Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:"She pulled ahead in the end and won it fair and square.

There's evidence to suggest she pulled ahead only cuz the powers in the Dem party -- again -- blunted Bernie in favor of her. If instead those powers had acted as the neutral facillitators they were supposed to be it's possible Bernie woulda won the nomination. And I point this out as a Bernie opposer...he's a friggin' *commie, which is, in my book, just about the worst thing a body can be.









*yeah, I know, he calls himself a socialist or a social democrat...from where I sit, it's all the same horrorshow

Interesting that you should think a commie is the worst thing you could be. It might interest you to know if anyone has factual ties to communism it's Trump. You do know that his campaign manager worked for years for Russian interests...had direct reactions with putin...and...it seems he still has his office set up there complete with furniture to this day. Although he denies having any dealings with them now. It would also interest you to know when Biden visited Serbia the other day, hundreds of pro communism supporters chanted, "vote for Trump, vote for trump." When asked why they are pro trump, they said they think he would be more for Russia.

Seems like you have quite the ethical delimna there.

As for Hillary...we can make up he said she said conspiracy theory about everyone. But what good would that be? Those are just 'what if's'. Let's try to focus on what we know and see instead of what might have been.

Deal?

Yeah, I know about Trump's ties (and Clinton's too)...I don't care...I'm a 'none of the above' kinda guy.

As for 'he said, she said': a whole whack of emails (written by Dem big wigs to Dem big wigs) reveals clearly the DNC was skewing toward Clinton (and puttin' road blocks up against Bernie) when it (the DNC) was supposed to be neutral. That's what we know, as fact.

henry quirk wrote:Yeah, I know about Trump's ties (and Clinton's too)...I don't care...I'm a 'none of the above' kinda guy.

As for 'he said, she said': a whole whack of emails (written by Dem big wigs to Dem big wigs) reveals clearly the DNC was skewing toward Clinton (and puttin' road blocks up against Bernie) when it (the DNC) was supposed to be neutral. That's what we know, as fact.

But I don't understand?! I thought you were all into the 'Self interest' thing? Ayn rand and all that crap. Could it be that you only advocate 'self interest' for yourself and not for others? If so, how does that work exactly? Oh, I know...you bend over and take it up the ass when the system you advocated for becomes a reality. When your super men and women take power and use it for THEIR self intetests...instead of looking out for yourent interests. Hence, your 'none of above' bullcrap you now tote.

You sons a bitches, bitched and moan about having the freedom to hoard your money, let people die in the streets, herd them up like cattle, and move em out of your land...(even when they were born on this land), etc. Now you will deal with the consequences of your unethical stupidity.

You don't like when the DNC does exactly what you've been advocating? You don't like when trump does it? Well fuck you. Suck it up.

Until you bastards get your head out of your asses and think about what it means to be ethical...then you can reap what you sowed for all I care.

Like I said, mess with my fucking rainbows and lollipops and I'll see ya burn in hell.

I don't give a rats ass anymore. Let's do this bitch .

henry quirk wrote:Yeah, I know about Trump's ties (and Clinton's too)...I don't care...I'm a 'none of the above' kinda guy.

So a person with only self interest finds himself under the thumb of a president who also only has self interest. No wonder the US is fucked.

artisticsolution wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Yeah, I know about Trump's ties (and Clinton's too)...I don't care...I'm a 'none of the above' kinda guy.

As for 'he said, she said': a whole whack of emails (written by Dem big wigs to Dem big wigs) reveals clearly the DNC was skewing toward Clinton (and puttin' road blocks up against Bernie) when it (the DNC) was supposed to be neutral. That's what we know, as fact.

But I don't understand?! I thought you were all into the 'Self interest' thing? Ayn rand and all that crap. Could it be that you only advocate 'self interest' for yourself and not for others? If so, how does that work exactly? Oh, I know...you bend over and take it up the ass when the system you advocated for becomes a reality. When your super men and women take power and use it for THEIR self intetests...instead of looking out for yourent interests. Hence, your 'none of above' bullcrap you now tote.

You sons a bitches, bitched and moan about having the freedom to hoard your money, let people die in the streets, herd them up like cattle, and move em out of your land...(even when they were born on this land), etc. Now you will deal with the consequences of your unethical stupidity.

You don't like when the DNC does exactly what you've been advocating? You don't like when trump does it? Well fuck you. Suck it up.

Until you bastards get your head out of your asses and think about what it means to be ethical...then you can reap what you sowed for all I care.

Like I said, mess with my fucking rainbows and lollipops and I'll see ya burn in hell.

I don't give a rats ass anymore. Let's do this bitch .

Just like a liberal. They're always just a hair's width from going all freaky violent on you when you disagree. Off to the reprogramming camp for you. And if that doesn't make you think properly, then it's the shooting squad. HQ's right in this, at least the conservatives wear their violence on their sleeves.

It's time to re-read the first page of this thread; and the first four posts on the second page: here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18111

Some of you may be noticing that thread for the first time. It has some vitally-important views in it so that you can better protect your self-interest.

Do not say later that you were not warned

Raise your hand if you want to live under a dictatorship; for that is what we definitely will have, if Trump somehow manages to get elected president. He is someone who, it is safe to predict will, put those on his 'enemies list'[ in jail, including journalists, Moslems (who someone mistakenly fingers as 'suspicious'), social-justice organizers, Latino leaders who protest, the vocal members of the N.A.A.C.P., etc. He is dedicated to "Make America white again !"

Wyman wrote:
Just like a liberal. They're always just a hair's width from going all freaky violent on you when you disagree. Off to the reprogramming camp for you. And if that doesn't make you think properly, then it's the shooting squad. HQ's right in this, at least the conservatives wear their violence on their sleeves.

Show me where I got all Freaky violent? Because I cussed? Oh dear! When I say ' let's do this bitch.' I mean let's get on with it! Meaning...you want a world where everyone is looking out for their own self interest? Let's do it...let's see where it will go...because warning gs haven't worked! Did conservativesome take heed when we warned the about bush? No. Or the Iraq war? No. Or deregulation? No.

It is clear to me now they need to learn the hard way. So...let's do it...let's learn the hard way. I don't care anymore... if they want trump...okay...Let's do this bitch.

FlashDangerpants wrote: To put it bluntly, you are presenting a circular argument and it must therefore be wrong.

You said:
“value” is a function of properties

You are therefore trying to establish a blunt quantitative basis for all ethics based on a Value which is derived by nothing but a count of properties.

You don't get to choose which properties count for more than other properties because that is a value judgment and you cannot have any of those at the start of your argument, it can only be allowed at the conclusion.

Greetings, Flash

You raise a serious question that merits a serious response.

It is not I who chooses the properties. It is the one who makes the value judgment. The valuer names the concept being valued. That concept has a definition and/or a description. Those descriptive attributes are the property-names to which I alluded when I wrote: "the richer in properties, the more value." If you are speaking about, let us say, a wristwatch, and comparing a complex Swiss watch with a watch that only tells time by the rotation of its two hands, which one will retail for a higher price? The first watch, the Swiss one, has '21 jewels', is waterproof, lights up in the dark, gives an optional digita- readout, functions as a speedometer, times a footrace, has a calendar, and a built-in global-positioning-system, etc. The second just tells time. (Personally, I prefer the simpler one if it would only have that lights-up in the dark feature to make for easier reading; and I always prefer a timepiece with a large LED digital readout -- but it's not about me.)

The retailer will likely claim that the Swiss watch is the greater value. More precision went into making it; its time is preset in synchronization with the metric standard in a physics laboratory, so it invariably keeps accurate time; and it is encased in a stainless, scratch-resistant setting. For all those reasons, a higher value is put on it by the jeweler.

That is what was meant by the claim that what is richer in properties is the higher value. The Axiom of Value states: x is a valuable C to Judge J at time t if and only if:
(I) x is a C. [That is, x is a member of, or instance of, class-concept C.]

(II) C's have properties a,b,c, d, f, h, m ...etc.

and (III) this x has a, has b, has c, etc. or some subset of the set mentioned in (II).
x must at least have the definitional features or it wouldn't even be x.

Many more details are to be found in the early pages of the College Course booklet.
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

The main point to note here is that it is Judge J who pictures the attributes in his mind; and those are associated by the tongue spoken with the name J puts on the thing or the situation. If the concept is a singular, then J would tend to put a proper name on it. "Bertie is a good philosopher" means: Bertie has the qualities that a philosopher is supposed to have in J's conception of a "philosopher", whatever that might be for him (or her)

I hope this is helpful, and clears up some of the misunderstanding of Hartman's Axom of Value.

Show me where I got all Freaky violent? Because I cussed? Oh dear! When I say ' let's do this bitch.' I mean let's get on with it! Meaning...you want a world where everyone is looking out for their own self interest? Let's do it...let's see where it will go...because warning gs haven't worked! Did conservativesome take heed when we warned the about bush? No. Or the Iraq war? No. Or deregulation? No.

It is clear to me now they need to learn the hard way. So...let's do it...let's learn the hard way. I don't care anymore... if they want trump...okay...Let's do this bitch.

Wow. It would take a book to cover everything in this clip, and the clip.
Any captions?

Trump Supporters React to Outrageous Campaign Ads • Triumph's Summer Election Special 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MubunsD-7g

Walker wrote: Trump Supporters React to Outrageous Campaign Ads • Triumph's Summer Election Special 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MubunsD-7g

I think this clip underlines what I have said about Americans being undernourished. Lack of vitamins and minerals in their early years, and a lack of decent education has bred a nation of retards.

The other conclusion is that because Europe threw its dross Westwards the general population is genetically challenged.

Maybe its a mixture of both?

"But I don't understand?!"

Of course you do. Why else would you try to distract from the topic with a personal attack? And what is the topic (between you and me)? Democrats in power, folks who claim to be sensitive to the will of 'the people', will, without remorse, circumvent that will, bend and blunt the democratic process, to get the result they want. Again, say what you like about Republicans, but be honest. Again, at least in the matter of nominating a presidential candidate, the Repubs are more ethical, more honest, than the Dems.

#

"I don't give a rats ass anymore."

Of course you do.

##

"under the thumb "

I don't 'feel' particularly hobbled by any-one or -thing...mebbe you do?

##

"going all freaky violent"

Nah, that's just part of the act, which is well-crafted, designed to push buttons and distract and redirect. I'm surprised 'racist' didn't come up in the spiel...woulda been a classic diatribe then.

##

"The valuer names the concept being valued."

Exactly right, so leave folks alone to determine what each values cuz we don’t need no stinkin’ technocracy.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote: Trump Supporters React to Outrageous Campaign Ads • Triumph's Summer Election Special 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MubunsD-7g

I think this clip underlines what I have said about Americans being undernourished. Lack of vitamins and minerals in their early years, and a lack of decent education has bred a nation of retards.

The other conclusion is that because Europe threw its dross Westwards the general population is genetically challenged.

Maybe its a mixture of both?

Everyone knows Americans are filled with fun in their natural element.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsC4kf6x_Q0

prof wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote: To put it bluntly, you are presenting a circular argument and it must therefore be wrong.

You said:
“value” is a function of properties

You are therefore trying to establish a blunt quantitative basis for all ethics based on a Value which is derived by nothing but a count of properties.

You don't get to choose which properties count for more than other properties because that is a value judgment and you cannot have any of those at the start of your argument, it can only be allowed at the conclusion.

Greetings, Flash

You raise a serious question that merits a serious response.

It is not I who chooses the properties. It is the one who makes the value judgment. The valuer names the concept being valued. That concept has a definition and/or a description. Those descriptive attributes are the property-names to which I alluded when I wrote: "the richer in properties, the more value." If you are speaking about, let us say, a wristwatch, and comparing a complex Swiss watch with a watch that only tells time by the rotation of its two hands, which one will retail for a higher price? The first watch, the Swiss one, has '21 jewels', is waterproof, lights up in the dark, gives an optional digita- readout, functions as a speedometer, times a footrace, has a calendar, and a built-in global-positioning-system, etc. The second just tells time. (Personally, I prefer the simpler one if it would only have that lights-up in the dark feature to make for easier reading; and I always prefer a timepiece with a large LED digital readout -- but it's not about me.)

The retailer will likely claim that the Swiss watch is the greater value. More precision went into making it; its time is preset in synchronization with the metric standard in a physics laboratory, so it invariably keeps accurate time; and it is encased in a stainless, scratch-resistant setting. For all those reasons, a higher value is put on it by the jeweler.

That is what was meant by the claim that what is richer in properties is the higher value. The Axiom of Value states: x is a valuable C to Judge J at time t if and only if:
(I) x is a C. [That is, x is a member of, or instance of, class-concept C.]

(II) C's have properties a,b,c, d, f, h, m ...etc.

and (III) this x has a, has b, has c, etc. or some subset of the set mentioned in (II).
x must at least have the definitional features or it wouldn't even be x.

Many more details are to be found in the early pages of the College Course booklet.
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

The main point to note here is that it is Judge J who pictures the attributes in his mind; and those are associated by the tongue spoken with the name J puts on the thing or the situation. If the concept is a singular, then J would tend to put a proper name on it. "Bertie is a good philosopher" means: Bertie has the qualities that a philosopher is supposed to have in J's conception of a "philosopher", whatever that might be for him (or her)

I hope this is helpful, and clears up some of the misunderstanding of Hartman's Axom of Value.

That does nothing to fix your circularity problem though.
It doesn't help that you can provide a formula for assigning properties if you are only assigning properties that an observer is valuing.
You can't establish that the value of a thing is objectively derived from the quantity of its properties if you allow the observer to only assign properties that are of subjective value.

That watch has properties of smell that no human can detect, reflections in parts of the spectrum we cannot see. All its metals once drifted through space and were bathed in the radiation of celestial objects we have yet to discover. Those are among the infinite physical properties it holds. There is nothing objective about the retailers view of its 'values' other than their, presumably, astute methods of determining how much money they can exchange it for.

Remember what it is that you are trying to establish. You aren't trying to win one little debate, you have a science to found, one that requires that the moral worth of things of all types is dependent on a purely analytic counting of their properties. It's a pretty uphill battle to wring an ought from an is. If you allow J's evaluative judgments to count as the foundation of all that, you can't succeed.

A critic once said: "I value something with 5 properties more than I value something with 60 properties."

My response to that is:

When someone values something with "only 5 properties" more than something else - they show this by attributing to it much more than those 5 properties. In other words, you know they are valuing it more because you perceive their actions, and if you asked them why they hug it or treasure it, they would begin waxing over it with many words of praise. Each of those is another property they are finding - adding to the original five.

If something has 50 properties, to you, in the very act of your telling me that, you would, in effect, be implying that it is of considerable value. You had to pay a certain amount of attention, more than most might bother to, in order to even learn that it had that many. And the more of your time and energy you gave it to 'see' that much in it, this tells us that you evaluated it as having 'lots and lots of value'.

Value science studies how people think, set priorities, order their value judgments. It does not judge - no more than Botany smells. Roses smell. Botany studies them. Let us not commit the fallacy of confusing the scientific theory with the data it studies and researches.

Furthermore, property quantification is not dubious- any more than counting the number of wavelengths in an electromagnetic spectrum is, nor any more than adding together quarks or plank's constants. No one complains when physicists do this. Why have a different standard for value analysts. Has anyone ever seen a positron or a gluon?

When the subject of discussion is a human individual, property enumeration is not appropriate nor is it necessary. It is enough to be aware that a living organism is more complex than a machine; and from a human standpoint we had better value the life higher than we do the machine. This valuation is in our true self-interest.

While, in a sense, as FlashDangerpants is insisting, everything can be said to have countless properties, in practice we break off the listing of properties according to how much we want to invest of our time and attention. '

Getting involved' means in effect perceiving more features (properties) in the focus of our valuing, the person or the object. We give ourselves more to it. Intrinsically-valuing is synonymous with loving. The former is an academic way of saying the latter. We tend to value Systemically rigid or fixed systems; we tend to value Extrinsically socio-economic matters, the affairs of everyday life, and systems that are more-dynamic and emergent. If we are wise we value individual persons Intrinsically; for that is in our best self-interest. And that is the foundation of Ethics. The principle "Do no harm!" follows from that. And so does The Golden Rule. Annex to it the axiom, Make things better! and you have a fertile theory with myriad implications for policies and procedures.


Show me a better ethical theory and I'll switch to that one.....


All constructive comments welcome!!!


For details on the structure of value, see:
https://www.hartmaninstitute.org/axiologyasascience/
And note especially the applications of it at the end of the article.

prof wrote: Furthermore, property quantification is not dubious- any more than counting the number of wavelengths in an electromagnetic spectrum is, nor any more than adding together quarks or plank's constants. No one complains when physicists do this. Why have a different standard for value analysts. Has anyone ever seen a positron or a gluon?

That is the exact problem with your theory. You are borrowing these scientific terms which acquire their meaning from impartial measurable properties of actual things, and passing off an inferior counterfeit based on a partial set of perceived properties of others things as somehow the same sort of thing. This supposed equivalence for your fake science is mere terminological theft.

prof wrote:When the subject of discussion is a human individual, property enumeration is not appropriate nor is it necessary. It is enough to be aware that a living organism is more complex than a machine; and from a human standpoint we had better value the life higher than we do the machine. This valuation is in our true self-interest.

While, in a sense, as FlashDangerpants is insisting, everything can be said to have countless properties, in practice we break off the listing of properties according to how much we want to invest of our time and attention. '

That's why the product you are shopping does not, and never could, exist in the category of a science.
Can you imagine scientists saying that the electrical properties of a substance aren't deserving of attention, therefore it doesn't have any?
No. they aren't paid to be lazy, so they measure those properties and make note of it.
If you want to base your thing on a count of properties, count the damn properties or stop bullshitting us.

Unfortunately, you have repeatedly marketed it as a science of ethics. As it is clearly not valid as a science, it is just a nothing of nothing.

prof wrote:Getting involved' means in effect perceiving more features (properties) in the focus of our valuing, the person or the object. We give ourselves more to it. Intrinsically-valuing is synonymous with loving. The former is an academic way of saying the latter. We tend to value Systemically rigid or fixed systems; we tend to value Extrinsically socio-economic matters, the affairs of everyday life, and systems that are more-dynamic and emergent. If we are wise we value individual persons Intrinsically; for that is in our best self-interest. And that is the foundation of Ethics. The principle "Do no harm!" follows from that. And so does The Golden Rule. Annex to it the axiom, Make things better! and you have a fertile theory with myriad implications for policies and procedures.

I could argue with all of the above. But once again, I think it needs to be stressed, your most important error is to take the evaluative judgment that is inherent to "We tend to value" and try to make that self-evidently-subjective experience into the self-evidently-true foundation of an objective morality.

I am not the one being mean to you here - you placed yourself into a paradox and simply refuse to acknowledge it because you want the conclusion to be true so much that you are willing to ignore the flawed premises used to get there. You have wasted a lot of time on it because you were not critical enough in your initial evaluation and you have been stubbornly resistant to thinking this through ever since.

prof wrote:
Show me a better ethical theory and I'll switch to that one.....

Every system that tries to explain what ethical principles mean rather than trying to swap them out for a primitive substitute automatically has an advantage over this theory of yours.