Symbolism helps to discover analogies by isolating the form an analogy has to take and then plugging in the corresponding variables...
E.g.,
Jane Doe says to John Doe: "You hide behind rationality"
First you must isolate the action, "hiding" (H), and the essential attribute, "rationality" (R). Jane says to John: H & R, implying that ~(H & R) is what should be the case.
But to John's mind, the truth is that ~H & R = humanity itself.
So, to discover an analogy, the formula "~x & y = z" must be used, where z is the thing itself, y is one of the thing's core attributes, and x is some possible action of z with respect to y, viz., something which, if it were affirmed, would be contrary to y.
So, John Doe wants to use sun as an example: z = "the sun" (S). So now he needs a key attribute of the sun: y = "burning gas" (G). And what is something that could absolutely not be happening to the sun if it is burning gas?: x = "cools down" (C)
Ergo: ~C & G = S
To make this analogous to Jane Doe's earlier remark, we have: H & R = C & G, which, once we define the terms we know to be absurd.
So then John Doe counters Jane Doe with: "Saying that one hides behind their rationality is like saying the sun cools itself by burning gas" -- essentially, to suggest a human being is hiding behind rationality is the same as saying a human being is hiding behind human nature.Thus I find it to be with subjectivists. I have more than once been accused of being "out of touch with reality" because I hold, for instance, that truth is objective; I'm putting my head in the sand because I believe that reality is real.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment