Do you know your own self-interest?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gurugeorge
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:42 pm

Re:

Post by gurugeorge » Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:35 am

henry quirk wrote:Hey, Prof, what if a jackass like myself refuses to abide by your or Hartman's notions of what constitutes 'value'? What if such a person digs in his heels and asserts 'I'll damn well decide for myself what or who is or isn't valuable and I'll do so by my own standards, thank you very much.' What happens then?

I ask cuz very often folks (technocrats and such) believe if they codify what they believe to be rational then others have no choice but to 'see the light' and convert. Never works out that way, though. Purges and 're-education' usually pop up somewhere on the menu. Just wonder where such things appear on yours.
The resolution is for everyone to be oriented around an independent reality and for that to be a shared standard of judgement.

Otherwise it's war.

Impenitent
Posts: 2323
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by Impenitent » Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:38 am

you must see things as I see them or I'll kill you...

history never repeats...

-Imp

gurugeorge
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:42 pm

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by gurugeorge » Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:17 am

Impenitent wrote:you must see things as I see them or I'll kill you...

history never repeats...

-Imp
"Seeing things as I see them" only means a bad thing if the thing you see is different from the thing I see; if they're the same, then there's no problem, agreement can be reached, and whoever was wrong simply admits they were wrong.

That used to be the humanistic idea of reason as a resolver of conflict, something that unites us in a common humanity; but of course the balkanization of minds and cultures induced by relativism makes war more likely, because in terms of relativism, the things you and I see are either metaphysically different (metaphysically different bubble universes, as it were) or there's no metaphysical quality to nature at all, just a clash of mere opinions, with the possibility of being wrong erased from discourse.

But of course that's the point: the development of relativism and Postmodernism in the Left academy parallels the Left's continuous defeat by facts: first of all the failure of Marxism to predict revolution (late 19th century), then the failure of Marxism to fulfill its promise to materially out-compete liberal capitalism (early 20th century), then the failure of Communism's promise to be humanistically nicer than liberal capitalism (Khruschev's secret speech revealing Stalin's atrocities in 1956), then the fall of Communism in 1989 (the final nail in the coffin for the old, reality-oriented Left). At each step, the Left has turned more and more towards what it now is, simply in order to avoid having to admit it might have been wrong.

It's the old story of the brushless fox. "If reason and evidence show my ideas have been on the wrong track, so much the worse for reason and evidence."

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Re:

Post by Dubious » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:37 pm

gurugeorge wrote:
henry quirk wrote:Hey, Prof, what if a jackass like myself refuses to abide by your or Hartman's notions of what constitutes 'value'? What if such a person digs in his heels and asserts 'I'll damn well decide for myself what or who is or isn't valuable and I'll do so by my own standards, thank you very much.' What happens then?

I ask cuz very often folks (technocrats and such) believe if they codify what they believe to be rational then others have no choice but to 'see the light' and convert. Never works out that way, though. Purges and 're-education' usually pop up somewhere on the menu. Just wonder where such things appear on yours.
The resolution is for everyone to be oriented around an independent reality and for that to be a shared standard of judgement.

Otherwise it's war.
In human affairs there is no 'independent reality". There is only a mandated one doomed to crack in whatever direction you like, Left or Right, if it becomes too entrenched or Constitutionalized.

prof
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Re:

Post by prof » Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:48 pm

Dubious wrote: In human affairs there is no 'independent reality". .
There is natural law which is independent of human affairs: If you lean too far out of an open window you just may fall down and get smashed - for gravity is operative.

In human affairs, if you value systems or numbers, or money, or guns, or yachts, above kindness and consideration for individuals, it is predictable that you will likely live in a world of chaos, instability, injustice, and anxiety. The existential Hierarchy of Value, that R. S. Hartman discovered (not invented) is operative.

Your thoughts?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:24 pm

prof wrote:
Dubious wrote: In human affairs there is no 'independent reality". .
There is natural law which is independent of human affairs: If you lean too far out of an open window you just may fall down and get smashed - for gravity is operative.

In human affairs, if you value systems or numbers, or money, or guns, or yachts, above kindness and consideration for individuals, it is predictable that you will likely live in a world of chaos, instability, injustice, and anxiety. The existential Hierarchy of Value, that R. S. Hartman discovered (not invented) is operative.

Your thoughts?
All value is relative to society and culture. SO it depends. Gravity doesn't give a rat's arse about where and when you were born, nor into which historical or social context.

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Re:

Post by Dubious » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:43 am

Dubious wrote: In human affairs there is no 'independent reality". .
prof wrote:In human affairs, if you value systems or numbers, or money, or guns, or yachts, above kindness and consideration for individuals, it is predictable that you will likely live in a world of chaos, instability, injustice, and anxiety. The existential Hierarchy of Value, that R. S. Hartman discovered (not invented) is operative.

Your thoughts?
...a little bit more complicated. Natural Law as it pertains to humans adjusts itself to a type of Kantian universality in the presumption it's applicable to all, one whose goals may be inscribed within the definitions of Positive Law. No constitutionalized version of natural law in this or any other sense exists anywhere in nature but one we rationalize philosophically within our own framework of written policies whether they be bureaucratic, poetic or mythic. Within human societies Natural Law denotes the control of individuals in a collective by moral injunctions that were meant to help it thrive though not commonly at the expense of others who operate under the same moral imperatives.

If there is a Natural Law in a behavioral sense, it is one which refers to all species, namely do what is necessary to stay alive and procreate. Nature doesn't supply any definitions of what's illegal, consequently crime doesn't exist either.

Therefore I repeat: In human affairs there is no 'independent reality'.

prof
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Re:

Post by prof » Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:50 am

Dubious wrote:
Dubious wrote: In human affairs there is no 'independent reality". .
prof wrote:In human affairs, if you value systems or numbers, or money, or guns, or yachts, above kindness and consideration for individuals, it is predictable that you will likely live in a world of chaos, instability, injustice, and anxiety. The existential Hierarchy of Value, that R. S. Hartman discovered (not invented) is operative.

If there is a Natural Law in a behavioral sense, it is one which refers to all species, namely do what is necessary to stay alive and procreate. Nature doesn't supply any definitions of what's illegal, consequently crime doesn't exist either.

Therefore I repeat: In human affairs there is no 'independent reality'.
Does this repeated assertion evade the question, the topic question, viz., Do we always pursue what is in our true self-interest? If not, why not begin to do so. Let's determine what that is, and let's get busy putting it into practice.

One way to do this is to follow the guidelines listed at the end of the brief paper, titled SUCCESSFUL LIVING. http://tinyurl.com/zkuphdq

Also helpful is to get centered and in each situation you find yourself in ask yourself The Central Question of Life: "How can I here and now maximize the value, so that all involved parties come out as winners? How can I create some value now? How can I upgrade, innovate, improve, enhance, make things better? I am aware that adding value is a key to living ethically. And that's what I want to do."

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:39 am

prof wrote: While I agree with the rest of what you wrote here, the first sentence in the above quotation expresses a mistaken impression. The misunderstanding of my position will clear up when some additional reading is done.

You will find my basic assumption on p. 7 here:
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
The entire theory flows from that.

Have you perused the first chapter ofBasic Ethics here?
http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz
See especially pp. 5-9. There you will learn how the three basic value dimensions are rigorously derived, and how they are precisely defined.
I already had read that.
As I have mentioned, the misdirection is quite clear.

Read the explanation of S-Values again yourself.
Can you spot the bit where values are being placed onto both sides of an equation that is supposed to be deriving values from quantities yet?
prof wrote:You will note that hey correlate with the three basic kinds of concepts that Kant tells us about in his book, Logik, namely, constructs, abstracts, and unique singulars.

Constructs are posited constructions of the mind. Abstracts are categories and classifications abstracted from reality. Singulars are individuals having individuality, and are in a class by themselves, a unit-class. We give them proper names. The field of Ethics arises when we Intrinsically-value them. {Husserl, in his Phenomenolgy, spoke of this process as 'Intentionality.'}
You need to keep it simpler Prof. You allowed that stuff to dazzle you into ignoring a basic structural problem.

prof
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by prof » Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:15 am

None of what Dangerpants is warning about has occurred there. The Dimensions are defined by what Leibniz spoke of as their "characteristic number." Today, mathematicians would call it their "cardinality." It is roughly the size of their set of properties. It conveys how much the valuer is 'finding there' as seen by the amount of attention, and involvement, he or she gives it. Any student of Phenomenology would understand this. Let us not confuse applications, and examples, of a technical concept - a term in the system - with the well-defined term (and its interrelations with the other terms) itself.

The following is an excerpt from page 6 of Basic Ethics, which itself is a highly- condensed summary of the early chapters ofEthics: A College Course. That account of the analysis of the dimensions of value is only a summary because the author was going on the assumption that today's readers do not have the patience to read a full-length book. So in Basic Ethics he condensed everything, and the reader will note that each chapter consists of only about 2 to 4 pages.
The Systemic values arise by the fulfillment of mental constructs.
They are constructed by the mind. They are defined into being: the
result of postulation. Definitions are of finite length. The Extrinsic
values arise by the fulfillment of worldly matters.
And the Intrinsic values are the result of the fulfillment of
situations to which we have given ourselves, our involvements, our deep
interests, our loves, our highest appreciations, our realities.

Common applications
of the dimensions are: I-values are people values
and spiritual values; the Extrinsic values are the values of things and
stuff from everyday life, the daily material values; and the S-values are
the Intellectual values.

To fulfill in this context means for the actual (properties)
to match the ideal picture of something or someone you have
in your head.

"The name sets the norm” Robert S.Hartman liked to say. By
this he meant that the meaning of the concept that goes with
the label you put on whatever you are valuing – the name
– sets the norm: when you name (or designate, or associate a word to) an
object, there is a meaning of that word that is associated with i
t. That meaning is the measure: it provides a norm for the object (of
your attention) to fulfill. If it does match, if it does fulfill it
s concept, then you will likely tend to consider the object to be a value,
or to 'have value.'




Comments? Questions? Improvements?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by Greta » Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:03 am

Dalek Prime wrote:Marketing and adverts seek to subvert ones self-interest, and replace it with theirs.
Yes, and this is maybe the core of the OP's question. We decide what is in our self interest by experience, observation and learning. It's the latter where the distortions lie.

Learning from others is a shortcut, allowing one to have some understanding of situations we've not personally encountered. However, incorrect information is provided by well-resourced entities in the media via various avenues (advertising, skewed coverage and angles, opinion pieces) to exploit the naive - akin to the "worm" at the end of an angler fish's lure. "Hey Little Fish, look at this! Here's a nice, juicy worm ...".

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:25 am

prof wrote:None of what Dangerpants is warning about has occurred there.
A pile of dirt has infinite properties.
A mother has also infinite properties.
This is a quantitative fact.

To claim that a mother has more infinite properties because she has properties of an additional type that render extra phenomenological value is not a statement of quantitative fact. It is a qualitative assertion.

Your argument seeks to derive all ethics from quantitative fact and nothing else. It has no choice given that you are trying to establish a science with this.

It doesn't work, you are using misdirection.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by ken » Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:34 am

My own Self-interest IS Everything as One.

No thing has more nor less value than any thing else.

As for dirt or a mother having more or less value than the other, remember where human beings evolved from - Mother Earth. Without dirt 'you' would not be here now asking this question.

What is your own self-interest prof?

prof
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by prof » Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:32 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
prof wrote:None of what Dangerpants is warning about has occurred there.
A pile of dirt has infinite properties.
A mother has also infinite properties.
This is a quantitative fact.

To claim that a mother has more infinite properties because she has properties of an additional type that render extra phenomenological value is not a statement of quantitative fact. It is a qualitative assertion.

Your argument seeks to derive all ethics from quantitative fact and nothing else. It has no choice given that you are trying to establish a science with this.

It doesn't work, you are using misdirection.
I detect some serious misunderstanding in the air, and herewith offer a mea culpa for my failure to communicate well.

When I report that people often Intrinsically value their mothers - that I-'value (the Intrinsic Value dimension) is frequently applied that way - this is an empirical observation. I-value does not have to be applied that way; it's just what people are prone to do.

We see Soil Agronomists, Flash, and Ken applying I-value to dirt. They are free to do so.

in ETHICS: A College Course many other illustrations of how different people or cultures apply different dimensions of value to the same topic were given. See pp. 10-13 here: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
and Hartman, in his writings, gives the illustration, among many others, of how a button is valued by S, E, and I, when he takes up his explanation of the value dimensions (that he discovered as pre-existing in this world.) See the Research Reports at The Hartman Institute of Formal and Applied Axiology.

Neither Hartman, nor this writer, are sneaking in "qualitative" values into the formal structure, but it is a fact that quantity at times becomes quality, as when given enough heat water transforms from a liquid into a gas, known as steam. When I give enough attention to a pigmented canvas, it may transform in my consciousness from "just another painting" to "a world-class masterwork!!"

See also, to learn of progress that Ethics is making in infiltrating into world culture: http://admin.berggruen.org/uploads/docu ... Ogilvy.pdf

https://www.good.is/articles/issue-37-c ... ncome-work

Roots of Emplathy.- Resarch Results
http://www.rootsofempathy.org/research/

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:08 am

prof wrote:When I report that people often Intrinsically value their mothers - that I-'value (the Intrinsic Value dimension) is frequently applied that way - this is an empirical observation. I-value does not have to be applied that way; it's just what people are prone to do.
That doesn't make any difference. It is not an objective quantitative distinction to say that one object has more values than another because it has some type of values that the other does not. It is only true if the object has more values of every type. If you want to claim that object A has more values than object B, that is fine. Count all their values and let us know when you have finished this infinite task.

I tell you what, I will make it easier for you. Don't worry about your mum for now, just find some dirt (a small pile, enough to fill a shoe box), and tell me exactly how many properties that pile of dirt contains. Don't leave any out, I will know if you cheated. Do remember to count the I-Values while you are there.

When you finish, put a small twig on top of the dirt and count again - because the sum of the properties of the pile of dirt has now grown exponentially larger (than the preceding infinity). When you complete that doubly-infinite count, we will add a worm to the pile, and give it a name so it becomes a pet and has special properties. Then you can count again.
prof wrote: Neither Hartman, nor this writer, are sneaking in "qualitative" values into the formal structure, but it is a fact that quantity at times becomes quality, as when given enough heat water transforms from a liquid into a gas, known as steam. When I give enough attention to a pigmented canvas, it may transform in my consciousness from "just another painting" to "a world-class masterwork!!"
It was probably a mistake to bring art into this. If you were able to use quantitative assessments of properties to establish a science of ethics with actions and morals as data points, you would also be able to scientifically determine art.*

So please explain how you intend to measure the Mona Lisa versus some Shakespeare. Obviously there is lots of Shakespeare, so you ought to be able to say exactly how many pages of that equals one Mona Lisa.

Naturally you cannot achieve this task because it is babble and nonsense. You can't turn the subjective quality of art into science by measurement. Not even measurement of special subjective yet somehow I-values that aren't qualitative in nature.

Your argument is grounded on a claim that "It turns out that “value” is a function of properties: the more properties, the more value."
You are trying to answer the most difficult questions there are with the simplest and laziest answers you can find. That's not a viable plan.


* you wouldn't need to worry about philosophy either, you could count the properties of Wittgenstein and measure those against the properties of Kant and just declare the winner.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest