The Couch

Axiology as hooey

Comments on Axiology as hooey

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/09/09 - 11:36 AM:

henry quirk wrote:


Temporary values can be assigned, agreed upon, used and even held, for enormous stretches of time,

true, i agree.

henry wrote:
but, ultimately -- whether for a day or a thousand years -- the value (morality, ethic, etc.) is just a tool, a fiction, a convenience.

a tool and a convenience, i also agree. i don't think of relative truths as fiction, though, nor do i think of impermanent states as "illusion" as is taught by buddhism. what is real at the time is real, and will always have been real at that time. if something is true for you and not true for me, that only means that it's relative, not fictional. to me, fiction denotes a deliberate misrepresentation of what is real to the individual. if nothing is real, nothing can be fiction either.

henry wrote:
Of course you can! We attack each other with sledgehammers (thinking/beleiving/lieing those hammers are scalpels) all the time! We pretend we understand one another completely when, really, we only get a quarter to half of what anyone says about anything. We each constantly revise meanings and, most of the time, don't bother to tell others of our revisions.

indeed. many disagreements boil down to problems of semantics. what means something to one person can mean something very different to someone else. communication can be challenging enough between people who genuinely intend to understand each other, even more so when someone doesn't actually care to be understood.

i would point out, though, that communication is probably successful a lot more often than we realize. when it is successful, we carry on without giving it much further thought. when it's unsucessful, it seems a lot more significant on account of the resulting frustration.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/09/09 - 12:09 PM:

"...to me, fiction denotes a deliberate misrepresentation of what is real to the individual."

See? You see a tomato and I see katsup.

When I talk of 'fiction' in a philosophical context: I don't mean 'deliberate misrepresentation' (though, certainly, that can be a function of the game). Rather: I mean those things (ideas, concepts) that have no reality outside the head of a person.

Example: An Oak is a reality. Kill off every 'mind' in the world and the Oak will do what it does as tree. Justice is fiction. Without a 'mind' to envision it, hold it, implement it, justice ceases.

Justice can be as useful as the wood from a tree, but it's wholly dependent on 'us'. The tree, the Oak, thumbs its knotty nose at us.


"...communication is probably successful a lot more often than we realize. when it is successful..."

Agreed!
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/10/09 - 2:01 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
"I was thinking more along the lines of equal opportunity. Each gives their life the shape they want, but give to each person the basic tools to do so."

And: who decides what the 'basic tools' are?

I say 'I' do, for myself, while a certain absent communitarian would say the community should, for everyone.

As always: war!


Equal opportunity (like equality, justice, fairness, etc.) is a useful fiction but it IS just a fiction. For those who feel incapable of fending for themselves, a structured avenue for getting those 'basic tools' makes sense.

But: what about folks like me? Being more than competent at doing for myself, why should I allow the less competent to ride my tails and hobble me?

Again: the flaw of Utilitarianism is, the circumstances 'you' or 'they' require for self-possession may conflict with my own self-perceived circumstances.



So the foundation of the conundrum here is the self-percieved circumstances of the able. But - henry - I presume you had a basic education that allows you to fend for yourself, further your education on your own perhaps, but someone gave you a headstart.. It's a basic feature of human progress and culture.

Anyway, it's a choice you have to make. Does the self-perspective influence the scales more than the outside-in perspective? And if either tips the scales in their favour, is it a pragmatic approach?

For instance, say the self-perspectives have it and that's the way we go. That would quite quickly create an increasing disadvantage/inequality of the few versus the many, no?
Such a skewed society could easily (often observed) lead to violence, instability. - Decapitation of the few - like for example the last great king of France? smiling face


An outside-in approach such as communism is equally short-sighted because it leaves people no purpose or initiative... no self-regulating mechanisms.. anyway, it doesn't work either.


Perhaps the middle road, the one I mentioned before, is the best (most workable) solution we have atm?

henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/10/09 - 10:28 AM:

"Perhaps the middle road, the one I mentioned before, is the best (most workable) solution we have atm?"

Here's the thing: I think a body ought to do whatever it is a body thinks it ought to. For a great many: the middle way is gonna be the way of choice.

That's fine. That's great.

I, however, will not participate.

It should be apparent: I'm a violent, disagreeable, selfish, amoral, man. There are no appeals to the 'greater good' that have meaning for me.

*

"I presume you had a basic education that allows you to fend for yourself, further your education on your own perhaps, but someone gave you a headstart..."

Indeed! My parents. I was fortunate enough to have two, both reasonably intelligent. I'm aware that many in the world aren't as fortunate.

Too bad for them...but: not my problem.

Edited by henry quirk on 07/10/09 - 10:43 AM
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/11/09 - 12:13 PM:

quirk wrote:
It should be apparent: I'm a violent, disagreeable, selfish, amoral, man. There are no appeals to the 'greater good' that have meaning for me.


laughing I doubt it, but surely you're being facetious. We're shaped and shafted down corridors of the supposed greater good. In all likelihood you abide by our insidious social customs, pay taxes, medicare and medicaid, et cetera, despite any ideological misgivings.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/13/09 - 9:39 AM:

"In all likelihood you abide by our insidious social customs, pay taxes, medicare and medicaid, et cetera, despite any ideological misgivings."


At the risk of calling down the tax man upon myself (find me if you can, jackass!): no, I pay not a dime in income tax, nor do I file with the IRS, nor do I give two shits.

As I self-employ: I pay no withholdings. As I deal only in cash: there are no 'books' kept.

The only tax I pay is sales tax, and I pay that only because I have no sure way to avoid it.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/20/09 - 1:50 AM:

Sweet Candor wrote:
So you are saying that the value assigned to 'axiology' and even 'value assignments' are not permanent, so you are saying the meanings of the english words you are using are changing all the time. There is no reason to even speak with you, Thinker13.


*Ignoratio Elenchi*

Sweet Candor wrote:
You can't have value assignments for words being impermanent while using words to assign values - you make a snake which eats itself up. It's a waste of time if you don't agree on permanent assignments.


Whether it is a waste of time or not,it is as it is--'temporary'.

Sweet Candor wrote:
If each context can be given permanent values, then how are those permanent values assigned? By using words with values assigned to them from another (previous) context? How can a specific context even be defined if one needs to use already decided context-specific values for words to define it?

kooky laughing


There are no permanent values. Contexts are fleeting ones too. Contexts automatically change as per the direction adopted by the change exerted in agent due to hesh contact with the external influences/agents.


Thank You
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/20/09 - 2:08 AM:

At the risk of calling down the tax man upon myself (find me if you can, jackass!): no, I pay not a dime in income tax, nor do I file with the IRS, nor do I give two shits.

As I self-employ: I pay no withholdings. As I deal only in cash: there are no 'books' kept.

The only tax I pay is sales tax, and I pay that only because I have no sure way to avoid it.


Don't you live in the wrong place then? Perhaps resentfully, but you benefit from the IRS' money every day. So, taking into account that you're a straight-up guy who plays by his own rules, you're probably aching to go some place where society doesn't provide in all 'those' things. But that poses one or two practicaly problems, doesn't it?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/20/09 - 10:28 AM:

"...you benefit from the IRS' money every day."

Yes. So what? I benefit, taking and not giving. I'm a criminal...I can live with that, DO live with that, very easily.

And: from my perspective the money doesn’t belong to the IRS, but rather to the folks too timid to withhold it in the first place.


"...taking into account that you're a straight-up guy who plays by his own rules, you're probably aching to go some place where society doesn't provide in all 'those' things."

Why the hell would I do that? Now you sound like the absent communitarian. Again: I'm amoral. An appeal to ethics (yours) is meaningless to me.


And: I'm not nearly so 'straight-up' as you seem to think... wink
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/20/09 - 12:42 PM:

I wrote, "Now you sound like the absent communitarian."


An explanation...


The communitarian was fond of pointing out how much I benefit from the community as I selfishly withhold my tribute to the community.

As I explained many times: I had no hand in the crafting of the vast social/cultural/ideological/political construct called 'The United States of America'. Perhaps if I had a hand in the crafting of that great fictional machine, the communitarian, or smoke, might have a point.

But: I was born on the North American continent, and into a system, and on both counts (that I was born, and where I was born) I had no say so.

I, for one, see no obligation on me for what was an accident of birth.

I, for one, see no obligation on me to abide by a system I had no hand in crafting, and that I have no respect for.

I, for one, see no obligation on me to toe the line of a morality or ethic (the communitarian's, smoke's) that I had no hand in crafting, and that I have no respect for.

In essence: I'm told that if I don't play nice and 'give' to 'receive', that I'm a thief.


So be it.


Never mind that I work for and acquire far more for myself than the government/society/community gives me.

Never mind that whatever benefit I do get from tax money is minimal to say the least. I draw no gov benefits of any kind, but, even if I did, this would, to me, be simply my predation, my use of available resources. Where those resources come from is of no concern to me.

I could be (in the eyes of some) a huge leech: applying for, and getting, gov funding and not returning an iota in return. I, however, prefer to live cleanly (nor morally, ethically...just 'cleanly') and do for myself.

I use the interstate system extensively: this obligates me to serve?

I use public libraries extensively: this obligates to serve?

I use the paper and digital archives of city, parish (county to you), state, and federal courthouses, extensively: this obligates me to serve?

If it does: it's on the heads and backs of those who would see me serve, to make me serve.

I will not willingly.


As for moving elsewhere: why should I? It's 'here' where my life is.

The implication of, "you're probably aching to go some place where society doesn't provide in all 'those' things.", is as specious as 'America: Love it or Leave it!'.
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/20/09 - 11:00 PM:

Quirk wrote:
I use the paper and digital archives of city, parish (county to you), state, and federal courthouses, extensively: this obligates me to serve?


Why? You're becoming an enigma, Quirk.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/21/09 - 8:42 AM:

That sounds somewhat absurd. Amorality - not standing up at all? How do you give your life meaning?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/21/09 - 9:26 AM:

"Why?"

I earn my daily bread doing independent research. I advertise along the lines that if you need to know (about a person, place, or thing) I'm the one to find the information for you. A great deal of my work involves civil and criminal background/history checks. Courthouses (on all levels) are my first stop.


"You're becoming an enigma, Quirk."

HA!

#

"That sounds somewhat absurd. Amorality - not standing up at all? How do you give your life meaning?"

If it sounds absurd to you it can only be because you don't know what amorality is.

Here: let me help...

Amorality/amoralism does not mean 'without morality' (though, certainly, that's how the word can be interpreted). It means I reject the existence of an objective morality, not that I have no morality.

As I've said: 'universals' have no meaning for me, so, I am left to my own devices in crafting an ethic.

As for how do I give my life meaning: through the application of my 'self' in the world.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/21/09 - 12:30 PM:

henry wrote:
It means I reject the existence of an objective morality, not that I have no morality.

if you reject the existence of an objective morality, wouldn't you say that everyone is amoral then, by your definition?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/21/09 - 1:26 PM:

Sure.

Thing is: most folks, it seems, spend a lot of time and energy propping up 'morality' as though it were an objective reality. Most folks, it seems, work at cross purposes...I don't.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#41 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/21/09 - 1:46 PM:

i agree that morality is always relative to the individual. it's an aspect of nature that coincides with having freedom of will. without moral relativity there is no freedom to choose what is right. an absolute moral standard would mean for us a life free of moral decisions, so in that sense i would think of a strictly objective morality - if there were such a thing - as being amoral, more so than individually defined moralities.

i agree that a lot of people seem to think there's an objectively defined morality. maybe this is a tendency that comes naturally from encountering a lot of other people who generally agree with you on certain points. the problem is that there can be vast numbers of people who disagree as well, for whatever reasons based on their own moral perspective. it illustrates that we have the freedom to choose.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#42 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/25/09 - 2:21 PM:

Why? You're becoming an enigma, Quirk.


Enigmatic persona is always interesting/fresh.

'Quirk' ought to be enigmatic as a rule?


Thank You
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.