Yes, it IS black and white. Look closer and you can see the dots
Imagery is not adequate for argumentation- a monkey can be taught to use sign language- a metaphor is defined as the use of imagery- it is therefore semiotic in nature- semiotics can never support the use of logic- observe that “I see” refers explicitly to the perceptual level of consciousness where logic can not be done- observe that “color” is an optical referent- not a conceptual one- we can deduce, if two people disagree – that AT LEAST ONE OF THEM (and possibly both) is WRONG- no further deduction possible on the face- the notion of “somewhere in between” is the fundamental cornerstone of moral relativism…
(besides- gray is by definition “black and white “)
but no concept can be described in terms of the sensory apparatus. That’s why we have words- they are the only tools that can serve for the purpose of critical analysis- as long as they ARE words- i.e. they have definitions- because otherwise, they can be credited with no more meaning than an animal grunt.
Rodin: The Thinker
One can not “explain” without words, or “understand” without logic— example
Take two words: BRASS and GRASS
They LOOK very much alike… both black marks on a piece of paper… same shapes, mostly- but the difference between their meaning is great- furthermore, neither one looks like what it represents….
Monkeys can be taught sign language because the symbols involved have a resemblance to the referents- perceptual in nature – NOT suitable for logic because not to the necessary degree of abstraction to perform falsification.
For a word to be a word it has to have a definition.
Definition comes from the Latin: fine, meaning limit or end-
If it is out of bounds it is not the thing. If within the limits it is the thing
The definition of the word green is NOT a catalog of all possible green things- it is the set of distinguishing characteristics.
What makes it GREEN, no matter to what degree, is a set of characteristics which if it possesses them it is and if it lacks them it isn’t-
Green can be defined by a range of wavelengths- very objectively
Human nature is distinguished by the requirement that the individual learn everything he knows and think to survive.
He starts out tabular rasa and as he acquires knowledge of his world and of himself, he, unique amongh the animals, decides what he is and through rehearsal, by thought, word and deed, becomes what he defines himself to be.
Please observe the self-referential nature of defining oneself- this is the recursion that must be achieved to BE human… this is the fundamental and distinguishing characteristic of HUMAN NATURE
A definition only has to have and must only have the set of DISTINGUISHING characteristics
that is, it must form an identity
An individual’s definition of himself can not contradict any definition which applies to all humans because the individual is a subset of all humans.
Here is a trick I learned/discovered:
Because a person is most familiar with one particular person, he uses that person as the standard for evaluating others- i.e. “human nature” in general
So if you ask someone to define “human nature” he will automatically, through what psychologists term “self-projection” give you a definition of his very own character… and when he does, listen to him- he MEANS it.
In the act of defining human nature, so therefore, he defines himself