At 02:54 PM 1/28/99 -0700, Dick.Gray@bull.com wrote:
>In this case, a form of the fallacy of composition, i.e. considering a
>composite (or abstraction) as on the same ontological level as its
>components, and attributing characteristics of components to the composite
>itself. As in "the rights of society", or "the good of society", or
IAN: I've shown how collectives, like life, have attributes that individuals DO NOT have, yet the composition fallacy is confined only to alleging a false similarity between part and whole. See:
So my showing that a collective has attributes that an individual does NOT have as the basis for defining the "entityness" of a group is opposite to the fallacy of composition, which pertains only to assuming a thing they DO (but in fact do not) have in common, and thus my analysis negates your composition-fallacy claim.
As we've observed, considering a composite system (like an atom, a stone, a person, or a galaxy) as an entity doesn't create a contradiction, indeed, seeing the collective entity is a key to knowledge.
The price of broccoli in a free market measures "the good of society" (which you call a "delusion") since it is the voice of society (demand) measured against the supply of that which is demanded. To deny the social entity is to deny economics, which necessarily sees society as a composite entity.
>>IAN: I don't believe that a case has been made
>>that the thing called "society" is an illusion.
>Society is not an illusion. Treating society as a "thing" is an illusion,
>or rather a delusion.
>>A group entity is an illusion because.... ????
>"Illusion" is your word, not mine.
IAN: Actually it was Freespeak's word, not mine, and your defending that case, since you called the group entity a "delusion."