But it doesn't follow that all abstract objects are classes. — Ludwig V

I agree and I don't think I've said or implied otherwise. I'd say abstract objects are probably all generalizations, but I don't think generalization and class are coterminous. That said I'm not confident that on detailed analysis all abstract objects will trun out to be generalizations.

Well, we can agree on that, though we may find complications if we looked more closely at the detail. — Ludwig V

Yes, that seems likely. Analysis always seems to discover complications since linguistic terms are only more or less definitive or determinate. Ambiguities proliferate under the analytic eye.

The difference between that and a symbol would take some teasing out but set that aside. The lack of a convention does suggest that it is not. — Ludwig V

Right, I think conventionality is the key difference between signs which count as symbols and those which do not.

You surprise me. I thought that was what you were suggesting. It's good to know that I was wrong. — Ludwig V

Asking for grounds or justification for your belief, knowledge, actions and perception is not Formal Logic. It is just a rational thinking process for finding out if your beliefs, knowledge, actions or perceptions were rational or irrational.

Right, I think conventionality is the key difference between signs which count as symbols and those which do not. — Janus

So when the goose hisses at me that is a sign (expression) of anger or hostility, which means that I do well to behave cautiously, yet I can only articulate what the sign means by using symbols. Obviously, then, the way I understand what the goose's hiss means, is by means of symbols, which the goose cannot use. Yet the difference in meaning between the two is hard to discern.
Does that make sense? I'm not sure.

Asking for grounds or justification for your belief, knowledge, actions and perception is not Formal Logic. It is just a rational thinking process for finding out if your beliefs, knowledge, actions or perceptions were rational or irrational. — Corvus

Why does it matter whether our beliefs, knowledge, actions or perceptions were rational or irrational? Is it because that is how we know that they are true - or, in the case of actions, justified?
So it seems that even if I believe my perceptions without any grounds, I can justify them - that is, provide reasons (grounds) for believing them - after I come to believe them.

That explanation of why civilizations fall is elegant. Does anyone here disagree with that explanation of why civilizations fall? If we all agree about why civilizations fall, can we use our rationale to prevent that from happening?

Why does it matter whether our beliefs, knowledge, actions or perceptions were rational or irrational? Is it because that is how we know that they are true - or, in the case of actions, justified?
So it seems that even if I believe my perceptions without any grounds, I can justify them - that is, provide reasons (grounds) for believing them - after I come to believe them. — Ludwig V

"Why does it matter"? :razz: What a delicious question. We can fall back on ancient beliefs to answer that question. Because, if we don't get things right and do the wrong things, the gods/nature will punish us. Coming from Athens the goal is to get things right. Meaning, understanding the universal laws and basing our decisions on knowledge of those laws, not our personal whims. However, to understand this, the masses must be educated to understand that reasoning and that is not how we have educated our young. Only the few who go to liberal colleges will understand that reasoning. If we wait until the young enter college before giving them a liberal education, the ignorant masses will outnumber the wise.

One serious problem is capitalism without wisdom or morals. If a person is going to work for low wages because the economy requires people who work for no pay or low wages, what is that person's reward for putting the health of the national economy first? Should we close these people out of society's benefits because they can not pay for those benefits, or do we need planning, cooperation, utilities and a big "thank you" as opposed to a snide "oh, that is welfare"? What is the rational way to educate and order a civilization?

I am not sure but I think animals tend to be limited by a might makes right mentality and because of our success and huge populations, our failure to base our decisions on knowledge of the bigger picture is disastrous.

Asking for grounds or justification for your belief, knowledge, actions and perception is not Formal Logic. It is just a rational thinking process for finding out if your beliefs, knowledge, actions or perceptions were rational or irrational. — Corvus

What you said defines a problem with our notion of being "rational". 600 years ago it might have been rational to believe the Bible is the word of God, there was an Eden, an angry God could and would punish people, but given what we know today, is that belief rational? Arguing the Bible is the word of God may be a rational thing to do if we have no standard for "rational" meaning a fact that can be validated. And if we believe rational means facts that can be validated then the belief that the Bible is the word of God, is not rational thinking. A definition of "rational" that treats fantasy as equal to thought based on valid facts is problematic, isn't it?

I think this matters because I think a democracy needs to be clear about the difference between fact and fiction. A democracy must have education for rational thinking based on facts and understand what this has to do with morality. If we believe a God made us closer to angels than animals, or if we believe we have evolved along with the rest of the animals, it really matters. That is the center of our understanding of reality and decisions that must be based on reality.

It's not just my explanation https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10529410/
Why should "we" prevent history? Which empire would you like to keep in play? It's probably not the same one a Chinese businessman would choose, or a supporter of Modi. Should there be any empires at all? I don't think so, but that's what happens when a nation outgrows is own territory and is powerful enough to annex other territories and exploit their resources. What is it we'd be preserving? The same economic and political arrangement that caused the rapid decline.

We don't have time for the usual process to unfold. Much of the world is either under or threatened by imminent totalitarian rule. The economic disparity is huge and growing in all developed and developing countries alike. The weather isn't just causing local problems anymore: increasingly violent and frequent climate events are rendering large areas of the whole world uninhabitable. There are more people than have ever been, and huge populations are being displaced by famine, environment and war - everywhere. They have no place to go except the populated places that don't want them.
This isn't a discrete, identifiable civilization: this economy is global. When it implodes, there is literally nowhere to hide.
Here is a good article - of course, not everyone agrees.

Are we clear that this is a complete derail from the original subject? Saving or toppling the current civilization has no more to do with rational thinking than the life-cycles of previous civilizations did. Within the life of a tribe, nation or empire, many rational thinkers make decisions relating to whatever their role in that civilization is. But the social and natural and external forces that converge on it determine the path that civilization takes. That's more like an evolutionary process than a rational one.

Why should "we" prevent history? Which empire would you like to keep in play? — Vera Mont

OMG, your question excites me so much I can't wait to read what you have to say next without reacting to your question. My first thought is Athens. Athens made some bad mistakes as the beautiful explanation of the fall of civilizations you gave us made clear. But Athen's gift to the world is logic, a concept of logos, and a burning need to get things right. My second thought is the remains of ancient civilizations and thinking I do not know enough of them to judge which one was best. In good times and with a good pharaoh, I think I would be very happy worshipping the pharaoh and being a laborer who helped build the Great Pyramid. Those are two extremes of authority over the people, or holding the citizens responsible for government and the future.

Hellenism coming from Athens survived the fall of Athens and I believe it is the only hope humans have. There are two ways to have social control; authority over the people or culture (liberty, justice, and wisdom). A culture devoted to truth and morals may have the best chance of surviving.

Wow, I sure wish we could have lunch together and talk about the link you posted. The final paragraph is why I say I think democracy and an understanding of logos and morals (understanding cause and effect) is our only hope.

The eventual outcome of this great implosion is up for grabs. Will we overcome denial and despair; kick our addiction to petroleum; and pull together to break the grip of corporate power over our lives? Can we foster genuine democracy, harness renewable energy, reweave our communities, re-learn forgotten skills, and heal the wounds we’ve inflicted on the Earth? Or will fear and prejudice drive us into hostile camps, fighting over the dwindling resources of a degraded planet? The stakes could not be higher. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-08-10/four-reasons-civilization-wont-decline-it-will-collapse/

.

While reading that link I thought of Youngquist's book "GeoDestinies". He was a geologist and wrote two books. The first one was "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations". We are about to face the exhaustion of vital resources and this will impact our food supply, economy, and standard of living. Rome fell in part because it exhausted its supply of gold when its civilization was in the last stages of excess wealth and high expectations. But today when I make people aware that our coins had value because of the minerals in them, and we have taken the minerals out of coins, no one sees the problem.:scream:

Greer estimates that it takes, on average, about 250 years for civilizations to decline and fall, and he finds no reason why modern civilization shouldn’t follow this “usual timeline.”[3] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-08-10/four-reasons-civilization-wont-decline-it-will-collapse/

. Our history has pretty much paralleled the history of Athens.

If there is a Resurrection we may be in it now. The archeologist, geologist, and related sciences are resurrecting our past and it is our job to rethink everything and get past all our prejudices and notions of winners and losers and a God who has favorite people. Moving on to logos and universal thinking to save as much of our planet as we can save.