I don't need to educate anyone on the concepts... if they want to know, they can look it up in a legal dictionary.
If you are looking to understand a philosophical concept, you don't go to a dictionary. It is the wrong tool for the job. Like using a straw to loosen a bolt. A concept like that has to be
explained, not simply defined.
Besides, when it comes to philosophical concepts and whole philosophies, dictionary definitions are more concerned with the
appearances of the philosophy, those real world applications. Not in the thought process behind them and their justification.
I wanted to get to the interesting part - at least to me.
The philosophical discussion and how it arrives at the real world application
is interesting and
necessary if you are to fully and accurately understand the concept. You have to understand the thought process involved to connect the abstract to the concrete or you do not understand the concept.
A logical argument going from the abstract to the more concrete, from broad to specific, is not necessarily logical in the other direction. "A" can lead to "B" but "B" doesn't necessarily lead to "A". If I ram my car, head on, into a wall, the front end of the car will be smashed up. But if the front end of the car is smashed up, that doesn't mean that the car was run, head on, into a wall. To only attempt to understand a philosophical concept by working backwards makes the concept incoherent and inherently distorts that concept.
And looking only at the real world examples to understand a philosophical concept inherently distorts it as well. This is reflected in Plato's Theory of the Forms, specifically his idea of the sensible world and the intelligible world. The sensible world is made up of things about which opinions can be formed through sense perception; the material world. The intelligible world is made up of things about which knowledge can be acquired, not through sense perception, but through intellect alone. Sensible forms
imperfectly imitate, exemplify or participate in the intelligible forms. Any knowledge of the intelligible through the sensible is crude and simplistic at best. Again, see the story of the blind man and the elephant for a great analogy of this.
Any understanding of a philosophical concept through only real world reflections of that concept can only every be crude, distorted and exceedingly simplistic at best.
I am not seeking to confuse or mislead anyone - I am discussing the interesting part.
You'll forgive me if I don't take you at your word. The one benefit of the approach you take is that it allows for a lot of distortion and spin to make the idea fit your preconceived notions.
Past discussions of Natural Rights and Justice where you fought against going through the process of the abstract to the concrete demonstrated to me that you were not interested in an honest, accurate explanation of those ideas nor were you truly interested in understanding the point I was raising.
In fact, in one of those encounters, I
think you even said you like to start focusing on real world examples because it "throws me off" or "takes me out of my comfort zone" or some such nonsense. Those aren't the actions of someone truly interested in understanding alternative points of view. But they
are the actions of someone looking to confuse the issue.
A habitual pattern of this kind of crap is why there is no good faith or trust between us. I agree with Cal, I would love for you to discuss stuff honestly, consistently, and not constantly misrepresent and spin. But since that is not an option, my only interest is in making sure your distortions are shown for what they are.
