relatively, yes
actually most standards of happiness in the material world work like that - what is it that money can buy if not the (attempted) vantage point of being free from suffering?
Intrinsic Value
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
actually most standards of happiness in the material world work like that - what is it that money can buy if not the (attempted) vantage point of being free from suffering?
Okay this is starting to drive me insane.
You say that it exists, and then that it does not exist. You say is subjective, then say there is no such thing as subjective by saying that "objectively seen value doesn't exist". First, there is nothing to do the seeing objectively (which in my opinion invalidates it as a possible model) and second, you completely contradict your assertion that it exists subjectively by saying that objectively it doesn't. If something exists subjectively, that it does so would therefore be and objective reality. It's content, what it means to the invidual exists within their mind, so it does exist. That is not to say that what they are thinking about is an accurate represenation of anything objective whatsoever.
Meaning exists or you wouldn't understand these words. It is part of reality, though only experienced and known of subjectively. This of course hinges closely on the assumption of selfhood. Do you reject the assumption "I am."?
If so, then we can kindly drop the subject, as we aren't really speaking.
But anyway, since I know I exist (logically, through assuming it so) I know meaning exists, as it the very process of recording this thought requires it. Therefore, objectively meaning exists - although it seems that it only does so subjectively. Therefore, nihilism is nullified (at least to me). If those therefores don't work I call on the the whole thing where there's nothing concievable to exist that can "do the seeing", as "seeing" is necessarily subjective. "as seen objectively" just doesn't work, and I reject the hypothesis on that basis.
Last edited:
Link doesn't work.
pardon
it outta work soon. the tp is propositional attitudes. inferences by analogy, i think.
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/puzzle.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002573.html
more spin
wes
how can "i am" be an assumption?
does that not imply we have a choice of assumptions?
perhaps even a choice of assumption and non assumption?
that particular axiom is the basis for all others, i think.
one cannot negotiate around it
now
i mentioned this before without it been commented on
objectivity requires a plurality
since a subjective experience has nothing as a reference point in order validate its propositions. it has no choice but to accept it as true. logic can validate the formulations but the axioms would remain resistant to any logical
analysis
objectivity requires a shared reality. shared being the operative word while reality, by a simple concurrence
??
how can "i am" be an assumption?
does that not imply we have a choice of assumptions?
perhaps even a choice of assumption and non assumption?
that particular axiom is the basis for all others, i think.
one cannot negotiate around it
now
i mentioned this before without it been commented on
objectivity requires a plurality
since a subjective experience has nothing as a reference point in order validate its propositions. it has no choice but to accept it as true. logic can validate the formulations but the axioms would remain resistant to any logical
analysis
objectivity requires a shared reality. shared being the operative word while reality, by a simple concurrence
??
Last edited:
true
furthermore, that particular application and inferred meaning is hardly the province of philosophy. the determinants appear to stem from a cultural standpoint
fads and trends come to mind
mundane and superficial i think
a thought reinforced by the inclusion of emotion
the province of sub-humans
furthermore, that particular application and inferred meaning is hardly the province of philosophy. the determinants appear to stem from a cultural standpoint
fads and trends come to mind
mundane and superficial i think
a thought reinforced by the inclusion of emotion
the province of sub-humans
That's not what I'm saying, though.
I would say that from a human perspective, the intrinsic value of phenomena is indeterminate, not that it doesn't exist.
The emotion elevates the sub to human. The emotion adds or detracts value. If you were ever in doubt the sight of the robot 'playing' a violin might point in a certain direction.
Oh yes, apparently so. Or we wouldn't engage in these discussions.
The pursuit of truth - we ascribe it value, and we engage in it.
A philosopher should know why he is doing what he is doing. Otherwise, his mind will carry him as it pleases.
May I ask, if you please to indulge, what you think philosophy is? I'm asking here (dangerous, I know) on your opinions. It very easy to study these things, get a qualification and then set oneself up as an expert. But in a thing such as philosophy which amounts mostly to conjecture about what it is to be human Isn't everyone qualified to speak even if they don't have the inlingo?
Therefore taking things a little further. To a lion the intrinsic value of a gazelle is 'food!'.
To a bird the intrinsic value of a nest is 'shelter'. To a human the intrinsic value of a coin is as a token of exchange or as in a previous example a gift from a loved one. Our emotions seperate us from the other animals so that we may ascribe value other than food/water/shelter.
To a bird the intrinsic value of a nest is 'shelter'. To a human the intrinsic value of a coin is as a token of exchange or as in a previous example a gift from a loved one. Our emotions seperate us from the other animals so that we may ascribe value other than food/water/shelter.
fuck you
defense against the dark arts. it has to be assumed because it can't be "absolutely proven" because you're you and stuff and can't be not you to validate.
If you wanted to drive yourself insane and probably die soon you could probably convince yourself you didn't exist - even though it'd be stupid. but it's really only and assumption because it can't be logically proven. so since the evidence seems so overwhelmingly in support of it even though I can't prove it (logically), it's assumed such that a logical basis is formed. (logic requires some assumption upon which to build)
A classic example of someone who rejects this assumption was nameless.
assumptions are always choices (logically)? you may not have realized you chose but still.. I assume responsibility for my mind, even in the choices it makes without me consciously choosing.
axiom, assumption, whatever. and yeah it can be circumnavigated, but to absolutely no end IMO.
I tend to be think of it absolutely and bear in my logical fallacy, so I think plurality is argument from authority.
well to make any sense at all I'd agree yeah, but frame it like I said as a logical necessity.
to me axiom and assumption are effectively the same thing.
Hmm... again I think logically, a simple concurrence just means that we both agree as to the authority of our perspectives. Nothing saying we aren't both completely morans.