What makes you say that?
What makes you say that?
Because 1) ideal, ‘superior’, duty, categorical imperatives, mandate of reason, ‘human nature’ are all made up nonsense to begin with and 2) only practical imperatives exist, and they only exist in relation to actual values.
Human beings, and all teleologic entities, are complex entites with no intrinsic aim and no intrinsic values. What they value is dependent on their actual, physical makeup. And all values are intrinsic to the entity itself, and can not have any direct bearing on the values of any other entity.
i dont know if its from lack of close reading but isnt there a contradiction between saying that humans have no intrinsic values, but that what they value depends on their physical/material structure.
i suppose you might be saying that any human being has intrinsic values but there is no generalised human being and hence no intrinsic values that are true for all human beings unless they have similar physical makeup, similar enough to encode the supposed values.
“Human beings… no intrinsic values… all values are intrinsic…”
Am I human?
There is a difference in referrent, though. Human beings have no intrinsic values - that is to say, no one is constrained to value human beings in any particular way, or at all. However valuing is an act which is intrinsic to teleological systems. And this is precisely why human beings have no intrinsic value - because humans are only ‘valuable’ if someone in particular values them. And then, only to that person who holds this particular evaluation.
Does this include the human that is being valued? In other words, this particular human let’s say may not value themselves? Is that what you’re saying here?
So humans have value, and they are capable of valuing, but having “no intrinsic value”. I think you are saying we don’t know what that value is? The value of a human could be infinite. It depends on a person’s “particular evaluation”?
Does this include the human that is being valued? In other words, this particular human let’s say may not value themselves? Is that what you’re saying here?
Does it even make sense to ‘value oneself’? What is ‘oneself’? Is there any ‘one’ to the self? I’d say it’s more like patterns of patterns, cohering historical representations within an information network.
Putting that aside, though, humans ‘value’ things not merely in vertical but in horizontal ways - they have different kinds of valuing, and different methods. So even if they ‘value themselves’ in some abstract way, what they value, what those values entail and how those values work out in action are quite variable.
So humans have value, and they are capable of valuing, but having “no intrinsic value”. I think you are saying we don’t know what that value is? The value of a human could be infinite. It depends on a person’s “particular evaluation”?
Rather that all values are existentially personal, a value only is ‘a value’ by virtue of its being held by a particular person, and can not be ‘generalized’ as ‘valuable’; rather it is an instantiation of valuing.
Yes. As you are an individual, necessarily that is singular. Unit. One.
Just remember: neo-post-modernism is just a bunch of words strung together for no apparent reason.
might make someone a good sig
Doesn’t make much sense does it ? A teleological entity with no ‘intrinsic’ aim ? I mean, a teleological entity is one which has some purpose or end ? Or ?
Yes. As you are an individual, necessarily that is singular. Unit. One.
You are a complex assemblage of mechanical parts, ‘you’ are nothing in particular - patterns of patterns. There is a sort of coherence to it (one you lose somewhat while sleeping, drugged, injured, etc.) but that coherence is not in itself anything specific, no specific entity. You have no ‘point of views’, only a cascade of viewpoints. This is, first of all, existentially true and it is also essentially what neuroscience and physics more generally would lead us to expect. Consciousness is not a substance-in-itself, it is a name for a lot of recursive patterns among various objects linked together.
Just remember: neo-post-modernism is just a bunch of words strung together for no apparent reason.
That may be so, but the Cartesian ‘self’ is pure mysticism.
Doesn’t make much sense does it ? A teleological entity with no ‘intrinsic’ aim ? I mean, a teleological entity is one which has some purpose or end ? Or ?
Granted a teleologic entity must have some aim, and in a particular entity it must be a particular aim (or aims, or value-propensities). But there is nothing in particular those aims or propensities ‘ought’ to be, they are simply facts. Valuable is identical to valued, but it is also existentially tied to a particular agent who holds ‘values’. It can not be extrapolated or ‘demanded’ of other entities.
who posted the previous post ?
incorrect answer: Vichy
correct answer: no-one in particular
Singular. You keep not grasping your performative contradiction. Oh well–silly mystics never do.
At once a strawman and priceslessly funny, given your inability to grasp your own mystical verbiage.
It’s deliciously post-modern and hilarious considering Vichy’s sig.
More nuanced answer: Vichy is a consequential use of terminology - IE, the materials of a bike change every instant but it is a ‘bike for our purposes’. An object may cease to be a ‘particular’ bike, but it typically still remains ‘functionally a bike’.
Secondarily, it is true that by some sense ‘no one in particular’ made this post, since it was a constantly modified set of entities, the post taking place over time it is inevitable that irreversible change did occur - and in what sense are you ‘not’ a different person than you were two minutes ago? All you have is a congruity of patterns, an inheritance of memory.
If people tend to treat people as if they were continuous, specific entities then they are simply in error. What is ‘common’ is rarely ‘sense’.
Meaning ? You your-self don’t exist ?
so…, the self remains functionally the self, for our purposes , what was your point again?
anyhow whether we err or not, we are under no obligation to be right, so…
That the alleged ‘problem’ of identity between the materials of our body and our ‘mind’ is fallacious, since the only ‘mind’ that actually exists is a patterning-machine. We never encounter, nor could encounter, any other sort of existence. The ‘limits of our being’ is not a monad, it is an extension of correlation.
Because we do so love devolving to the pre-Socratic era.
Yes Virginia: you can step into the same river twice. And you can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.
What do all of Vichy’s pronouncements add up to? The new religion of actually believing that bulldada should be Serious Business.
correlation between what?, not-anyones-brain, and some-(un-particular)-mind?
and what is this ‘we’ that never encounters or could not encouter others sorts of existences. it seems you fail to say what you want to say without needing to use the terms you disparage.