Philosophy Now Forum

sthitapragya wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Do you think, as a teacher, he may be too accepting of different viewpoints, never settling on one himself? I'm not saying that being open to new ideas is a bad thing. Clearly it's not. But when you can't form some conclusions from what you know, because everything is 'possible', where does that leave you, besides endless possibilities and zero answers? Does a teacher need to be this open to ideas to teach, that he no longer holds any himself, and rejects any conclusions as closed-minded? (Aka, my rejection of intrinsic value?)

In fact, I would say the opposite that there are certain things to which he might have closed his mind. He is closed minded to any argument against intrinsic value, isn't he? I agree with you that there is no intrinsic value to anything, but if he disagrees, he should sit you down and explain exactly why you are wrong. You might come away convinced that he is right and learn a new perspective. You could have told me about it and I too would have come away with a different perspective. He did not choose to do that.

I agree wholeheartedly with sthitapragya here he sounds far more closed off then open to anything. I am sure if he had any real sound, valid arguments, then he would just present them. If he has a belief in intrinsic value, then he MUST then believe intrinsic value is true, right, and correct, so he would not be open to an opposing view. BUT, this could also be applying to you dalek. If you have a belief that value is ONLY given by mind, then you MUST then believe intrinsic value is not true, a falsehood, and also incorrect. Therefore, you also would not be open to an opposing view.

The Truth is there could well be truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and, correctness and in-correctness in what both of you believe is right. I have never given intrinsic value much, if any at all, thought before, but just reading these few pages I could see, what I call, Truth. As greta so rightly pointed out that rocks could have intrinsic value, in of themselves, but only in relation to the One Universe, as a whole, and, as you so rightly pointed out also even if that is the case, then without Mind then that would never ever be known. So, although there could well be truth in objective “intrinsic value” in all things, in relation to everything else as One, there could well be just as much truth in only Mind can give and/or see “intrinsic” value in these things. When agreement is reached, Truth is found, so to is peace by the way.

I have found that with-in all philosophical like discussion/debates, e.g., creation-evolution, etc. there is always A Truth that lies in between them. There is truth and falsehoods in “both sides” of all these so called “arguments” but only when truly open is the One Truth found. Just like TOE, there is two opposites which co-exist in equilibrium, every where. From deep with-in us all there lays Truth, which when un-covered it is also dis-covered that this agreed upon Truth resides in equilibrium, with peace in harmony. Having the ability to truly listen is how Truth is 'seen', known and understood.

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"dp desired an explanation of the topic. He didn’t get one. You did."

Yeah, but I wasn't lookin' for one, don't need one...intrinsic value is poop.

Well, I actually did get clarification, and also think intrinsic value is poop. Same as when I came into this.

Regarding the rest of your stated concern, the lecturer refused to discuss the topic because of various possibilities stemming from the same source.

He insisted on my acceptance of intrinsic value. And after today's very profound brainstorming session with another fellow I fell into by chance, I'm more convinced than ever on how correct I am. Not just on absence of intrinsic value, but on antinatalism. What a kick ass session that was. To me, its so important, I'm keeping it to myself for now until I can digest the breakthrough.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
You just like goading people, don't you. I can understand you getting all het up because I don't believe in your God, but now you have a problem if I don't believe there is intrinsic value to anything? What kind of mind do you have that you cannot accept someone having a differing view on anything? How immature can you be? If this is what belief in God does to people, I really thank God I am an atheist. And now off you go back on my ignore list, little chihuahua. It was stupid of me to take you off it thinking maybe you had changed.

Argumentum ad hominem: see above, youngster.

1) What sthitapragya says here is not an Ad hom. He was making a remark about you. He was not saying you are disqualified from making an argument because of who you are. He was simply explaining that you are on the ropes and thrashing out by goading.

2) By making your false claim about sthitapragya's remark being an ad hom, you are demonstrating that his remark ;"You just like goading people, don't you.: is totally accurate.

3) You have to make an argument in order to be traduced as a raving Theist for being incapable of making one. First make an argument for your position, then we'll see.

That is why it is better to put him on ignore. He never says anything of substance. Ever. He only makes declarations without giving any reasons. Always. Or he insults or goads for no rhyme or reason. This is a classic case in point. There was no reason for him to butt in with his remark. He was not part of the conversation. But he did it anyway. Just for the heck of it. I simply don't understand how his petty mind works. And it is more peaceful not to read what he writes which most of the time makes literally no sense at all. He contributes absolutely nothing here. At all.

Even Nick who we all love to hate usually gives reasons for his conclusions. We might find them outrageous or disagree with his reasons, but at least he gives reasons that you can counter. Walker and Reflex will never ever give reasons for their conclusions. Ever. They make declarations. What is the point of that?

sthitapragya wrote:That is why it is better to put him on ignore. He never says anything of substance. Ever. He only makes declarations without giving any reasons. Always. Or he insults or goads for no rhyme or reason. /...[they] will never ever give reasons for their conclusions. Ever. They make declarations. What is the point of that?

I typically ignore it too... it nearly always looks like ego spew to me. Very uninteresting. Either manic yapping... or absurd posturing. No respect or connection or balanced interaction... just endless declarations from limited views that imagine themselves to be clever and broader-thinking than they actually are. It's not unique, as there's apparently an epidemic of people enamored with themselves like that, and creating impenetrable fantasies to support it.

Lacewing wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:That is why it is better to put him on ignore. He never says anything of substance. Ever. He only makes declarations without giving any reasons. Always. Or he insults or goads for no rhyme or reason. /...[they] will never ever give reasons for their conclusions. Ever. They make declarations. What is the point of that?

I typically ignore it too... it nearly always looks like ego spew to me. Very uninteresting. Either manic yapping... or absurd posturing. No respect or connection or balanced interaction... just endless declarations from limited views that imagine themselves to be clever and broader-thinking than they actually are. It's not unique, as there's apparently an epidemic of people enamored with themselves like that, and creating impenetrable fantasies to support it.

Well, why he does it is his business. All I know is that he contributes nothing. Well, he does but it is just malignant negativity. So it is much better to put him on ignore. And the best part is, even if he replies, I don't get to read it.

Dalek Prime wrote: PS. Hit the publish before l could fix the title. [Fixed—iMod]

Thanks iMod!

sthitapragya wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:That is why it is better to put him on ignore. He never says anything of substance. Ever. He only makes declarations without giving any reasons. Always. Or he insults or goads for no rhyme or reason. /...[they] will never ever give reasons for their conclusions. Ever. They make declarations. What is the point of that?

I typically ignore it too... it nearly always looks like ego spew to me. Very uninteresting. Either manic yapping... or absurd posturing. No respect or connection or balanced interaction... just endless declarations from limited views that imagine themselves to be clever and broader-thinking than they actually are. It's not unique, as there's apparently an epidemic of people enamored with themselves like that, and creating impenetrable fantasies to support it.

Well, why he does it is his business. All I know is that he contributes nothing. Well, he does but it is just malignant negativity. So it is much better to put him on ignore. And the best part is, even if he replies, I don't get to read it.

Instead of you two nimrods boring everyone with shared bigotry and ignorance, let’s hear something about the following this time around based on reasoning and not your special little beliefs, and minus the usual tedious logical fallacies. (Sure, evidence indicates it’s not likely to happen, but why not dream of such a world?)

*

In order to exist, a human being must exist as a greater organizational complex than a worm, or other lesser form of life. “Lesser” is not an arbitrary or assigned value. It is recognized. On this basis we can say that one life is a greater form of life when compared to another form. The basis of this greater or lesser is intrinsic to the form, not the comparison, and not the assignation by man. The intrinsic quality that is recognized and not assigned, though it is labeled, is the intrinsic ordering of the compounds which comprise the compounded thing.

Order is of value and that is intrinsic, which does not require man. The value of anything is recognized by man and for good reason. It allows man to persevere as a form of life within reality for the purpose of propagating and preserving the species, rather than existing for one generation in an imaginary world that exists only as a figment.

On a related philosophical note, light does not exist because of darkness. Darkness does not exist because of light. The concepts of light and dark may depend upon one another for existence in mind, but light and dark themselves have no need of concept, or each other. Each is complete in and of itself and exists without the other. If they simultaneously exist, then one of them is a figment.

*

Also consider that even rocks and minerals vary in ordering complexity. This ordering can be discovered by man but is not assigned by man. The greater the ordering, the greater the complexity, and the greater the intrinsic value. For example, diamonds are a highly ordered form of carbon, and this intrinsic value is recognized by man. The value and the order is not not assigned by man, for it intrinsically exists when man does not, as inference tells us. Diamonds are not valuable because they are rare although they may be rare. The are valuable because their intrinsic ordering is recognized. And perhaps, we can also say that they are rare because they are intrinsically valuable, or highly ordered.

The human brain looking upon one of its kind says, this is the most complex ordering in the known universe. This is the most valuable for that reason, and perhaps the most rare.

*

Rarity and inherent value appear to go hand-in-hand, and the rare often appears in concentrations. Mind energy, i.e. that of greatest inherent value, concentrates upon earth and maybe elsewhere, given the odds.

Gold is not why man expands his horizons by seeking life in the universe. It is because he seeks that which has the greatest inherent value. Life. Funny thing is it surrounds and is him.

The very urge to seek this greatest inherent value of life may itself be inherent.

Walker wrote: Order is of value and that is intrinsic, which does not require man. The value of anything is recognized by man and for good reason. It allows man to persevere as a form of life within reality for the purpose of propagating and preserving the species, rather than existing for one generation in an imaginary world that exists only as a figment..

And you can't see that you are contradicting yourself here?

Can you imagine a more simple thing having more value than a complex thing?
If not, why not?

Now prove that value is not relative and anthropocentric!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote: Order is of value and that is intrinsic, which does not require man. The value of anything is recognized by man and for good reason. It allows man to persevere as a form of life within reality for the purpose of propagating and preserving the species, rather than existing for one generation in an imaginary world that exists only as a figment..

And you can't see that you are contradicting yourself here?

Can you imagine a more simple thing having more value than a complex thing?
If not, why not?

Now prove that value is not relative and anthropocentric!

What the hell are you talking about, and you want someone to prove it.

Lacewing wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:That is why it is better to put him on ignore. He never says anything of substance. Ever. He only makes declarations without giving any reasons. Always. Or he insults or goads for no rhyme or reason. /...[they] will never ever give reasons for their conclusions. Ever. They make declarations. What is the point of that?

I typically ignore it too... it nearly always looks like ego spew to me. Very uninteresting. Either manic yapping... or absurd posturing. No respect or connection or balanced interaction... just endless declarations from limited views that imagine themselves to be clever and broader-thinking than they actually are. It's not unique, as there's apparently an epidemic of people enamored with themselves like that, and creating impenetrable fantasies to support it.

See if you have it in you to answer this with reasoning and truth.

Intrinsically ugly is not beautiful even though someone thinks it is. And even though someone calls intrinsically ugly, beautiful, it is intrinsically not beautiful. If perception of beauty is not based on intrinsic beauty, then the word beautiful itself is misused … no matter how many misuse it. And, the perception is a delusion.

This truth has been discovered before, and illustrated. Life is the measure, though some old philosopher bird said man is the measure. Man.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWq15lDh8yM

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote: Order is of value and that is intrinsic, which does not require man. The value of anything is recognized by man and for good reason. It allows man to persevere as a form of life within reality for the purpose of propagating and preserving the species, rather than existing for one generation in an imaginary world that exists only as a figment..

And you can't see that you are contradicting yourself here?

Can you imagine a more simple thing having more value than a complex thing?
If not, why not?

Now prove that value is not relative and anthropocentric!

What the hell are you talking about, and you want someone to prove it.

Can you imagine something that is simple having more value that something complicated? Yes or no?
Value cannot be intrinsic. It's about judgement; human judgement.
There is no way out of this.

A gold bar is pure and simple; a broken $5 watch is highly complex but valueless. But there may be exceptions to even this.
Chew it over for a second.

Walker wrote:sion.

This truth has been discovered before, and illustrated. Life is the measure, though some old philosopher bird said man is the measure. Man.

It's obvious enough from this that you are just not very bright.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:sion.

This truth has been discovered before, and illustrated. Life is the measure, though some old philosopher bird said man is the measure. Man.

It's obvious enough from this that you are just not very bright.

I think you know the answer to that.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
And you can't see that you are contradicting yourself here?

Can you imagine a more simple thing having more value than a complex thing?
If not, why not?

Now prove that value is not relative and anthropocentric!

What the hell are you talking about, and you want someone to prove it.

Can you imagine something that is simple having more value that something complicated? Yes or no?
Value cannot be intrinsic. It's about judgement; human judgement.
There is no way out of this.

A gold bar is pure and simple; a broken $5 watch is highly complex but valueless. But there may be exceptions to even this.
Chew it over for a second.

I absolutely will not.

You have not considered the above posting addressed to the Nimrods, which is compiled from previously ignored postings in this thread.

You stay on point, then we might give yours some consideration.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:sion.

This truth has been discovered before, and illustrated. Life is the measure, though some old philosopher bird said man is the measure. Man.

It's obvious enough from this that you are just not very bright.

I think you know the answer to that.

HA yeah - you are plug-stupid; thick as two short ones; missing some marbles; cerebrally challenged; dull; witless; hit by the stupid stick; empty headed.