Skip to main content

Arbitrary and Rational

 This is an interesting topic because I've seen the notion of arbitrary in a variety of topics from my study into metaphysics, up into politics. A notion put forward is that arbitrary concepts can't be rational. The unspoken premise being those rational concepts are exact, concise, and not up to interpretation. For example, a square is a polygon of four equal sides and four equal angles. It's not like we'll be discussing whether a circle could apply. I won't discuss it here, but there are arguments around square being arbitrary - at least the way it is applied.

There are two examples I wanted to focus on, one from metaphysics and the other in law:

  • The concept of bald
  • The age of majority

The Concept of Bald

Bald is hairless where there is normally hair, in this case, we'll speak of the top of the head.

Questions:

How little hair should one have? None? Half?

Is there an actual quantity one has to fall below to be bald?

What separates a bald person from a balding person?

The Age of Majority

The age of majority is when you're recognized as an adult by law in a specific jurisdiction. In many places, this age is 18.

Questions:

Why 18?

Why not 17 or 19?

What makes 18 years an adult and 17 years 364 days not?

The Line and Range

The reason I wanted to discuss this topic is that those at war with objective truth push this notion of arbitrariness as a way of declaring that all truth is just fluid and constructed. Unless you're focusing on the ideas at hand here (arbitrary and rational) you may find yourself easily fooled by such an argument.

The problem with this whole discussion boils down to demanding a precise line of definition when you're discussing a concept that has a range.

Someone with a full set of hair is not bald. Someone with no hair is bald. There is a range between a full set of hair to balding and balding to bald. The same is true of the age of majority. Some people are more mature and are very adult by age 16, others don't even make it by 18. A 3-year-old is a child and a 40-year-old is an adult. The area of transition is not a line, but a range. When the age of 18 is picked for the age of majority, it is arbitrary because 17.5 years or 19 years would be just a valid, but that doesn't take away from the rational concept of adult, child and that there is a range in which a child becomes an adult.

The reason I'm harping on this is that there are people out there that view this arbitrariness as a means of completely throwing out the concept. Since there is an arbitrariness to the transition from child to adult, then child and adult aren't real things - they're just constructed by us and we can just easily pick a line, anywhere, and it's just as valid - even if that line was 5.

Arbitrary in Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the study of the is. The things out there in the real world; what they are and what they are like. When the topic of arbitrariness is brought up in regards to metaphysics it is to cripple concept formation in a very Kantian way. It comes down to this requirement of an exact line and without it, they demand we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Here's an example of something that disables all concept formation. It's the fact that everything is made up of atoms. Think of a human. A human doesn't exist by itself, it exists in a space with a volume of air. How do you cut the line between a human and air? Well, a human is a collection of atoms. Air is a collection of atoms. The arrangement of atoms is different between a human and air. If you could zoom in very close, what is the difference between an atom on the edge of a human and the atom of air next to it? Nothing really, they should be pretty much the same.

This is a rabbit hole many in philosophy have chosen to go down. They view this line between air and a human as arbitrary. In a Kantian way, they view this line drawn purely automatically in pre-consciousness. It's not real, we just constructed it.

Arbitrary in Other Realms

Again, you'll see this pop up in a variety of subjects. This could be as simple as trying one 16-year-old as an adult and another 17-year-old as a juvenile. There is no exact line for them. Copyrights are valid for a period of time. Different countries have different years. Death + 25 years, 5 years, none. It's all just arbitrary lines.

There are probably a million different examples I could give, but I think I've illustrated my point. Even though arbitrary lines have to be drawn with regards to many concepts, it doesn't mean that it being arbitrary is irrational. Where there is an actual range, a line just needs to be drawn for the practical application in the real world. The attribute that makes it rational is that the line is drawn within the range of actual transition. Speaking of the age of majority, a line at 17, 18, or 19 is rational. A line at 5 or 90 would not be rational.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Energy Market with Unreliables

 The energy market is going to be something that will be on people's minds for a long time because right now there is very poor policy and ideological views driving us to a crisis. There has been a nice little bull run going on over the last few months, and this may not be the crisis. It's something that may immerge here, but it might be 5-10 years from now. For the longest time I've been a passive index investor , and I still am for a nice chunk of my portfolio, but over the last 18 months I've decided that I'm going to apply my own judgment to the market place and invest accordingly. Over this time I've accumulated a pretty sizeable portfolio of LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) companies, in particular upstream and midstream companies. Renewable Energy or Green Energy are Unreliables There is a political push for green energy. It's driven by the moral ideas that green energy is this universally good  energy and all the other reliable energies we use like fossil

Answering COVID19 Conspiratards

  There's a lot to unpack here. "My doctor... vaccinated creates more ammo for the virus to grow stronger and more resistant..." I do admire that his doctor sounds a lot like the anti-vaxx doctors on the internet, but there is much to unpack. Sometimes I don't grasp the past that well, but I'm pretty sure before COVID19 we had vaccines. I think we had a lot of them. Small pox, measles, yearly influenza, etc. The data shows that we aren't being overwhelmed with super measles or seasonal super influenza that is worse and worse each year. It's not to say that it couldn't happen, but with the data we currently possess on vaccines - it isn't happening. Plus, if this were a problem - it isn't a vaccine problem. It would be an immunity problem. Let's just assume we went "all natural" and much of the world was infected with COVID19. Well, most of the world would gain the immune response t-cells and antibodies to fight future infections. A

Efficient Market Hypothesis and Passive Investing

 When it comes to investing in the market, there is a lot of contentious debate about what is best. I have found that people get so wrapped up in defending their strategy that they either overplay the ideas behind the strategy or just outright misrepresent them. I understand wanting one's investment strategy to work best but let us not delude ourselves. "Best" is not something that is easy qualitatively to measure when various investors have different risk tolerances, timelines and goals. The above is no less true when it comes to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (from now on as EMH); both from those for and against the idea of it. I think both (for and against) conceptualize EMH improperly and it takes away from the value it has as an investing strategy. I will add that I have 90% of my investment portfolio invested in passive index funds, which are the products utilized by those that follow EMH and the studies following from it. That's not to say I'm biased towar