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

[Sushan]

My argument, however, is more reflexive: the definition of "territory = objective world" and "map = mental model" already makes use of a map.

I don't think it does. I think "map", in this context, is very like "boulder", a simple descriptive term invented for convenience, and carrying no more information than what it is descriptive *of*. Here, "map" says 'that's part of my world model, not part of the world, directly'.

To say “that’s part of my world model, not part of the world directly” already presupposes some mechanism by which we distinguish model from world. But how do we validate that distinction without already standing inside a model?

[Sy Borg]

It's competition. The world is a competitive place. You might point to cooperation, but that just means people coming together to form blocs that can compete better with other blocs. Individuals, of course, don't stand a chance against groups.

People today don't fight so much over what they can get today but over systems that determine what they can get in the future.

That’s a great point — and I agree, the world is deeply competitive. And yes, much modern conflict is less about immediate gain than about shaping the rules of future distribution.

But I still wonder whether competition fully accounts for symbolic behaviour.

Think of whistleblowers, martyrs, revolutionaries, or even some artists. These aren’t always plays in a bigger competitive game — they sometimes look like refusals to play the game altogether.

Sacrifices are the ultimate expression of an individual's sublimation into the collective. They make the sacrifices so their group can compete more effectively, like bees or certain castes of ants, which place the interests of the hive or nest above their lives. They are not eschewing the game, just playing different roles. We can avoid facing reality but we can't avoid the consequences of reality.

I'm not sure it's possible to avoid the game. Hermits can leave the games of collectives (if the collective is not too controlling), but they will have a different game, competing with predators, prey, insects and bacteria. For all its faults, there are good reasons why we put up with the BS of hierarchic societies. Those who didn't put up with it did not pass on their genes to the same extent as those who played along.

Yes, often sacrifice is understood as contributing to something larger than the self.

But does this characterisation capture human sacrifice in a meaningful way?

When people willingly choose to suffer, or willingly choose death, for a cause, or expose themselves to exile or imprisonment by revealing damaging information, are they simply flipping a coin?

What about an enlisted soldier who disobeys an unlawful order?

What do we say about a monk who lights himself on fire?

What do we say about an artist who, by refusing to go along with the pack, or compromised his or her own success in order to hold true to the message?

Each appears to suggest a different kind of logic.

Interesting examples. Let's look at how they sacrifice themselves for the collective:

Whistleblowers prioritise the weeding out of corruption over their individual wellbeing, because corruption harms the collective.

An ethical soldier disobeying rules, again puts himself in jeopardy in trying to preserve the integrity of the collective.

Monks who self-immolate do so in protest against the harms done to the collective by harsh policies.

An artist who maintains integrity rather than selling out sounds like me. I ended up having to do other work to pay the bills and created music that was largely ignored. That was more a matter of taste and ego than altruism. There are artists who get involved in politics and who like to think they are saving the world. These are the types who travel to climate change protests in private jets.

[Pattern-chaser]

My argument, however, is more reflexive: the definition of "territory = objective world" and "map = mental model" already makes use of a map.

I don't think it does. I think "map", in this context, is very like "boulder", a simple descriptive term invented for convenience, and carrying no more information than what it is descriptive *of*. Here, "map" says 'that's part of my world model, not part of the world, directly'.

To say “that’s part of my world model, not part of the world directly” already presupposes some mechanism by which we distinguish model from world. But how do we validate that distinction without already standing inside a model?

I think we *always* stand within our own world models. How else can humans reason? The Real World, raw, un-analysed, and uninterpreted, is not comprehensible to us. So I think your final sentence is a non-question?