So in one of my medieval fantasy short stories, this is the area that has lots of ORIGINAL philosophy in it. It's supposed to "sound" right and mixes logic with feeling. It tries to avoid reason. "But Leila did not know that fear was not the opposite of bravery – bravery wasn’t an emotion. There was a history of that in the Holy Roman Empire (not just Lestia), but no proof of reason, not one satisfactory to Plato or Plutarch. Proof of reason is high, but history is higher. And bravery is higher than reason, all of Lestia was sure of that, even though there was no proof of reason that motivation was higher than change. The Renaissance was… maybe high. The Renaissance was high? The scientific method was used to govern the entire world, remember? Science is high, but motivation is higher. But science could not prove bravery wasn’t an emotion. If science didn’t explain bravery (bravery not being an emotion is obvious: bravery not being an emotion is already explained), it couldn’t explain the world. Science is high, but the world is higher. Which hierarchy doesn’t matter – that’s what higher means now. History is higher than proof of reason. Proof of reason is high, but history is higher. If there wasn’t a history of that before, there is a history right now. Being right is high, but motivation is higher. It’s not vague anymore; vagueness is high, but history is higher. Was proof of reason used there? Death is high, but history is higher (a different meaning of history). Reason is high, but there is one kind of logic that is higher. Common sense is higher than reason as well, explaining unusual things normally unexplainable, but often times more restricted in scope. But the scientific method being used to explain the whole world wasn’t reason. Motivation will be higher. It will set the record straight. The scientific method offering an explanation of a phenomenon is high, but explaining the whole world is higher. Now it’s not vague anymore. Now there is a definition of 'high' and 'higher.' Vagueness is high, but history is higher." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So a) do you believe bravery is not an emotion and if you know it's true, does that prove science can't explain it, therefore science can't explain everything? (it's closer to common sense, but I don't think it is) b) about, motivation being higher than change, it's true I think, because motivation can drive change. Yes, these are abstract concepts, but I believe abstract things do exist. c) Bravery being higher than reason: if it were the other way around, you would never ever have to use bravery over reason and we do know that it happens in the world, using bravery, that is, just acting and not thinking much. Therefore, bravery in the short times it happens, is higher than reason. d) This whole x is high, y is higher thing, is a dual hierarchy. There are hierarchies in this world, and they are a list of things. But when talking about x is high, y is higher, it not only appeals to the emotions, it is true regardless of the list hierarchy. A dual hierarchy can cover many list hierarchies (actually it should cover all to be true), but it is only true of two things in relation to one another. e) X is high, y is higher actually means x is finite and y is infinite and that is why there is this hierarchy. The way it's described is to invoke feeling. When you do x is high, y is higher; y is high, z is higher; so x is high, z is higher. That is actually a fail and not true because of my infinite/finite satisfaction. This x is high, y is higher is limited to two things as far as I can tell. f) The finale and climax of the argument "Vagueness is high, but history is higher:" if something is vague, but there is a history to that something, then the history of that something explains and cancels out the vagueness. "Death is high, but history is higher:" a different meaning of history here, not the history of an idea, but the history of the past. Death will never overcome the preservation of history that is abstract. In fact, if you believe real time travel is ever possible, then you believe that you won't disappear forever when you die. Because to disappear, all abstract things about you would have to cease to exist. g) "Being right is high, but motivation is higher."Finally some common sense here. Of course motivation is higher because sometimes you are being motivated to be right but that doesn't guarantee it. h) Does this passage invoke feelings within you? That was the point, even though it is partly logical. Do you like how the logic is phrased in this passage? P.S. anyone know of any good psychology discussion forums where I can post this? P.P.S. Can you think of any other "x is high, y is higher" arguments that are true?
I might be late to the party, but as a 19-year old student in computer science who worships art AND logic, I could not resist giving an answer. a) everything is explainable by the scientific method, or nothing. It makes no claim to describe the true nature of something, just what approximates it most. Bravery could be explained by evolutionary theory: if those of your ancestors who were cowards died more and reproduced less, then the it makes sense that you have the bravery gene. b) I apologize for the "concretist" in me coming through, but I need to know what you mean by higher. It seems more like a theological than philosophical expression the way you use it, as if defining it would ruin its meaning. c) this question seems a bit confused... bravery is not something that has to override reason (be "higher"), it can very much exist in parallel. If reason tells me to do something I'm afraid of, and I muster all the bravery I can to do it, then they will have been equally important for the task. d) disagree, but I may be misunderstanding. I think you have to justify the claim that everything is in relation to each other with regards to one hierarchy, since different hierarchies exist along different metrics. e) if you use "higher" meaning "infinitely higher", I agree with you that the mathematical principle of transitivity doesn't hold true, as infinity can't be treated as a number or compared. I can't think abstract enough to answer the rest. My question in the first place is, why abstract words so much that they become intangible to reality? It doesn't seem very useful, besides forcing my brain to think outside the box and training my creative muscle (which it certainly has and I've enjoyed). But most of the work is done trying to interpret what you mean rather than focusing on the content of what you're saying. Also, what you're doing here is not really philosophy but rather poetry. Only in poetry is abstraction designed to arouse feeling, rather than relate to concrete matters in a complex way. When you say "logic", I think it means "making sense viewed in these absract terms", which is definitely not what most people would agree logic is, and certainly not its formal definition. As for feelings: a lot of confusion not that that's a bad thing. And this definitely has nothing to do with psychology I like the way you think. I believe you should try poetry!
