Social Solipsism. You refuse to acknowledge "intrinsic".
Printable View
Social Solipsism. You refuse to acknowledge "intrinsic".
I deny it Guick. If things didn't exist there couldn't be such a thing as conciousness. The idea that conciousness is primary is an excuse for subjectivism, and I'm not promoting that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guick Dotto
So: how many pebbles for a pig?
How big's the pig and how big are the pebbles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
Sort of pig sized and errr... pebble sized:D.
Are you a Pig Farmer or a buyer with a stash of pebbles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
How big do you think it is? And what colour are the pebbles?Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
What do you deny? That your philosophy/economics is "self" centred or that you have no use for the word "intrinsic"?Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
Guick is it your position that good and evil exist in certain things or actions(intrinsicism)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guick Dotto
A mouthful of rice is good for a malnourished man. The growing, giving, boiling, chewing , swallowing and metabolising thereof: all good.
For a clinically obese man (who's already had his dinner): all bad.
A chair is good but clearly not if you smash it over an innocent man's head, in which case it is an object to be avoided at all costs by the innocent man. Things and actions are imbued with good and evil depending on circumstances; obviously. However, we can usefully wriggle back out of this blind alley and agree, on a less rareified plane, that food is good, warmth is good, laughter is good etc and that poison, hypothermia, lies are bad. In order to be able to come to agreement we need to be able to agree about a common language in which things are what they seem. Otherwise we are only clearing the stage for an endless debate.
Intrinsic value is a notion that may be a useful pivot in the debate.
You describe it.