Posted: May 24, 2016 9:26 pm
tolman wrote:
Why 'equally', as opposed to 'fairly', 'appropriately', 'efficiently', or some other criteria?
It was just an example, I didn't really weigh all the words I was using. But you are right, 'equally' is not the correct word; not sure what would be. I meant to say was something like: everyone receives what they need, no more, no less, keeping in mind everyone's needs are different.
@BWE: I'm not sure if I misunderstand you, or you me?
I am not looking to prevent map-territory errors. Although I guess that would be an implicit, and impossible, side effect. I am looking for a base of reference. A logical reference cannot, in my view, depend on neither the collective opinion of the majority nor the ideological delusions of a dictator. To me this seems the same difference.
The territory is the only immutable, objective thing we have. Our knowledge of it may not be perfect or complete, and it may never be. But it is the only common reference point all humans (life?) share.
I am not advocating anything, I am merely trying to understand why people compare their maps to each others instead of lining them up to the territory. Since the latter will line up their maps to each other as well and the former does not guarantee realism. This 'eliminates' any errors, since those would then be common (universal) as well; at least until our knowledge of the territory changes/improves.
Is it realistic to think humans are capable of creating a world like that? No, I don't believe so. I am not a fanatic or an extremist who wants to impose his worldview on others. My problem is that I feel that others impose their view on me without any rational, empirical proof whatsoever and expect me to be able to build a life with those imaginary tools that only exist on their maps and can change whenever.