Hey, I was wondering what this means and why is it important (necessary to understanding Oism (as implied by being in OPAR)).
I don’t understand the principle, but I know it focuses on the metaphysical as opposed to the man-made.
But, why focus on the metaphysical as opposed to the man-made?
That’s about as far as I grasp on this issue. Help is needed. Thanks
Hey, I was wondering what this means and why is it important (necessary to understanding Oism (as implied by being in OPAR)).
I don’t understand the principle, but I know it focuses on the metaphysical as opposed to the man-made.
But, why focus on the metaphysical as opposed to the man-made?
That’s about as far as I grasp on this issue. Help is needed. Thanks
The metaphysical is a given. It comes from the nature and state of the universe. When we say it must be accepted “as a given”, we mean it’s not alterable by man’s actions, and thus is not subject to moral judgement. The nature of gravity is one example: you cannot blame someone morally for falling if they trip. No government law can declare something immune to gravity and actually have that effect.
The man-made is artificially created and always subject to change or improvement. Everything that man creates must be evaluated in this context. This includes tools, products, attitudes, philosophies, and societies. It is possible to pass rational, and often moral, evaluation on the things that man creates. You can pass judgement on someone who chooses to stumble (repeatedly) rather than look where they’re going. The law creates all kinds of structures and requirements that must not be accepted at face value as necessary or unnecessary, moral or immoral.
We make this distinction because some people and philosophies accept the man-made as a given. Examples are “you can’t change society” and “the law is the law”. If the individuals in a society hold a mistaken or dangerous belief, it is possible - and in many cases necessary - to convince them to change. Laws are subject to change over time and the some of the laws in existence at any given time are probably morally wrong.
Does this help?
(duplicate post deleted)
Hey, I was wondering what this means and why is it important (necessary to understanding Oism (as implied by being in OPAR)). I don’t understand the principle, but I know it focuses on the metaphysical as opposed to the man-made.
In relation to concretes, the metaphysically-given is that which is part of the nature of existence itself, such as the nature of atoms of calcium, aluminium, silicon and oxygen. The man-made is that which is the result of man creating new combinations of the metaphysically given to give him things that suit him, such as bricks and mortar and the buildings that men make from them.
In relation to abstractions, the metaphysically-given is principles that intrinsically govern the motion of objects, such as the laws of electromagnetism describing how those atoms bind together when they are in bricks and mortar. The man-made is that which is the result of man creating moral precepts, such as making legal laws and enforcing them from within buildings that are supposed to be places where men dispense justice.
But, why focus on the metaphysical as opposed to the man-made?
Because the former cannot be morally judged, whereas the latter must be. The difference then conditions what one should think and what one should do in the circumstance.
If something is part of the metaphysically-given then that something’s roots in the Laws of Identity and Causality just have to be accepted for what they are. All a man can do is make sure he has figured them out right and then choose their application in any given instance. What things can be made with atoms or subatomic particles etc, given their implacable natures? Can I improve the characteristics of the mortar I am using by changing what materials I am using? The application of morality is comparatively straight forward here because oneself is the only man in consideration: figure things out scientifically using the appropriate sciences in the appropriate ways and then use the findings to improve one’s life.
If something is part of the man-made then no part of it is to be accepted in that manner. The man-made is the result of what men have chosen to do, and so can and should be morally judged. The science to use from right from start all the way to finish is morality. Then, if the result of judgement is that something is bad, that requires condemnation of some kind. If on the other hand the result is that something is good then that requires celebration of some kind. And then after that, what one should do in response can be complex to figure out because of one’s actions involving interaction with other men besides oneself. For instance, Eminent Domain is abhorrent, the outcome of the Kelo case was a travesty, and something needs to be done - but justice here will not consist of ignoring the court’s decision and must instead consist of other ways to make restitution to Kelo and also agitate for the abolition of Eminent Doman via lawful means. As part of that, what means are moral and lawful itself has to be well-judged.
JJM
So, it sounds like this chapter mainly has to do with the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made, and what actions you can take about either, such as judgement, or creation, or appraisle. And this principle also specifies when NOT to accept something as metaphysically given (like taxation), or thinking that something could have been another way(the metaphysically given). No?
Thanks Michael and John
So, it sounds like this chapter mainly has to do with the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made, and what actions you can take about either
That’s it at its most simple, yes.
JJM