Re: philosophy of will, 2.0

Video Cam Direct Upload

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• philosophy
• psychology
• relativistic
• skepticism
• will

[pyrrho314]

well, as you agree, I bet, there "is" no such thing as "being good"... that is an appraisal, something is good only by a criteria which ASSERTS x is good or bad by means ABC.

[donnachaidh]

the non-human and the non-living in this leveling of positions. When non-living matter is leveled with the human mind in deciding morality, the objective result is always going to be amoral and worthless, because worth and goodness are properties of subjective human-only experience.

I'd go further and say that to be perfectly clear, in my view, "worth" and "goodness" as terms in the English language are only conceptually experienced by Anglophones, and even so without any uniformity.

[donnachaidh]

"goodness" or "badness" of their mutual experience is something we can only guess at and trust ourselves to believe or disbelieve.

This is a broadly-applicable framework for value judgments and for me belies extreme danger in any attempt to pose even remotely objective ideas of what is good or bad, worth or waste.

When we attempt to project into the imagined objective world, we immediately level the self's position with all that is not the self. This is only half-objectivity unless we include

[donnachaidh]

that we do and so have more difficulty projecting. But the ease with which our mind performs this function and the empirical experience we have with the self loving or the self being loved as good does not in turn establish anything that can be called an objective truth. This is because the subjective experiences of the spouse/enemy are permanently off-limits to us. They can communicate to us deceptively or honestly, they can abscond from our lives completely, and in all cases the actual

[donnachaidh]

applicability of the same terms to previous uses. We can posit the meaning in this case to be:

a. "My wife loving my worst enemy is Good for the world," or

b. "My wife loving my worst enemy is good for my wife and my worst enemy."

In this case B is a more meaningful and agreeable interpretation precisely because it is self-centered. We can project ourselves vicariously into the minds of spouse and worst enemy; we do not conceive of "the world" as actually even possessing a self in the sense

[donnachaidh]

Example: "Eating is good," is something we intuitively want to agree with. This is because our inherent standard is based on self as the subject and other (anything else) as the object. So what "eating is good" really means is "Me eating others is good." Reverse the pronouns and the value judgment changes.

You can make this tricky. i.e. "Love is good," but when we get specific and say "My wife loving my worst enemy is good," we find that there is a mental gymnastics involved that strains the

[donnachaidh]

Yes.

Beyond "lateral" chronological flux (money is good for me now, in the future it can ruin me), there is a "horizontal" identity flux in worth.

At the same instant in time, money or any other particular example may mean life for one person and death for another.

We can apply this across the board to nutrition, morality, war, guns, ad infinitum. I saw you do this in your interpretation of Nietszche's "virtues are vices." It's not just a matter of when but whom, and furthermore of scale.

[pyrrho314]

the problem with the classic mathematics of worth is not just at the outset of the problem, when we accept facts, but in the whole methodology.

It seeks values, that persist, but everything is in flux. You can get money, be satisfied, see it ruin your life and regret all the more. Satisfaction is temporary, a function of the future, reevaluated, iterative and recursive. It's nothing like what they looked for. Their concepts polute our tools.

[pyrrho314]

sort of. everything is biological compulsion though so that's sort of the trivial solution to explination.

[pyrrho314]

I don't think you can explain why it's "never without affect" without materialism... you in fact seemed to say some learning was without affects, or "signiicant" affects perhaps? That is unworkable imo, the grammar and logic of subjectiism will not support it, and weak props for objectivism have to be made... and there is no benefit to the result.

It is materialism that tells us what a "unicorn" "really is".

And materialism is subjective/emperical. Subjective/emperical == "objective".