Rectification or Nominalization who cares?

So what?

The fact that states or countries do not objectively exist may be nothing more than an a philosophical point unworthy of much consideration until we explore the deeper implications of this issue.

In psychology there is an idea of integration or an ‘aha ! moment where an apparently abstract concept fully solidifies in a persons psyche.

Here is a video from Marc Stevens exploring one aspect of this critical aspect of reality

 

 

An Apple in Valhalla

Valhalla is a mythological location believed by some to be objectively real or to ‘exist’ in a real sense, at least for those who have held or hold Norse mythology as not mythical.

Existence according to Googles Alexa

For convenience, here is Wikipedia’s description: In Norse mythology, Valhalla (from Old Norse Valhöll “hall of the slain” is a majestic, enormous hall located in Asgard, ruled over by the god Odin. Chosen by Odin, half of those who die in combat travel to Valhalla upon death, led by valkyries, while the other half go to the goddess Freyja’s field Fólkvangr...

I chose Valhalla as an example because like states, it has been written about, and held to be a fact by many people, at least at some time in human history – and yet held to be mythological (not real) by most people.

Imagine placing an apple into a cowboy hat – if you had a green apple and a red cowboy hat, could this be done?

You can put an apple into an oven, a hat or a sock.

But, can you put an apple in Valhalla?

No, because an apple is real, but Valhalla is not.

In the same way, can you as a real person, made of mostly water, be within a state or country?

A girl that was born in Dragisa Misovic Medical Center in Yugoslavia (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) in 1964 visits the same hospital in 2017 – does she return to her place of birth in Yugoslavia (imaginary) or merely her place of birth at the physical location, a brick building?

We have never (objectively) been within a state or country.

So this begs the question – have you ever been a resident or citizen?

 

 

Reason Evidence and Politics – or when Atheists behave like religious extremists.

Many of my cohorts give high regard to reason and evidence, ‘let the facts lead where they may’ could be a mantra or prayer.

But when it comes to applying this heuristic to certain domains, skeptics may show as much resistance to evidence as anyone they might otherwise mock as a religious kook.

A popular scientific model holds that existence, reality itself is composed of matter + energy + the interactions or effects thereof – e.g. angle, momentum inertia etc.

So, buy definition things that ‘exist ‘ only in the mind, or imaginary things regardless of how vividly held or popularly believed, do not exist, they are not real.

For example, many people believe in ghosts, and yet the skeptic would point out that there is no empirical evidence that ghosts exist, they are held to be imaginary by Science.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” – Hitchens

So what of states or countries – do they hold an independent existence outside of the mind?

Certainly they are not the land itself, as the land has been here long before the invention of states and will persist in our absence.

What we have here is an example of a near universally held and rarely challenged logical fallacy.

The fallacy is termed nominalization in NLP (Neuro  Linguistic Programming), or Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: “the map is not the territory”.

Reification is part of normal usage of natural language (just like metonymy for instance), as well as of literature, where a reified abstraction is intended as a figure of speech, and actually understood as such. But the use of reification in logical reasoning or rhetoric is misleading and usually regarded as a fallacy – (Wikipedia)

Next post : Why this matters, a lot.

Astatism is like Atheism

Astatism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of states. Less broadly, astatism is the rejection of belief that any states or countries exist. In an even narrower sense, astatism is specifically the position that there are no states. Atheism is contrasted with statism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one state or country exists.