"Do not undertake to define any of the things so well known of themselves that the clearer terms cannot be had to explain them"I have a meticulous critic. He points out that I start discussion using the basic concepts without giving rigorous definitions for them.
Blaise Pascal
But it is a prejudice that all scientific concepts should be rigorously defined through other concepts. Rigorous definition of all concepts is simply impossible. Once we try to define concepts only through other concepts, we will have to rigorously define those other concepts too, etc., indefinitely.
In order to avoid absurd infinity, scientists do not give rigorous definition to the basic concepts (or primitive notions). Instead of defining A, they would point at certain area of a subject and say, “this is A”. In case it’s still unclear, they would add, “and this is also A, and this is A too, and that…” In other words, a real scientist doesn’t philosophize with words, when he can just point a finger. Of course, such definition isn’t 100% precise; for the concept is an abstraction, while we are defining it using specific object. We can’t be certain that we embraced all specific things with such an abstraction. But at the same time we overcome absurd infinity and truly touch the subject without hovering between concepts, linked to each other.
The basic concepts of the theory of society will not be defined through other concepts as well. Instead, I will just point at the subject under study—the communicating people.
There are three basic concepts:
- Feelings;
- Acts;
- Powers
Feelings. Humans are animated creatures. They feel. They can suffer and enjoy, love and hate. However, we can only feel our own feelings directly. We can judge about feelings of other people only by their acts. Someone is crying—seems that he feels bad, he suffers. A person is laughing—probably he feels good, he enjoys. And here are people exchanging their things willingly—means that each of them value things received more that things paid, otherwise what’s the point of exchange? Value means joy. More valuable means more joyful.
Acts. Feelings prompt to actions. Feelings disturb, and humans act: trade, fight, hunt or farm. Synonyms for acts are: actions, activities, behavior, affair, conduct or deeds. People readily ban some types of acts, such as certain kinds of enforcement or deceit. The banned acts are called offenses. But enforcement and deceit towards offenders is not necessarily an offense.
Powers. Acts are impossible without powers. For instance, you can’t eat without food, you can’t sing without voice or you can’t listen without ears. Other words to describe powers: resources, abilities, capabilities or potential. We could use these words, but I prefer powers. First, because traditional resources or capabilities are overused words involved in many clichés and prejudices. Second, power is a short word, which is often used in this sense: manpower, labor power, productive powers.
When powers are marked—when we know whose they are—they become rights. My powers are my rights; your powers are your rights.
Powers, which can be given away to or received from another person, is property. A property to be exchanged is commodity (or merchandise)*.
The most liquid commodity—i.e. the commodity that changes its owners more frequently than others—is money.
Feelings are subjective. They are fruits of our souls. They are like dreams, which unlike movies can be only watched individually. They are subjective in a sense that person can feel directly only his feeling. We may only guess about feelings of other people. It also possible that other people can mislead us about their feelings. For example, they may say that some strong feelings are bad and sinful in order to put their competitors off guard.
Acts and powers may have objective instance. People can notice and feel other’s acts and powers, such as other people’s words, gestures or abilities that they possess. Only by acts and powers of other person one can surmise other’s inner condition. Only by the means of acts and powers we can give signals about our feelings—needs and joys—to others. Only by the means of acts and powers we can delude our competitors regarding our true feelings.
Act is some flow, process, something that proceeds in time, something that takes time.
Power is some supply or reserve that can be described as of any moment and that doesn’t require timeline.
Observations. By overseeing human behavior, we can fix the following observations, using the basic concepts—feelings, powers and acts.
- About Humanism: Only humans feel; collectives do not feel.
- About Isolation: Feelings of other people can be judged only by their acts.
- About Insatiability: It is impossible to overcome all needs.
- About Tastes: People value powers differently.
- About Egoism: Strangers' needs are not important.
- About Love: Loved ones are only few.
- About Justice: The worse the offense, the more offender is hated.
- About Envy: The richer the person, the more he is hated.
By accepting these observations as axioms for deducting theorems from them, we get a practical theory of society. However, humans in our theory are no angels. They are insatiable and envious egoists, who love only a few other people. But on the other hand they don’t like offenders—those, who cross borders, break treaties, break the bans against dangerous acts.
The proposed theory doesn’t promise abolishing insatiability, egoism or envy, or organizing global brotherhood. Moreover, this theory states that those are impossible, inhumane goals—the goals of fighting human nature. The theory suggests rejecting these false problems.
But the theory helps distinguishing between envy and justice and shows feasibility of strive for justice—for reducing enforcement and deceit. In order to do that it is necessary to understand that the only common affair for all people on Earth is fight against offenders: murderers, abusers, thieves, violators of treaties, etc. All other problems are solved privately.
*Translator’s note:
There’s a great word in Russian language, commonly used to describe property to be exchanged—tovar. It is great because it’s short and specifically designates an article meant to be exchanged, unlike commodities or goods, which are rather perceived like something necessarily consumable. Although it is also unusual for Russian audience to hear that money is also a tovar (because it’s meant to be exchanged), as well as that service can be a tovar too, I find it much more elegant than commodity, so actively used by economists. Merchandise is a very good English analogue of tovar. However it is still too long for a good word, and not so actively used in this sense. I would propose to shorten it to merch and use it instead of commodity. Yes, that would be good.
Meanwhile, I will use commodity and merchandise as synonyms in further translations. And I would like to stress that commodity here is something meant to be exchanged in the first place, not consumed.
No comments:
Post a Comment