Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "£1 BILLION for Slavery: Church of England Goes Mad + New Extremism Definition Threat to Free Speech" video.

  1. Translations, reductions, transformations, substitutions, sublimations, and annihilations and eliminations..to name a few. so Hume said virtues are really something else eg to be found rooted in human nature. Kant said the fixed metaphysical categories of philosophy with their contradictions are really, in time constituting processes, the logic that grounded the former, is superseded by a temporal logic, that diagnoses the contradictions and reoriented metaphysics to the subject. Hegel said that each epoch has its structure but within it lies the process to slide from one logical metaphysical category to another higher more rational mediation. Called sublimation. Feuerbach said Christianity is an alienation to a mythical transcendent object of all the good in man leaving behind the self interest. Marx said everything is really reducible to economic materialism. Nietzsche said science and rationalism has killed God but we just don't realise it yet. But he means killed Truth, experience, duty, the self and the subject too. Anscombe asks can there be morality without the God foundation after science has done away with God. Adorno and so on, that the logic of techno Capitalism, is actually commodifying the human into a thing like object of exchange and utility pragmatic self. Carnap there is no such thing as metaphysics its linguistic confusion. Wittgenstein metaphysics is the condensation of grammar. Quine and so on metaphysic can be read off the language we use they are inexplicit commitment we make in propositions. Brain and computer science says man is a cybernetic system. Naturalism everything is nature and nature is discovered by myriad scientific methods. Man is a self interested object in nature. Social Justice means equality and diversity by concepts will dissolve away traditional naturalisms and their metaphysics for a new teleological process of categorical change over time. Man is orientated to construct an institution of institutions for the ultimate just calculation. A definition is motley of many of these, some even by choice some by context of use some for political economic reasons, and even can be internally contradictory. Just as definition had its shape in the medieval world that preceded the above, so now it sits among language logic and law and politics. The big shift might be definition was understood in some natural logical sense and only then moved into law and politics. now its more a pragmatism for politicians wherein many possible routes can be taken depending on affordances. One thing seems clear after the political turn in jurisprudence, that the question of definition is asked in terms first of its legal shape and usefulness for a project and only after that is there any other claim to base the definition. And so is contested before the law which adjudicates from the law to everywhere else in the intellectual world. this aspect of the law as justice through judicial process is the new reduction of metaphysic to legal judgment in the widest sense of justifications going anywhere, even everywhere. the law the courts and judgment has become the new context and engine of metaphysics jsut like the use of language was thought to be 50 years ago and time 200 years ago. Ironically this brings judgement dependent metaphysics back into the medieval context of a dialectics of opposites as a quasi legal battle. in a way within the limits of minimal legal coherence and scientific pragmatic fit. The first question is what do you want the law and the institutions to do, and then ask what definition will best serve this, what science of hypothetical efficiency can cohere in this as a legal utility and what if any metaphysics s does this commit me to. Maybe we need to return to the medieval dialectic since today all begins with law and only from the law retroactively selects sciences and so on. it would be a good tool to make explicit jsut wants going on here in all this with politics and the law. I proposed something like this to a law discussion group around the Johnny Depp Amber Herd trail on line, after watching the first and maybe second day of the case. I hadn't got time to watch any more, but it turned out later that my post on "the metaphysics of the law" was placed at the top of all the comments, and it wasn't some random bloke in his bedroom but a proper hard core legal firm in New York or something. i turned the lot on definition negation and essences. I joked that the lawyers might be well up for this since these ideas have not jsut never been settle but it seems are constructed both to be necessary but both to be to be contradictory and irresolvable. It is here and it is now so perhaps: a) metaphysics and definition must begin with the law just as in 20th century it began with language and 19th with process and progress, 18th with psychology, 17th physics, 16th economics and politics. or b) this is exactly the wrong way round, and just as Bernard Williams was wrong to say Wittgenstein was a linguistic idealist, and so the law is secondary reflective and mediating representation. This debate takes off with the first edition of P.M.S, Hacker "Insight and Illusion: Wittgenstein on Philosophy and the Metaphysics of Experience" (1972). It should be read with the context of Strawson's "Kant The Bounds of Sense" and descriptive metaphysics and Bennett "Kant's Analytic". The point of the dialectic disputations on definition is not so much a use to get an answer but rather to make explicit covert and hidden meanings behind what is going on with some law and policy ..., what it might really means and do behind the simple case and reason and account. Call the politicians and academics and sciences to the dock of medieval metaphysical disputations from definitions. see Umberto Ecco "The island on the Edge of Tomorrow". Imagine the horror on the face of the authority or the official the public servant when they get the letter summoning them to the "metaphysical disputation" to call their ontology to account. Imagine too when they phone their £1,000 an hour lawyer who says "Sorry mate I'm a lawyer not a metaphysician".
    1