Reminded by an article posted about by @Rhysy, I came to think of the difference between difference and similarity (or vice versa) - I think I've already written about how this difference (or indeed similarity) is like a reversible sweater. The two concepts are intrinsically two sides of the same coin, and anything that can be described as similar to something else can also be described as different from that same thing.

But I am not sure I have really written about abstractness, which might be an oversight, considering how much opinions I have on the matter.

My taxonomy if abstraction is really very simple (if black-boxy), and also quite predictable, if you know me at all:
Abstraction is the act (or its product, because english is like that), of inductively deriving a pattern from a bunch of observations, or a bunch of ideas, and maybe of bunches of things too abstract to name. In simple terms, there are measuring points from which we abstract their relation, like an extrapolation.

In this taxonomy, arithmetic is an abstraction from counting, which again is abstracted from the idea that things are not unique (vis a vis my oft-mentioned threeness piece https://medium.com/@ansugeisler/threeness-25185def6ab7 ).
Math, or at least its starting seed, is in turn an abstraction from arithmetic, and what a can of worm that is...

The post that stirred up this train of thought was about whether wasps can be said to have an abstract concept of "sameness" just because they can be shown/trained to react to instances of "same".

The connection to Set Theory seems unavoidable. "Sameness" does not belong to the set of "Same", nor does "Same" belong to the set of "Sameness". In my taxonomy of abstraction, I put it this way: A relation between individual measuring points doesn't include the measuring poinnts. Similarly, although the measuring points embody the relation, the relation is not a part of the measuring points.

#philsophy #math #science #arithmetic #AtMePls

Philosophize This: Introduction to An Ethics of Care

I've been listening to Philosophize This for a few years, and recently caught up with the backlog, meaning I've been awaiting and listening to current episodes. Introduction to an Ethics of Care is #168 in the series.

The Ethics of Care is a new topic to me. This episode does an excellent job of introducing the topic, and the topic itself seems to me both interesting and highly relvevant in a world with numerous problems and crises, tight interdependence, and faltering concepts of community and common weal.

The episode seems to warm up as it progresses, and ends quite strong. It's longer than typical for the podcast at 42 minutes (most are closer to 24).

In particular are the five components of care, drawin from the work of Joan Tronto:

1. Attentiveness: Awareness of problems for others around you.
2. Responsibility: A sense that something needs to be done, above and beyond a mere contractual sense of obligation.
3. Competence: The abiility and capacity to assist usefully.
4. Responsiveness: Constanct awareness of the response to assistance, especially awareness of power imbalance.
5. Plurality: My understanding is foggier, though this involves "communication, trust and respect; solidarity"

Audio: http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophizethis/ethics_of_care_introduction.mp3?dest-id=144662

I'm looking at related references (Wikipedia and several of the named authors.) Stephen West typically posts a transcript, though that's not yet online for this episode. I'm looking forward to it.

https://philosophizethis.libsyn.com/episode-168-introduction-to-an-ethics-of-care

#Philsophy #EthicsOfCare #StephenWest #PhilosophizeThis #Podcasts