Social Contract

There’s a number of problems with that supposed “theory”, and I think there are also a number of means with which to disspell it; particularly as the myth that it is.

I think it would make for a real interesting debate. Hume seems to be the only rational man in history to have ever tried to make the point ~ that’s it is utter bullshit from the word “go”.

The idea that we are all n a social contract is completely defensible.

What isn’t defensible is the credibility of said contract.

The contract is in idealistic joke. The only contract we sign is one that ties our quality of life to the amount of money in our pockets. case closed.

I don’t necessarily see that; ie. the criminal.

Their persistent presence says that only some are invovled, less actively even. The sovereign creates a serious issue for the entire premise.

Not withstanding, “currency” can have broad and virtually unending definitional possibilities; it forces vagaries to extrapolate.

Your “quality of life” statement for instance; currency for creating servitude or outright enslavement.

In order to have language, names must be conventional. How they are manipulated must be conventional.
There, in that, one sees a contract.
Since the convention derives from biological origins (we name what we percieve), the contract then reduces to biological origins.

As the lack of knowledge does not prove non-existence, the lack of ability to follow a train of reason does not prove that a reason does not exist.

Since by definition, the function of the human mind is to effect human will, the addition and subtraction of human will, called social organization, is part of what man is. Or in Aristotles terms, man is a political animal. This fact is directly derived from what sentience is.

Aristotle’s opinion about man and his “will” is not fact; it is presumption.

Neuroscience says we operate on an inherently different level; genetic pressures in conjunction with “on the fly” brain mappings.

Hence, the criminal element. They aren’t necessarily “thinking”, as much as acting on primal drive.

They nullify the contract.

Looks like we might have something going. Phil, are you taking up the challenge? If so, work out the parameters so we can make this happen.

Unfortunatly that is not possible. I have said before, that since language is not yet conventional, man is pre-literate. You can take an example though, of those languages we use that are very near conventional, i.e. truer grammars.

Take a blueprint for a building. If you neither agreed with yourself, or with others, as to the meaning of say, an inch. you could not construct the building. You have to be able to see the idea for what it is. There is a world of examples around you already, where convention in language makes it possible for you to have a TV, radio, car telephone, and if you are not able to abstract the meaning from endless examples around you, no one can put it there.

I have been an electronics tech, I have been a welder, machine repair, dish washer, I have had to kick a team of trades people off my machine, who were trying to make it run, unable to do it for 3 days because I took a vacation, make them undo all they have done and show them like a child, that there was nothing wrong with the machine, they just did not understand metal cutting. in everthing the examples are all around you. Look at history, and the building of empires, the enforcement of standards made them happen, and the neglect of standards made them fall.

One of the most important statements Plato made was about measurement being the salvation of man, he meant the standardization of language itself.

It is a long way from being there. History is a bloody example of man learning language and what it means for his survival.

I use to read sci fie endlessly until I noticed something–the limits of man’s imagination. He could imagine greater than and less than in things relating to all his body sense system’s save 1, his own mind. He puts cowboys in the distant past, and in the distant future. He cannot imagine beyond his own current psychology. The best he could do is transferrance, thinking his mind was his hands, or his legs. Simple minded transferrance of function. It is people like Plato, Euclid, etc, whose real significance remains unknown, for man cannot, by reading, attain to understanding of things their mind cannot yet abstract.

So your challenge, I have to decline. I hope you see why.