Talk:Public

I've removed Society as a Parent Topic of Public from this page on the grounds that it lacks neutrality. Suggestions that public anything is part of society takes a partisan position on not just one but several of the most profound and complex issues discussed in this area. I have no quarrel with discussing these issues fully and completely; in fact I hope to encourage it, but installing society as a parent topic is a highly partisan position in this case and could preclude some of that discussion and presentation of perspectives we ought to be encouraging.

Roger Lohmann 20:54, 24 July 2008 (CDT)

What kind of category is (the) "public"?

From my user talk page, moved here:

Larry,

Somewhere today you asked about the Public/Related Articles: " Isn't "everything" a little too broad as a parent topic? And will we have an article titled "everything"? Interesting question...)" I saw your comment on the "Recent Changes" list for Sociology, but I'll be darned if I can find an original memo to reply to, so I'm posting here in the expectation you will see it.

I did that deliberately in part as a belated birthday present for you! And it got much the reaction I was expecting: interest. And yes, it seems to me a case can be made for at least a brief article by that title. I've long been intrigued by one of the management ontology projects in Toronto a few years ago (TOVE) that began an elaborate branching diagram with the term "Thing" and this is in much the same spirit. It's hard to get more parent than that!

One thing is clear and that is that Society most definitely is not a Parent topic of Public/Private and I will be removing it shortly. That usage throws neutrality right out the window and walks screaming and flailing right into the middle of some of the oldest and longest running theoretical issues in this area. The State/Society issue is a major part of it, but with respect to publics there are other issues as well. So, Society is definitely not a suitable parent for public.

As I thought about it, most dichotomies of public and private are, indeed, offered as universals to the extent that they do indeed seek to dichotomize everything. (Hence, the provocation.) What we really need here, I think, is some help from an epistemologist; No wait, we have one! And he's interested.

In short, I posted Everything in a rather lighthearted vein, and I would welcome any suggestions for alternatives, but there are some really meaty issues involved here, more than a few of which go right to the heart of your interests in this project. E.g. public domain

P.S.: I think both Thing and Everything are probably most appropriate topics for the philosophy workgroup. Suggestions for how we get them involved?

Roger Lohmann 20:47, 24 July 2008 (CDT)

Definitely philosophers (ontologists) would be game to discuss some ur-category like thing, item, or object (I've heard/read all three as "the most encompassing name for anything it is possible to talk about"). Another one is possible or possibile (noun) with possibilia as the plural, but this is usually used in discussions specifically of modality. I don't know if any philosopher would be game to discuss "everything" under that precise title--perhaps--but generally the topic comes up in discussions of logic and the scope of the universal quantifier. ("For all x, x is a thing." What can be included in "x"? What does the variable "range over"?) You'll probably get a lot of very dry, abstract talk about whether square circles are "things" in any sense at all. But I guess I don't see any reason not to have an article titled everything, at least a short one as you say. After all, there are certainly some interesting things you can say about it beyond the mere definition, and you can point people to topics where closely-related if not identical topics, such as thing, reality, and universe, and explain how "everything" is or is not the same as these.

You've made the case clearly and well for an article on everything. (Particularly in light of the CZ epigraph that says we are the "encyclopedia of everything." Whether or not this means that public is a category of everything, as I said above I did that for fairly frivolous reasons, but also to make the point that whether or not we recognize it, this is more or less how users of the public-private distinction use it: as universal and exhaustive.

As to whether "public" names an aspect of society or not, well, I'll bite: what is the controversy? Maybe you could add that to the article, if appropriate.

The controversy is deep and wide. The state vs. society question is just one very important part of it. In part, it is a multi-way conflict between political philosophers, sociologists (or a particular view), economists and others. A good bit of it has to do with what are parts and what are wholes? Is the economy part of society? Is the state part of society? (Or, is society part of the state?) This will indeed be a major focus of the article as it develops more fully. Any of us may have a settled view on this, but rest assured that what ever it is, many will disagree completely with your view and our first responsibility is to present both (all?) sides of the issue. Society as a parent topic of public wouldn't do that; it takes sides.

I don't think you've made it clear in the introduction why the term belongs to such a universal category as everything or, as I might be more inclined to say, universe. Is this because, say, the planet Mars is a public entity? Well, not that I know anything about this (when did that ever stop me?), it seems to me that "public" in perhaps all its senses is defined by reference to human society. Public things might not be part of human society, I'll grant that; perhaps there could be a "public" of anarchists who are not part of any society, properly so called. I suppose I might say that the public, noun, is an undifferentiated group of people, typically in a society or part of it and often with some common interests, while "public," adjective, is that which very generically "belongs" to the public in the noun sense. So, if it is tendentious to say that the public is (part of) society, we could say at least that all talk of the public is talk ultimately of human beings. Everything is too broad, I propose, because there are many things that are included in "everything" which it does not make sense to speak of as either "public" or "private." For example, the insides of black holes aren't ever going to be public or private. --Larry Sanger 10:02, 25 July 2008 (CDT)

It doesn't get much more private than the inside of a black hole! There isn't even a smidgeon of public knowledge on the subject, as there is on most other questions of what is private! (He said with a grin.) While I agree everything is a bit pretentious in this instance, I really cannot come up with a legitimate parent topic for public (or private). Society, as i said, just doesn't do it. I think I'll leave it blank for now.

P.S.: Why do we say 'the' public? Whoever says 'the' private? (The planned section on Lippmann-Dewey Debate of 1922 deals in part with this question of whether there is one public or many.) Stay tuned, and thanks for your good comments.

Roger Lohmann 11:53, 25 July 2008 (CDT)

I'm in a bit of a rush, but I just wanted to ask: isn't there a difference between "private" and "non-public"? I think that black holes aren't private, because they have nothing to do with persons and their private interests. --Larry Sanger 12:00, 25 July 2008 (CDT)

As a matter of personal choice, I would agree, but my point is, was, and will be, in the literature the public/private dichotomy is treated as universal and exhaustive. (But the black holes example is a good one to include in discussion of the limitations. Thanks. Roger Lohmann 12:17, 25 July 2008 (CDT)