RE: Absence
Yes, but scarcity is a relative term. Something is scarce because it is insufficient. And insufficiency is non-sufficiency. And here you go down the same stairs as with all other words.
I say that if justice is, then its opposite is a concept and not a reality.
So "one" is not a singularity, but something made up of several (at least two).
I think this is valid if we talk about material things like a cell, because material objects are a compound. A cell is tall, wide, one, and many other things. On the other hand, ideas such as justice are simple, that is, they are only one thing, justice is only just. Therefore, it is only one. And we say that there is injustice when the just is not found.
I agree with you if you say that injustice is simply us not understanding the context. For me it's us not seeing the whole picture.
The problem with saying that injustice is, is that it is a concept that is based on denial, and denial is something that is said in correlation to something else, in this case, justice.
Are you talking about terms in absolute and relative expression?
If someone hides part of the revenue in his tax return, he is dishonest in his tax return.
He behaves dishonourably, the counter term of honour. Without dishonor, we wouldn't know what honor is. At some point, someone started using a term that had to do with an act or omission. Terms that have to do with actions, such as honour, have to do with their omissions, such as dishonour.
I still cannot follow your basic argument.
I would think that there is no beauty because beauty is a concept. If a concept is present, it is not present forever, but only in a context. Contexts change over time and are therefore not permanent. They are subject to change. So I would argue that the only thing you can nail down is change itself.
Change is. The absence of change would be immutability, permanence. It seems to me that not a single proof of permanence has yet been provided, either in explanatory models of a scientific or religious nature.
This brings me back to our previous dialogue on the concept of "I".
The Buddhists explain the absence of an I by saying that consciousness is like a candle flame. If you light another candle with the burning flame of that candle, is it still the same flame? Where is its essence? In this description consciousness is the flame. But nowhere is it understood that the one flame that lights the other candle is still the same or similar flame.
It's not the best of analogies, but I think it's a pretty good one.
Right. But although we would not know what honor is, it would still exist, being the rule and not the exception.
I would ask you then, have you seen a beautiful person? Because for a beautiful person to exist, beauty must exist. And here we realize that beauty is not a concept, a word nothing more, but refers to something real that exists.
Beauty is as permanent as the color red. Would the red color exist if there are no red things? We could say that there are no red things, but the red color could be created by mixing other colors. So, it exist?
The context changes, and people consider other things beautiful, but the beauty taken in itself has always existed. So that for beautiful things to exist, beauty must exist.
And I also believe that there are things that don't change, such as ideas, or colors. Red things fade over time and change color, but red taken itself is never another color.