Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2
Justifications / The Meanings of Farther
« Last post by JHuber on March 20, 2014, 04:02:29 PM »
It is interesting and important to remind everyone the different meanings of farther.
The first is, of course, proximity.  One can be farther away than someone else. 
The second is from procedure.  One can move farther along in a process. 
The third is from temperment.  One who is upset is farther away than one who is content; or, in negotiations,  two parties can become farther apart in agreement. 
The fourth is from family tree.  A cousin is farther away than a sibling, or dogs are more distantly related, farther, to humans than apes. 

Of course, the same definitions (but oppositely) hold for closer which is the antonym of farther. 

The point of posting this here is that the term farther, which is a relative term, isn't only about proximity.  There are more to relations than proximity or family. 
Purposes / Re: The Solution To World Peace
« Last post by JHuber on October 27, 2013, 01:24:39 AM »
Here is a simpler form of reasoning:

1. A relation is composed of subjects.
2. Therefore, subjects and relations are related in the same subject.
3. Subject has the highest scope of all words.
4. Therefore, the subject of subjects and relations is the highest subject of all subjects.
5. God isn't defined as the subject of subjects and relations.
6. Therefore, God isn't the highest subject of all subjects.

If academic philosophy were to acknowledge this, there would be no interideological conflicts.  This is the solution for world peace. 

The world is suffering.
Purposes / The Solution To World Peace
« Last post by JHuber on September 26, 2013, 10:19:51 PM »
These are the three reasons why the Subjects and Relations system is the solution to world peace.

1) It contains the definition of love. 
Love is extreme empathy.  In games and sports the opponent is antipathetic.  Their actions cause hate yet outside of the game their is no hate.  It is the antipathy that causes hate.  Therefore hate is extreme antipathy.  Since love is the opposite of hate and hate is extreme antipathy, love is extreme empathy.  It doesn't say that in religious literature.  If religious literature are the word of God and they neglected to define love, then love isn't technically part of their religions.  This discredits their integrity. The definition of love isn't in atheistic literature either.

2) It contains right and wrong.
Right and wrong are defined using the concept of extrinsic subjects.  If a subject is within an extrinsic subject it is right, if not it is wrong.  The concept of extrinsic subjects isn't in religious books either.  Furthermore, it would be awkward to include it.  To discuss the concept of extrinsic subjects within a religious context would negate the authority of God.

3) It conforms with evolution.
To understand that we are all subjects and we all have relatives explains why we are here.  This applies not only to humans but to all other animals and plants as well.  It is the system of subjects and relations, as well as happiness, that created us.  An omnipotent being is therefore unnecessary.  The issue of creationism and evolution is therefore not necessary.

As the world struggles with extreme tensions because of worldview systems, terrorists are only protecting what they believe is right, this alternative system would vaporize that tension.  People fight for their beliefs but they won't fight for a discredited belief.

There is one more point I'd like to make here.  Not only is the Subjects and Relations system the solution to world peace, it is also the only solution to world peace that is possible.  The words subjects and relations have the highest scope of all words.  There are no other words in language capable of creating a "higher" system.   
Justifications / The Argument
« Last post by JHuber on January 20, 2013, 10:36:23 PM »
This is my argument in 100 words or less.

Mathematics and engineering are common systems worldwide. Philosophy should be as well. The word, "subject," has the highest scope of all words. When subjects combine a relation is formed. The relation that is formed can also be identified by a subject. Therefore, a subject can be used to identify the relation between subjects and relations. Since subjects exist, and relations exist, then the subject of subjects and relations exists. This system then has the highest scope of all possible systems. It is common throughout the world. All people are subjects and all people have relatives. Philosophy should acknowledge this with a name.
Justifications / Some Examples
« Last post by JHuber on May 04, 2012, 09:51:25 PM »
A possible scenario someone brought to me once was, "What about the situation if all of one's relatives are estranged?"  I replied that subjects and relations are abstract terms, it always has to work.  In other words, even if one's relatives are estranged, or dead, or imaginary, they are still your relatives.  They were so because of a combination.  There is nothing that can change that.

In comparison to parts and wholes, if one disassembles a car into all of its parts, that doesn't mean a whole is not composed of parts. 

In comparison to one and many (mathematics), just because a child's homework assignment is composed of subtraction problems, that doesn't mean they can't be added together.
Information / Hard Morality and the Base Rule
« Last post by JHuber on January 27, 2012, 10:46:22 PM »
There is no objective solution to morality in academic philosophy.  However, as subjects and relations theory is an objective view, morality is easily understood.  Morality, in common understanding, is refraining from doing what one wants because of cognitive reasons.  It differs from ethics in that ethics is determined from one's position (or job) in life, morality is not.  There are three types of morality:

1) Integrity - Lying, cheating and stealing.  Our morals refrain us from doing these to protect our integrity.

2) Soft Morality - Triage,  making a decision for better or worse.  Morality sometimes refrains us from making an immediate good in favor of a greater good. 

3) Hard Morality - The Base Rule.  The Base Rule is an axiom of subjects and relation theory.  It states that related subjects can not combine for the same reason unrelated subjects can not separate.  In life there are only three extrinsic subjects that are hard and immutable, they are permanent.  One is our species, an other is our family and the third is our gender.  Of the three our gender is the weakest as it can be changed with surgery or hormones but for practical purposes it is immutable too.  From hard morality comes the morals of cannibalism and incest.  In academic philosophy, these morals are called culturally relativistic.  In subjects and relations theory they are consequences.

There is also of course the issue of infidelity.  Infidelity in one sense is an act of lying or cheating which falls under the first type - integrity.  It is also a direct application of wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject.  (The extrinsic subject is the surname of the marriage.)

One last type of morality that is worth mentioning applies to the first axiom of subjects and relations theory.  This axiom, the league rule, states that, "An intrinsic subject can not combine with an extrinsic subject because if it did a new extrinsic subject would instantly be created."  An example of this is if a person gets married to their boss.  Employers are extrinsic to employees; it is therefore immoral to be in a position to be able to fire one's spouse.  If a new extrinsic subject were pertinent of this relation however, this rule would not apply. 
Metaphysics / In Relation to Physics
« Last post by JHuber on January 26, 2012, 11:11:09 PM »
It has been said that there is some sort of conciousness that controls the universe.   As we all know, the study of physics is highly advanced and with the exception of some details it is quite accurate in explaining just about everything.  What physics doesn't do however, is explain why.  It doesn't explain why gravity exists, or why electric charge exists or light or heat.  Physics is a compilation of relations that explains how these phenomena function, not why they are there.  Such an answer can only be answered by philosophy. 

     There is only one universe.  There are people who believe in multiple universes and they will back their claims with mathematics and logic, but by definition of the word 'universe' there can only be one universe.  If something were to be found in a different universe then the mere fact of its existence makes it a part of this universe.  Therefore, because of the way we define the word, there is only one universe. 

     Physical reality and non-physical reality are parts of our universe.  Physical reality is explained by physics (thus the reason it is called physics) and non-physical reality is explained by the non-physical sciences such as art, music, literature and psychology.  Being parts of our universe, there must be something that explains them both; otherwise, multiple universes would exist.

     It is easy to identify the Subjations with non-physical reality.  Emotion theory is considered to be psychology, right and wrong is philosophy, the axioms are applicable to morality and this system as a whole is the reason for sports, art, music and even the structure of language.  How the Subjations applies to physical reality, physics, can be done as well.  It is the different forms of combination that can be associated with physical phenomena:

Primary Extrinsic - Gravity
Primary Intrinsic - Charge
Secondary - Transmutation
Leverage - Light
Contentment - Inertia
Tertiary - Heat

As a result, because extrinsic exists gravity exists.  It is an intercombination.

The existence of intrinsic gives us charge.  (Charge is always polarized. Intrinsic subjects are always related within an extrinsic subject.  Relations are always plural; therefore, they are always polarized.)  It is an intracombination.

Secondary combination, growth, is the same as the transmutation of our elements.  Adding protons transmutes the atomic number, adding neutrons transmutes the isotopes.

Leverage is the reason for light.  The decrease of energy level of a photon causes the increase of the energy level of other photons which is how light works.  It is the same with gamma rays which involve the nuclei of all atoms.  It is also the same with chemicals which all have acidity levels.

Contentment is analogous to inertia.  As it takes energy to change inertia, it takes energy to change contentment.

Tertiary combination is waves.  Waves are everywhere.  Physically, waves are heat. 

    In this way, these six forms of combination are how non-physical reality can be analogous to physical reality.  The only other phenomena of physics that do not fall into one of these six categories are the strong and weak forces of quantum mechanics.   My only ideas about them are that of being intrinsic of the intrinsic, a sort of intrinsic squared phenomena.  Its an idea worth mentioning but nothing more.  The Subjations will never be better than physics, but at least it gives us the why instead of just the how.
Purposes / In Relation to Other Worldviews
« Last post by JHuber on January 26, 2012, 11:10:17 PM »
Although much has been said about emotion theory in this system, it is all based on subjects and relations which qualifies as a worldview.  To help understand what this means, here is what one would say concerning Darwin's theory of evolution from the point of view of these worldviews.

A Theist would say, "God created man and all living things.  Evolution theory is wrong."

An Atheist or a secular person would say, "The evidence presented in anthropology probably confirms that evolution theory is correct.  Darwin is one of the most influential scientists of all time."

A Subjationist, one who believes in the subject of subjects and relations, would say, "Evolution theory is redundant to my worldview.  I already know this.  I should have never heard of Darwin."
Purposes / Historical Perspective
« Last post by JHuber on January 26, 2012, 11:09:05 PM »
The concept of subjects and relations goes all the way back to the middle ages and even as far back as Aristotle.  If you like, you can read more with this link:
However, they only thought of subjects and relations for the purpose of organization, not for emotions. 

Theories of emotions go way back as well.  Here is a link to Benedictus Spinoza's ideas of them from the 17th century:
He, as well as others, do not describe emotions in terms of subjects and relations.
Purposes / Re: The Highest of All Possible Systems
« Last post by JHuber on January 26, 2012, 11:08:32 PM »
Relations can be composed of subjects, objects or units.  Relations of units is mathematics.  Relations of objects is engineering.  Relations of subjects is worldview or philosophy.
Pages: [1] 2