User Tag List

First 101819202122 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 223

  1. #191
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I haven't read the whole thing, but I doubt very much that that was his purpose.
    You're correct- when I wrote that, I had just read a quote on another forum that was misattributed to him but was actually said by some AI robotics guy:

    What awaits is not oblivion but rather a future which is best described as post-biological or supernatural.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I do not follow how that outcome was in any way an inevitable result of his logic though. If values are meaningless, then valuing death, or valuing the principles of honesty/courage is meaningless too.

    Surely, the only logical outcome is inertia - neither acting to preserve life nor to eliminate it. Dressing in a white tuxedo and offing yourself on the tabernacle steps on Yom Kippur, (or whatever it was) having made provision to publish your great philosophical treatise doesn't speak to intellectual integrity. It speaks to megalomania and serious psychosis.
    I agree with you.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  2. #192
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm
    What I perceive Heisman to be saying, in part, is "Value does exist, but only in the mind, and the mind doesn't count". I am responding by asking why doesn't the mind count? It strikes me as a bias against mental objects, instead favouring physical objects because of his own values.
    Ah. Thank you, that's what I was looking for.

    I can follow that, because then it becomes the basis of existential thought... which is really about the mind determining how to invest in the physical because of the values held by the mind.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #193
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Somewhat pertinent-

    "Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will." - Immanuel Kant.

    The evaluation of good by the good will of the subject.
    Last edited by Ginkgo; 10-04-2010 at 11:42 AM. Reason: goodness.

  4. #194
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Somewhat pertinent-

    "Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will." - Emmanuel Kant.

    The evaluation of good by the good will of the subject.
    I don't see how that is pertinent at all. What Kant says is that nothing is purer good than a good will/intention.

  5. #195
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I don't see how that is pertinent at all. What Kant says is that nothing is purer good than a good will/intention.
    I'm sorry if you can't see the relationship.

  6. #196
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Please enlighten me!

  7. #197
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    In object-oriented programming, you can create an object with its own behavior and attributes.
    Heh. This paradigm also naturally kept ocurring to me (hence use of assignment, property, etc), but I really didn't want to have to explain OOP too. It did occur to me that if you have a lot of experience with data and process modeling that the argument is a trivial one. (Although I can't really see how it isn't trivial even without that discipline....)

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    You misunderstood my statement. "A metal box with wood in it" is being treated as one object, hence the "", so wood is intrinsic to it. Without wood it would not be "a metal box with wood in it".
    Then it was a bad example, as I said.

    Neither Tater nor I made the claim that the valued are inherently valuable. They are the object arbitrarily associated with value. We claimed that values themselves have value, which we both claim is a tautology and thus undeniable.
    It's not a tautology. I am a niece. Does that mean I have a niece?
    No.
    A niece isn't an object (the object is "female human"). It's a label to describe relationship.
    So is "value".

    Perhaps you are saying that a value has value because it is true for (one to many) persons. But if that were the case, then all values would be valuable - "murder is good" would be inherently true. So would "murder is bad". Two values which have opposite meanings would both be true. Do you see how this cannot work?

    For a value to have inherent value, it must be inherently true in all circumstances and at all times. At that point it ceases to be a value and becomes a truth. Therefore, values cannot, by definition, be inherently valuable (in the sense of inherently true). Implicit in their meaning is that they are tied to a specific context, to a specific subject.
    What I perceive Heisman to be saying, in part, is "Value does exist, but only in the mind, and the mind doesn't count". I am responding by asking why doesn't the mind count? It strikes me as a bias against mental objects, instead favouring physical objects because of his own values.
    That's not what he is saying. He isn't disputing the existence or validity of things that exist only as mental states (in that passage, aar). He is disputing their necessary truth or relative merit.

    Hope this helps.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  8. #198
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Then it was a bad example, as I said.
    How?

    Simply make up a definition, and whatever is in that definition is inherent/intrinsic to that definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Perhaps you are saying that a value has value because it is true for (one to many) persons. But if that were the case, then all values would be valuable - "murder is good" would be inherently true. So would "murder is bad". Two values which have opposite meanings would both be true. Do you see how this cannot work?
    Okay so I see two problems with this.

    1: Relativity is being ignored. "It is hot" can be true in one place, not true in another. "Someone is murdered" can be true in one time, not in another. A value can exist in one person's mind, not in another's.

    2: As I reiterated, value is a mental object, murder is a non-mental object being arbitrarily correlated with value. So when someone values murder, it just means murder is one of the things that triggers value for them. So "I value murder" means murder creates value for the speaker, as "that hurts" means "that" creates pain for the speaker. So value existing in one person's mind will never be able to contradict another person's value. Again paralleling perfectly with pain and any other mental object.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    For a value to have inherent value, it must be inherently true in all circumstances and at all times. At that point it ceases to be a value and becomes a truth. Therefore, values cannot, by definition, be inherently valuable (in the sense of inherently true). Implicit in their meaning is that they are tied to a specific context, to a specific subject.
    A relative proposition can still be inherently true. "X is cold" does not mean placing X in all circumstances, it must remain cold. It just means X is cold there and then.

    "I like purple" is just another relative proposition. It has a location (I) and a time (when the statement is made). It just means that person values purple there and then.

    If relative propositions aren't "inherently true" then I'd have to ask what the point of that definition is to the topic? It would mean values exist in certain locations, and are found valuable (are valuable in certain locations), which is not nihilism in any sense. I certainly didn't get the impression that that was the definition Heisman intended.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    That's not what he is saying. He isn't disputing the existence or validity of things that exist only as mental states (in that passage, aar). He is disputing their necessary truth or relative merit.
    The bolded is exactly what I thought he was saying. He's not denying their existence but claiming they aren't important (have no merit) and strangely dismissing their existence as irrelevant. Rather like he doesn't value them.

  9. #199
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Okay so I see two problems with this.

    1: Relativity is being ignored. "It is hot" can be true in one place, not true in another. "Someone is murdered" can be true in one time, not in another. A value can exist in one person's mind, not in another's.
    Not only is that not being ignored, it's been stated repeatedly. This is the nature of moral relativism.
    2: As I reiterated, value is a mental object, murder is a non-mental object being arbitrarily correlated with value. So when someone values murder, it just means murder is one of the things that triggers value for them. So "I value murder" means murder creates value for the speaker, as "that hurts" means "that" creates pain for the speaker. So value existing in one person's mind will never be able to contradict another person's value. Again paralleling perfectly with pain and any other mental object.

    A relative proposition can still be inherently true. "X is cold" does not mean placing X in all circumstances, it must remain cold. It just means X is cold there and then.

    "I like purple" is just another relative proposition. It has a location (I) and a time (when the statement is made). It just means that person values purple there and then.

    If relative propositions aren't "inherently true" then I'd have to ask what the point of that definition is to the topic? It would mean values exist in certain locations, and are found valuable (are valuable in certain locations), which is not nihilism in any sense. I certainly didn't get the impression that that was the definition Heisman intended.

    The bolded is exactly what I thought he was saying. He's not denying their existence but claiming they aren't important (have no merit) and strangely dismissing their existence as irrelevant. Rather like he doesn't value them.
    He doesn't value them. He also recognises that moral relativism leads inexorably to moral nihilism. Something which seems to have escaped your notice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  10. #200
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default


Similar Threads

  1. THe Power of Love -- Kiss Saves 16 yr old Suicidal Kid
    By Santosha in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-24-2011, 09:16 AM
  2. Thoughts on the ending of Death Note (Spoilers be warned)
    By Savage Idealist in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:10 AM
  3. [MBTItm] The merit of stuffed animals
    By nightning in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 10:49 AM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO