Why did Jews NOT lose their faith in a (benevolent) God? — Agent Smith

You are using rationality to address faith. Faith is belief despite rationality showing you otherwise. There are plenty of rational reasons not to believe in God prior to the Holocaust.

The real question then is, "What causes people to have faith?" Since its not about rationality, its about other things. I think if you ask a lot of people you'll find its community, purpose, morality, and believing in something bigger than yourself.

Well I have clearly missed the mark yet again ): It seems as though we are not semantically disagreeing but, rather, fundamentally disagreeing. — Bob Ross

Not a worry at all! Please continue to shoot arrows. I think comparing this epistemology to the a/s distinction is inevitable and necessary to fully understand it. I am glad we are exploring this route, as I think it can help clarify what my proposed epistemology means. Further, there needs to be a reason why we should use this epistemology over the a/s distinction if it is to have any worth. Lets dive in.

I have to perform this (comparison) for everything, which is the problem with your distinction. For example, if I distinctively define A and distinctively define B, but they are by happenstance defined the exact same, my conclusion that they are defined the same is a comparison of the two distinctively defined concepts, A and B, to derive that they are indeed a match: this didn't involve anything "outside of my control", so to speak. I think you would regardless consider it holistically in the realm of "distinctive knowledge", which I would disagree with. — Bob Ross

Again, this depends on how the comparison is made. Lets say I hold A and B in my head as merely definitions. Further, I define a synonym as "Two identities which have the same essential and non-essential properties. Then I say, "A and B are synonyms". At that point, I have to compare the essential and non-essential properties. But there is no uncertainty involved. How I define A, B, and synonyms are all in my solo context. I could change the identities of A, B, and synonym anytime I desired. But I don't. Perhaps this process should receive a new identity such as "logical distinction".

If a situation arises in which we are wondering if a distinctively unknown specific experience matches the definition of B, we are applying the identity to something else which is outside of our creative identification. We are still distinctively committing to what the identity of B is, but we are purposefully not creating a new identity for this currently undefined experience. At this point it requires an investigation of what this new identity is, and if it can deductively match to our B identity.

As such, applicable knowledge always involves the resolution of a distinctive uncertainty. There is no certainty that the match of this new uncertainty will match with something I distinctively know. I cannot change what B means, and I am choosing not to create a new identity for the undefined experience. The premise that the undefined experience matches B is not a necessary conclusion. But the attempt to match is the belief, or induction that it could. This is what I've been trying to narrow in on their difference. Distinctive knowledge has no uncertainty. Applicable knowledge only happens in the resolution of an uncertainty.

Distinctive knowledge - A deduced concept which is the creation and memorization of essential and accidental properties of a discrete experience.

Applicable knowledge - A deduced concept which is not contained within its contextual distinctive knowledge set. This concept does not involve the creation of new distinctive knowledge, but a deduced match of a discrete experience to the contextual distinctive knowledge set.

These are both very well written general definitions. For applicable knowledge, perhaps we need to tweak it a little with my above analysis. "A deduced resolution in the uncertainty of matching a distinctively undefined experience to a contextual distinctive knowledge set."

Applicable knowledge does involve the creation of a new concept: the synthetic joining of "A = B", which is a separate concept from A and B. There was a concept A and a concept B, now there's a new concept that "A = B". This is not necessitated in the concepts A nor B, but yet true of them (i.e. it is synthetic). But there was an analysis that was required to determine "A = B" which was the analysis of what is contained in the concept A and, likewise, what is in the concept B, which is analytical. So both were used to obtain "applicable knowledge". I think this, as of now, is the true pinpoint of the distinction we are both really trying to portray (but I may be wrong, as always). — Bob Ross

This also sounds good. If one uses the a/s distinction, they will have to use both within distinctive and applicable knowledge. Distinctive and applicable knowledge do not divide into a/s distinctions themselves however. I'll clarify further with the pink elephant example early.

Imagine I never imagined a "pink elephant" but, rather, I envisioned "pink", in isolation, and "an elephant" in isolation. If I then claimed "pink elephant", it would make just as little sense as envisioning a "pink elephant" and claiming "there's a pink elephant in my backyard". — Bob Ross

Distinctively, there is nothing strange about taking the terms pink and applying it to an elephant. We create whatever definitions we wish. The part that doesn't make sense is stating there is some unknown distinctive identity apart from our imagination or fiction that matches to the identity of a pink elephant. The creation of distinctive knowledge does not necessitate such knowledge can be applicably known. The a/s distinction is what causes the confusion, not the d/a epistemology.

Alright, back to the original flow!

It is more about creation of identities versus deduced matching of experiences to already established identities.

I don't think this directly explicates the recognition of indexical conflations. It is more of a byproduct. — Bob Ross

No, taken alone, the process of distinctive and applicable knowledge do not explicitly involve context.

Language A: A bachelor is an unmarried man. (Distinctive)
This person is found to be unmarried. (Applicable)
Therefore this man is a bachelor (Logical distinction)

Language B: A bachelor is a married man. (Distinctive)
This person is found to be married. (Applicable)
Therefore this man is married (Logical distinction)

By this I mean the context does not affect the logical process itself. The context only determines the defined starting point. The process itself is not contextual, only the identifications and capabilities of the observer/thinker.

To translate into this epistemology, we always start with distinctive knowledge.

I think that we start with analysis (which is empirical observation) and therefrom derive synthesis. I haven't found a way to neatly map this onto your d/a distinction. I don't think we always start with distinctive knowledge as you've defined it. — Bob Ross

You are correct! The analysis is the introduction to discovering we discretely experience. That is how we analyzed and discovered the term "distinctive knowledge". Nothing I've proposed is done without analysis, and all is attempted to be shown using distinctive and applicable knowledge where possible (barring inductions).

Likewise, I could then counter myself with "well, bob, you just performed synthesis in determining that you analytically discover synthesis". And I would be correct, however I didn't realize that necessarily until after I analytically observed the claim (i.e. that I analyze to discover what is synthesized). I am always one step behind the synthesis, so to speak. Hopefully that made a bit of sense. — Bob Ross

I believe so. It is one reason why I found the a/s distinction to not tell the whole story. It is a useful distinction, but one that diminishes in usefulness the more granular you get with them.

The act of experiencing imagery in ones mind is part of discrete experience: the conclusion that it is a remembrance of the past is not. — Bob Ross

I want to tweak this sentence a little to ensure we are on the same page.

The act of experiencing imagery in ones mind is part of discrete experience.
The act of experiencing that is a remembrance of the past is part of discrete experience.

The deduced conclusion that it is an accurate remembrance of the past is the discrete experience of applicable knowledge.
The deduced realization that I believe my memory to be an accurate remembrance is the discrete experience of distinctive knowledge.

Unfortunately, I don't think we are merely semantically disagreeing on this either. I think you are conflating "uncertainty" with "induction". You can have deduced uncertainty. — Bob Ross

I don't believe there is conflation, but perhaps I am wrong. An induction is a claim of uncertainty. Certainly we can deduce that an induction is all we can make.

Therefore, a premise that is hypothetical is not necessarily, when stripped of its if conditional, an induction. It could be a deduction or an induction. If I say Premise 1 = IF X, I am not thereby implying necessarily that X is an induction. — Bob Ross

No, X alone is not an induction. "IF X" is an induction. It is the same as my saying, "I believe it will rain tomorrow." If I remove "I believe", then we are left with "It will rain tomorrow" as a fact. I can create deductions based on the premise "It will rain tomorrow". The addition of the IF lets the reader know that this is not a fact, or a conclusion that followed from the premises we had. It may, or may not rain tomorrow.

Adding the IF makes it hypothetical.
Hypothetical - involving or being based on a suggested idea or theory : being or involving a hypothesis : CONJECTURAL https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothetical

A hypothesis is an induction. A conjecture is an induction. A claim that asserts a conclusion that is not certain, is an induction. The IF is the assertion of a conclusion that is not certain, therefore an induction. IF the induction turns out to be correct, then we can deduce what will follow.

Hypothetical: IF the penny lands on heads (Implicit uncertainty of the initial premise happening)
Non-hypothetical: The penny lands on heads (A solid and certain premise)

Again, I agree with this analogy, yet it doesn't prove that the hypothetical is an induction when the if conditional is removed: I might deductively not know whether or not the penny will land heads. — Bob Ross

If the IF condition is removed, it is no longer a hypothetical deduction. At that point, it is simply a deduction. The penny lands on heads is not an uncertainty, but a certainty at that point. The identities of our chain of reasoning are based on the zero point we pick. Its all about the starting point in our analysis.

Pure Deduction chain: Deduction -> Deduction all the way down.
Hypothetical: induction -> Deduction with the induction stating an outcome that will happen (But has not yet).
Deduced induction: Deduction -> Induction due to limited information
A Deduced Inductions Hypothetical Deduction -> Induction -> Deduction.

So if I take a hypothetical induction, and remove the induction as a premise within my chain of reason (removing the IF) it is now just a deduction.

Again, this is implying to me the indexical conflation consideration: it seems to me you are implying, rightly so, that "a guess" entails uncertainty which entails that some sort of empirical observation (analysis) is required. I am simply noting that this is true of both "applicable" and "distinctive" knowledge. — Bob Ross

I hope I have explained why this is not true of both applicable and distinctive knowledge at this point. Distinctive knowledge does not require empirical observation. An induction itself is distinctively known. But the resolution to that induction is applicably known.

Then I think you may be agreeing with me that we do not know that a possibility is more cogent than a speculation in the relation to the future, we only know that it is true of the past. The grounds of the induction hierarchy in relation to the future (which is the whole purpose of it is for the future) is an induction. — Bob Ross

I want to make sure its understood that cogency does not mean "truth" or "deduced certainty" Cogency originally is defined as "a strong inductive argument with true premises." Here it is amended to be "A strong inductive argument based on how many steps it is removed from deductions in its chain of rationality."

That has been shown distinctively, and I believe can be shown applicably. But I don't claim that taking a cogent induction determines that the induction will come to pass. Its simply shown to be more likely to pass when taken over a large sample space. And if a person is to be rational, they will take the induction type that gives them the greatest odds of being correct.

Also I never claim that we can applicably know that any form of induction will necessarily lead to its outcome. It is reasonable to guess that an outcome that will occur 99% of the time will happen, but you will be wrong 1% of the time.

Any claim about the future is always an induction. The question is, do we have a rational way of sorting out which inductions are more reasonable based on logic and past experience? Yes. While it is an induction that logic and our past experiences will be the same tomorrow, we must also not forget that it is also an induction that our logic and past experiences will NOT be the same tomorrow. As no one has experienced logic suddenly altering, or the past suddenly shifting reality, it is a speculation that this may change, while it is a possibility it remains stable. Therefore it is more cogent to act as if the known certainties of today such as logic and needing to breath and eat to survive, will be the known certainties of tomorrow. My inductive hierarchy can justify itself. Can any other rationalization of inductions do so? I leave that to you.

Fantastic post Bob, and I hoped I adequately addressed your thoughtful points!

If I want to know the reason of existence, I wanna know why there is a universe with life in it. I think I have a reasonable(!) cosmological model, but that still offers no reason. It just can't have come into existence out of the blue. — Hillary

That's a fair and great point. I first want to say, because it is not said enough on these boards, that is a fine thing to want. It is not stupid or deserves derision that you have a desire for such answers. I might be derailing the thread here, but I find this important.

The conclusion I make is that it did all come out of the blue. That is necessarily came out of the blue. But that's not important here. What's important here is to ask yourself why the circumstances of your existence necessitate how you must exist? Lets say a person is raised in a drug dealing household. Does that necessitate they must become drug dealers? No. What if an evil God created humanity? Must you necessarily be evil if you have a rational mind? No.

The power that you hold may be shaped by the circumstances that caused your existence to be, but they do not necessitate what you do today, or in your future. The power of philosophy and reason is to examine the things we take for granted in a new light, and find freedom in breaking free of unreasonable circumstances or societal pressures. It is not to destroy wonder, it is to restore wonder, curiosity, and an understanding of our freedom.

The purpose you serve today, is to be what you are today. To discover, solve problems, experience joy, sadness, comfort, hardship etc. It is to live. And if you are one of the lucky few who thinks about it, you can work to live how you want to live in the now of today and tomorrow. Find your passions, your drives, and what makes you feel alive and pursue that. Be the person that on their death bed does not look at regret with what they did not do in their short time here on Earth.

And if you don't mind, consider that there are a lot of us also trying to do this. So don't hurt us unnecessarily in your pursuit. Maybe offer a little consideration when we fail or stumble, and some short praise and admiration when we reach it. We will offer it back in kind, and hopefully make the world a better place for us all.

In this case, the idea of “reason” I had in mind were things like modus ponens, avoiding what are defined as local fallacies, drawing conclusions from new or existing information, etc. But it is a sort of fuzzy concept IMO. — Paulm12

Yeah, it can be difficult to define. In your case, I think you're viewing reason as logic. While I think logic is used with reason, it is not necessarily equivalent. I want to say logic is the result of reason, whereas reason is the process by which logic is understood and acquired. One can have reason, but never have learned formal logic. Still, you may want to edit the OP and add in specifically that you mean logic while the topic is still new. Its a good topic!

Science can't offer a reason for existence. The magical appearance of something out of complete nothing is reason-devoid and as such an irrational explanation. — Hillary

True. But science is just one expression of reason. I wrote an explanation about the origin of existence using reason here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 But to the point of the OP, what do you think reason is, and should we trust it?

What do you consider reason? Its a broad word that is often interpreted differently by different people.

My summation of reason is the following.

1. Concluding and acting upon which is logically undeniable. In other words, using deductions where possible.

2. Understanding one's limitations, and the fact that one's deductive construct could be wrong. Thus being open to new information, and acceptance of one's own possible failings.

3. Using cogent inductions where it is impossible to deduce.

I believe reason is a tool to help us understand and be able to handle reality at a more capable level than without reason. Its not that being reasonable will guaranty a successful outcome, its that in general, it will much more than if you are not being reasonable.

It’s a faith of mine, but one founded on experience, that in the absence of state power a majority of free people will not resort tyranny, theft, murder, and they should have the means and ability to defend themselves against those who would. — NOS4A2

No one disagrees with this NOS4A2. Its the word "most" that everyone is pointing out. That does not negate the existence of "the rest". The "most" have to come up with some system to handle "the rest", or "the rest" will ruin what "the most" have.

No one is also saying you can't have a group of people where all cooperate nicely for some time. This is usually if resources are plentiful and times are good. But when famine, disease, or intertribal conflicts come into play, you're more likely to have a few bad apples that will cause massive destruction for everyone else.

The problem everyone is repeatedly trying to point out to you, is that you present only the situation in which everyone is good in your laissaz faire world, and those who aren't good, are outside of it. Laissaz faire lets in "the rest" as well. You've been shown facts and history that prove this to be true.
Ignoring or dismissing this comes across to others that you are being dishonest. And if you are dishonest in your dealings here, how can anyone believe your world where everyone is honest and good?

Eucalypts simply do not choose to fall into neat categories for the benefit of botanists and foresters.

The various trees do not have essential characteristics that mark them as members of this species or of that. — Banno

This. The world does not determine the essential characteristics that mark them as members of a species. We do.

No real disagreements here. "sort of like a proto-science" was not intended to diminish its usefulness. I view philosophy as the laboratory where ideas are cooked up that can eventually be tested. Philosophy creates, science tests and confirms.

Whenever a question can be answered factually it's no longer philosophical and is translatable into a scientific hypothesis, or problem, to be 'solved' experimentally (which may be interpreted philosophically in terms of "what it means ..." ethically / aesthetically / ontologically, etc). — 180 Proof

That sums up my point nicely. I consider such philosophy a success. Philosophy is also littered with failures that have not gone anywhere beyond the lab itself. In my opinion, if a philosophy cannot eventually be turned into something testable, or put into practice in life with measurable outcomes, its just fiction. It can be comforting, exciting, and imaginative; but still fiction.

Of course, my view of science is that its "testable philosophy". But once such philosophy has been tested, a small part of it has been destroyed. Philosophy can only exist as a logical exercise. Once the real world puts it to the test, it is no longer philosophy. So this is why I noted philosophy's goal is to destroy itself. All of its successes are no longer philosophy, and all of its failures are the leftover dregs of petri dishes.

reply="unenlightened;693306"]
You neglected to note the point I made about context.

3. Context - A societal or intentional situation that changes the essential and accidental properties of the definition. "That plaster statue is a tree." (It is not essential that a tree be a plant, as we are within the context of artistic representations, and thus plaster). — Philosophim

The context within "botany", (textbook definition) botany determines what are the essential and accidental properties. If of course different areas of botany have different contexts, they'll define the essential and accidental properties as different. It may very well be that several groups have great difficulty agreeing on the "correct" context the entire group should take. But, there has to be some meaning to the word that is essential to that word. If there was nothing essential to the word within the context, then a tree could be equivalent to a bus.

An expression of disapproval is not a point.
— Philosophim
Neither is this:

False character only holds when there is threat of punishment, loss, or promise of reward. True character holds when no one will punish, harm, or reward you for what you do.
— Philosophim — L'éléphant

If you wanted me to dig deeper or explain more, just ask. Nothing wrong with that. But we should be better than rolling eyes at one another or just saying, "You're wrong and I can't believe you don't realize how wrong you are."

To myself and likely those that agree with me, character is the core person you are when no one is looking. When I mean core, I don't mean general societal adaptation to different groups of people. I mean values. A way of life you've determined is right and appropriate for yourself, and living by it. You can of course change what you consider right over the course of your life, but what you hold at that time is what you live by.

People who alter their core of who they are in society, or only do particular actions while other people are looking, are weak of character. The point of the action is not because there is belief in any underlying value, but social acceptance and validation, or the avoidance of societal punishment or harm.

People who take actions only for the rewards and punishments society will grant them have weak characters. This is because they compromise the core of who they are for other people. When you gain power, committing a crime can be done easier and with less consequence. As such, if you were only not doing a crime because of the punishment, there is no character to prevent you from doing so. Further, when you obtain power and no longer care about the praise of those underneath you, you no longer treat them in the way you did for your previous reward.

If you find issue with this, can you explain why?

Ugh. Where to begin.

If you think the way you do here on this thread, then you have no understanding of human nature yet. — L'éléphant

Care to explain that human nature then? An expression of disapproval is not a point.

Attaining a position of power shows what a person is really like. Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. — baker

This. False character only holds when there is threat of punishment, loss, or promise of reward. True character holds when no one will punish, harm, or reward you for what you do.

In case you guys didn't realize, NOS just keeps repeating the same thing again and again. He's not interested in a real discussion or a conversation. You will not change his mind, because that's not what he's here for. And that's perfectly fine. Just don't waste your time sticking around after you say your piece.

I think he was ultimately just whining about American education. I love patterns, though, and the one he provided was intriguing. — frank

Sure, its an interesting thought to bring up! Appreciate the contribution.

The only issue I have with this is the regression of definitions. Ie. A tree is a plant, a plant is a living thing a living thing is ... at so forth all of which by your reasoning has some previous essential property contained within the next. So what is “thee” essential property in the first place? — Benj96

In terms of biology, likely your first experiences with the plant based on your cultural upbringing. This would be different than for a biologist who has plants categorized down to very exacting definitions and standards.

Are there trees without branches? — Benj96

Yes. If I trim all the branches off of a tree, its a "tree without branches".

Sure. He would say the ever-waning commitment of Americans to foreign wars is a side effect of diminished national cohesion. — frank

Wouldn't that be due to an increased national cohesion? If a broken up cohesion, there would be too many counter parties that would disagree with foreign interventions. Its expensive and costly to the citizens. We were in Afghanistan for 20 years. I'm not sure a nation with low cohesion could continue to support such a foreign war with the changes in elected officials.

You're basically agreeing with Kurth that the US is an example of federalism. It's not much of a nation-state. — frank

But you stated earlier:

The USA was a functioning nation-state from the end of the Civil War until sometime after WW2, when it began to evolve into a post-modern state — frank

I'm noting that the USA was not a functioning nation state during this time. Arguably federalism took a nose dive during WW2 and that is when we became more nation-like. I suppose my point truly though, is that I don't understand how he determines his post-modern definition, and that America fits that definition.

But, I am also going purely by your summary and not his article directly. I'm quite sure I'm missing something or not understanding the full context.

Definitions are a combination of three factors.

1. Essential properties - These are properties which are absolutely necessary to the word. A tree is a plant.
2. Accidental properties - Properties that the definition can contain, but are not essential to its identity. "A tree can have branches".
3. Context - A societal or intentional situation that changes the essential and accidental properties of the definition. "That plaster statue is a tree." (It is not essential that a tree be a plant, as we are within the context of artistic representations, and thus plaster).

The difficulty is nailing down the context of the situation. If you note that "Trees are made of plaster" when talking about biological trees, you are wrong. If you note that "Trees are made of plaster" when talking about art, you are correct. Oftentimes people aren't debating the essential or accidental properties of a definition, but the context of it.

1. Doesn't need a large conventional army, but rather defends through deterrence, and attacks via high tech stealth weapons. — frank

But we have one of the largest and possibly the most powerful militaries in the world. This only happened after WW2, where prior we only had a minor maintaining force. When we fought Britain for independence, we used ambushes and gurilla tactics instead of meeting them open on the field. As of the modern day, the United States aggressively uses its military for regime change as well as deterrence. Iraq and Afghanistan were not acts of deterrence.

Does not engage in mass production for a national market. It's economy is characterized by an economic divide. There's a "high economy" which is comprised of financial institutions and managers of multi-nationals which are focused on a global market, and a "low economy" made up of low-skilled service workers. — frank

I don't see how this is different from economies once money and trade were invented. The high economy has always sought to obtain more capital at any means. They do not produce for the nation, they produce for themselves. The great pyramids were not for the benefit of the nation, but for the benefit of the "God emperor" who sat on the wealth built by the underclasses.

Does not contain a cohesive political class, but has a somewhat stalemated government running a multicultural regime. — frank

I would re-read the history of the founding of America. America was so divided and multi-cultural that we initially had the articles of confederation which granted extreme power to the states with an incredibly weak federal government. The reason for this was the identities between the states, (And the political elections within the states) were so different from one another. America has always been a multi-cultural and non-cohesive political entity. If you read history, there are constant struggles and debates on how the country should be run over time.

Can you give an example demonstrating where woman have more rights than men? I think that would help your OP. Currently you're stating an opinion, which may or may not be accurate.

But to broadly answer your question in the abstract, it depends on what you mean by "More rights". Since men and women have biological differences, there may be rights specific to anatomy that could be more numerous than men, and vice versa. So in the sense of pure quantity, there would not be a problem. If you mean women should have rights that explicitly deny men their rights, then no, that should not happen.

Ah, the analytic/synthetic distinction. Long ago when I first wrote this philosophy, I used the analytic and synthetic distinction instead of distinctive and applicable knowledge. The problem was, as you likely know by now, I had very different definitions from the a/s distinction. When I shared the paper or ideas with other individuals I ran into major problems.

First, people wouldn't listen. They wouldn't try to amend the definitions, and insist that I was just "wrong". Not wrong in my underlying amendments of the definitions, but wrong in trying to change them to begin with. Understandable.

Second, people took their vast knowledge of analytic/synthetic knowledge and would cite philosophers or other criticisms of the a/s distinction without understanding or addressing the points I made. It was straw man after straw man, and few people I found are willing to hear, "No, that's not what this version of the a/s distinction means, this is why that doesn't apply."

So I created new terms. This forces people to understand the terminology if I want a conversation. Of course there are still people who don't want to explore something new, but they never wanted to listen when I was redefining the a/s distinction anyway. What I didn't lose were the people who wanted to discuss concepts, but were turned off by word redefinitions. Yes, I redefine some words slightly, but I think by that point people are in the conversation enough that it naturally leads to that.

Are the names I made very good. Probably not. I'm not great with coming up with names! I like distinctive, as it flowed nicely from discrete experience. "Applicable" is probably not very good, but I'm not sure what else to call it. I view words as place holders for concepts, and I view placeholders as contextual. As long as the word works in some sense within this context, that's fine by me. I see it as "Applying distinctive knowledge" to something other than itself.

But I am very open to new naming! Perhaps creative and comparative knowledge? Identity knowledge and confirmable? Dynamic and static? The problem of course with all of these comparisons is if you interpret the word meaning a particular contextual way, they don't quite work either. The contextual implication of the words in their general use gets in the way when trying to apply them in context to the argument. The reality is, the knowledge I'm proposing has never existed before. Its a concept no one (I have read) has proposed. So perhaps I need new words entirely and should research some latin.

At this point though, feel free to use the a/s distinction to help you understand the concept. I'll correct where the a/s distinction doesn't apply. Let me get to your points now.

...analytic expresses the contrary: "a proposition whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept" — Bob Ross

To compare to distinctive knowledge, we need to remove proposition, predicate, and subject.

Distinctive knowledge - A deduced concept which is the creation and memorization of essential and accidental properties of a discrete experience.

This then leads into applicable knowledge, which is loosely based off of synthetic knowledge.

synthetic generally means (philosophically) "a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept but related" — Bob Ross

Applicable knowledge - A deduced concept which is not contained within its contextual distinctive knowledge set. This concept does not involve the creation of new distinctive knowledge, but a deduced match of a discrete experience to the contextual distinctive knowledge set.

Context- when the symbol/identity of one or more sets of distinctive knowledge are identical, while the essential and accidental properties of the symbol/identity are different. "A rock" in the context of geology has different essential and accidental properties than the context of a 5 year old child for example. This can further be compounded when a person is able to comprehend the essential and accidental properties of a distinctive context, but unable to actively apply those properties due to inability. For example, being a blind geologist has a different applicable context than those with sight.

As you can see, while there are some similarities, they are very different.

(Noting synthetic) which clearly describes (in my opinion) the extension of one's own "creations" (projections) onto the "world", so to speak. For example, the concept of a rock (or just a rock, so to speak) on the floor doesn't have any inherent properties that necessitate it be called a "rock": I synthetically projected that property onto it. — Bob Ross

Both distinctive and applicable knowledge can be seen as the extension of one's creation on the world. A discrete experience (the rock) has no inherent properties that necessitate it be called anything. Distinctive knowledge is when we create those essential and accidental properties that allow it to be called a "rock". This is our creation upon the world. Upon finding finding a new discrete experience (potential rock) we attempt to match our definition of a "a rock" to "the discrete experience". If we deduce that the essential properties match, we have applicable knowledge that "the discrete experience" is a match to "A rock". This is another extension of our creation upon the world.

this directly entails that a lot of topics traditionally viewed as "controlled" by the mind can also be applicable knowledge (analytical knowledge)(e.g. imagination, thoughts, etc). I'm not sure if you would agree with me on that. For example, thoughts are analyzed (~discovered), not synthesized (~projected). — Bob Ross

This doesn't quite fit. Projection can happen in both instances of knowledge. It is more about creation of identities versus deduced matching of experiences to already established identities. But both can involve the projected world.

In other words, and this goes back to my subtle disclaimer that "synthetic knowledge" is a child of "analytic knowledge", we analytically discover that we synthetically project. — Bob Ross

To translate into this epistemology, we always start with distinctive knowledge. So I distinctively create the identity of applicable knowledge. But then, I am also able to applicably know the distinctive knowledge of "applicable knowledge" successfully. So I both distinctively, and applicably know the concept of applicable knowledge.

Once I applicably know applicable knowledge, I can also applicably know that I distinctively know. We can then apply this knowledge back to the initial claim in the beginning that, "I discretely experience." I established a definition of discrete experience, then apply the concept successfully.

Moreover, going back to our discussion of whether "distinctive knowledge" can be induced, this also implies that the deduced validity of a subset of memories (in relation to another subset) is applicable knowledge (discovered: analytic), as opposed to being distinctive knowledge (projected: synthetic): which would be where, if I am currently understanding your view, we went sideways (our argument was presupposing the analysis of memories as "distinctive", which is incorrect). — Bob Ross

The act of experiencing a memory is part of the act of discrete experience itself. For example, "I remember seeing a pink elephant." Whether the memory is accurate when applied is irrelevant. It is the memory itself that is distinctive. The act of attempting to match your memory to a different discrete experience is application of that memory. The deduced outcome of that match is the applicable knowledge. But if I attempted to show there was a pink elephant that existed, the deduced outcome of that would be applicable knowledge.

For example, my assertion that memory A is valid in relation to the set of memories S would have to be analytical (because I am discovering the "truth" of the matter), whereas labeling it as "memory" + "A" and "memories" + "S" would be synthetic. — Bob Ross

Memories in relation to other memories are distinctive. "Pink elephant" combines our distinctive understanding of "pink" and "elephant". The application of that memory for its accuracy is applicable. "I remember seeing a pink elephant in my room last night," is distinctive. "My memory is an accurate representation of what happened in reality" is applicable. Was there really an elephant? Was it pink? The outcome is irrelevant to the knowledge of the memory itself.

If I am understanding your distinction correctly, then I agree here except that applicable knowledge is not relatable to an induction directly. — Bob Ross

There may be a misunderstanding of what is meant by "directly". If I make an induction that the next coin flip will be heads, the result that is experienced and deduced will be the outcome of the flip. If I deduce that the coin lands on heads, (instead of just guessing it did) then I have a "resolution" to my induction. This is the relation that I'm talking about. I guessed heads, and it ended up heads. My guess was correct. I guessed heads, and it ended up tails. My guess was incorrect. This resolution is applicable knowledge.

A hypothetical deduction is when we take an induction, and take the logical deductive conclusion if it resolves a particular way.

I don't think this is true. A hypothetical deduction is a deduction wherein each premise is hypothetically granted as true: it is a valid deduction due to it conforming to the necessary form of a deduction. — Bob Ross

The hypothetical is a possible resolution to an induction. If there was no induction, there would be no hypothetical. The coin can land either heads or tails. We can hypothetically deduce that if it lands heads, X occurs, and if it lands tails, y occurs. But the hypothetical cannot exist without the induction as a source of alternative outcomes. A deduction leads to a necessary conclusion, not a hypothetical conclusion. Only inductions can lead to hypothetical conclusions. That's the whole point of the IF. If there was no uncertainty in the outcome, we would not need the IF. I don't think we're in disagreement here beyond semantics.

the former implies inductions are valid premises of a hypothetical deduction (which is wrong), whereas the latter implies we can dispense of that induction. — Bob Ross

To correct this, I am saying inductions are necessary premises to create a hypothetical deduction. The IF implies uncertainty. If you remove the IF, it is no longer a hypothetical, it is not a deduction.

Hypothetical: IF the penny lands on heads (Implicit uncertainty of the initial premise happening)
Non-hypothetical: The penny lands on heads (A solid and certain premise)

I'm not certain I agree with this. The induction does not resolve a particular way: — Bob Ross

Can an induction ever resolve then? If I say, "I believe the next penny flip will land on heads" will I ever find out if I was correct in my guess? All I'm noting is how we figure out the outcome of the guess. That must be done applicably.

but, rather, a deduction can resolve an induction by either dispensing of it (as now it is known that the induction happened to be accurate or it wasn't) or retaining it as not directly pertinent to what is newly known. — Bob Ross

I'm simply noting the accuracy of the induction. I think you're taking two steps here, noting the accuracy of the induction, and then deciding to dispense or retain it. For example, I could deduce the penny lands on tails, but still insist it landed on heads by inventing some other induction like "an evil demon changed it", or simply not caring and insisting it landed on heads regardless of what I deduced. The second step of deciding to stick with or reject the induction is a step too far from what I'm saying. All I'm noting is the deduced outcome after the induction's prediction comes to pass.

However, now we must deal with a second order proof pertaining to why we ought to believe that because they related in a particular way in the past that it will hold in the future (aka hume's problem of induction). — Bob Ross

I have already concluded that you cannot make any knowledge claim about the future. You can only make inductions about the future. The smartest way to make inductions is to use the most cogent inductions we already know of. So we would make our decisions based on the hierarchy of the inductions we have at our disposal. Just because we can speculate that the rules of reality may change in the future, doesn't mean its possible they will. Since we know what is possible and probable, it is possible and probable they will continue to happen in the future.

Great points again Bob! I hope I adequately showed why the distinctive and applicable distinction of knowledge might be inspired by the a/s distinction, but is not the a/s distinction itself.

I believe Kant has it correct. Time is a descriptor, not an actual river. Essentially time is the relation of objects and forces in a causality state. So lets say we have states 1,2, and 3, all moving forward in causality by their numbers. If we somehow re-aranged the state of the universe back to 1, we did not travel through 2 and 3. We caused state 1 to be again, we did not travel backwards though causality.

Multiple worlds explain potentials. But like potential and kinetic energy, kinetic is what actually happens. This doesn't mean there must be a world in which one person dropped a ball, and in another world another person did not.

What has happened has happened. What has not happened, has not happened. There is no reversing it or going back.

A Philosoophy of Science course by Paul Hoyningen can provide great info on a systematic methodology of knowledge evaluation. — Nickolasgaspar

Hello Nickolasgaspar and thanks for your contribution. I'm sure you had good intentions, but its not very helpful to me. Is there something in particular in the argument or conversation that you noticed such a course could help? Could you perhaps summarize the points he makes to show me its relevance to the OP or the following discussion?

We can look to the law for an example. The court is presented with these types of issues all the time.

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If a person is caught lying on the witness stand, they can be punished by law for perjury. That is clearly the government restricting a person's "free speech".

Lies seem to be extremism, at least in court. If a business lies to customer's about its product, they can also be legally liable. But white lies to your wife or husband? They seem fine. If you yell "Fire!" in a theater and people rush out and get hurt, that also doesn't seem protected. I suppose its about the risk and cost to people that certain lies cause which would break the idea of "free speech".

I don’t care for your points or your hypotheticals. — NOS4A2

Then I suppose you don't want to have any further discussion.

Nonetheless, despite our disagreement, your examples of why you fear of laissez-faire is all I really wanted to know. So thank you. — NOS4A2

As long as you have received other view points and considered them, that's really what's important. At the end of the day, people are going to believe what they want to believe. Here in these forums, we hopefully push ourselves to consider that the world is bigger than those beliefs. I appreciate the engagement up to this point.

My reasons for preferring it are moral. I think it is wrong and unjust to control people, to confiscate the fruits of their labor, or to impose someone’s will upon another’s if they do not deserve it. — NOS4A2

Who's going to enforce that though? If there's not a government what is the replacement? That's the question I keep asking. The world is not shaped through good intentions and an emotional desire that we all get along. If there is no government, I posit, as has happened throughout history, that a bunch of gangs and warlords are going to rape and pillage your property for themselves. They will not be swayed by your moral objections. You alone will not be able to stop them.

The same applies to matters of trade and enterprise. If anyone rigged the game in their favor as much as states have done—skimming, stealing, exploiting, extorting, racketeering, money laundering—he’d be thrown in jail. — NOS4A2

But the state is the one who throws people in jail. Absent the state, no one gets thrown in jail. People who do these things to others just don't disappear if the state is gone. What do we have to stop them if the state is gone?

No laissez faire regime has failed because no such regime has existed. — NOS4A2

And yet this is despite the theory being around for over 100 years. Why is this? If its such a successful theory that is obviously to the benefit of mankind, why hasn't this happened anywhere in the entire world?

So I’ve read your objections and still prefer the idea of separating the state and economy. — NOS4A2

I would have preferred you explain why you think its better for a company to inject lead into gasoline knowing full well the dangers to health and society, and lying about it for profit. Maybe explain why its more beneficial to have meat packing plants with unsanitary conditions and horrid working conditions. Do you think zoning should be done by businesses? That they should be able to dump chemicals in rivers or land fills that cause harm to people who live in nearby homes?

Finally, you didn't address the point I made that often times business steps on the rights and liberties of other people in pursuit of profit. Government regulation can help minimize this. Without government, what is going to help this?

It would really help if you address the potentially negative sides of laissez-faire. If you only insist on seeing the positive, can you really say you've thought about it? No. Here on the philosophy boards we cannot love our own ideas. We put them to the test, try to prove them wrong, and see what comes out at the end of it all.

The problem I have is I haven't heard your well thought reasons for Laissez-faire, but talking points that are generally spouted in pop-culture. I'm unaware of your education background, so I think before we continue, we need some outside references. Laisezz-faire is not an untested ideology, and throughout history, it has often failed.

Preserving human liberty is not a 1-to-1 ratio with regulating the economy, and it is neither rationally nor emotionally satisfying for me to accept such non-sequiturs. — NOS4A2

In Laisezz-faire capitalism, the state gets out of the way of corporations as much as possible. No monopoly regulations. No laws mandating that the vats the company pass scientific sanitary standards. No laws mandating zoning, buy outs, minimum wages, health and safety standards, etc. This is tied directly with what many consider the rights of individuals. Plenty of people don't like their water and air polluted. Here are a few examples to check.

Forbes evaluation of the 2008 crash. https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/18/depression-financial-crisis-capitalism-opinions-columnists_recession_stimulus.html?sh=45acd8d22ef2

When you introduce government regulation, Laissez-faire is over. And you agree that government regulation is needed to preserve the rights and liberties of individuals. Maybe you don't really believe in Laissez-faire, but perhaps a minimal level of regulation? If you believe at times that the government has overregulated, I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. But the moment you allow laws and regulations that business have to follow to preserve the rights and liberties of individuals, the only question is, "How much?"

Here's an article in Forbes 2008 about how Laissez-faire, allowing markets to regulate themselves failed.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/18/depression-financial-crisis-capitalism-opinions-columnists_recession_stimulus.html?sh=45acd8d22ef2

"To paraphrase Churchill, capitalist market economies open to trade and financial flows may be the worst economic regime--apart from the alternatives. However, while this crisis does not imply the end of market-economy capitalism, it has shown the failure of a particular model of capitalism. Namely, the laissez-faire, unregulated (or aggressively deregulated), Wild West model of free market capitalism with lack of prudential regulation, supervision of financial markets and proper provision of public goods by governments."

If you're more interested in a video, this one should explain why regulation is needed to defend human rights and liberties. Of particular note, check the section where leaded gasoline was invented and see what the "free market" did with it.



Finally, there's Upton Sinclair's famous exposure of the meat packing industry. https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle-muckraking-the-meat-packing-industry.html#:~:text=Upton%20Sinclair%20wrote%20The%20Jungle,emerged%20in%20the%20United%20States.

Fairly famous, but you might not be aware of it. Essentially food factories were unsanitary, dangerous, and risky for both employees and consumers who had little alternative.

One can and should do that without a state because, if history is any indication, the state is often incompetent in that regard and violates those same rights. According to author RJ Rummel, the body count for which the state is to blame in the 20th century is 262,000,000, and this is only acts of genocide. — NOS4A2

Have you compared to the body count of entities that are not the state? The number is irrelevant if you don't. Ever studied the death count in collapsed states where its warlords run around? Have you also compared the good that state has done? Developed infrastructure, roads, sewage handling?

Barring that, have you ever studied any society that did not have a tribe, chieftan, or some type of laws and rules? The idea that you can ever live a purely free person from "state" influence only happens if you find a cabin in the woods somewhere and go off the grid.

I would just read for now. To make a fully educated judgement, you must engage in all sides of thought. I think you've seen the pro Laissez-faire side, but its imperative that you see its anti. Now after reading and thinking on these, if you still think Laissez-faire is good, come back and talk. You can use some of the examples I gave, or more of your own. But I feel until you are aware of these other facts about free market and its politics, its more a discussion of faith then one of thought.

As for taxes...we can come back to it after this.

For every man who would exploit his neighbor is another who would not. This is why I have faith in the absence of state fetters. What prohibits a man from exploiting his neighbor is not the state, but a conscience and a reasonable set of moral principles. — NOS4A2

Correct. But what punishes a man and makes them pay for exploiting their neighbors is the state. I don't think you are so naive that you believe everyone is intelligent and of high moral character? Tell me, how does Laissez-faire handle criminals, brutes, thugs, and slavers?

Would you seek to dominate others should there be no state? — NOS4A2

The wrong question. "Would there be people who would seek to dominate others should there be no state?"

Absolutely. There are very real evil people in this world who will lie to your face, pay you pennies, and throw your body quietly in a ditch if it were convenient to them. If people were always perfect NOS4A2, then all forms of economics would work. Socialism and communism in their ideals would end up just as we envisioned. The problem with ideals is they do not factor in evil. I'm sure you would agree that pure socialism or communism does not result in the ideal utopia envisioned. This is because the reality of man is it must always plan with the idea that evil will exploit others if given the chance. Free market capitalism is no exception to this.

The moral and just way to fund any institution is voluntarily, whether through subscription, donation, etc. — NOS4A2

I don't want to pay my taxes this year, is that ok? Can the government properly budget and afford the judges and law enforcement needed to ensure people don't abuse and take advantage of the system?

I don’t want to abolish democracy, nor do I want to completely abolish the government. I just don’t think the task of government is to meddle in our livelihoods. — NOS4A2

You need to clarify by what you mean by "meddle". You seem to contradict yourself here when you also include

No. One is not at liberty to interfere with another’s liberty. — NOS4A2

That's not laisezz-faire. That's regulated capitalism, which is what we have today in America. That takes an enforcer, or in our instance, the state, to ensure this happens.

NOS4A2, instead of defending your argument, for fun and exploration, attack it. Find the holes in it from your perspective. Every idea has pros and cons. If you cannot see the cons in an idea, then you have not thoroughly thought of the consequences of it, and are grasping at something that is emotionally satisfying, and not rationally satisfying.

Well, that's probably my deeply hidden fruitfly brain part talking then. The part beneath the olfactory lizzard part. I smell powerful tendencies here... :smile: — Hillary

And its ok. We all have do or have done it at one point in our life. Its a shared human struggle. The thing is, all of us lose time to time, and some of us just give in. In a situation of competition in which there is no outside enforcer, one person is going to slip up (or intentionally) not be fair. And that's all it takes. A game cannot be played correctly unless everyone involved follows the rules.

NOS4A2 believes that the state as a function itself is oppressive. Its a common political refrain, mostly because he seeks dominance himself. He sees the state as dominating people, and his lizard brain doesn't like that. He's likely not thinking about all the circumstances or situations that would arrive if the state was eliminated. People will always have to fight others seeking dominance, whether or not they personally seek it themselves. Without some type of societal rules, and an enforcer of those rules (government) someone else will come in, dominate, then set the rules and enforcement up to ensure they retain their dominance. Its an unavoidable part of humanity.

My dear gracious good god... Where did you grow up? Ah, of course...you're a philosopher! — Hillary

Ha ha! I suppose I am. But I'm also a person who likes history. History has shown us that what I claimed was true. Wars, monopolies, slavery, etc. I would say about 80% of people are fine just living their lives without bothering others. But 20% of people want dominance, and don't care who they hurt to get it. Did you know that fruit flies like to dominate one another? They only live 8-15 days, but if you put a bunch of fruit flies together, they'll do a dominance fight where they flip each other over to show who gets that space.

The brain of a fruit fly is insignificant, and yet this primitive need for dominance still exists. It is a powerful drive in almost every living creature. In fact, I want to ask what was your motivation when you wrote your reply? Read it again. Was it done to educate me? Reach out and connect with me? Start a deep conversation? No. You did it to for status. To ridicule me and put yourself on top.

Now if you did that on a philosophy forum where there are no stakes, what do you think happens when there are resources involved? Millions of dollars at stake? Tons of land and power? You think everyone is going to resolve their differences for these resources with kind words, reaching out to one another and sharing? You already know the answer yourself.

My own view is that the state is formed through conquest and confiscation. I don’t believe in any social contract theory. — NOS4A2

I have no problem with this. The problem is, if its not government forming through conquest and confiscation, its something else. Mobsters, neighbor, etc. Government is not special, it is one off the many long lines of people and institutions that will seek social dominance through the threat and realization of violence.

Laissez-faire capitalism also results in conquest and confiscation. Capitalism needs a third party regulating it. It needs courts and laws. Otherwise the path of least resistance is to get money, murder your competition one way or another, and dominate everyone under you in as close to slavery as you can.

Now if I'm wrong, please point out where. In the absence of government, do people just all get along? You don't think anybody will seek to gain power over other people through wealth, hired cooercion, and dominance?

Can something cause its own existence? No.
— Philosophim

Oh, okay then. Brilliant. Don't bother addressing the argument in the OP. Just say stuff and it'll be true. — Bartricks

Actually, fair. I did not read to the end, and that is my mistake. Simultaneous causation doesn't make any sense either. If you're going to say something exists for eternity, why bring more than one entity into it? There's still the question of why both entities have existed for eternity in the first place. The answer is the point I made earlier. Eventually something can be explained by the fact of its existence, but not by something prior to it. That is logically certain. There is an end in which there is no explanation prior up the causal chain, even if its existed infinitely. Why after all did that thing exist infinitely opposed to finitely? Because that's just what is.

But the state is a monopoly of the kind you describe, destroying the playing field for everyone else, and willing to maintain it with compulsion and violence, with free reign to wage war, dominate each other, and ensure no one has any way of beating them again. Unfettered statism seems to me the greater threat than some entity from a game. — NOS4A2

Depends on how the state is formed. That's where elections come in. When the state is held accountable by the people involved, it must consider the people to some extent as people at the table who must be sated. This is much better than being dinner for the powerful.

Unfettered anything is bad. A pure authoritarian state is no better than rule by a mob boss. And unfettered capitalism does not escape this as well. I'll add to my original statement as well. Unfettered capitalism has no concern for limited resources or long term planning. Why make lightbulbs that last longer when people won't have to buy as many? Strip the forests down today and worry about the long term consequences tomorrow.

A state that is influenced by the people is the only way to ensure there is some accountability by the powerful. Because if there is no accountability, the powerful will not do so on their own.

Here's the thing: There is never freedom.

If its not the state, its your powerful neighbor. If its not that, its the mob. If its not that, its something else.

Humanities natural state when given free reign is to wage war, kill each other, dominate each other, and have someone come out on top that seeks to control everyone else. The same with unregulated capitalism.

Capitalism's unfettered goal is to destroy itself. This has been tested in games and social experiments repeatedly. Everyone starts off the same, but then winners and losers are determined. Eventually, the winners carve out a path to ensure no one has any way of beating them again, resulting in the death of capitalism.

The best way to regulate a system, is when you have governance influenced by the people involved.
While it is not perfect, as no one ideology ever is, people always have some type of say and influence to minimize the implementation of the winners destroying the playing field for everyone else.

Can something cause its own existence? No.

Can something exist and there be no prior causal reason for why it should exist? Yes, and its logically necessary that this exist for at least one thing in the causal chain of existence.

Fair enough. I’m not sure the far right would employ multiculturalism or socialism as state doctrine, for example. — NOS4A2

I think those are good points.

I appreciate the examples but I just don’t know what purpose they serve. — NOS4A2

The point is we should be giving examples of the far left that are different than examples of the far right. The examples you gave were not examples that are isolated to the far left, but shared with the far-right. Can you think of unique approaches to governance that the far left does that the far right would not do?

It’s true. The left used to be about freedom and individualism. Now it’s statist, reactionary, and collectivist. That’s why the old divisions hardly work anymore. — NOS4A2

No, you are false. We are talking about the extreme. The extreme left and right use the exact same system of division, controls, and authoritarianism. The difference are the targets.

big government, nanny-statism with an emphasis on identity politics, activism, and anti-capitalism. — NOS4A2

Let me give you examples.

Big government: Texas recently banned people from getting abortions, including if you're raped. This is state power over individual freedom. Florida recently mandated school district can't say anything that makes people uncomfortable regarding sexuality. The proper way would have been for local school districts to each handle this as the community wanted.

Nanny-statism with identity politics- The far right has used government to divide blacks out of districts to ensure Democrats do not win seats. Dog whistles have been confirmed to be used for years. I already mentioned gays, we can talk about single mothers back in the 80's. The far right nanny's not the populace, but the powerful. Tax breaks, deregulation, as well as tax incentives for large businesses that create lower tax burden's than the rest of the population. Law enforcement that will break up protests by people to ensure business continues without interruption. Favorable bankruptcy laws and stock market laws favor the wealthy while a lower status individual who takes out a college loan is enslaved to it for life.

Activism: Oh boy. Lies that the election was stolen and we need to make sure "our" guys are in charge of counting next time? Anti-abortion and anti-gay activists. Anti-teachers and finding ways to criminalize drug use and poverty that disrupts wealthy people's lives instead of helping out.

Anti-capitalism: True capitalism means the government largely stays out of business except to regulate and prevent bad actors. This does NOT mean that you don't tax businesses. The far right loves government interference here. Florida's retaliation against Disney because it had a different opinion. Massive tax breaks and deregulation for businesses, especially those that donate. Favorable laws and taxes for the powerful industries like the oil, coal, and medical lobby.

There are plenty on the left and the right who are not extreme. They favor different targets, but go about using minimal government, government with oversight, and compromise. Very few people are extreme because very few people are fully right or left. Most of us have a blend of left and right views based on different situations if we don't brain wash ourselves into thinking party identity is somehow our identity as well.

I’m not sure that’s true. To identify the left wing all you have to do is ask them. — NOS4A2

My point was your identification of the far left was not unique to being on the left.

This thread is about the left wing, though. — NOS4A2

Correct. But to identify the left wing, you must show how it is different than the right wing. You cannot talk about one without the other.