ok
Civil society and the liberties enjoyed by individuals have undoubtedly increased in the history of the world in varies regions and times. Some of those places are arguably becoming once again experiences of less liberty. There is a flux, as lam pointed out. The logic of negative liberty in its’ theorizing has definitely changed since ca. 1800. For one, Molinari (?spell) was the first person to show how private security and not public security is possible in a civil society and he didn’t theoretically spell that out until ca. mid-1800’s. Subjective value theory is a 1800 phenomena too. Without Locke, Kant, and others the foresight into liberty, reason, and politics, etc… would have not diffused into general society after a particular amount of time, as I noted in a previous post above +/-100 years it took to diffuse. The Age of Reason is but one historical proof that you are painting a too broad of a brush as to how liberty is understood. And that’s not even considering the huge amount of intellectual maturation that happened in civil society in other fields during the age of reason.
What is significant about what I’m saying and as others have noticed too (as I started out my OP with ‘undoubtedly others have noticed this too’) is that logic has been able to make knowledge consistent, but it is the diffusion and thus this knowledge put into action that is a part of what I’m saying. And the knowledge of what is possible ‘government v. non-government’ has significantly changed recently (by recent I mean in the last 200 years). The knowledge in various fields, even outside of politics, has changed. Logic can only work with and show the consistency of the current knowledge available. In abbreviated form, logic simply shows A is A. But what is A - that has to do with understanding epistemology. And the knowledge of A sometimes changes. And when that knowledge of A changes, then logic can work within this new theory and apply consistency. Logic is not knowledge, but without humans having the ability to know that A is A, thus, to point out that A can’t be non-A, then knowledge would be worthless as A could be anything, sometimes B, C, D, etc… and nobody could focus and connect the dots.
I think this is what you are saying and I agree and haven’t otherwise: What is logical obviously may never be enacted by humans, but what logic will show is what is impossible and what is possible. And what is possible changes due to the knowledge within the premise to be deducted into a conclusion. The premise can involve various subjects (s) and predicates (p) and those s’s and p’s can change depending on what is known. But new knowledge doesn’t alter what has already been shown to be certain, in other words, once a deduction shows universality then that principle is understood and is certain. But the theories that any principle applies too can flux and thereby a change in theory would need to incorporate known principles or those principles would need to be incorporated into another theory far different, but it’s not the principles that change it’s the theory, in other words, what we know about the principles in what relational system (theory) in the world that can change. So what is logically possible may never come to pass, but what was known in the past to be logically possible is limited by the knowledge of the day. So what is logically possible today can be newly recognized based on new knowledge. I think you are focusing too much on the logic and not enough on the knowledge (which can definitely vary from person to person and that’s were the debate can actually take place).
Yes there is a single ‘realm of logic’. You might be surprised what polylogic has to do with.
Yes. That can happen. But starting from a known axiom, for instance negative liberty as we both agree upon it’s conclusion, the same conclusion is reached by all people using logic.
There is only one logical conclusion for one premise. It is obvious that individuals that don’t follow through on what is logical are being illogical. Why they are being illogical varies due to conditions that stop them from following through on what is logical. Coercion being the main contributor to stopping what is logical from happening.
The lower or base-level experiences of humans is a valid generalization rooted in maturation and thus the developmental stages and education of an individual. A person that supportively operates on appealing to fear-mongering biologically is inhibiting reason and a sustained experience of fear degenerates logical foresight and reasonableness. ‘Fight or flight’ is a biological experience that involuntarily inhibits deliberate action and causes the creature to reflexively ‘fight or flight’. But such an activity is not sustainable and too much of this kind of experience leads to a stressful lifestyle in which reasonable deliberate actions are not exercised very much due to this involuntary action replacing it. Without having the conditions to exercise deliberate reason the creature not being able to spend time on lower time preference activities thereby doesn’t have the time to exercise foresight, build capital, save for a rainy day, and will have an increased chance of being left out in the cold as the benefits of exercising reason brings insightfulness and clarity to what is happening in the world. A good leader is couragous, calm, and comes up with all kinds of ideas on what to do as such a person is experiencing the benefits of spending time with the intellect rather than ‘fighting and fighting’ all or most of the time, comparatively.
I admire your persistence. I suggest you understand the difference between knowledge (epistemology) and logic. Take it with a grain of salt or what have you, but understand I care about people and would love for others to understand and I’m definitely open to understanding too the viewpoints of other people. There are definitions to concepts that do need adhered to in order to have effective communication.
good day