Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

The authority structure, if any, of a small band of nomads I think relates to the needs of the group. The strongest defender, male or female, would be the leader if the group be threatened by outsiders.However a threat from other groups is unlikely when there is plenty of rich territory for everyone, indeed hospitality to strangers may be much more important in that case.

The feudal system is a response to permanent need for defence . This need arose when territory became demarcated and marked by stones , ditches, or fences as belonging to specific collectives. Those people were not nomadic but had become stock keepers and growers of crops. Within the feudal system the warrior class ,i.e. knights ,was the ruling class to whom lower classes owed duties. Among the British aristocracy it was only comparatively recently that the army ceased to be the suitable career for the eldest son, with the church suited to the younger son.

Yes, but all these developments were necessary only because humans could not treat each other with compassion and sympathy, and were not willing to share the limited amount of resources with others rather than collecting all for themselves.

[Sushan]

Some aspects of maps are social convention. (North at the top of the page, water features in blue). And all maps are edited to leave out what the compiler considers unimportant.

On the other hand, if you've ever had the experience of trying to navigate with a map that fails to correspond with the territory (e.g. showing a footpath where in reality a brick wall prevents access) then you'll appreciate that maps can be objectively wrong.

While actual cartographic maps are definitely covered by 'maps and territories', I think we should remember, too, that "maps", in this sense, covers a great deal more than physical maps do. E.g. science, all of it (but not the subjects it studies) is a wholly map-based thing. In our context, science is a map, or part of one. So is philosophy, and many other human creations too. Maps cover a great deal more than simplified renditions of actual physical geographic territory.

Well, I have to agree with you that most of the human creations are maps, because they are not the reality (we do not know whether they are the reality or not), but human conventions and agreements made for the practicality and convenience. As you said, there is always some lacking area in this map when compared to the territory.

[Sushan]

Some aspects of maps are social convention. (North at the top of the page, water features in blue). And all maps are edited to leave out what the compiler considers unimportant.

On the other hand, if you've ever had the experience of trying to navigate with a map that fails to correspond with the territory (e.g. showing a footpath where in reality a brick wall prevents access) then you'll appreciate that maps can be objectively wrong.

While actual cartographic maps are definitely covered by 'maps and territories', I think we should remember, too, that "maps", in this sense, covers a great deal more than physical maps do. E.g. science, all of it (but not the subjects it studies) is a wholly map-based thing. In our context, science is a map, or part of one. So is philosophy, and many other human creations too. Maps cover a great deal more than simplified renditions of actual physical geographic territory.

One rather interesting application of maps to psychoses is that the map most favoured by therapists is the scientific map in which the brain suffers lesions. Psychotherapists used to favour the psychoanalytic map for psychoses , but the psychoanalytic map is now used mainly for neuroses. In the bad old days the map as applied to madmen was the punitive religious map.

This is a good example to differentiate map and the territory. We still do not know the exact areas of the brain that are responsible for specific actions. So we have mapped it as per our best understanding. How close to or far from the territory we are is yet to be found.

[Sushan]

Yes, we either accept it or not, but the way we are socialized as homosapiens and grow to be fully fledged adults, we go through those hierarchies and structure. You can rename it or use certain modern terminology, but its inevitable.

True. Hierarchies and structures help organize society to manage resources, resolve conflicts, and foster cooperation. They enable complex systems like governments, economies, and educational institutions to operate efficiently, even as individuals navigate their personal roles within these systems.

While the specifics of hierarchies can be challenged, changed, or reimagined, the underlying need for structure to organize social interactions and functions remains unavoidable. Attempts to eliminate hierarchy often result in new systems of organization.

[Sushan]

It's been thoroughly understood. Humans apply maps to territories. However, a territory being mapped is no reason to believe that the mapped territory itself is now a meta invention. The territory that's been mapped still exists in its on right. The configurations that have been mapped are real.

Of course they are. But what about the speculations that we make, based on the observations that constitute our initial and passive mapping-observations? Are they (the speculations, not the observations) real (i.e. part of the territory)? No.

I think the answer to your question is not 'No', but is 'Don't Know'.

This reminds me of the non-bizarre delusions in Psychiatry. A person thinking (or rather strongly believing) that a celebrity loves him/her is quite ridiculous, but it is not totally out of possibility. Speculations made in the maps being actually present in the territory is, in my opinion, similar to this as well.

[Sushan]

Well, the connection (or the interaction) between Trump and Zelensky is quite complex and it involves, I think, more than hierarchical structure.

Because, if it is taken merely as a hierarchy, the hierarchy is US President - - > Ukrainian President. But when we see how the dynamics changed when Trump took the seat from Biden, seemingly it includes more from human nature and status and less from the hierarchical structure.

This can be a context where news and politics are devoid of the citation problem, the specific meaning of the event in question being neither inviter or excluder of the citation problem's democracy.

I typically deal in the socio-psychology of politics; translated, to this event between Trump and Zelensky, the socio-psychology framework is one of legitimacy, despite a few tidbits of the event being hallmark generators of the overall system's ********.

My general takeaway, notwithstanding this analysis, from the event and row, is that politics is in a soap opera age, a paradoxical value only because of the presumed moral status of social media age per se.

I agree. It is quite difficult to determine between facts and social media rumors these days. And also, with the biased nature of the mass media, it is difficult to differentiate between truth and lies.

If by legitimacy, you meant the legitimacy of the Ukrainian president, I think it is a legal matter rather than a political one, because the election is postponed due to the martial law. And if you question the legitimacy of the US president, still there are legal issues that he faced before becoming the president and that were just thrown away simply because he became the president.

These are complex matters, muddled with, as you said, the effect of social media and the people's opinions.

There are layers, of distinctions between the lies elements of news media, that you reference. The cultural denotation, of lies, i.e. the CNN vs Fox News debate, is one such layer, the next layer (whose moral compass relative to the aforementioned layer renders a freedom of judgement index) being the presumed objectivity state of news media's raison detre, i.e. assuming the veracity in the first place, of global socialism activity, is there a veracity of academia that can deem or not deem the veracity of the news media platform (of course, this latest dichotomy precludes the non-paradoxical status of the "moral compass relative" index reference).

Thank you for the valuable input.

In addition to what you said, media organizations often engage in "selective framing", choosing which parts of a story to emphasize, which to downplay, and which to omit. This practice doesn’t necessarily involve outright lying; rather, it’s about shaping the narrative in a way that aligns with their intended message or perspective. The media allows the audience to form conclusions, but those conclusions are often subtly guided in a specific direction.

[Fanisa Ndhabambi]

I agree, as previously mentioned, that whenever there's a society or a group of individuals who are having a common goal, a structure would be formed, and out of the structure, the hierarchical structure is developed for achieving that common goal.

[Sushan]

I agree, as previously mentioned, that whenever there's a society or a group of individuals who are having a common goal, a structure would be formed, and out of the structure, the hierarchical structure is developed for achieving that common goal.

I am not certain whether the societies had or are having common goals. Even if they had (or having), not all the members of a society understand or value those goals to the same extent. As far as I can understand, there won't be any need for a hierarchy if all members of a society had a common goal.

[Fanisa Ndhabambi]

You left out or group of individuals with a common goal,

[Pattern-chaser]

It's been thoroughly understood. Humans apply maps to territories. However, a territory being mapped is no reason to believe that the mapped territory itself is now a meta invention. The territory that's been mapped still exists in its on right. The configurations that have been mapped are real.

Of course they are. But what about the speculations that we make, based on the observations that constitute our initial and passive mapping-observations? Are they (the speculations, not the observations) real (i.e. part of the territory)? No.

I think the answer to your question is not 'No', but is 'Don't Know'.

If we ask if our speculations correspond to the real and actual world, then the answer should be "don't know", as you suggest.

But if we ask if our speculations are "real", as I did, then I think "no" still stands. The *object(s)* of our speculations may or may not exist, but our speculations themselves? Outside our own minds, no, they do not have real-world existence, do they?

[Thomas3333]

This can be a context where news and politics are devoid of the citation problem, the specific meaning of the event in question being neither inviter or excluder of the citation problem's democracy.

I typically deal in the socio-psychology of politics; translated, to this event between Trump and Zelensky, the socio-psychology framework is one of legitimacy, despite a few tidbits of the event being hallmark generators of the overall system's ********.

My general takeaway, notwithstanding this analysis, from the event and row, is that politics is in a soap opera age, a paradoxical value only because of the presumed moral status of social media age per se.

I agree. It is quite difficult to determine between facts and social media rumors these days. And also, with the biased nature of the mass media, it is difficult to differentiate between truth and lies.

If by legitimacy, you meant the legitimacy of the Ukrainian president, I think it is a legal matter rather than a political one, because the election is postponed due to the martial law. And if you question the legitimacy of the US president, still there are legal issues that he faced before becoming the president and that were just thrown away simply because he became the president.

These are complex matters, muddled with, as you said, the effect of social media and the people's opinions.

There are layers, of distinctions between the lies elements of news media, that you reference. The cultural denotation, of lies, i.e. the CNN vs Fox News debate, is one such layer, the next layer (whose moral compass relative to the aforementioned layer renders a freedom of judgement index) being the presumed objectivity state of news media's raison detre, i.e. assuming the veracity in the first place, of global socialism activity, is there a veracity of academia that can deem or not deem the veracity of the news media platform (of course, this latest dichotomy precludes the non-paradoxical status of the "moral compass relative" index reference).

Thank you for the valuable input.

In addition to what you said, media organizations often engage in "selective framing", choosing which parts of a story to emphasize, which to downplay, and which to omit. This practice doesn’t necessarily involve outright lying; rather, it’s about shaping the narrative in a way that aligns with their intended message or perspective. The media allows the audience to form conclusions, but those conclusions are often subtly guided in a specific direction.

The shaping the narrative launchpad (an ideology, of deconstructing the shaping the narrative complex without having to confront the complex at all), is a proverbial problem of having to perhaps confront (paradox value, of perhaps vs proverbial) sociology's seeming objective status (I say objective, in the spirit of sunlight and daylight's own personal science being exempt or seemingly exempt from science criticism).

Media's status, ostensibly, is subject in the moral way to this formula of knowledge