Hi there, Voice
The Voice of Time wrote:You write ... "Goodness is full extrinsic value"...
...value is itself not a definable word (for instance: the number -59 is a value, ...
...you've failed to tell me which type of meaning of the word "extrinsic" you mean.
... full extrinsic value isn't always good, it's not always good ...if you intended something for which has further consequences beyond your expectations.
...if you I in one instance find that a certain enumeration of qualities in a car is good, but in the next find out it isn't, I've suddenly two Hartman situations which are both good, AT THE SAME TIME..., [what do]you make of that?
Here you bring up lots of issues which could be easily cleared up if only you would read all my posts, and some of my rather brief citations.
You are correct when you say: "the number -59 is a value" This is a mathematical employment of the word "value"; they also use the word "constant" and "group" in a different manner from everyday speech in English. It was not the math language that I intended when I speak of "value." I use it in the Formal Axiological sense, which admittedly is not too well known, and for not orienting the readers well enough, I apologize.
As to your last point, "if you I in one instance find that a certain enumeration of qualities in a car is good, but in the next find out it isn't, I've suddenly two Hartman situations which are both good, AT THE SAME TIME."
If one instance is now the next instance they were not at the same time,
n'est pas? In science we are in the habit of dating and indexing our propositions, so this sort of confusion does not even arise. The name of the concept given it by the judge of value sets the norm: the concept has been shifted from Car-at-time-one to Car-at-time-two. We
all must be be
careful about not sliding from one concept into another in our discussions - 'must' here means: it would be preferable. Orange is to be distinguished from Stale Orange when it is relevant to do so, even though they both share many qualities in common. And "ball" is more general and abstract than "beach ball."
You still employ "extrinsic value" in the old-fashioned (1939)sense found in John Dewey's Value Theory, and I don't blame anyone for that, since it is very well known and often used that way in traditional philosophy.
J. Dewey - Theory of Valuation (
1939). ISBN 0-226-57594-2.
Dewey was a fine philosopher to whom I was introduced by James Farmer, of C.O.R.E., [I was very active in The Civil Rights Movement.] I shook hands with Dr. Dewey, had a nice little conversation, and this is one of my fond memories.
Hartman, in THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE, posited a new meaning for "Extrinsic Value": It is - in contrast with S-Value and I-Value - that value defined by a denumerable (a countable) number of properties. When applied appropriately we get the everyday socio-economic world of daily life, the material things of this world, the cost vs. benefit way of looking at things.
Here
http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/ , at the Institute set up in his honor, under Research Topics subsection one finds this paper I wrote (for those who are really serious enough to read, and who want to see several dozens of applications spelled out):
http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/Portals ... HICS...pdf
I shall quote a passage from it:
"According to Value Science there are three types of basic values. They are Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic Value. Abbreviated these are S, E,
and I. And Dr. Leon Pomeroy tells us that it is as important to know our SEIs as it is to know our ABCs.
Here are some examples:
Thoughts areS-values; things are E-values; persons and involvements are I-values. They result when the basic value dimensions are applied.
People usually S-Value theories, systems, ideologies, blueprints, plans, zip codes, circuit diagrams, technical language, black-and-white thinking, scientific
models, and all the "isms." They are appropriately valued Systemically.
E-Value is the valuation people usually place upon things of this world, practicalities, empirical matters, know-how, savoir-faire, social, everyday concerns, functionality, diplomacy, worldly considerations, categories, etc.
You are likely to I-Value your mother, your spouse, your dearest ones, unique persons you love, beloved treasures, masterpieces of art, priceless items, etc. We
value those Intrinsically whenever we identify with and bond with them.
Value scientists, such as Dr Rem Edwards, and Dr. David Mefford, speak of those three values as "dimensions of value." We need them all. The three value dimensions form a hierarchy with S-value worth the least; E-value worth infinitely more; and I-value the most precious of all - worth far, far more than any E-value. The correct hierarchy of values, in symbols, is S < E < I. And thus to place S above I; or to give more weight to E than to I would be a fallacy.
The highest of the three basic values is Intrinsic Value, or I-value. The discipline these scientists refer to as "Ethics" arises when persons are Intrinsically valued.
By valuing persons this way an individual can gain the most value out of life. And that is a fact. In effect the science explains how to "shop for value" in life." "Science" here is used in an etymological sense, from the Latin, 'scientia', meaning "a body of coherent thought"
Yes, goodness applies more to Extrinsic Value than to the other dimensions, for several good reasons. It would help immensely if you would check out End Note 4 at the end of the Unified Theory of Ethics. There you will find these three varieties of the concept 'complete value' defined in terms of the basic Dimension of Value.
Systemic: Perfection.
Extrinsic: Goodness.
Intrinsic: Uniqueness.
Will you
please, Voice, read my other posts here at this Forum, such as "What Is Ethics?";
they are all applications of Formal Axiology when it is applied to Ethics. {You seem to be saying you haven't seen any applications.}
Another application of E-Value are social sciences such as Sociology and Psychology (which can be further analyzed, using the same tools, to see their fine structure, as was done here for the field of Industrial Design: -
http://hartmaninstitute.org/Portals/0/h ... Design.htm
The Voice of Time wrote:Transcendental values is something I made up just here just now..., the philosopher who has written about it is me, and I wrote it right here right now)
I respect that. You have every right to do so. I quote you with equal validity as I quote any other philosopher who is known as "notable" or "reputable." I am not impressed by their degrees nor the fact that they wrote copiously. I am impressed by quality, such as I find in the output of Dr. Robert Hartman. When I first heard him lecture, while he was a Professor at M.I.T., I audited his classes thereafter, got to know him personally, and noticed that his theories integrated and justified intellectually values that I already had arrived at in my life. I appreciated that. I found - in my experience - his explanations to have clarity, yet be rather profound. I am quite aware that another individual may not see it this way.
The Voice of Time wrote:
prof wrote:If I can't imagine it, I can't value it.
God jesus... what a silly sentence. So I can't value pain because I can't imagine it? I've felt pain before, yes, but I can't imagine it now least I put myself in pain. ... In other words, I can remember saying to myself "Ouch!", I can remember crying after touching the heat burning. ...you don't have to know, imagine it or remember it to tell a rotten apple from a good one.
The best definition of "memory" I have ever seen - and I used to teach a course in Memory Development for a Psychology Department so I was quite motivated to find an adequate and good definition - is this one:
"Memory" =df. "The imaginative reconstruction of experience."
It doesn't apply to immediate recall of a perception; but for (the not-so-recent past) it fits fine.
The Voice of Time wrote:... this is 'popular opinion' ... In other words, you can quit smoking because your spouse says "it will kill you in fifty years!". However, after quit smoking you start eating a lot, you become obese, ... and die within thirty years from obesity. ...Lots of doctors and scientists can tell you ... that it is shit to smoke. This is virtue ethics, it's virtuous not to smoke.
Here you note that unintended consequences do happen. Of course they do.
It is wise, in order to optimize health, not to smoke and to avoid obesity. Both are habits that can be developed; and a person of good character would be able to manage both. There are many aids - patches, etc. - that will make the taste of smoke repulsive to the smoker ...and one is ignorant [or poverty-stricken] if one does not avail oneself of them. To avoid obesity one is advised to change eating habits: eat mostly raw salads of fresh fruit and vegetables, in season, and preferably, if possible to get them, organically grown. Locally grown is also preferable, a desideratum. All of this may be difficult at first, but worth the effort. The fruit should be eaten for one's first meal. The vegetables later in the day. Raw nuts may supply the protein, as well as sprouts. A methyl cobalamin supplement pill ought to be taken, at least on weekends since B12 is retained in the body for a long while. Health is a high value. The Health Science diet really works to avoid most aches, pains, and sicknesses throughout life - except for those genetically caused. See:
http://healthscience.org/
QUE: You may wonder, what is the relevance of this to Ethical Theory, which is the topic of this Forum? ANS: If we keep ourselves healthy in mind and body we are in a stronger position to help others achieve their happiness and well-being ...and that would be the Ethical thing to do.
Also read Seneca, Coleridge, and Emerson, for they made similar points years ago about the merit of caring for one's self.
The Voice of Time wrote:
prof wrote:When you say "it works out "good", without the person's enumerations" I respond:
Of course it does. Hartman's definition of "x is good as a C, according to judge J at time t" is not meant to account for every usage by folks who, as you so keenly observe, may be disorganized - to put it kindly.
His definition is the start of a theory

...namely a Formal Theory of Value. Did you ever
read his paper in which he argues his case for the rationality of it all:
http://hartmaninstitute.org/Portals/0/h ... cience.html
I get the impression you did not yet get around to it; for it answers many of the questions you have, and even a few that you haven't asked.
The Voice of Time wrote:I don't read books covered with poop on their front-page. If a book can't convince you to start reading it because it can't justify itself, this book is not worth a dime. ...
...The only proof Hartman makes is that a shopping list is ethically good to complete if you're on a shopping trip. This is not very interesting, this is not very inspiring, this is not very new...
You write: "The only proof Hartman makes is that a shopping list is ethically good to complete if you're on a shopping trip." This is patently false.
I am tempted to say "it displays a possible laziness to dig into a philosopher's work to research what is worth knowing; it does not meet academic standards; and it is safe to predict that a student would not be able to earn a Ph.D. with this attitude." However, I do
not want to spend any time being destructively critical so I won't say it.
It is laughable though.

if it were not so sad.
prof wrote:Yes, it is very true, as you note, that "people are rather disorganized and spontaneous and makes up what is good as they go along." People do, in daily life, make up their mind as they go along. People also do not know much about electricity, but they know how to use a light switch to tap into some electrical circuit. ... The value system has derived implications, as you would have noticed had you read the references cited. Those are what are to be tested and confirmed, not the axioms and postulates.
The Voice of Time wrote:Hartman can't give us anything but a theory without any real-world implications beyond a shopping list... If you have read his works then I dare you to disprove me, if you can't then obviously Hartman hasn't told you anything I can find worth reading. If you can, I swear I'm gonna read it, but just now, you're not making a good case in my opinion.
Usually I ignore comments like this but I respect you; and you do have a good healthy curiosity to learn more, and good values for the most part. If I haven't "told you anything worth reading it is because the links I freely offered have not been coming through on your computer screen. Maybe videos would be easier. View these two: they make some points for Ethics. We need more like these in order to educate the public, so those of you who have the talent to produce them, please, please get busy on the project !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0Pc7wrJcE
I wholeheartedly recommend that all Forum members view these two examples of how the word may be spread about true Ethics
The Voice of Time wrote:prof wrote:There are people who still believe the Earth is flat, or that a woman can prevent pregnancy if she is raped or is seduced by her mother's boyfriend and then raped. Does my theory of Ethics have to conform to those beliefs? Do not conflate "mores" with "morality." They are two distinct concepts.
You're saying that things which are provable by natural observation are in any way comparable to Hartman's...... pseudo-philosophy?
Yes, I am "saying that things which are provable by natural observation are in any way comparable to Hartman's" moral philosophy and the test he innovated as a measuring device, the HVP. Many therapists and counsellors use that test in their practice, and it has proven results.
Present company may be excepted from what follows:
I don't want to contend with any further flames and put-downs, so don't be surprised if I do not respond when I sense it would be too much of a drain on my time and energy.
If anyone at any time felt I was getting personal or offensive, I want to sincerely say this:
If the suit doesn't fit, please do not wear it