Haha too true Wilderness.
Even though a man throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows, it cannot be denied he values life over death (survival) . So yes man is always striving for life over death, period. I’m not going to be intellectually dishonest and say that life is the ultimate value at all times. But I will say this, even though a man may sacrifice himself for some cause at some point, that point of sacrifice must always occur after that man has produced children. If that is not the case then he will be bred out of the gene pool and I can continue saying that all men value life over death.
No, given a man’s goal, what is a cost and what is a benefit is entirely objective. I wasn’t denying that people can vary in values, I was saying compatible plans require similar value structure, as an opinion of course otherwise I would give a line by line proof.
Also Iam,
To state that one does not have an ultimate goal in life is to engage in performative contradiction because not having a goal is itself a goal.
Jumping on that grenade very well might have been an excuse for suicide, it is not unknown for a man to become suicidal.
And if that man is suicidal?
And what if the man who jumped on that grenade has not procreated yet?
But in that case, the man has proven your statement wrong.
absolutely not. all costs are opportunity costs, and opportunity costs are incommensurable. the same material circumstances are seen as of greater or less value due to subjective circumstances, of which the valued and disvalued features are completely dependent on the perceptions of a particular individual.
I’m not denying that men have ultimate goals, I am denying that we can have absolute knowledge of the ultimate goals of other individuals.
Someone’s scientific paradigm has yet to pass through the scientific revolution.
I know what I wrote is correct because it falls into a category where man can attain correct knowledge, what I wrote about being the limitations of human knowledge - we can, and must come to understand the limits of our own knowledge; however, there are some spheres where he is left gropping in the dark.
No, we cannot absolutely know what are the ends that other strive after for such knowledge is limited to their own thoughts, and whatever they say about the ends they strive after may very well be a lie.
Laugh as much as you want, but it is still true. All that I have said about the limits of man’s knowledge is correct.
When a man is without uneasiness that does not mean that he is happy, he may very well be unhappy in such a scenario, but we cannot know for sure for man is always with uneasiness, and individuals may respond differently. The two cannot be equivocated.
metaphysics, not physics.
and yet that rock isn’t a tree if your knowledge doesn’t intellectually apprehend their metaphysical nature. There is a metaphysical science.
see ya
I don’t consider the dead in determining what all men currently value. Do you have a reason I should?
Then he is bred out of the gene pool in the course of 1 generation.
And I know you sense the edge case, ah the wiley man who has kids and then becomes suicidal and throws himself on a grenade! Now this depends and actually gave me pause for thought, but I have a theory. Its the nature or nuture question. Was the suicide in his nature or was in put in him from outside. I am only contending here that the nature part of man can be objective.
It took life to go on that grenade. In other words life (the person is alive) jumped on the grenade.
You modified your argument. I did not say the ranking of costs was objective, I said given a man’s goal what is a cost and what is a benefit is objective.
Their means work to illuminate their ends such as thus:If my end is supposedly non-violence, my means would not be the murdering of all life.
No, what you deduce from not having absolutes is that nothing is true. You are quickly turning into a nihilist with your talk of imaginary human constructs and ends that are always unknowable.
Man is certainly more happy then they once were before the action which is why the action was conducted in the first place. Therefore:
State A — Action — State B
State B is a reduced uneasiness [ a state more satisifactory then State A ]
And your head makes an unsuitable foundation for a house. Rocks aren’t constructed properly for certain technical processes, it doesn’t mean they operate by different fundamental principles.
sure they both are being - yet life is fundamentally different than a rock. You can point out the rocks and life genus, but that doesn’t mean rock and life do not exist in and of themselves.
I would say there is an objective existence of the class “rock” because I can identify rocks from other things.
vitalism is logically inconsistent.
yes rocks are more than one mineral that has been ltihificated.
thankfully emergentism is not vitalism.