This reminds me of a logical critique or concept I've been trying to figure out for a while now, but having a hard time concretely conceptualizing it or finding other resources on it (I wish Google still worked). I call it a scope error for lack of a better term.
But it's like, when thinking about or discussing a scenario or metaphysical claim or whatever, usually it exists in an implied scope or from an implied frame of reference. That context may be subjective or intersubjective, but it exists nonetheless.
So for example if you're asking the question "does x matter" there's an implied frame of reference and/or scope (to whom might x matter?). In some contexts a technically more accurate signifier for the concept might be 'do I care about x" or "do people I respect care about x" or "does the existence or nonexistence of x bring about pain or pleasure to me or people or things I care about". Although of course the essence is obscured by the signifiers used, even sometimes to the person using them, so someone pondering such a question might themself be unable to answer it without determining the frame of reference.
As a side note, in Western culture, or at least my experience of Statesian culture, the frame of reference is often (implicitly and usually subconsciously) the christian god. I think even for some devout atheists, it's just unspoken and unrecognized, like they abandoned belief in such a god but failed to restructure the way they conceptualized things, leaving a god-shaped void in their mind. If it's not that, it's usually within the tiny scope of the individual ego. A scope that's either infinitely and unrealistically large or asocially small.
One popular but vulgar version of nihilism is guilty of this. Should I exercise, should I treat people well, should I contribute to a higher cause, etc? "No, it doesn't matter because you'll be dead eventually", "the plight of any given human is inconsequential and meaningless in the face of the heat death of the universe / climate change / capitalism / multiverse / god. But no one is talking about whether an impact or value exists beyond the heat death of the universe. It's not only a ridiculous point of reference, it's non-unique, applying to everything equally, and can thus be eliminated from any consideration.
A concept exists with an implied context, so to address it using a different implied context or scope or frame of reference is a non-sequitur. But because these contexts are implied, it's difficult to see what exactly is happening in a non-discussion.
I think this happens with so-called “rationalists” too, in the opposite direction. They zoom out the scope of time and reality so they can say stuff like “we need to sell our cat’s organs and donate to MRI for the infinite simulated orphans in the future” despite the fact that’s insane and absurd to anyone who lives in the like, present, earth-oriented scope
In this example they replace God in their minds with an arbitrary moral system that happens to justify worshipping billionaires
Agree. Nihilism is often the baby steps of philosophy. Yes morality is constructed and socially useful, that's why we need it duh. The absurdity of the "capitalist individualism vs communist collectivism" is that for your own selfish happiness you need to be loved and cared about and helped and supported by a greater structure. But I guess it's a lot easier to feel good about being edgy than accepting that the world needs to move forward
Yes. This. This is exactly what I was talking about in my other comment in this thread, posted before seeing this one. I was calling it scale instead of scope, but this is spot on.
People will pick and choose how things function at one scope and pretend it applies at others. A lot of people, even good well-meaning ones, will do this and fall into this trap, but particularly shitty people will do this as a way to justify their garbage beliefs or justify hurting and demeaning others. Exactly like OP image "you don't matter 'cause the Earth doesn't give a shit if you're here or not as one person. You're a loser for thinking you matter at all." FUCK that. You absolutely matter, just not necessarily at the scale/scope of an entire planet orbiting a star, that doesn't invalidate or make meaningless the just as real scale/scope at which you DO matter. Their application of how things function at scale is always used in whatever way is beneficial to them at the moment or to prove whatever flawed, even sadistic point they're trying to make. Capitalists, politicians, and of course the mass media under their control do this constantly and it infuriates me to no end.
What you are referencing is usually called a 'framing problem' or 'reference issue', usually the latter. I've never heard of it called a 'scope problem', but that probably works as well.
This reminds me of a logical critique or concept I've been trying to figure out for a while now, but having a hard time concretely conceptualizing it or finding other resources on it (I wish Google still worked). I call it a scope error for lack of a better term.
But it's like, when thinking about or discussing a scenario or metaphysical claim or whatever, usually it exists in an implied scope or from an implied frame of reference. That context may be subjective or intersubjective, but it exists nonetheless.
So for example if you're asking the question "does x matter" there's an implied frame of reference and/or scope (to whom might x matter?). In some contexts a technically more accurate signifier for the concept might be 'do I care about x" or "do people I respect care about x" or "does the existence or nonexistence of x bring about pain or pleasure to me or people or things I care about". Although of course the essence is obscured by the signifiers used, even sometimes to the person using them, so someone pondering such a question might themself be unable to answer it without determining the frame of reference.
As a side note, in Western culture, or at least my experience of Statesian culture, the frame of reference is often (implicitly and usually subconsciously) the christian god. I think even for some devout atheists, it's just unspoken and unrecognized, like they abandoned belief in such a god but failed to restructure the way they conceptualized things, leaving a god-shaped void in their mind. If it's not that, it's usually within the tiny scope of the individual ego. A scope that's either infinitely and unrealistically large or asocially small.
One popular but vulgar version of nihilism is guilty of this. Should I exercise, should I treat people well, should I contribute to a higher cause, etc? "No, it doesn't matter because you'll be dead eventually", "the plight of any given human is inconsequential and meaningless in the face of the heat death of the universe / climate change / capitalism / multiverse / god. But no one is talking about whether an impact or value exists beyond the heat death of the universe. It's not only a ridiculous point of reference, it's non-unique, applying to everything equally, and can thus be eliminated from any consideration.
A concept exists with an implied context, so to address it using a different implied context or scope or frame of reference is a non-sequitur. But because these contexts are implied, it's difficult to see what exactly is happening in a non-discussion.
I think this happens with so-called “rationalists” too, in the opposite direction. They zoom out the scope of time and reality so they can say stuff like “we need to sell our cat’s organs and donate to MRI for the infinite simulated orphans in the future” despite the fact that’s insane and absurd to anyone who lives in the like, present, earth-oriented scope
In this example they replace God in their minds with an arbitrary moral system that happens to justify worshipping billionaires
Agree. Nihilism is often the baby steps of philosophy. Yes morality is constructed and socially useful, that's why we need it duh. The absurdity of the "capitalist individualism vs communist collectivism" is that for your own selfish happiness you need to be loved and cared about and helped and supported by a greater structure. But I guess it's a lot easier to feel good about being edgy than accepting that the world needs to move forward
Yes. This. This is exactly what I was talking about in my other comment in this thread, posted before seeing this one. I was calling it scale instead of scope, but this is spot on.
People will pick and choose how things function at one scope and pretend it applies at others. A lot of people, even good well-meaning ones, will do this and fall into this trap, but particularly shitty people will do this as a way to justify their garbage beliefs or justify hurting and demeaning others. Exactly like OP image "you don't matter 'cause the Earth doesn't give a shit if you're here or not as one person. You're a loser for thinking you matter at all." FUCK that. You absolutely matter, just not necessarily at the scale/scope of an entire planet orbiting a star, that doesn't invalidate or make meaningless the just as real scale/scope at which you DO matter. Their application of how things function at scale is always used in whatever way is beneficial to them at the moment or to prove whatever flawed, even sadistic point they're trying to make. Capitalists, politicians, and of course the mass media under their control do this constantly and it infuriates me to no end.
What you are referencing is usually called a 'framing problem' or 'reference issue', usually the latter. I've never heard of it called a 'scope problem', but that probably works as well.
Bring back existentialism! Make philosophy out of my cocktail, and meaning out of life rather than death.