How very convenient for you that your concepts exactly align with your politics. It's almost like these concepts are totally arbitray.

Well like all good poststructuralists I happen to believe the distinction between sex and gender is a largely bogus and a very dumb American idea that needs to be put to bed permanently.

Again: what we call 'institutional' and 'non-institutional' is a matter of institutions.

Still abhorrent then. Bye bye.

Indeed, these deontic powers, these duties and obligations are the purpose of creating institutions. And they are created by status declarations assigning status functions. — Banno

But all facts bear such deontic forces, by virtue of having a garmmar at all. Witt: "grammar tells us what kind of object anything is". And all grammar has a normative function, obligating us to speak about things in this or that manner, even and especially when we choose to mark certain facts - by virtue of our institutions - as non-institutional.

But all facts bear such deontic forces, by virtue of having a garmmar at all. — StreetlightX

Probably. We might for now consider just those that are not created in virtue of grammar - like the ones in the examples.

Bu what do you think grammar is shaped by?

And you continue making the same use-mention mistake. How many times do I need to explain it to you?

We cannot impose an electrical charge just by deciding to count something as an electrical charge, but we can impose the office of the Presidency just by deciding what we will count as becoming President, and then making those people President who meet the conditions we have decided on. The intensionality-with-an-s of the sentence form "X counts as Y in C" is a clue to the intentionality-with-a-t of the phenomena. Because neither the X term nor the Y term permits substitution of coreferring expressions without loss or change of truth value of the whole statement, we have good reasons to suppose that the "counts as" locution specifies a form of intentionality. — The Construction of Social Reality, Searle

I was relying on old friend Charity to supply the contradiction but fwiw here it is again:

If we call a dog's tail a 'leg', then a dog has five legs. There are no brute facts.
A dog has four legs, no matter what we call them. There are brute facts.

I was curious where the example comes from and it turns out it's used by many from the early 19th C onwards. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/

We cannot impose an electrical charge just by deciding to count something as an electrical charge, but we can impose the office of the Presidency just by deciding what we will count as becoming President, and then making those people President who meet the conditions we have decided on. — The Construction of Social Reality, Searle quoted in Michael's post

Onward and possibly upward.

We cannot impose an electrical charge just by deciding to count something as an electrical charge, but we can impose the office of the Presidency just by deciding what we will count as becoming President, and then making those people President who meet the conditions we have decided on. — The Construction of Social Reality, Searle quoted in Michael's post — Cuthbert

This is exactly the problem.

We can impose an electrical charge just by deciding to count something as an electrical charge, that's exactly how electrical charges are distinguished from other properties - by deciding to distinguish them. (Note this is before we even give what we distinguished a name, hence use-mention distinction doesn't even enter the story).

Also, if we are not going to ignore use-mention distinctions, then it's simply not true that "we can impose the office of the Presidency just by deciding what we will count as becoming President". If we decide that having red hair determines who is president and the office involves no power at all, but is just a typing position in the office, then we're no longer talking about the president (use), we're talking about a secretary (use) which we've decided now to call "president" (mention).

Yes, the analysis becomes ubiquitous.

So pity poor Harry Hindu, who sees all language as mere assertion, and hence can't begin along the path. — Banno

This appears to be all assertions to me. I win everytime you type scribbles on your screen, Banno, because everytime you use scribbles you assert your intent to communicate.

If we call a dog's tail a 'leg', then a dog has five legs. There are no brute facts.
A dog has four legs, no matter what we call them. There are brute facts. — Cuthbert

A reductio ad absurdum against the first, highlighting the use-mention error that Isaac repeatedly makes:

P1. There is 1 red pill and 1 blue pill in a bag
P2. All red pills are poisonous
P3. All blue pills are not poisonous
C1. There is only 1 poisonous pill in the bag (from 1, 2, and 3)
P4. We now decide that the word "red" shall refer also to the colour blue and that the word "blue" shall be retired
C2. There are 2 poisonous pills in the bag (from 1, 2, and 4)

C2 is both false and contradicts C1.

With that very utterance, the promise is made, and the obligation created. — Banno

Searle says that within social institutions are duties and obligations

Within a social institution are duties and obligations. I sit down with someone for a game of chess, and we both agree that a particular piece is a bishop. For me, that the bishop moves diagonally is declarable even if I don't declare it. For the other person, that the bishop moves perpendicularly is declarable even if they don't declare it. We both promise to use the bishop correctly.

Searle in Ought and Is wrote: "With these conclusions we now return to the question with
which I began this section: How can my stating a fact about a man, such as the fact that he made a promise, commit me to a view about what he ought to do? One can begin to answer this question by saying that for me to state such an institutional fact is already to invoke the constitutive rules of the institution."

Who has the right to determine the duties and obligations within a society

As soon as the game starts I am annoyed that they have broken their promise to use the bishop correctly. The question is, why do I believe that the other person is under a duty and obligation to follow my understanding of the game. I could argue that the majority agree with me that the bishop moves diagonally and therefore the other person must have a duty and obligation to follow the majority.

But if the majority believe that the world is flat, why am I under a duty and obligation to also believe that the world is flat. Why does the minority have a duty and obligation to follow the majority ?

Edmund Burke - "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny."
Arthur Balfour - The tyranny of majorities may be as bad as the tyranny of kings.
Mark Twain - Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil - The European herd man, on the other hand, puts on airs nowadays as if he were the only acceptable type of man, glorifying the characteristics that make him tame, docile, and useful to the herd as if they were the true human virtues: such as public spirit, benevolence, consideration, industriousness, moderation, modesty, concern, sympathy.

Summary

I am sure that Searle is correct when he says that the test of a social institution is whether it has deontic power in establishing duties and obligations on others. These deontic powers can only come from its own members, whether an elite minority or a heterogeneous majority. One further question to ask is how does one set of members gain deontic power over others of differing opinions. A further question is once having gained such deontic powers, how do they keep them.

Duty and obligation may be admirable, but surely not at the expense of the tyranny of a small elite or a heterogeneous majority.

If the other person is using the same words as I do, but defining them in different ways, I may be mistaken in thinking that they have made me a promise, and should not be surprised if they break what I think are their obligations.

P1. There is 1 red pill and 1 blue pill in a bag
P2. All red pills are poisonous
P3. All blue pills are not poisonous
C1. There is only 1 poisonous pill in the bag (from 1, 2, and 3)
P4. We now decide that the word "red" shall refer also to the colour blue and that the word "blue" shall be retired
C2. There are 2 poisonous pills in the bag (from 1, 2, and 4)

C2 is both false and contradicts C1. — Michael

Changing the name doesnt change the pill. Its so simple i dont understand why theres any issue. I think that too many here think that making it complex also makes them smart.

Doesn’t everything have a status?

This piece counts as a bishop in chess.
This cord counts as a leash in walking.
A circle counts as a o in English.
A circle counts as a zero in math.
A circle counts as a o in tic tac toe. — praxis

Which the same as asking, isnt everything a state-of-affairs?

Pretty much. — Banno

:clap:

Changing the name doesnt change the pill. Its so simple i dont understand why theres any issue. — Harry Hindu

Neither do I, which is why I don't understand why Isaac thinks that we can turn lead into gold by changing the meaning of "lead" and/or "gold". That's a use-mention error. Regardless of the words we decide to use to refer to lead and gold, lead has 82 protons and gold has 79 protons. Regardless of what we decide to mean by "leg", dogs (typically) have four legs. Regardless of what name he chooses to call himself, Joe Biden is President of the United States.

With that in mind it is quite straightforward to say that being paper is a brute fact but being money is a human institution. There is no money if there are no people, but there will be paper.

Neither do I, which is why I don't understand why Isaac thinks that we can turn lead into gold by changing the meaning of "lead" and/or "gold". That's a use-mention error. Regardless of the words we decide to use to refer to lead and gold, lead has 82 protons and gold has 79 protons. Regardless of what we decide to mean by "leg", dogs (typically) have four legs. Regardless of what name he chooses to call himself, Joe Biden is President of the United States. — Michael

Yes, changing names is a language act. Changing elements is a chemical act and changing presidents is a voting act. Changing one has no effect on changing the other because different causes are required.

With that in mind it is quite straightforward to say that being paper is a brute fact but being money is a human institution. There is no money if there are no people, but there will be paper. — Michael

Humans and their societies with their institutions are planted firmly within the world and not separate from it. Talking about our institutions, or even our mental states, is talking about the world. It is a brute fact that humans have mental states and use paper to make money to exchange for goods and services.

There is no money if there are no people, but there will be paper. — Michael

The concept of paper exists without people?

The concept of paper exists without people? — praxis

The concept of paper doesn't exist without people but paper exists without people.

The concept of paper doesn't exist without people but paper exists without people. — Michael

Doesn’t but does exist… maybe you mean that something exists, like quantum particles for instance, but how are those particles distinguished from other particles without people?

The concept of paper doesn't exist without people but paper exists without people. — Michael

And numbers exist without people? Surely we'd still be 93 million miles from earth if people had never existed.

Surely we'd still be 93 million miles from earth — frank

You are the sun god, and I claim my eternal life!

Damn it's hot in here!

How many times do I need to explain it to you? — Michael

There's little point in us continuing if the only relationship you're going to allow is one where you explain things to me. I'm not here for a lecture.

The concept of paper exists without people? — praxis

The concept of money wouldn't exist without people and neither would it's physical incarnation in coins, paper, and computer bits.

Doesn’t but does exist… maybe you mean that something exists, like quantum particles for instance, but how are those particles distinguished from other particles without people? — praxis

Quantum particles can't distinguish themselves?

Things don’t need to be distinguished from other things to exist.

Things don’t need to be distinguished from other things to exist. — Michael

I don't think we can identify something without distinguishing it from what it's not, and even then the same thing could be identified differently depending on the context of the thing. An O could be a letter in the alphabet or an O in tic tac toe, for example.

Quantum particles can't distinguish themselves? — Hillary

Good question. I'll do the math.



:chin: Think I forgot to carry the one somewhere.

:lol: What potential you use?