Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Kant

What is Justice?

37 posts in this topic
6 minutes ago, SkyBright said:

 Was thinking more along the lines of alignment with the law or being brought into agreement with the law, either to condemnation or justification. But sure, I guess it would be justice to assess accurately that someone is a race measured by nature (biological law). look at Rachel Dolezal, who calls herself "transracial."

She says that her race is not predetermined by her biology. she undertakes efforts to change her appearance. She's under judgment from a biological law already set outside man's purview (as are we all); a law  or predetermined "rule" that is different from a man-made law. We all are subject to it. 

Rachel might argue that it was unjust that she was born white thus she determines to make herself black and make herself "align" with a different law, the one she thinks is higher, which is her cognitive ability to override nature through the power of her own will and belief 

so we have competing or differing laws, and therefore differing  justices. these are all expressions of the "form" or "ideal" justice.

So you are trying to say "Yes, Justice is alignment with the law, regardless of said law's content, moral or ethical context".

So if the law of the land is that there is a king and he owns two thirds of what you got, it would be "unjust" of you to refuse to follow it, and it would be "just" of you to abide by it. Or, if we go to Godwin, It was "just" to diligently track and deport jews, and "unjust" to protect them or show mercy.

I am sure you are aware that you are pretty much alone in that understanding of Justice, because it's exactly the same as "legal", "allowed" or "lawful". Useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SkyBright said:

 Was thinking more along the lines of alignment with the law or being brought into agreement with the law, either to condemnation or justification. But sure, I guess it would be justice to assess accurately that someone is a race measured by nature (biological law). look at Rachel Dolezal, who calls herself "transracial."

She says that her race is not predetermined by her biology. she undertakes efforts to change her appearance. She's under judgment from a biological law already set outside man's purview (as are we all); a law  or predetermined "rule" that is different from a man-made law. We all are subject to it. 

Rachel might argue that it was unjust that she was born white thus she determines to make herself black and make herself "align" with a different law, the one she thinks is higher, which is her cognitive ability to override nature through the power of her own will and belief 

so we have competing or differing laws, and therefore differing  justices. these are all expressions of the "form" or "ideal" justice.

Aside from what slade has already pointed out, I'm having trouble with the presupposed intent in nature that is projected upon it by statements such as "biological law".

Furthermore, would you call Rachel's behavior "unnatural"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, slade19 said:

So you are trying to say "Yes, Justice is alignment with the law, regardless of said law's content, moral or ethical context".

So if the law of the land is that there is a king and he owns two thirds of what you got, it would be "unjust" of you to refuse to follow it, and it would be "just" of you to abide by it. Or, if we go to Godwin, It was "just" to diligently track and deport jews, and "unjust" to protect them or show mercy.

I am sure you are aware that you are pretty much alone in that understanding of Justice, because it's exactly the same as "legal", "allowed" or "lawful". Useless.

Useless wasn't my intent but being useful wasn't either. 

 
 
...... added to this post 14 minutes later:
 
50 minutes ago, NSchet said:

Aside from what slade has already pointed out, I'm having trouble with the presupposed intent in nature that is projected upon it by statements such as "biological law".

Furthermore, would you call Rachel's behavior "unnatural"?

I was reading this the other day:

False Allure of the Natural State of Man

 I'd say it's natural. "nature" is paradoxical and oxymoronic and full of struggle and competition and peace and serenity all at the same time  

So I would say she is very "natural," at war with herself and the world. what other state would be more natural than that?

i was pointing how one perspective of law may assess justice differently from another; but there is still the primal or ideal form of law and Justice.

we can't unknow law or justice in an abstract form so does it exist? It's the millennia old realist-idealist struggle.  

 

 
 
...... added to this post 39 minutes later:
 

Everything that is in nature, is natural. 

Including all my crazy thoughts that don't make sense to other people. Including my caring and not caring at the same time. But when we talk about justice as this thread is about, we are not taking about the natural (physic). We are talking about something supernatural (metaphysic). 

Metaphysic is alien/pointless/useless to pragmatists and utilitarians and even also to the metaphysical oriented person, they just don't assign value to it based on its utility. It's an interest, a love, or something else. I'm not here to be used or to useful to anyone. I'm not even exactly sure why I'm here. It's not like that information is useful.... maybe you're looking to my post for utility and you're frustrated/confused because it has none. The same reason concepts such as mercy and justice confound people? Like algebra, they just don't have use for such things, and when life is all about utility then philosophical and metaphysical discussions are just  incoherent jumbo jumbo. 

Edited by SkyBright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyBright said:

Metaphysic is alien/pointless/useless to pragmatists and utilitarians and even also to the metaphysical oriented person, they just don't assign value to it based on its utility. It's an interest, a love, or something else. I'm not here to be used or to useful to anyone. I'm not even exactly sure why I'm here. It's not like that information is useful.... maybe you're looking to my post for utility and you're frustrated/confused because it has none. The same reason concepts such as mercy and justice confound people? Like algebra, they just don't have use for such things, and when life is all about utility then philosophical and metaphysical discussions are just  incoherent jumbo jumbo. 

Skybright, you are taking a complicated concept that people have argued for millenia about, then reducing it to a trivial reality that is barely congruent to it in most discussions; a little like saying "food" is basically "eggs", in some cases it may be true but you ignore all cases when eggs are not edible and when other things are edible.

Discussing your version of Justice is absolutely uninteresting because it amounts to asking the question "well what does the law say?". The concept loses all meaning of its own. It has neither Pragmatical nor Metaphysical value.

 
 
...... added to this post 5 minutes later:
 

To give you a practial example: if everyone believes Life is reducible to applications of natural laws, then the whole metaphysics around "élan vital" and other concepts attributes of living things immediately seize to be interesting, let alone useful.

You are denying "Justice" the right to exist and be discussed by claiming it amounts to the legality of an action.

Edited by slade19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, slade19 said:

Skybright, you are taking a complicated concept that people have argued for millenia about, then reducing it to a trivial reality that is barely congruent to it in most discussions; a little like saying "food" is basically "eggs", in some cases it may be true but you ignore all cases when eggs are not edible and when other things are edible.

Discussing your version of Justice is absolutely uninteresting because it amounts to asking the question "well what does the law say?". The concept loses all meaning of its own. It has neither Pragmatical nor Metaphysical value.

 
 
...... added to this post 5 minutes later:
 

To give you a practial example: if everyone believes Life is reducible to applications of natural laws, then the whole metaphysics around "élan vital" and other concepts attributes of living things immediately seize to be interesting, let alone useful.

You are denying "Justice" the right to exist and be discussed by claiming it amounts to the legality of an action.

You say all that as if the concept losing meaning is a bad thing. 

I do find your comments interesting ... not because of the topic but because of the disingenuous nature.

First you say my perspective is useless. Now you say it is uninteresting. 

But yet you seem to find my comments both useful and interesting. 

You've exhibited a lot of interest in my statements. Targeted for sniping? 

You want to establish intellectual supremacy and dominance over me and perhaps show others your prowess. You find my posts useful to this end - either because they are low hanging fruit, which means you only go after the easy targets; or because I'm a threat and a hard target, and all the other posts are too easy, and you like a challenge. Either way, I don't care, but it seems to me, that calling my perspective uninteresting is the wrong word choice. Except, you are playing the same game we all play, to fly under the radar of moderation, and so your personal attacks are hedged and your language isn't as precise as it could be. 

What I think is your instigating a mob, and these are your signals to others, that there is someone different who needs to be pecked out of town. I'm using mob in the sense of mobbing, which is a biological phenomenon and a sociological one as well. It's not something people plan, it's just something that happens and arises in "nature." Watch the Hitchcock movie The Birds and look up mobbing. It could be an interesting discussion re: justice too. 

Is justice a part of nature? Or is it something we cognitive creatures built to go against nature? 

Edited by SkyBright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being soulful is different then "being a construct,".....so there is something innate?  Our projection into the world we apply the construct of what Justice is to be?  We understand variance then, in the objectified world, but do we understand what is innate as being soulful and mindful as the soul?

Quote

In philosophy "first principles" are also commonly referred to as a priori terms and arguments, which are contrasted to a posteriori terms, reasoning or arguments, in that the former are simply assumed and exist prior to the reasoning process and the latter are "posterior" meaning deduced or inferred in the reasoning process. First Principles are generally treated in the realm of philosophy known as epistemology, but are an important factor in any metaphysical speculation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle#Philosophy_in_general

Quote

Definition of a priori

1a :  deductive

b :  relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions

— compare a posterioric :  presupposed by experience

2a :  being without examination or analysis :  presumptive

b :  formed or conceived beforehand

Quote

In philosophy "First principles" is often somewhat interchangeable and synonymous with a priori, datum and axiom or axiomatic reasoning/method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle#Philosophy_in_general

How is the soul recognized as fist principle if one does not come to understand the self evident question of what the infinite regress takes you too? Where is Heaven to come from, "as the logic,"  so as to be but the beginning?

Quote

A theory can be either descriptive as in science, or prescriptive (normative) as in philosophy.[12] The latter are those whose subject matter consists not of empirical data, but rather of ideas. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Where do ideas come from?

Edited by PlatoHagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PlatoHagel said:

Being soulful is different then "being a construct,".....so there is something innate?  Our projection into the world we apply the construct of what Justice is to be?  We understand variance then, in the objectified world, but do we understand what is innate as being soulful and mindful as the soul?

How is the soul recognized as fist principle if one does not come to understand the self evident question of what the infinite regress takes you too? Where is Heaven to come from, "as the logic,"  so as to be but the beginning?

Where do ideas come from?

They are like air in the lungs; a stream through consciousness inhaled and exhaled. (By analogy)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

 

 
 
...... added to this post 1 minute later:
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

"in the air"

Edited by SkyBright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Consciousness" is sensed by the transfer of information that is constantly there embuing our existence? I like Philo's point taken from wiki logos:

"Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos ("the uttered word") and the logos endiathetos ("the word remaining within").[14] The Stoics also spoke of the logos spermatikos (the generative principle of the Universe), which is not important in the Biblical tradition but is relevant in Neoplatonism.[15]"

but the distinguishing between the two is "academic" for discussion only? To see that it is the same. As this regards to justice: an alignment of the one justice within to the whole. A communication. A tuning in. That's it. Removal of interference is our biggest issue. Maybe? 

Edited by SkyBright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/04/2017 at 6:12 PM, Kant said:

These are just a few ideas that I recalled from the top of my head, but I want to know what you guys think— what is "right" and what is "wrong"? What is "just" and what is "unjust"?

I suppose that in circumstances when I'm not trying to communicate with people who use the words differently, I would prefer to use the term "right" to refer to anything that I would not feel guilty about, and "just" to refer to whatever is in accordance with laws that the people concerned consent to live under.

As such, "just" is a subset of "fair", which would be in accordance with any agreement, not necessarily a law. But restricting "just" to legal matters would only be in order to acknowledge its derivation - in practice it often tends to be used as a synonym for "fair". And then of course there are times when people use "justice" as a euphemism for "revenge".

 
 
...... added to this post 4 minutes later:
 
On 18/04/2017 at 8:14 PM, Monte314 said:

"Justice" is when someone receives both the "good" and "bad" that they deserve

"Mercy" is when someone does *not* receive the "bad" they deserve.

"Fair" is when everyone receives exactly the same thing (whether it is "good" for all, or "bad" for all).

Examples:

Fairness:  equal misery for all (e.g., the projects in Detroit and Chicago, Venezuela today). 

Justice and Mercy:  God is the Judge of All the Earth.  Some choose to receive Mercy; the rest choose to receive Justice.

So you would never say (as other people often do) that someone "deserves" justice? (Since that would just be tautology by your definition).

Your definitions do then lead to the question of how you define "deserve".

Wouldn't it be less confusing to simply use the term "equal" to describe when everyone receives the same thing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-04-22 at 9:42 AM, SkyBright said:

They are like air in the lungs; a stream through consciousness inhaled and exhaled. (By analogy)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

 

 
 
...... added to this post 1 minute later:
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

"in the air"

Am spending some time to mull this over..... and , then seen second entry underneath.  I wondered if you would add more to your examples. I am still thinking deeply about mind as to the rationalizations that would lead to being more soulful rather than, EGO orientated. Historically speaking, how would such an understanding of Justice regarded as being more soulful move from life to life?

Quote

The source of this illumination for the intellect is referred to as the Form of the Good. On the other hand, in the Meno for example, Plato's Socrates explains the theory of anamnesis whereby people are born with ideas already in their soul, which they somehow remember from previous lives. Both theories were to become highly influential. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous#Plato

There is a distinction here that mind has an intellect,  as to what is perceptive to say,  that we already have the knowledge but have just forgotten? To remember? Objectification orientated takes us further away from what is already inherent and innate and clouds the Judgement? Uncertainty? But when we remember?

Quote

Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, “sun is not sight” but it is “the cause of sight itself.” As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is “what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower”. It is not only the “cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good#Uses_in_The_Republic

How would you know then, what is right or wrong. Social Justice is an objectified construct......but the word "in the beginning" would lead to all objectified expressions. So you are looking for something deeply inherent in each soul. The word leads too, logic and reason, so again we are after something much deeper and profound?

Rickster,  I was looking for years as to ways in which to discern  "colors being most expressed" as the most fundamental level as telling of what is beyond the words.

Edited by PlatoHagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A social construct to allow others to think that acceptable repercussions are taking place to accomodate those who are in powers' ability to influence what is considered correct or incorrect behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PlatoHagel said:

Am spending some time to mull this over..... and , then seen second entry underneath.  I wondered if you would add more to your examples. I am still thinking deeply about mind as to the rationalizations that would lead to being more soulful rather than, EGO orientated. Historically speaking, how would such an understanding of Justice regarded as being more soulful move from life to life?

There is a distinction here that mind has an intellect,  as to what is perceptive to say,  that we already have the knowledge but have just forgotten? To remember? Objectification orientated takes us further away from what is already inherent and innate and clouds the Judgement? Uncertainty? But when we remember?

How would you know then, what is right or wrong. Social Justice is an objectified construct......but the word "in the beginning" would lead to all objectified expressions. So you are looking for something deeply inherent in each soul. The word leads too, logic and reason, so again we are after something much deeper and profound?

Rickster,  I was looking for years as to ways in which to discern  "colors being most expressed" as the most fundamental level as telling of what is beyond the words.

"

As a natural consequence of their insistence on the undiminished relevance of the past, the Neoplatonists developed their characteristically speculative brand of philosophical enquiry in which empirical facts tended to serve as illustrations rather than heuristic starting points or test cases. Today, the Neoplatonic system may strike one as lofty, counterintuitive, and implausible, but to dismiss it out of hand is difficult, especially if one is prepared to take seriously a few fundamental assumptions that are at least not obviously wrong and may possibly be right.

The most fundamental of these assumptions, which the Neoplatonists shared with the majority of intellectuals of the ancient world, including most pre-Socratic thinkers as well as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and their followers, is that mindful consciousness (nous, often translated as thought, intelligence, or intellect) is in an important sense ontologically prior to the physical realm typically taken for ultimate reality (Mind over Matter). There existed a dispute between Plato and Aristotle over whether or not the objects of mindful consciousness (abstract concepts, Platonic or otherwise, numbers, geometrical properties, and so forth) are also ontologically prior, but the Neoplatonists regarded this fact as a matter of inconsequential detail. And so, following a venerable and abiding tradition of Mind over Matter, Neoplatonism inevitably turned out to be an idealist type of philosophy.

The second assumption, which the Neoplatonists shared with the Stoics and the Hermetists (an influential group of Egyptian religious thinkers that predate the rise of Neoplatonism), was that reality, in all its cognitive and physical manifestations, depended on a highest principle which is unitary and singular. Neoplatonic philosophy is a strict form of principle-monism that strives to understand everything on the basis of a single cause that they considered divine, and indiscriminately referred to as “the First”, “the One”, or “the Good”. Since it is reasonable to assume, as the Neoplatonists did, that any efficient cause is ontologically prior to, and hence more real, than its effect, then, in the hierarchy of being, the first principle, whatever it is, cannot be less “real” than the phenomena it is supposed to explain. Given the veracity of the first assumption (the ontological priority of intelligence and consciousness), it follows at once that the first principle must be a principle of consciousness. In consequence, the fundamental challenge all Neoplatonists struggled to meet was essentially the following: How are we to understand and describe the emergence of the universe, with all its diverse phenomena, as the effect of a singular principle of consciousness? In particular—and in this regard Neoplatonism shares certain concerns with modern cosmology—how is it possible to understand the emergence of the physical, material universe from a singularity that is in every sense unlike this universe? Their answer to this question was entirely new, and went far beyond any prior cosmic aetiology, including that of Plato’s Timaeus, in elegance and sophistication."

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/

Using "in the air" and "in the clouds" are just analogies for consciousness (or nous), that the first principle of "the good" is the starting conscious principle that is objective "mono" principle yet capably gives rise to a diverse subjective multi phenomenon that is unlike itself in the individual consciousness of people. So soul:ego in the way I think you are using them are like the singular  "monprinciple consciousness":"diverse phenomena" unlike but out of the "monoprinciple". 

As it relates to justice, justice is one of the diverse and unique virtues that are also all created by the  Good monoprinciple. And which manifest after consciousness into phenomenon that might be called earthy as compared to atmospheric. 

Whereas even earthy would be atmospheric as the mist is low to the ground and permeates our lungs  

Not sure if this is in any way what you were expecting or useful. 

 
 
...... added to this post 22 minutes later:
 

Also the outer effect we see -- concrete examples such as a law code and prisons are emanating  from an inner code? The inner code shared universally because everything emanated from the same source, while the outer effects that emanate may be arguable, this virtue of justice emanated from the 'Monoprinciple"

sounds absurd but so does the flip side consciousness emanating from matter. 

Edited by SkyBright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now