prof wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:57 am
If you are going to tell people "we would '
strive' ", then that is NOT some thing most people WANT to do. People have to WANT to do some thing before they will do it.
Telling people to strive to minimize chaos, misery, destitution and avoid suffering is to tell people to strive/try their hardest to reject their emotions. That just is NOT going to ever work. Living in a perfectly peaceful harmonious world with EVERY one, as One, still involves living with ALL emotions. Emotions are a necessary part of being 'human'.
Yes, "strive" was a poor choice of words. Perhaps "advocate" might have been better.
When you write, "Emotions are a necessary part of being 'human'." that is where Intrinsic valuation comes in. Just as music is Intrinsicly-valued sound; and poetry is Intrinsic valuation of words; so are pet names and emotions the realm of Intrinsic Value. Also emphasis and empathy fall into that area of I-valuing.
Robert S. Hartman, the poly-math genius, taught me that. Now that I am nearly 90 I still appreciate how that brain did Philosophy. He knew his Logic. He believed that Georg Cantor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor had something to offer to Mathematics. To Hartman's mind, Transfinite Numbers seemed appropriate for discussing and ordering
emotions.
As you discovered on p. 16 of the Structure book, where a rough definition of "value" was given, it said:
I am not sure how, nor why, you would even jump to the conclusion that I have
discovered some thing on p.16. Especially considering by the way I wrote, did it not imply that I am only up to p.13? (Maybe it would have been better if I made that clear?)
prof wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pmSomething has value if it has the requirements (the properties or attributes) to fulfill its purpose or intention.
This implies one would have to KNOW it's and/or other's purpose. But how many people can honestly say that they KNOW what their own purpose in Life is, let alone what other things purpose are?
prof wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm The more attributes one employs to describe the thing, the more value one tends to find in it. As one proceeds to describe it one is giving it attention and getting involved with it. {Robert S. Hartman defined the term in a rigorous way which assumes acquaintance with Formal Logic.}
As you learned on pp.17-19 there are three basic Dimensions of Value, S, E, and I for short.
Again you are ASSUMING some thing that is completely WRONG. I have NOT learned any thing at all like this, for the very simple fact that I am NOT even up to having read these pages yet.
Describing a 'thing', for what it is, I find very important. I also find just as important, if not more so, when, and if, people come to an agreement and acceptance of what a 'thing' actually IS. This can be explained in far more detail. Also, when ALL people are in agreement, and in acceptance, of thing/s, then just how important this agreeing and accepting of "things" really IS, will be SEEN and KNOWN.
prof wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pmas to how they are precisely defined I will discuss that with Logik in a future post. ...unless someone requests the information right here and now.
I am not sure whether I want to read ALL of what you have written in "The Structure" first, then request the information or request the information right here and now.
Either way maybe I will leave that up to you to decide, for me.
prof wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pmI note that that you have much higher standards for what it tis to live ethically than most professional philosophers and casuists that I have met.
Which could help explain WHY the "world" is in the shape that it is in now, when this is written. Adult human beings have a tendency to only look at and see that what they, themselves, individually do is okay, good, or all right behavior, and that it is only "others" who actually do wrong in Life.
I say greed is the third root of all evil and that dishonesty is the root of all evil. That is, if one does not admit their own wrong doing, then there is really nothing for them to change. Therefore, things will just stay the same, and the "world" will just stay in the same shape that it is now also. ALL of us adults have to admit we HAVE a "problem", before we can fix it. The only actual real 'problem' in Life, is US ADULTS. The actual Truth is we do not "have" a problem, we ARE 'the problem'.
I could keep going much deeper and exposing more, with self-referring explanations showing more and more, but that will do for now.
prof wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:52 pm And your conception of greed is more stringent than any I have heretofore seen.
I also never truly thought that I was greedy. To me, it was always "others" who were greedy, and NOT me. I was always "justifying" that to myself. That was until the day that I was truly honest with myself. If the money that I use to buy some thing, which I only want, but do NOT really need in order to keep living, which could have actually kept a child alive who is only dying, or did just die, because they do/did NOT have enough food to eat, then I AM GREEDY. If I am allowing children to die, just because I want some thing, then I AM GREEDY.
I can TRY, and have TRIED TO, all of my life, "justify" my actions and behaviors as NOT being greedy. But the real and actual Truth IS; if I want to be a Truly loving, caring, guiding, and responsible adult, then I have to accept that I AM GREEDY. I may NOT like that FACT, and actually hate that Truth and FACT, but if I want to be HONEST with my Self, then I have to look at thee Truth, and TELL it to my self, and to "others".
We are NOT going to become Truly Ethical if we are keep being dishonest to and with ourselves.