Each area is united by a certain set of common principles.
That which we call ‘good’ in the moral sense is ‘just’ in the legal sense and ‘beautiful’ in the aesthetic sense; operationally or functionally the word ‘right’ or ‘fit’ would be used. As previously stated in my thread on aesthetics:
“Those things commonly deemed attractive are also signs of good health, fertility, and the like; such things are not subjective, but rather objective. Even the traits listed above are signs of the integrity, health, or functionality of the object, be it a chair, a building, a machine, etc. This would seem to reinforce my designation of life as the foundation of all ethically inquiry as well.”
Certain common traits bridge the gap between each valuation, from moral to aesthetic judgements. One of these traits is balance or symmetry. Rendered morally it is said that one “reaps what they sow”, whereas legally the “punishment should fit the crime”. The aesthetic application has already been cited; we tend to deem something beautiful when its parts are set together “just right”, and operationally the equivalent is stated when something “works well”. These differing terms and phrases describe equivalent conditions in differing contexts.
Interesting thoughts Jeremaiah. I’d been exploring similar ideas in my thread about “Moral Necessity”. I think many of the objections about what is right or wrong are silly because, certain actions are aesthetic in nature, and so to speak of “truth” in them is a misapplication of the term. If an action is defined by what it is intended to achieve, then the manner of verifying success is arguably not as profoundly difficult as many would say. I especially like your thinking about “just right” because it adds an interesting dimension to the aesthetic (be it in actions, objects or works): Beauty can be explained. That is to say, when you tell somebody what is supposed to be beautiful about a work or an act well enough, they may start to understand why it is beautiful, even if it doesn’t accord with their natural perception of beauty. “Can you not see it!” you might say, “Do you not know the origins of the story! Let me tell you, then.” Voltaire said that appreciation is a wonderful thing: It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well. Some great thinking here.
You are right in the sense that philosophy is a hierarchy. the principles of politics (law) are based on the principles of ethics (morality) and the principles of ethics are based on metaphysics and epistemology. The principles of aesthetics are also based on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
Since everything that exists obeys certain natural laws (identity, causality), these fundamental principles can necessarily explain a wide variety of phenomena.
‘The Good and the Just are the last,
Below all else in the chandala class.
Stripped of the power they’ve enjoyed thus far,
They’re sick to the core and their time must pass.’
This harmonic unity of abstract perceptions reflects the law of harmonics.
The following is extracted from something i wrote (not posted) on “The Law of Relative Harmonics”:
All vibrational phenomena, like sound, color, crystal vibration, electromagnetic waves, and consciousness itself exist on a single continuum of matter and energy, with apparently solid matter having the lowest vibrational range and Spiritual Consciousness having the highest vibrational range. The blending of the various phenomenal vibrational ranges is analogous to the colors of a rainbow. All said phenomena have both inter-range and range-specific harmonics or discordance produced by combinations of their elements’ vibrational speeds. The various harmonic relationships parallel those of ear-pleasing so-called “octaves” in music when they are played together. Every quality of consciousness has a corresponding quality of sound, color, etc. … The Pythagoreans deduced much, including their “music of the spheres”, presumably after studying musical string harmonics. Pythagoras gave beginning students a monochord (single-stringed instrument) and said if they studied it they would understand life.
The Powers of Two Vibrational Matrix:
2^0 = 1 (1)
2^1 = 2 (2)
2^2 = 4 (4)
2^3 = 8 (8) [frequency of planet Earth]
2^4 = 16 (7)
2^5 = 32 (5)
2^6 = 64 (1)
2^7 = 128 (2)
2^8 = 256 (4)
2^9 = 512 (8)
2^10 = 1024 (7)
2^11 = 2048 (5)
2^12 = 4096 (1)
2^13 = 8192 (2)
2^14 = 16384 (4)
2^15 = 32768 (8) [frequency of quartz crystal]
2^16 = 65536 (7)
2^17 = 131072 (5)
2^18 = 262144 (1)
And so on up to the highest vibrations of consciousness, which are presumed to begin with a power of 2 that reduces to 1 – but our happiness does not depend on knowing what the precise figures are!!
The most pleasing harmony involves powers of 2. For any reference vibration, its next highest harmonic is twice its vibration. Middle C and the C above it on the piano demonstrate this.
The reduced numbers in parentheses above show the endless series
2 - 4 - 8 - 7 - 5 - 1 or 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 7 - 5.
I checked out capitalism.org. It is very interesting. Because this “philosophical” (idealistic) capitalism is the polar opposite to my own position, I was delighted to read how naive it was. Impious, you should check it out. As an introduction, you could read the “Fascism is a form of socialism” thread in the Social Sciences forum.