Skip to main content

Arbitrary and Rational

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

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

  • The concept of bald
  • The age of majority

The Concept of Bald

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

Questions:

How little hair should one have? None? Half?

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

What separates a bald person from a balding person?

The Age of Majority

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

Questions:

Why 18?

Why not 17 or 19?

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

The Line and Range

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary in Metaphysics

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

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

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

Arbitrary in Other Realms

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

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Island of Bryan Solar Panel Numbers are Horribly Misleading

Who doesn't want to be all sustainable and oh so environmentally friendly? I was watching the show and they brought down their 'friend' to help them get some solar panels on their resort. By friend, they mean some strategic business partnership to advertise the business, but that's not what I'm here to talk about - even though if this was an oil company 'friend' then all the numbers would be instantly scrutinized by default. Not in this case. And it just annoys me at how sloppy, misleading and downright fraudulent the way the solar crew present numbers. Here's how things were presented on the show: This is an island in the Bahamas which uses a diesel generator for electricity.  Diesel is dirty. The cost of this electricity is 35 cents/kWh. Solar is only 5 cents/kWh. Solar is obviously clean. Pays itself back in three years. When things are presented like this it only make sense to do solar right? It's drastically cheaper. It's cleaner. It's j

Milquetoast Brian Jean

  I've been following the UCP leader campaign here in Alberta with great interest. There has been a very anti-Kenney sentiment in the air around here, in particular with Kenney's top down party style, the lack of pushing back at Ottawa and over COVID restrictions/vaccine passports.  Brian Jean lost to Kenney and it looks like he lost because he was politically outmaneuvered - rather than a battle of ideas. He's obviously sour and was on the anti-Kenney train ever since. Let's just say that I was a bit excited that he's back. I wanted to see what he had to prove and that he may have some fire in him. The problem I have had with conservatives as of late is them being milquetoast. All that means is that they're very safe, very center and literally bring nothing to the table. Even though conservatives in CANADA say there are many things that need to change, they don't actually do anything all that different than the governing left. Maybe not as bad, but it all s

The West is Weak: Russia Invades Ukraine

 I haven't been writing a lot lately on this blog, but I felt the need to sign in and write about this. I've found myself feeling a bit depressed about the invasion of Ukraine - not because it happened, but due to how the west will predictably react to it. There will be a lot of talk, strong words, and even stronger rhetoric, but when the actual words become policy - it will be pathetically weak. There are people out there that seem to think or at least try to force the narrative of a simple dichotomy: either we accept Putin is doing it or it's WW3. Any normal person would find the choices here to be nauseating either way. If history is to serve a lesson, the first option often leads to the second option. But this dichotomy really illustrates the parameter that most people don't pick up on. The West is Morally Weak The facts are on the ground. The United States has the largest armed forces in human existence. A coalition of western powers is devastatingly more powerful