Freedomain Radio

I was confused about a few things after watching the video. I did agree with the initial idea, that Government, as an idea, did not exist. What we call government is the interaction of the "authorities" with the rest of the people in that state.Government can not exist if people do not believe in it. The interactions of government would cease if nobody agreed.

 
But then, I got confused when the example of the family and the forest came up. A person exists, and the parents of that person exists, and that is called a family. But Stephan says that a family only exists in our minds as an aggregation of people. This is where I got confused. The relationship between the parents and child exists whether they are present or not. The relationship being that their DNA recombined to form a new life. A family exists outside of the mind. It is an aggregation of people with a certain relationship.

Then, the forest example. A tree exists, whether you think the tree exists or not. But, a forest, which is an aggregation of trees is only an imagination of an aggregation of trees. But, isn't a tree only an aggregation of cells, and the cell an aggregation of molecules, and the molecule an aggregation of atoms, and the atom an aggregation of quarks? So, all of these things, which exist in our imaginations, do have a representation in reality. A forest exists in reality the same way that deserts and fields exist.

So, can somebody clarify my misunderstanding, or disagreement, with that video.
 

Vision in Verse:

But then, I got confused when the example of the family and the forest came up. A person exists, and the parents of that person exists, and that is called a family. But Stephan says that a family only exists in our minds as an aggregation of people. This is where I got confused. The relationship between the parents and child exists whether they are present or not. The relationship being that their DNA recombined to form a new life. A family exists outside of the mind. It is an aggregation of people with a certain relationship.

Excellent questions! 

A tree is composed of cells, and of course everything is composed of atoms, and we do have some genetic similarities to our parents - but we are not physically bound to them in the same way that a tree's cells (or our own bodies) are bound together.

Would you call two adults with adopted children a 'family'?

What about a married couple without children - are they a 'family'? 

Are all blond, blue-eyed people a 'family', since they share genetic characteristics? 

Are human beings as a whole a "family" relative to chimpanzees?

A married couple with an adopted children are a family.

A married couple without children is a family.

All blond, blue-eyed people are not a family.

And I guess not all people are family, even though every mammal is related to each other.

So, the word family has a very vague description. It is fluid, to us. But, if I defined family as a relation, not as a thing, then it would exist. And, I suppose that's what you meant, that a family is not a "thing" that physically exists. The word family is a description of the dynamics of the relationships between a group of people.

But, the forest example I still do not understand. Are you saying the existence of a concept depends on how connected the molecules are to each other in some sort of system? What makes a tree exist, and also makes the forest down the street only exist in my imagination. 

When I first heard "state doesn't exist" I was pretty confused about it too, in the end - who rips me off my money then? In order to know if something exists, you need to define it first. In a certain way god exists too (for example the word "god" exist, so it's possible to say "The [word] god exists"). It's just a matter of what functional load does the word carry. Family, state, gods, unicorns - they all exist as concepts. If I dress as a leprechaunt and I define a leprechaunt as man dressed in funny green clothes - then I am the one, and surely there are surely more leprechaunts! But that doesn't make fairy tales true, it's merely a redefinition of a word. So, if you come to me and say "so, where did you hide a pot of gold?" I will most probably have no answer, because pot of gold wasn't part of my definition.

So if a definition of family is: a bunch of folks who coerse you into joining into unproductive relationships with them, then hell yea, family does exist. If definition is: a group of free people having inherent spiritual bound with each other - then no (free person by definition is not bound by anything).

Vision in Verse:

A married couple with an adopted children are a family.

A married couple without children is a family.

All blond, blue-eyed people are not a family.

And I guess not all people are family, even though every mammal is related to each other.

 

So, the word family has a very vague description. It is fluid, to us. But, if I defined family as a relation, not as a thing, then it would exist. And, I suppose that's what you meant, that a family is not a "thing" that physically exists. The word family is a description of the dynamics of the relationships between a group of people.

But, the forest example I still do not understand. Are you saying the existence of a concept depends on how connected the molecules are to each other in some sort of system? What makes a tree exist, and also makes the forest down the street only exist in my imagination. 

Cells in a tree are bound together by objective forces - trees in a forest are not.