to ourselves through our own reason, our reason being flawed. Your proof is your lack of ability to prove. This is a clear fallacy.

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Scribo. Yes, that is exactly my point.

[GoldRock 6,165]

I believe the logical fallacy our friend was referring to in your argument was that of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, which states that the fact that something cannot be proved does not constitute the proof of another thing. Thus, you cannot say that we are flawed because we cannot prove we're flawed. Same with not being able to prove we're perfect. You're trying to argue we're flawed through a proof. In other words, you're arguing we know that fact by our own knowledge and reason. However, you have consented more than once that we can't prove that to ourselves through our own reason, our reason being flawed. Your proof is your lack of ability to prove. This is a clear fallacy.

Who are you arguing with? Because I proposed the idea of my paradox, received no conclusive argument against it, and so explained why my own paradox doesn't work, and now you come up with the argument that I acknowledged myself...

 

The simple solution to le paradox is to try to prove that we are perfect, rather than proving we are flawed. Therefore, if we are correct, we are perfect. If we are wrong, we are flawed in our thought, and also flawed as we are not perfect. This eliminates the problem of being wrong about the fact we are flawed, and so being flawed in thinking. Simple...

 

OK, we've determined we can't prove for sure whether we are flawed or not. Though we both believe we are flawed, as we are almost certain this is true. Therefore, we both agree that our justice is flawed, in our opinion. Let's move on?

With that post, I was basically saying why my paradox idea is a clear fallacy. So I don't understand why you are trying to explain what I already understand and agree with...

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

I'm afraid you're going in circles here. You stated your paradox, in which Scribo pointed out the clear fallacy, which you apparently knew and agree with. Then you stated the 'solution' to your fallacious paradox, which I revoked. You say you also agree with my revocation. There is no solution to your paradox, as it is fallacious. 

[GoldRock 6,165]

I'm afraid you're going in circles here. You stated your paradox, in which Scribo pointed out the clear fallacy, which you apparently knew and agree with. Then you stated the 'solution' to your fallacious paradox, which I revoked. You say you also agree with my revocation. There is no solution to your paradox, as it is fallacious.

Le ultimate facepalm.

 

What you continue to call the 'solution' I gave for my paradox was my pointing out of the fact that the paradox is fallacious, through showing it is logically poor. I have no idea why you've 'revoked' that...

 

This is how I see things:

- I pointed out my paradox is fallacious (the 'solution')

- You did the same

- I said I agree

- You said I'm going in circles

 

...

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

I don't want to digress into a juvenile squabble, so try to understand.

We both believe we are flawed, but our beliefs are based on different premises. You say we're flawed because we can prove it to ourselves. I say it's so because of a higher authority.

I make the argument that since we're flawed, we can't trust our thoughts, meaning we can't prove to ourselves that we're flawed. You say that the fact that we can't trust our thoughts because they're flawed is proof we're flawed. This statement commits the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, and is invalid (which we both agree on). You say the solution to your fallacy is to go about proving that we're perfect, and if we can't then we'll know we're flawed. Again, though, I bring in the fact that because we're flawed (which we both agree on), there is no way to get around the fact that we cannot trust our thoughts. Thus, we can make no argument whatsoever that has any integrity, because of the fact that our thoughts are flawed. 

Edited October 3, 2013 by Imgoingtowreckyou

[GoldRock 6,165]

You say the solution to your fallacy is to go about proving that we're perfect, and if we can't then we'll know we're flawed.

Well then you misunderstood what I said.

 

My solution was to go about proving we are perfect, and if we can prove so, we are perfect; if we can disprove this, we know we are flawed both in thinking, and as we're not perfect. Since we can't prove or disprove whether we are perfect, then we can't know for sure whether we are flawed. I did not say the following at any point: "If we can't prove or disprove whether we are perfect, we must be flawed." I disagree with that statement. And so I wholeheartedly agree with your idea that we can't come up with a conclusive argument to say we are flawed, though we both think we are.

 

So maybe we have both misunderstood each other in part, it's wrong of you to assume that I'm the one who's not understanding here.

 

If you so wish, you can either continue to argue even though you are merely repeating what I said and so agree with in your own arguments...

 

Thus, we can make no argument whatsoever that has any integrity, because of the fact that our thoughts are flawed.

OK, we've determined we can't prove for sure whether we are flawed or not.

...or we can move on...

Edited October 3, 2013 by GoldRock

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

If you understand, then let me ask you: what are you trying to prove? What is your thesis?

[GoldRock 6,165]

If you understand, then let me ask you: what are you trying to prove? What is your thesis?

I don't have one. I came up with a paradox argument, and defeated it myself. I have simply determined that we can't prove for sure whether we are flawed or not. Just because I came up with an argument doesn't mean I personally support it, or that I don't see the problems with it.

[Imgoingtowreckyou 4]

This is rather frustrating. The point of a debate is to defend a point or thesis. You stated a while ago what you were arguing, and now you say you aren't arguing about anything.