What is the Value of Your Life
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"No man is an island"
True, but the potential to be 'alone' and utterly self-dependent is real.
Also: you say "most relationships in which we 'use' one another nearly always include reciprocity" and this is true too, but, when I buy a cuppa coffee, for example, it's a transaction, not a relation...that is: the 'who' selling me the coffee is unimportant, the coffee is what I value...in the same way: the vendor isn't as interested in 'who' buys the coffee as he or she is in simply earning money.
Simply: we -- the coffee vender and me -- could wear masks and communicate by morse code 'cause what I 'value' is coffee and what he or she values is 'money'.
Also: you say "most relationships in which we 'use' one another nearly always include reciprocity" and this is true too, but, when I buy a cuppa coffee, for example, it's a transaction, not a relation...that is: the 'who' selling me the coffee is unimportant, the coffee is what I value...in the same way: the vendor isn't as interested in 'who' buys the coffee as he or she is in simply earning money.
Simply: we -- the coffee vender and me -- could wear masks and communicate by morse code 'cause what I 'value' is coffee and what he or she values is 'money'.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "No man is an island"
I don't think you are one of the normal idiotic contributors to this website. So please don't take this personally.henry quirk wrote:True, but the potential to be 'alone' and utterly self-dependent is real.
But what you say is utterly absurd. There is no arena of human activity in which 'utter self dependence' is indicated.
It does not take much imagination to see that this is a case where 'self dependance' is not indicated. And a moment's thought should also reveal that there is a massive, and often unspoken range of behavioural expectations which deny your rather bleak and unimaginative assessment.henry quirk wrote: Also: you say "most relationships in which we 'use' one another nearly always include reciprocity" and this is true too, but, when I buy a cuppa coffee, for example, it's a transaction, not a relation...that is: the 'who' selling me the coffee is unimportant, the coffee is what I value...in the same way: the vendor isn't as interested in 'who' buys the coffee as he or she is in simply earning money.
That does not change the fact that there is a relationship going on.henry quirk wrote: Simply: we -- the coffee vender and me -- could wear masks and communicate by morse code 'cause what I 'value' is coffee and what he or she values is 'money'.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"There is no arena of human activity in which 'utter self dependence' is indicated."
If a man (or woman) marches out into the wilderness to live as a hermit, is this not an example of a "human activity in which 'utter self dependence' is indicated"?
Sure, such a thing doesn't happen often, but it does happen and is evidence that 'the potential to be 'alone' and utterly self-dependent is real'.
More moderately: when, for example, I go camping alone, miles away from any one, with no means to contact another if things go belly-up, this too is an example of being alone and self-dependent.
#
As for my coffee example: it wasn't related to the idea of self-dependence but, instead, stands as contrast to your idea about the reciprocity of relationships. My point: not every seeming relationship actually 'is' a relationship (wherein one values the other)...some are merely *transactions wherein the transactors care nuthin' about one another and everything about the goal(s) of the transaction.
You may see this as relational; I don't, illustrating -- at best -- a difference of opinion (and interpretation). I don't think the difference illustrates that one or the other is 'right' or 'wrong'.
Simply: I, apparently, define 'relationship' more narrowly than you.
*in the case of 'transaction', the person sellin' me coffee might as well be a vending machine
If a man (or woman) marches out into the wilderness to live as a hermit, is this not an example of a "human activity in which 'utter self dependence' is indicated"?
Sure, such a thing doesn't happen often, but it does happen and is evidence that 'the potential to be 'alone' and utterly self-dependent is real'.
More moderately: when, for example, I go camping alone, miles away from any one, with no means to contact another if things go belly-up, this too is an example of being alone and self-dependent.
#
As for my coffee example: it wasn't related to the idea of self-dependence but, instead, stands as contrast to your idea about the reciprocity of relationships. My point: not every seeming relationship actually 'is' a relationship (wherein one values the other)...some are merely *transactions wherein the transactors care nuthin' about one another and everything about the goal(s) of the transaction.
You may see this as relational; I don't, illustrating -- at best -- a difference of opinion (and interpretation). I don't think the difference illustrates that one or the other is 'right' or 'wrong'.
Simply: I, apparently, define 'relationship' more narrowly than you.
*in the case of 'transaction', the person sellin' me coffee might as well be a vending machine
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re:
No one does that, and does not die.henry quirk wrote:"There is no arena of human activity in which 'utter self dependence' is indicated."
If a man (or woman) marches out into the wilderness to live as a hermit, is this not an example of a "human activity in which 'utter self dependence' is indicated"?
You depend on society for the things you take with you. the knife the beans, the tent.henry quirk wrote: Sure, such a thing doesn't happen often, but it does happen and is evidence that 'the potential to be 'alone' and utterly self-dependent is real'.
More moderately: when, for example, I go camping alone, miles away from any one, with no means to contact another if things go belly-up, this too is an example of being alone and self-dependent.
So what you are saying is the dying is the only act we can do that is not dependant.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re:
You can't argue with a vending machine.henry quirk wrote:
*in the case of 'transaction', the person sellin' me coffee might as well be a vending machine
You pay and take your chances. With a person you can ask for more or less milk, sugar etc..
Even with a vending machine you are entering into a relationship with those you are paying.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"No one does that, and does not die."
Everyone dies, Chaz, whether alone or among others.
Your statement is irrelevant to my point.
And: I know from experience one can live apart, alone, and self-suffice.
#
"You depend on society for the things you take with you. the knife the beans, the tent."
Actually, I depend on the guy(s) or gal(s) who sell me things (individuals with who I have relationships or transaction-ships), but -- again -- your statement is irrelevant to my point, that being, if I go out into the wilderness, I am alone and can only depend on me (my skill, my thinking, my use of my tools) to survive. Doesn't matter if Joe sold me the knife...if I can't or don't use it, it's just worthless junk.
And, for the record: when I camp, I take only my coach gun and shells, a multiple purpose knife, and sturdy clothes. Anything else is encumbrance.
No point in goin' 'out' if one takes 'comfort' along.
#
"So what you are saying is the dying is the only act we can do that is not dependant."
Nope. You choose to interpret it that way: fine by me.
But: that ain't what I'm sayin'.
#
"You can't argue with a vending machine."
And: when I get a cup of black coffee, there's usually no reason to argue with the meat machine who serves it.
You, being an argumentative type, probably find reason 'to' argue.
That's a characteristic of 'you', not me.
#
"With a person you can ask for more or less milk, sugar etc."
I take it black...no good reason, in my book, to adulterate coffee with crap.
#
"Even with a vending machine you are entering into a relationship with those you are paying."
In my view: you're stretching the definition of relationship to fit your *agenda.
Again: I define 'relationship' more narrowly than you.
*communitarianism: reducing 'I' to mere cog in the machine of 'WE'...a position advocated by those who 'can't' to discredit those who 'can'
Everyone dies, Chaz, whether alone or among others.
Your statement is irrelevant to my point.
And: I know from experience one can live apart, alone, and self-suffice.
#
"You depend on society for the things you take with you. the knife the beans, the tent."
Actually, I depend on the guy(s) or gal(s) who sell me things (individuals with who I have relationships or transaction-ships), but -- again -- your statement is irrelevant to my point, that being, if I go out into the wilderness, I am alone and can only depend on me (my skill, my thinking, my use of my tools) to survive. Doesn't matter if Joe sold me the knife...if I can't or don't use it, it's just worthless junk.
And, for the record: when I camp, I take only my coach gun and shells, a multiple purpose knife, and sturdy clothes. Anything else is encumbrance.
No point in goin' 'out' if one takes 'comfort' along.
#
"So what you are saying is the dying is the only act we can do that is not dependant."
Nope. You choose to interpret it that way: fine by me.
But: that ain't what I'm sayin'.
#
"You can't argue with a vending machine."
And: when I get a cup of black coffee, there's usually no reason to argue with the meat machine who serves it.
You, being an argumentative type, probably find reason 'to' argue.
That's a characteristic of 'you', not me.
#
"With a person you can ask for more or less milk, sugar etc."
I take it black...no good reason, in my book, to adulterate coffee with crap.
#
"Even with a vending machine you are entering into a relationship with those you are paying."
In my view: you're stretching the definition of relationship to fit your *agenda.
Again: I define 'relationship' more narrowly than you.
*communitarianism: reducing 'I' to mere cog in the machine of 'WE'...a position advocated by those who 'can't' to discredit those who 'can'
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re:
Disappointinghenry quirk wrote:"No one does that, and does not die."
Everyone dies, Chaz, whether alone or among others.
Not relevant.
Your statement is irrelevant to my point.
Dah!
And: I know from experience one can live apart, alone, and self-suffice.
That is what we call in the UK, bollocks.
What did you eat?
#
"You depend on society for the things you take with you. the knife the beans, the tent."
Actually, I depend on the guy(s) or gal(s) who sell me things (individuals with who I have relationships or transaction-ships), but -- again -- your statement is irrelevant to my point, that being, if I go out into the wilderness, I am alone and can only depend on me (my skill, my thinking, my use of my tools) to survive. Doesn't matter if Joe sold me the knife...if I can't or don't use it, it's just worthless junk.
Just bollocks.
And, for the record: when I camp, I take only my coach gun and shells, a multiple purpose knife, and sturdy clothes. Anything else is encumbrance.
Oh shit. I did not know you invented gunpowder!! Hail the great inventor
No point in goin' 'out' if one takes 'comfort' along.
#
"So what you are saying is the dying is the only act we can do that is not dependant."
Nope. You choose to interpret it that way: fine by me.
But: that ain't what I'm sayin'.
No you'd rather live in a fantasy world grubbing about in the dirt, pretending to be a hero.
#
"You can't argue with a vending machine."
And: when I get a cup of black coffee, there's usually no reason to argue with the meat machine who serves it.
You, being an argumentative type, probably find reason 'to' argue.
That's a characteristic of 'you', not me.
#
"With a person you can ask for more or less milk, sugar etc."
I take it black...no good reason, in my book, to adulterate coffee with crap.
But hey - you don't depend on people picking coffee beans on shit wages.
#
"Even with a vending machine you are entering into a relationship with those you are paying."
In my view: you're stretching the definition of relationship to fit your *agenda.
Again: I define 'relationship' more narrowly than you.
Only to serve your fantasy is self sufficiency.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"Disappointing"
Yes, you are.
You've failed to address a simple proposition, 'the potential to be 'alone' and utterly self-dependent is real', with anything beyond, "bollocks".
Not an iota of your supposed intelligence was used to dissect (or understand) anything I posted in this thread. You never even took the time to actually refute me with substance (by way of probing question). Instead -- to support your all-encompassing *agenda -- you denigrated what flies in the face of your agenda, then declared yourself 'WINNAH!'.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but, I know you're not because the sophist (even the minor, unimpressive, sort like you) has no shame.
*communitarian clap-trap...Hell, Chaz, you must subscribe to 'Communitarian Daily' 'cause your very language mirrors what the other sophists use...*shrug*...good luck attaining cog utopia, you lil rainbow chaser.
Yes, you are.
You've failed to address a simple proposition, 'the potential to be 'alone' and utterly self-dependent is real', with anything beyond, "bollocks".
Not an iota of your supposed intelligence was used to dissect (or understand) anything I posted in this thread. You never even took the time to actually refute me with substance (by way of probing question). Instead -- to support your all-encompassing *agenda -- you denigrated what flies in the face of your agenda, then declared yourself 'WINNAH!'.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but, I know you're not because the sophist (even the minor, unimpressive, sort like you) has no shame.
*communitarian clap-trap...Hell, Chaz, you must subscribe to 'Communitarian Daily' 'cause your very language mirrors what the other sophists use...*shrug*...good luck attaining cog utopia, you lil rainbow chaser.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re:
When you see your woods-man fantasy for what is it, then come back to me, until then it's bollocks.henry quirk wrote:"Disappointing"
Yes, you are.
You've failed to address a simple proposition, 'the potential to be 'alone' and utterly self-dependent is real', with anything beyond, "bollocks".
Not an iota of your supposed intelligence was used to dissect (or understand) anything I posted in this thread. You never even took the time to actually refute me with substance (by way of probing question). Instead -- to support your all-encompassing *agenda -- you denigrated what flies in the face of your agenda, then declared yourself 'WINNAH!'.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but, I know you're not because the sophist (even the minor, unimpressive, sort like you) has no shame.
*communitarian clap-trap...Hell, Chaz, you must subscribe to 'Communitarian Daily' 'cause your very language mirrors what the other sophists use...*shrug*...good luck attaining cog utopia, you lil rainbow chaser.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re:
At least you show the wisdom to give up when you have no legs to stand on.henry quirk wrote:Nope. We're done. I don't waste time on cogs.
'nuff said.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: What is the Value of Your Life
Its whatever someone will accept to kill me.The Jesus Head wrote:What is the value of your life?
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: What is the Value of Your Life
This is actually an easy question. The value of any particular life, can be calculated by any particular individual, that decides to do so, but it shall contain no necessary universal quantity, as it's a relative human concept born of selfishness.
In other words, each individual can decide value only for themselves, as it is always an individual personal perspective, having no necessary bearing on any other individuals calculation.
Nothing that anyone has said, as though the answer is universal, matters, or is correct, as there is no necessary universal value of any particular life, as decided by any particular individual human, at this particular stage of human growth.
Only value calculated from the perspective of an all knowing universal entity, that understands a necessary universal connectedness, a dependence/reliance, of everything upon everything, can have any necessary universal meaning.
In other words, each individual can decide value only for themselves, as it is always an individual personal perspective, having no necessary bearing on any other individuals calculation.
Nothing that anyone has said, as though the answer is universal, matters, or is correct, as there is no necessary universal value of any particular life, as decided by any particular individual human, at this particular stage of human growth.
Only value calculated from the perspective of an all knowing universal entity, that understands a necessary universal connectedness, a dependence/reliance, of everything upon everything, can have any necessary universal meaning.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: What is the Value of Your Life
This contradicts much of what you usually say, believing as you do in objective morality.SpheresOfBalance wrote:This is actually an easy question. The value of any particular life, can be calculated by any particular individual, that decides to do so, but it shall contain no necessary universal quantity, as it's a relative human concept born of selfishness.
In other words, each individual can decide value only for themselves, as it is always an individual personal perspective, having no necessary bearing on any other individuals calculation.
Nothing that anyone has said, as though the answer is universal, matters, or is correct, as there is no necessary universal value of any particular life, as decided by any particular individual human, at this particular stage of human growth.
In doing so you place the meaning of your life and morality beyond that of all others.
In other words you are the website's resident Megalo.
And you conclude to prove me right in this view...
Since this all knowing entity is presented without evidence or credibility we can only conclude that it has been generated from your own ego.SpheresOfBalance wrote: Only value calculated from the perspective of an all knowing universal entity, that understands a necessary universal connectedness, a dependence/reliance, of everything upon everything, can have any necessary universal meaning.
QED: You are the neighbourhood megalomaniac.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: What is the Value of Your Life
How credible is your faith in atheism, when confronted with the complexity of the true nature of reality being made up of dimensions beyond human perception, even to the extent of a multiverse?chaz wyman wrote:Since this all knowing entity is presented without evidence or credibility we can only conclude that it has been generated from your own ego.
QED: You are the neighbourhood megalomaniac.