Fallacy of Units---Concept 'Equality'

[Tomer Ravid]

Or: A Concept is not simply "a group of units".

I recognized a new abstraction fallacy: the form of any collectivism \ democracy. I was proven to know it in a geography lesson: When our teacher determined that middle east 'cannot be clearly defined' since it has no actual distinguishing characteristics. To show that, she observed any of "them" apart, but this fallacy is a lesser interest to me.

Consider the following couples of true proposition without the following application for example:

(i) NZ is a country

(ii) One cannot get from Hong Kong to NZ by a bus

(i) 2 is a number

(ii) 1+1 does not equal 0

(i) Man, whose concept is based upon a group of common attributes, has rights

(ii) Blessed reliefs have no rights

The fallacy is the disdifferentiation of a concept and its units. It is the circular equality of "equals" and simply "is a private case of". (In circular I mean, in context, as follows: Since identity (and thus the symbol "=") is an axiomatic concept, its theft requires an axiomatic reference as well: "Equals" IS 'is', 2 + 2 is 4, but 2 + 2 is an arithmetical verse as well. When you assume that identical = consist of some noted common attributes, and thus that consists of some noted common attributes = identical, you assume this assumption ahead: "Equals" is to "is" as "2" is to "number".)

It assumes that every brunch of particles in the world is an ultimate result of a 'humane arbitrary process of defining common characteristics' (an evident description of concept formation), and thus considers any independent, direct, research of them 'anti conceptual'. Its ultimate consequence is the destruction of the law of identity, or more specifically the belief that the nature of things depends on the first cause of a certain volitional process of man's consciousness. Its errors are, both in metaphysics and in epistemology, as follows:

The thought that units have no identity, that A is not A, and an foreseeable existence, and the misunderstanding of the origin of concepts: finding them arbitrary beings which exist automatically in man's mind. Any self contradiction one may find in this failure, in the 'primacy of abstraction' (in order to identity) in particular, is a result of the above.

In regard to the noted geography lesson: In reality, a unit need not have any 'distinguishing characteristics' (in context to the middle east, certainly not intentional ones) except from the fact you noted it as an individual unit; be it expressed in its exact location or its period according to a given standard. The pick I'm currently holding in my hands doesn't have to be on any less abstract concept than 'pick': Nor does it matter if I hold it or throw it away.

In a given stead one participle, or two distinct points always completely determine one straight line. In effect, each of my pick's specific points determine a specific matter and its and a hair from my eyebrow's edge completely determine a specific straight line.

[dream_weaver]

Let's take a little look at history.

Prior to the discovery of the Americas, the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa were considered the known world at the time.

With Asia to the east, and Europe and Africa to the west, many areas in the middle were referred to the near-east at the time.

Considering that the Americas were discovered and then its population and resulting civilization were predominately from the western portion of the 'then known' world, America is considered the west. From America (which is referred to as 'the west') the 'old-world' is all to the east. Europe and Africa become 'near-east', the Mediterranean or central portion the 'middle-east' with India and China being now referred to as the 'far-east'.

Philosophically, civilization tends to take on some characteristics that have been classified as 'western' semi-democratic/republics. The 'far-east' is viewed as the Asian or Chinese authoritarian / totalitarian oligarchy with figurehead leaders, and the 'tribalism' of the middle east being a loose catch-all, if you will.

Religiously, the old-west and now the Americas are predominately 'western religions' - Christianity and Judaism, contrasted against what are referred to as the eastern religions, Hindu, Confucius, Jainism, Shinto, and the middle east predominately Muslim.

It may be a failure here to just distinguish some of the crucial differences here.

[Tomer Ravid]

Assuming it is not posted here by mistake instead of at 'political philosophy': it is a context dropping.

The context of the thread is not 'After a teacher in my high-school had done an epistemological fallacy in her things, I wonder if there IS such thing as the middle east,' but 'After a teacher in my high-school denied the existence of the middle east I wonder about her epistemological fallacy.'

Geography lessons are the last thing one shall find talking about in my free-time. This thread is merely about an epistemological fallacy.

[dream_weaver]

I would concur with context-dropping. I guess I got carried away with identifying some of the various aspects that gave rise to the concept.