• TogetherTurtle
    353
    I have a question that I think serves as a primer for what I want to say. How thick are the lines between nations?

    Even I think this is a stupid question. Of course borders don't have thickness, they're simply two-dimensional dividers between the land of one people and the land of another. But, I would then ask, how does a 2D plane intersecting the Earth consisting of nothing but air restrict where you or I can travel? Again, the question is sort of stupid. Of course they don't physically restrict travel, borders are simply a mutual acknowledgement of autonomy and so they are (usually) respected.

    But in a way, don't they in practice restrict physical movement? For those who don't wish for trouble, those who are content where they are, and those afraid of the consequences of crossing a border without permission, it does, and I would argue that is most people. And so these invisible boundary lines drawn maybe generations ago restrict the travel of a majority of the human population. This isn't necessarily a bad thing either. In a lot of places, this non-existent two-dimensional plane is the only thing standing between all-out war and an uneasy yet relatively stable peace.

    And so I think it's safe to say that we invented something that doesn't exist. Something abstract, metaphysical in nature. Of course, if you had given this much thought before, all of this may seem obvious. But isn't it interesting how our imaginary lines divide so well a world we have changed drastically for ourselves? These invisible boundary lines carry so much weight, more so than the material world around us. Ideas can't kill a person directly, but our ideas can set in motion things in the material world that extinguish countless lives. Much the opposite is true, some ink on a piece of paper can remove limits on population and create many new lives.

    We create these barriers, these nonexistent lines that separate one thing from another. At the atomic level, it would be hard to say exactly where ocean ends and a ship begins. Water molecules soaked into the hull of the ship don't count as ocean, or do they? What about a leak in the ship? Is everything under the leak part of the ocean, or is the ship simply partially under the ocean? When in the process of sinking does a ship become a shipwreck? If, over an extended period of time, I replaced every plank of wood on the ship with a new piece of wood, is it the same ship?

    Of course, the last question is Theseus's Paradox. I'm sure you've all heard it. So, what's the answer, is it the same ship, or a new ship? In other words, when does the invisible boundary line around the ship break, and when is a new one formed?

    So if we're in full control of these imaginary lines, why do we have questions like this? Nothing in nature or the universe (other than us) is making these lines absolute.

    I think that the ship is the same ship if we want it to be. It isn't if we don't want it to be.

    Maybe the real question isn't "is it the same ship?", it's "do you want it to be the same ship?".

    It must be the same with all other invisible boundary lines. Do we want them to exist? Do they benefit us? In the case of borders, sometimes yes, sometimes no. But what of all of the other barriers we've erected? What if we made a world with only boundaries that protect us and none that restrict us?

    Don't take me as too much of an optimist. Of course, we all disagree on good and evil. I'd imagine if these walls were real, they would all always be simultaneously both built up and broken down.

    I think this is an important question to ask almost anywhere. Where should we have structure? Where should we not have structure? How do we determine when we need structure? Who or what should we trust with the ability to determine when we need structure? I think these may be the defining questions for all people, and yet for many, the answer seems to be a given. For example, if you ask a biologist what makes a group of animals part of the same species, the answer will be much more complex than "they look alike" or "they're genetically similar" or "they can reproduce together". However, if you asked if a wolf was the same species as the rest of its pack, they would immediately say "of course!". Instead of holding on so desperately to categories that aren't useful, why don't we just make new categories? And when those categories and rendered invalid by new information, we again make new, more accurate categories.

    I should probably end this soon. What I think I'm trying to say is that what we can imagine affects us, but it can be changed by us. Furthermore, what we imagine can affect the real world, and so it is in our best interest to imagine things that benefit us and not get so caught up on things we can change so easily.
  • T Clark
    13k


    Well written and well thought through. I only have a few thoughts right now:

    It must be the same with all other invisible boundary lines. Do we want them to exist?TogetherTurtle

    I'm not sure we have any choice. It's what we do. You can argue where the lines should go, but humans are line-drawing animals.

    What if we made a world with only boundaries that protect us and none that restrict us?TogetherTurtle

    All lines restrict us.

    if you asked if a wolf was the same species as the rest of its pack, they would immediately say "of course!".TogetherTurtle

    Generally speaking, I don't think wolves do much line-drawing. Or maybe the lines are more likely to be genetic with them.

    Instead of holding on so desperately to categories that aren't useful, why don't we just make new categories? And when those categories and rendered invalid by new information, we again make new, more accurate categories.TogetherTurtle

    Well, we do sometimes, often. Eventually always, although I guess some of our lines are genetic also.
  • TogetherTurtle
    353
    I'm not sure we have any choice. It's what we do. You can argue where the lines should go, but humans are line-drawing animals.T Clark

    This is a good point. There has to be lines, but there are a lot of places we can choose to draw them. I think I was going for "If we don't want one to exist or it doesn't benefit us, we shouldn't have it". That probably should be clarified.

    All lines restrict us.T Clark

    Before editing, I said "Is a place really restricted from us if we didn't want to go there in the first place?"

    The answer upon closer examination (by me) seems to be yes. It's our own desires restricting us.

    Generally speaking, I don't think wolves do much line-drawing. Or maybe the lines are more likely to be genetic with them.T Clark

    It probably just wasn't clear, but I was trying to say that a biologist would say that. Wolves might draw lines, but I couldn't tell you, I'm not a wolf.

    Well, we do sometimes, often. Eventually always, although I guess some of our lines are genetic also.T Clark

    I think this part of my writing came from frustration caused by the speed at which we do change. If a categorization becomes so vague as to be useless, it should be changed, and in the example of species, that happened long ago.

    Well written and well thought through. I only have a few thoughts right now:T Clark

    Really? I wasn't really sure how well this would be received. Regardless, I've been thinking about it for a long time now.
  • WerMaat
    70
    Fun fact: I read the opening post while crossing a national border.
    (It was the German-Dutch border, so there's no controls. Just a sign at the side of the road, and my internet connection gets interrupted while the mobile phone switches over to the other network. And you know what? That's the way it should be. I'm not a fan of the concept of "nation"...)

    Generally speaking, I don't think wolves do much line-drawing.T Clark
    Quite the opposite, I believe that wolves do the most fundamental kind of line-drawing:
    "Part of my pack" / "NOT part of my pack"

    And furthermore, I think that is is the most fundamental kind of mental line for humans, too.
    Because all the basic rules of human cooperation only count inside the pack.
    In the pack, you should not kill, you should help the weak, you should feel compassion and so on.
    Outside the pack, all bets are off.
    That's why we eat that pig, but we hesitate to put our dog on the barbecue.
    That's why we help out a good friend who needs a place to stay, but don't send money to those poor people in Bangladesh.

    Granted, that's probably a rather simplified approach, but I think that this type of in-group/out-group categorization actually explains a lot of human behavior.
    What makes it complicated, is that today a lot of different groups and organizations try to appeal to our "pack" feelings, in order to gain our help, obedience or solidarity. the family, the employee, the sports club, the nation...

    "If we don't want one to exist or it doesn't benefit us, we shouldn't have it".TogetherTurtle
    Yes, I agree. We should try to reflect on all the lines, and not take any of them for granted, or believe them immovable.
  • T Clark
    13k
    There has to be lines, but there are a lot of places we can choose to draw them. I think I was going for "If we don't want one to exist or it doesn't benefit us, we shouldn't have it".TogetherTurtle

    There you go, you've summarized all of philosophy in two sentences. We can shut down the forum now. @Baden - you can turn off the lights now.

    Is a place really restricted from us if we didn't want to go there in the first place?TogetherTurtle

    Yeah, well, how do we know.

    It probably just wasn't clear, but I was trying to say that a biologist would say that. Wolves might draw lines, but I couldn't tell you, I'm not a wolf.TogetherTurtle

    Well, I was sort of joking, but then the idea of genetic lines appealed to me, as you can see later in my post.

    Really? I wasn't really sure how well this would be received. Regardless, I've been thinking about it for a long time now.TogetherTurtle

    When I first read your post, it seemed too broad. As I said earlier, it basically covers everything people ever wrote or spoke or thought. All of human mental output. It's all just drawing lines.

    Lao Tzu wrote (depending on the translation):

    The Tao that can be named can never be the eternal tao.
    The Name that is used here to designate is not a eternal name.
    The Tao that is unnameable is the Source of the Heaven and the Earth.
    The name, once introduced, becomes the Mother of the Ten Thousand Things.


    Lines are what is used to create the Ten Thousand Things. If I had a band, I would call it the Ten Thousand Things. Or maybe an antique store.
  • TogetherTurtle
    353
    There you go, you've summarized all of philosophy in two sentences. We can shut down the forum now.T Clark

    Oh, and we still have so much work to do. The actually difficult work, drawing the lines.

    Well, I was sort of joking, but then the idea of genetic lines appealed to me, as you can see later in my post.T Clark

    DNA is just a chemical compound. It's our imaginary lines that clump it all together.

    For a long time, I was intrigued by how things work at the atomic level. I still am, actually. Atoms, the bonds they form, the molecules they become, how they never actually touch. Everything in the universe could theoretically be just atoms instead of the larger things we invent. If we wanted to, our boundaries could be individual atoms. I don't know if that would be useful, but it would be the most accurate way to look at the universe.

    When I first read your post, it seemed too broad. As I said earlier, it basically covers everything people ever wrote or spoke or thought. All of human mental output. It's all just drawing lines.T Clark

    Do you still think it's too broad?

    If that is the general consensus, I'll draw my lines a bit shorter next time.
  • TogetherTurtle
    353
    Yes, I agree. We should try to reflect on all the lines, and not take any of them for granted, or believe them immovable.WerMaat

    I think that this is easier said than done. Actually, it's probably the most difficult thing to do and one of the easiest things to say.

    Granted, that's probably a rather simplified approach, but I think that this type of in-group/out-group categorization actually explains a lot of human behavior.
    What makes it complicated, is that today a lot of different groups and organizations try to appeal to our "pack" feelings, in order to gain our help, obedience or solidarity. the family, the employee, the sports club, the nation...
    WerMaat

    And I think this is why it's hard to do. We want so badly to be part of something, and yet being part of something, accepting it completely, is accepting falsehoods. Finding the truth is literally soul crushing, because finding out something that invalidates a sacred belief absolutely destroys us.
  • T Clark
    13k
    DNA is just a chemical compound. It's our imaginary lines that clump it all together.TogetherTurtle

    What I meant is that we draw some of the lines we draw because of the way our brains and minds have evolved. The way they are structured. We are not and never were blank slates. For some things, we don't have any choice where to draw the lines.

    Do you still think it's too broad?TogetherTurtle

    I think it is appropriately too broad.
  • TogetherTurtle
    353
    What I meant is that we draw some of the lines we draw because of the way our brains and minds have evolved. The way they are structured. We are not and never were blank slates. For some things, we don't have any choice where to draw the lines.T Clark

    I thought you may have been talking about that, but I wasn't sure. Sorry about that.

    Anyway, I was actually thinking about including this. I'm not a biologist of course, but I would guess that identifying predators, prey, and mates developed into recognizing certain materials for making tools. Probably more complex than that, but that sort of division between things became more abstract with the development of a more advanced brain.

    I think it is appropriately too broad.T Clark

    That's good. As I said above, I wanted to write more, but I wasn't sure about them. Maybe I'll gather my thoughts and write them some day.
  • T Clark
    13k
    Quite the opposite, I believe that wolves do the most fundamental kind of line-drawing:
    "Part of my pack" / "NOT part of my pack"
    WerMaat

    Maybe we mean different things when we say "drawing lines." For me, they are drawn using words and symbols. It's a mental practice. We create things when we draw the lines. Like you, I don't know what wolves think, but in my imagination at least, their world doesn't have things in it.
  • WerMaat
    70
    Maybe we mean different things when we say "drawing lines." For me, they are drawn using words and symbols. It's a mental practice.T Clark
    Agreed, but I don't think words are required. I believe that birds and mammals can do that, as in: animals that learn from experience and adapt their behavior accordingly.
    We don't know what wolves think, but we can observe them, and this suggests that they have some abstract concepts in their mind - how else would they be able to handle more complex learning and social behaviors?
    I think the probably have concepts like: part of my family, potential danger, potential prey. And perhaps some more specific ones: smell-of-human-that-brings-food, rock-that-is-nice-and-sunny-for-afternoon-nap.

    I definitely would not limit the mental line-drawing activities to humans only.
  • T Clark
    13k
    I think the probably have concepts like: part of my family, potential danger, potential prey. And perhaps some more specific ones: smell-of-human-that-brings-food, rock-that-is-nice-and-sunny-for-afternoon-nap.

    I definitely would not limit the mental line-drawing activities to humans only.
    WerMaat

    I think you're probably wrong about wolves, but I'm not sure. Other animals perhaps - chimps, crows, dolphins?
  • RegularGuy
    2.6k
    Very cool thread. Thank you @TogetherTurtle.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.