Niall Ferguson said something interesting on the Colbert Report this past January...
He explained to Steven that since money isn't backed up by gold anymore, it isn't physically worth anything. The only reason money has any value is because everyone accepts it and trusts that it has value. It's an IOU that is passed from person to person with no true value other than the cost of the cotton-paper it's on. I thought that was really interesting that a twenty-dollar bill is only worth twenty dollars because the person I am giving it to as well as myself agree and accept that it is indeed worth twenty arbitrary units of repayment.
Size, weight, and quantity are all arbitrary methods of measurement. There is no reason why an inch is as long as it is but because the United States accepts it as such, that's how long it is. If everyone tomorrow was to accept the inch as a little but shorter, that would unquestionably change our perception of the inch. Same with the pound, the gallon, etc.
This relates to Socrates' challenge of Euthyphro's seemingly arbitrary proposition of piety. I won't get into piety because that again brings in "faith" which is neither quantitative nor qualitative. But the point is that I think it's very interesting how all of these mathematical systems are virtually meaningless without the global acceptance of their standards. (The respect I have for Socrates comes from his methods rather than the conclusions he wants to suss out of people)
Thus, it would be possible to have a universal standard for beauty, righteousness, and all other things that are unable to be quantified if we were to all simply to accept a standard for these things. It's not that we can't, it's that we won't. We just all can't agree on standards for these things which is why everyone's opinion differs.
An inch is an inch because no one can come up with anything better, nor rally the support for a new measurement system. Beauty for one person isn't beauty for another for more psychological reasons of course but no one will agree. Righteousness can't be agreed on of course because people will always want to be able to do what we want in a society where the liberal media says that's okay. Nevertheless, people still follow the laws set forth by the Constitution and by states because that's what they are told to do, because it is universally accepted that these laws have meaning.
Righteousness, it could be argued, was founded in religious tenets that said that the Gods have put forth these laws and we should obey them because that is what the Gods would want. For the longest time people were totally cool with that. People now say that they shouldn't have to not do what they want just because a God tells them to. They cite religious rules as arbitrary and meaningless which is only so because they do not accept them. The same people follow secular laws (which again, are founded on mostly ancient religious laws) because they ACCEPT the governments rule which in essence is equally as arbitrary. All atheists can trace their lineage back to parents who were devout and pious. just thought I would point that out.
I think that's all I have for this.
No comments:
Post a Comment