Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by StrictlyLogical

  1. walling people into their own property

    You cant build a cage around a person or their car or their house or their property whether made of iron bars or real estate, and claim they have not the right to escape it, or enjoy the use of what is theirs... to come and go and access their property as they see fit.. they and their property do not become yours by virtue of your "surrounding" them or their property with your private material, (real estate or iron bars). This is not a principle of public law or public access, but of private rights... their private rights to their freedom and property. Courts long ago have resolved such matters wrt real estate (long before Marxism or public rights theories) with easements and rights of way etc.
  2. Jumping into the fray

    In reply to your personal note: Your light and your life are your own. Brush aside the impotent darkness, seek other light. Find souls of measure with yourself, and when none travel with you, find solace and joy in the light and life that are yours alone.
  3. Are contradictions meaningful

    I've often thought about what people normally take false to mean. At face value "false" had seemed self evident. After a few decades of chewing and understanding Objectivism, including such important topics as rationalism, the arbitrary, "nothing", evidence and the senses, and the analytic synthetic dichotomy... "false" takes on new importance, in the form of its sheer impotence. Statements are not the same as gibberish. skdjfh skdjfh khsdj fskdjfh skdj Is no less meaningless than "That blue dog is a red cat" Neither has any possible referent. One (the latter) misleads one into thinking perhaps it will mean something, but its self negation resolves to sheer nothing. It is no more meaningful than utter silence, i.e. no statement whatever. It matters no more to the content of the "proposed statement" whether A) the words do not form a statement OR B ) the letters do not form words. With this in mind observe, for something to be "true" it must be a something, which could qualify as true. In the case of a statement, it must first be a statement. Evaluation as true then requires evidence to validate the statement. Your question essentially asks, is there the same requirement for falsehood? Must something you claim is "false" have to be something which "could have" been true in reality. Must that which is "false" be potentially meaningful? Now, you probably agree "John killed Mary" is false if John in reality did not kill Mary. The referents, John, Mary, and the relationship "killed" are all meaningful, AND moreover evidence of reality is such that it is not true. Now consider "dkjfhs kd kjhs ldfkjh", "", or "That blue dog is a red cat with a dfjdfhsj on its dlkjfh skj" EACH of these is not a statement, EACH is also NOT true, in fact each cannot be true because there is nothing to evaluate as true with reference to reality. Now we could attach a special label to these as some kind of "null" or meaningless, gibberings, but why bother? I tend to see what is essential about the idea of truth and falsity, is the distinction between truth and non-truth, which is the evaluation against reality, not the form of the thing being evaluated. "fkdjhfsk j" lacks truth. Therefore it is to be ignored and dismissed. Floating abstractions, the arbitrary, and statements which are in fact contradictions but not on their face (i.e. you cant tell just by analyzing the words superficially) all lack truth, they do not contain reveal or convey truth. I would also contend that they are false even though they are in fact meaningless. A zero is a zero, the nature of the zero is not important. So the "Boobob is a dead dog who is living" is false (if you don't like the word, simply refer to it as "not true") and although it is also meaningless gibberish such is inconsequential and insignificant in the face of the more important fact that it simply is not true.
  4. The Anti-Concept of Anti-Reference; Paradox

    How would floating concepts be defined in your framework of C's and r's? What about that which is meaningless or incoherent or nonsensical? Does "r" need to be "real", or can it be "imaginary"? Can "r" and or "c" be incoherent or meaningless or nonsensical?
  5. BitCoin

    Let me restate so as to clarify my meaning. The damage courts can do to individuals and their lives is markedly different in the following classes of systems while they are actively and currently operating: 1. An improper system in which altruism collectivism and statism runs rampant as philosophical motivations and bases for all forms of justice, which system also happens to have ANY monetary system (free or centrally planned) 2 A mixed improper system in which proper ethics and politics the noninitiation of harm and trader principles and individual rights proper are the strong philosophical motivations and bases for all forms of justice, which also happens to (presently have) a fiat money system which is used for compensation damages or restitution. This does not mean 2 is actually proper. Nor that 1 or 2 could last Indefinitely.
  6. BitCoin

    I think the development of tort law and contract law are more subject to improper ethics and politics than any kind of danger ideas surrounding a fiat monetary system could ever cause. If the law itself as developed by an improper government is flawed eg monetary damages too high or too low, the monetary system is likely not to blame.
  7. BitCoin

    Then money as such is not something to be dictated by government, but being central to most exchanges and contracts, must be an aspect and important consideration of the body of law regarding "collisions" and dealings between people, i.e. torts and contract etc. (monetary damages being part of tort law and almost every contract involves exchange) which the judiciary of a proper government would be responsible for developing in accordance with correct principles.
  8. BitCoin

    Does anyone know if Rand thought government should create and legislate currency? i.e. force a particular monetary standard of exchange?
  9. The Snowflake Conjecture

    A snowflake's form, is its identity as a type of (pun intended) frozen history. Starting from a similar nucleus, which in fact are often themselves different, each snowflake as it falls and swirls about encounters different temperatures, pressures, humidities, in different orders and for different times at various magnitudes and combinations and with varying asymmetry or gradients versus homogeneities, and this happens as it makes it entire journey. What it encounters directly affects and is frozen in what it becomes. As such a single flake's identity in form corresponds to its identity in past history. To be sure, some snowflakes will be nondescript enough and have seen boring enough of a history such that many will look very similar (degenerate cases) but given how varied and chaotic each flakes history will normally have been (given standard chaotic and active weather systems) it is no surprise they will normally appear quite different from each other. To my mind how a flake even appears is not as interesting as pondering how unique and different each ones journey must have been, even if we cannot see it in their faces, so to speak. To be sure in actuality no two snowflakes are exactly the same. The sheer number of molecules involved and the different historical permutations are simply staggering. Edit: read the science article after my post... interesting stats!
  10. The Law of Identity

    A few random observations: Identifying oneself as other than what one is, IS clearly an error. Identifying oneself as other than what one is BECAUSE of what others tell you about the nature of identity and the limits on the possibilities and actualities of being... how you should act or feel and how these are purportedly linked to what you are and the limited categories THEY supply you... is a second hand inherited error. Identifying, as important about WHAT oneself is, that which is unimportant, is an error. Identifying, as important about WHAT oneself is, with what others tell you or influence you to believe is important (but which actually is not but for your being influenced by their judgments), is a second hand inherited error. Understanding what one can change (and what one cannot) and knowing introspectively whether it would make one happy to ACT to make such changes is no error, it is crucial to all flourishing and the basis of all moral action. A few short concluding observations: Identity is objective. Changes are possible. Changes transform identity. Understanding introspectively what is important to one's own happiness and acting (consistent with survival qua man) to cause change accordingly IS moral.
  11. The Speech Police in Canada

    Wilfred Laurier University is a disgrace. They are likely not very different, however, from many other universities. The entire inquisition is a joke, Bill C-16 is about discrimination... you don't need to be a lawyer, in fact you need only half a brain to realize nothing on the original debate nor in the presentation of the debate in class constitutes discrimination in any form. Complete intellectual FAIL by administrators of a supposed intellectual institution.
  12. The Law of Identity

    South Park character serves as eloquent spokesperson for "transpecies" persons:
  13. To Patrik 7-2321 Rather than attempt to add to a "collective thought" to be gleaned from a combination of the above and my thoughts, I have opted to respond directly to the OP and Patrik with my thoughts. All things are what they are regardless of what people call them, i.e. regardless of what words and concepts they allege refer to those things. There will always exist people who think things are not what they are, and there will always be people who call things what they are not... and finally in the smallest category will be some people who will do the work and be careful enough to see things for what they are and also to call them what they are accordingly. AI is "artificial intelligence". Insofar as one remembers what "artifice" and "artificial" mean, the term is correct in the context of current and near future technology. Anthropomorphizing of machines of any kind (toys, mannequins, medical models, computers etc.) in everyday language is perfectly normal, after all. A toy man is a "toy man" in common parlance... however, far from being a kind of "man" .. i.e. a toy"ish" man, or a man with the property or attribute of "toy"ness ... in actuality "toy man" is a "toy in the shape of a man" and not any kind of man whatever. A toy man has hands which do not grasp and eyes which do not see... as such they are not actually hands or eyes at all (although they represent them or look like them). A computer is configured to act on signals and media in a manner which produces different signals or media, it transforms input to output, in such a manner (we have configured it so) so as to imbue the output with something meaningful to us, information. WE transform information by thinking, and store and recall it with memory, it is perfectly natural to use words like "memory" and "thinking" to characterize what computers do which remind us of what we do. Nothing about how these machines do what they do to what they do it to is sufficiently similar to (in the ways that matter ... which we have yet to discover) what the mind does that there would be ANY justification for calling them the same thing. A human mind, however, is natural and as a natural system it has identity, and it is configured and functions accordingly. A similar natural system, which in the ways which matter, is configured and functions in a manner similar enough to a human mind would be "conscious". But until there is a science of consciousness which fully understands exactly what kinds of natural systems, their configurations and functions are conscious rather than simply being and functioning without consciousness, and WHY, we could never hope to design a conscious system, let alone objectively and scientifically evaluate whether the thing created is conscious. Of course to properly understand complex systems on the verge of consciousness we would need some way to experiment, and well fully developed human brains are not accessible... experimentation may be too dangerous. Animals however are, and combined with computer monitoring and simulations and integrated cybernetic systems, we could do the tinkering necessary for experimental investigation which is required for scientific inquiry. It may be that like a complex process of a weather pattern we discover that in the conscious mind some nonlocal system wide process which is self-patterning or self-reinforcing is the signature of consciousness... but this is mere speculation. Bottom line is that computers (as we know them) will be necessary in the investigation of mind, but the minds and principles of mind we finally identify will not be the same as the machines of today. Manufactured Intelligence (MI) (as distinguished from AI) is not something which we are close to creating, however, as the science of mind progresses, I have no doubt that it will be solved. If not 1 hundred years from now, most likely within 1000 years from now.
  14. You show me a playing card in your hand, which card it is you are unaware of. You make two statements: "This card is suited red." and then 10 seconds later "This card is suited black" One statement is true. Is the statement which is true "tautological" in form? Is the statement which is false, not "tautological" in "form"? What does it mean for a statement to be tautological in form? How is the "form" of a statement distinguished from its status as true or false? Is the assessment of "tautological" form (or no tautological form) of a statement identical with a statement's status as true (or false)? Edit: (Follow up) What is the difference between a concept and a proper noun? Is "this card" an identification of a concrete instance which is conceptual or an identification of a concrete instance which is more akin to a proper noun?
  15. Thankgiving

    We all know how awkward Thanksgiving can be at that moment when some family member asks all to state what they are "thankful" for. Particularly if you want to be completely honest and you are somewhat suspect of what others might consider "thankfulness" to be. While regretfully awaiting your turn... and after having counted the number of people in the "round the table" queue, you begin to ponder: Thankful to whom and for what? For that matter what does it mean to be "full" of thanks? What are these "thanks" you are full of? Are these left over pleasantries that you've gathered up like obligations and IOUs: there's that nice summer day I should have thanked the universe for, oh and that old guy kept the door open for me I should have said something to him, and the grocer lowered her price on bread which I really like I should have given her an innocent pat on the back, oh and my employees, clients/customers, and employer all rationally pursued their self-interest generating economic value all around, which is ALL good... I should have really said something to all of them (over and above eagerly and professionally participating in the value generating interactions themselves??...). A pile of pleasantries indeed... Then again, without a doubt I am proud, proud of myself and my accomplishments, and the bounty of my metaphorical harvests (which do not necessarily coincide with autumn), and proud of my family and friends, for what they have accomplished, who they are, and for the fact that they are my family and friends and that we have made strides and grown together. Without a doubt I am appreciative, appreciative of reality and of many others and their actions, appreciative in the sense that I fully recognize and treat rationally and with justice all that I deal with. And upon a reflection I realize that I already do generally try to exercise justice on a day to day basis, which requires that in every interaction just values in both matter and in spirit are exchanged, but that I could do better... So what is thanksgiving really? Is it a pile of pleasant IOUs to be balanced through a cosmic confessional around a dead turkey or is it a celebration and a reflection on life and its bounty? I think it is more the latter than the former, but perhaps as a small tribute to both, Thankgiving can be seen as a recognition and a celebration of life and a reflection of all its bounty and also an opportunity to resolve to go forward consciously keeping all of it in perspective so that, day to day, in all our interactions, value is created with everyone we deal with, in both matter and spirit, while we all pursue the happiness and life that is ours for the making. Happy LifeCelebMaking! EDIT: So what do you say when finally your turn arrives? Without being too picky about what thankfulness IS (to whom?) and the little cognitive white lie of actually using the term in order to ignore the concept's "inadequacies", the story could proceed as follows: Finally, after your uncle quips something about being thankful for Scotch, with his disarmingly odd smile, and looks your way, you stand up, and raising your glass, you clear your throat, and smile thoughtfully, "To be honest, I'm 'thankful' for this moment in time, a moment to celebrate life and all its bounty, to say how proud I am of us and all of you and everything we and each of us has accomplished and become, and I'm 'thankful' for the opportunity to reflect and resolve to go forward pursuing the happiness and the life that is all, each of ours for the making, and it is you, all of you, I 'thank' for being here, all together, for making this moment and opportunity possible. Thank you!"
  16. The Audit

    Ruthless logic cannot constitute abUSE. If the logic is correct, then as such, it can be USEful (whether or not it can be classified as ruthless). Avoid fixating on personalities, and who happened to say something (in the past) you disagree with, and focus on the content of what is now being said, by anyone, everyone, and even those who have said other things (in the past which you happened to disagree with) and use independent judgment to assess the usefulness/truth etc. of what is now being said. Subconscious ad hominem is probably the least excusable of the involuntary logical fallacies, and is incredibly counter productive when attempting to objectively analyze ideas because it keeps diverting the focus from the substance of the idea to the originator of the idea. Although context demands at least keeping in mind who said something and why, to the extent such a misdirection interferes with independent logical assessment, it is to be stamped out completely.
  17. Truth as Disvalue

    Truth as Disvalue Truth as disvalue, evasion as value, a belief system which maximizes life’s value. I have heard it said that nothing which is untrue can ultimately be of value to a rational person and that knowledge of the truth is always a value. When dealing with statements of these kinds, of course one must keep in mind what one means by value, we know for example that truth does not have intrinsic value, as there is no such thing as intrinsic value. So investigating the claim that truth is always a value necessitates an evaluation according to a particular chosen standard of value. Is it true that truth is always a value? Can it ever be a disvalue? I will herein below show that according to certain classes of standards of value, truth can be a disvalue. Moreover, I will illustrate how, in that context, evasion can in fact be a value. I then proceed to show how one can proceed successfully (according to that standard of value) to adopt a belief system which maximizes values according to that standard, and in fact that such a belief system is entailed and required by such a standard. The One Truth Knowledge of reality is incredibly powerful. It is indispensable to action, allows prediction of nature, is the foundation of science, invention, agriculture, architecture, medicine, art, literally everything we know which sustains us and enables happiness is in some way tied with knowledge and rationality. None of these truths which prove useful are to be abandoned or contradicted as they are invaluable. They form a wholeness of knowledge which is at one with the blinding Truth of existence. In this the wholeness though lurks but one black hole… one truth in which sits the opposite of the whole of truth’s promise for life, the very fact of Death itself. After decades of accepting as true, complete oblivion, as the state succeeding life on Earth, I have come to the realization that it is an ugly life draining truth which brings me nothing but horror, fear, and sadness. Resignation to its truth has not assuaged the extreme aversion to physical risk, the morbid thoughts, the nagging sense of death being around every corner, on every highway, hidden in every airplane booking. The reflection that all those living, family and friends will end in the same zero… and that all the daughters and sons of my sons and daughters will, finally, amount to more than the dead matter from which they sprung for their brief lives, ripples unceasingly in my mind. When I was a Deist and believed in an afterlife, I of course did my best to avoid death, I did not entertain unduly risky behavior, because after all, I enjoyed and cherished my life, my family and friends and what I could achieve over my life span, but death itself was seen only as a bump in the road, another transformation, that once traversed, would seem almost inconsequential. Upon death, Life would become some nostalgic memory, no more disturbing than the memories of an adult fondly recalling some childhood haunt or cherished toy. We throw off the trappings of our former selves to become that which we are meant to be, and death was only one step of growth in an existence beyond this one. But the final and true death, of non-being, non-existence, of oblivion, is the black maw of the worst possible monster, literally, as nothing could be worse for me than the negation and destruction of absolutely everything of value to me. It pesters my mind and my soul like some incessant midge from the underworld, and no matter how much I swat at it in a futile attempt to live my life in peace, it always harries me time and again. According to a standard of value which belongs to a class in which the standard of value to the life of man qua man comprises a combination of survival, pleasure, and happiness, the one truth of death IS and always will be a disvalue to me. This I know of myself with unshakable certainty. When I compare my happiness, and daily pleasure at the wonders around me, as they are experienced now, with that ever present darkness in the sky, with my happiness and daily pleasure as one who believed in an afterlife, as I had in the past, I am certain, absolutely certain, that the truth negates a great deal of happiness, pleasure, and peace in my life. As such, according to those certain classes of standards of value, the one truth of death, IS a disvalue to me. Truth indeed can be a disvalue. [For simplicity, “value” hereafter means “value” according to those classes of standard of value to the life of man qua man comprising a combination of survival, pleasure, and happiness] The One Evasion As a Deist, I believed that nature and the beyond (the supernatural) were distinct and sundered. I faithfully held that there was absolutely no connection between them except the traversal (and one way only) upon death. The dead cannot reach the living nor the living reach the dead, and no God nor Omnipotency could affect the natural world of reality. There was only existence, and nothing supernatural there, until death, after which there was nothing but that realm beyond. Maintaining such an evasion was not uncommon to me, nor even unique to my life as a Deist. My former self as a traditional Christian, was very interested in science was very adept at the necessary evasions. Compartmentalization is no mystery to me, and I am all too familiar with it and evasion. I am very cognizant that these are “skills” which I used often and relentlessly. As a person very interested in science, and even after having gone through a few degrees in science, I was capable of all kinds of evasions, but then I did not have the motivation any more. At one point I decided that the truth was more important that what I wanted to believe, more important that the comfort or pleasure I might obtain from a falsehood. According to what standard? Why? At this point, not having been exposed to Objectivism, I really did not have any well-reasoned basis, I simply took for granted that what is true is the Truth and that the Truth was more “important” than any falsehood, that indeed Truth was a kind of “intrinsic” good. So over time I was able to escape the trap of mysticism, because of my motivation for truth, and nothing more. I escaped all forms of mysticism and embraced the absolute of reality and Objectivism. As an Objectivist, I understood the vast majority of truths for what they are, a great value to life. Woven into a web of integrated understanding of reality and man, they are the basis for living. Seeing this I dropped evasion as a disvalue. And in all things other than the single dark truth, evasion indeed would be a disvalue. Because all of reality is interconnected no evasion about any single existent which by necessity is related to any and thus every other thing in existence, could be held without some fact of reality being sullied, warped, held in error. Therefor evasion in this regard is inevitably a disvalue and leads to the corruption of the whole. Only now, armed with a proper understanding of the standard of value is it possible to see that blind pursuit of truth is not necessarily a value. Value is defined by and depends upon a standard. A truth which is sad and painful and brings no happiness and which never could be but a stain upon existence and happiness, cannot be a value. Such a truth is clearly a disvalue. But what of the interconnectedness of truths, what of the disvalue of evasion? There is one evasion which does not encounter this problem if surrounded by judiciously held supporting evasions. Clearly a religious person (as I was) is able to hold evasions able to withstand a great deal of reality thrown against it. Using compartmentalization and ignorance and avoidance, I could simultaneously hold truths about reality while believing in the miraculous. But miracles, and intervention by God poses a real problem, the evidence such would leave behind, the absence of which we clearly note. Of course once I became a Deist no such lack of evidence was logically entailed. The belief of that sort of Deism was in an afterlife wholly separate and sundered from reality and for which there would and could be no evidence until death. The One evasion, that there is an afterlife, of a completely unconnected supernatural and everlasting afterlife, although arbitrary is not disproven by the evidence of the senses. Such to be sure is an arbitrary assertion, a groundless maybe…. Not even worth the label “possible”. The onus is on he who asserts the positive… but what reason, by what standard would I hold myself to that onus? The subsidiary evasion then would be the permission of arbitrary assertions… no… the permission of ONE arbitrary assertion. I know I am capable of evasion, I have done so throughout my life, why not employ these evasions, to permit a single arbitrary assertion, and to believe that arbitrary assertion in absence of any evidence? Clearly, Truth in and of itself is not automatically a value. This is clear from the above. Second, the problem of accepting the arbitrary would only be a threat if it invaded into all aspects of knowledge of reality, I am considering to allow it for only one aspect of reality which is (arbitrarily) wholly disconnected from all of existence. Moreover, if I am required to permit the arbitrary and the belief in one single truth through evasion in order to regain the value of life without the constant fear and darkness and morbidity, then by what standard am I to give up the evasions which permits it? Evasion in these aspects only, to permit the arbitrary belief in an afterlife, are a value. The Objectivist Deism Plan In order to maximize my life according to the standard of value I need only engage in minimal evasion to permit a belief of a single falsehood and deny a single truth. With practice and effort I will come to believe it with all my being, because I know it is a value to believe it. I am motivated by my very life to do so. I will not fail in my minimal evasions for the sake of my very life. I will permit myself that one evasion, supported by the subsidiary evasion (from the fact that the arbitrary should be dismissed), in only this one single instance, the one evasion permitting the belief that there is an afterlife. Such brings about a belief system I call Objectivist Deism. Reality is as it is, A is A, but there is another reality, a super-reality for which there is no evidence, and into which I will have an afterlife. This sole major evasion, that I will not die the true and unending dark death, with its subsidiary evasion permitting the acceptance in only a single arbitrary assertion, is my choice, precisely BECAUSE it is of value and my life will be better for it. I will still understand reality as it is with all the rigor of Objectivism and science, but I will live my life, essentially better than I would have, with the added pleasures, and happiness, and the flourishing which accompanies it, with the knowledge that I will not truly die. I will not be JUST AS successful as I would have been but for the evasion, in fact, because of my added pleasure and happiness and zest for life, I will flourish more, I will have lived more, I will have lived a life of more value than I otherwise would have lived. As such, it is not merely an option open to me, it is necessary for me to follow this path. According to the standard of value it IS the moral course of action, I must and will take it and I will benefit all the more throughout my entire life because of it.
  18. Truth as Disvalue

    Is it now? Part of the standard of morality/value? not its purpose? Isn't Happiness the goal and the reward, not the standard? This is an unnecessary confusion. I am not raising the possibility than someone is blameworthy (according to some standard) for not knowing what makes them happy. I'm simply asking.. if what makes one happy is difficult to judge ... is it appropriate (directly) as a guide to action, i.e. as part of the standard? lol. You raised an excellent point about "pleasure"... that it cannot be a reliable part of the standard of value... it leads to unworkable evaluations that actually conflict with life. This is due to the subjective nature of pleasure. Is a man's purported happiness immune to similar problems? Can a man's assessment of judgment of happiness be immune to subjectivity such that it can never conflict with his life? This is not an issue of objective fallibility but one of consistency between a man's judgments about his life and his happiness... can a man think something would be better for his life and at the same time think it would not be best for his happiness? Is this a problem? Is it true that his life and his happiness can actually be at odds or is this really a mistake? Does this mistake (inconsistency) have consequences because it is part of a standard which guides action?
  19. Truth as Disvalue

    This identifies a proposed specific error of the OP, that the standard of value it presupposes is non-objective, and therefor cannot serve as a standard for actual (objective) values. The rest of your post is an eloquent argument for why a non-objective standard and non-objective value is unworkable. I am walking away from the edge of the abyss... a more formal response will follow. I make two observations, 1. you seem to disallow pleasure (or pain) from the standard of value as it leads to pursuit of things which are not objective values. but 2. you seem to allow happiness as part of the standard of value.. which implies (at least) a belief that happiness and survival qua man are never at odds. Query whether a man knows enough about survival qua man and happiness so as never to misapprehend a conflict between the two. If there ever were such a conflict, the standard would be difficult or even unworkable to guide action... if I mistakenly identify a conflict between my life and my happiness... what guides my actions? The implications and the rest of your argument are intriguing and quite persuasive... again a formal response shall follow.
  20. The Audit

    People think in many ways and use various techniques. Some rely on words almost purely linguistically and manipulate them like in a game before translating them back into concepts they refer to while others think primarily conceptually and only when they can they will express the thoughts in words. Some rely more or less on abstraction and processing the abstractions and applying them to concretes, while others subconsciously hold the abstractions in the background, dealing with a few concretes which pull along the abstractions to arrive at general conclusions. At one far end of this are floating abstractions and rationalism and at the other concrete boundedness. Some people use deductive and inductive A, B, C, D implies X type structures to think, rigorous use of logic and abstractions, while others inspect a bunch of ideas, and upon reflection and introspection pull something out which feels like the correct conclusion. Many of the above can at times be useful in a process of thought, of getting to the right conclusions eventually, and I have not exhausted all the possibilities. I have encountered some who simply cannot think with rigor in any abstract way. While others cannot see how completely untied their artificial formulations are from reality. My suggestion is to try to identify which of the above and other strategies for thinking you currently use, and try to practice diligently some of the others. If I had to make a more specific suggestion once in a while exercise your thought process more along the lines of mathematics, abstraction, and rigor (give reflection and intuition a rest now and again). It might sound silly, but picking up an LSAT prep book to exercise the grey matter might be the particular work out for you.
  21. Truth as Disvalue

    I was looking for the rigorous philosophical answer. What specifically do you mean by truth being the "foundation of morality"? The act of "Moral evaluation" MEANS evaluating something morally, this NECESSITATES a standard of value/morality ("evaluation" is not an act which can be performed without some standard being used). What specifically are you saying about the moral evaluation and the evaluation of value in the OP?
  22. Truth as Disvalue

    Thank you, your post is quite good. I only want to say for now that it slightly skirts a few distinctions which I would like to point out are in fact separate things. 1. life going out of existence is a fact of reality 2. a particular fact of reality is not the same as the knowledge of that fact of reality (or the assessment of any statement regarding that fact of reality as true or false) 3. knowledge of facts of reality (and associated assessments of that knowledge in the form of statements as true or false) can be instrumental but also can separately be a source of pain or joy or pleasure or disgust etc 4. knowledge is something which can be attained, pursued, or evaded 5. various things one acts to gain or keep can constitute values 6. a standard of value is a guide to action (gaining or keeping are actions) by defining what constitutes a value, and recall the standard of value of the OP is a mixture of survival qua man, pleasure, and happiness
  23. Truth as Disvalue

    The truth of death brings pain and fear and sadness, IF I had not known of it (believed in an afterlife or never saw anyone die ... as say a very young child who has yet to be confronted with death) there would be no need to fake belief. The need to fake the belief is driven by the DISvalue the knowledge represents upon its discovery. The falsehood or equally the evasion of a truth is valuable (according to the standard of the OP) because it avoids the disvalue of the truth. The idea is not to just forget the truth, but to consciously disavow it, I.e. to deny it and evade it ACTIVELY and continually (as needed). This is buttressed by the belief in the afterlife as the alternative to Oblivion, which can be reinforced as a positive affirmation (and an arbitrary one to be sure), over and over. I will encounter the fact of death from time to time, and it will appear consistent with my arbitrary faith, the corpses remain and what continues will leave behind no evidence whatever to me here in reality... To maintain the delusion, I will always have to cling to the comfort of my arbitrary belief and evasion, that I will continue in an afterlife. The plan does not need to consider my mind seeing the fact of the true final death ever again, it is formulated precisely to avoid it. Here's a question for you. If I could pull of my plan as written, and really could evade the truth with mental evasion and a form of continual brainwashing would there be anything morally wrong with it? If so, why or how could it be morally wrong, because according to the standard of the OP, apparently it would be morally right?
  24. Truth as Disvalue

    In attempting to see what is wrong with the argument which leads to the plan (which I find reprehensible) I have asked what is wrong with the essential conclusion that "truth can be a disvalue". Your answer and what it hints at is intriguing. I think it is correct that truth (knowledge of it, and the capacity to obtain it) and value are related but cannot be equated. The alternative being investigated indeed is whether 1. Some (at least one) truth can be a disvalue or 2. No truths can be a disvalue But knowledge of the truth of what? If a truth is in respect of something which is irrelevant to your values (according to the standard) then that truth simply is unrelated to value. So, even if one concludes 2 is correct, it does not necessarily imply every truth is a value (arriving at that conclusion could be complicated), some truths might not be a value but aren't a disvalue either. (an analogy would be that ingesting some substances neither nourishes nor poisons the body) So an equation of truth and value would be unwarranted, and value is not as such "at its core" the truth. Your discussion, and your example of the plant implies that the unreal itself cannot be a value. Certainly a non-existent cannot cause anything, and literally cannot be pursued, so the non-existent afterlife cannot literally be a value. But here we are dealing with a voluntarily held untruth, or a belief in an untruth, which technically is a state of mind. Knowledge of a truth, a state of mind, can be pursued or evaded. This exists, and can cause pain or pleasure, and is distinct from the non-existent afterlife. Furthermore, although the unreal cannot be a value, real things can be a disvalue, and the knowledge of a real thing, such as death is doubly real. According to a standard of value that includes pleasure, such knowledge of the truth is a disvalue. This is to be contrasted here with your example: you deal with a plant whose standard of value cannot include pleasure as a plant does not experience pleasure. You've implied as much... we haven't quite reached the destination. I have turned, and stopped at the edge of the abyss. I am listening.
  25. Truth as Disvalue

    What efficacy for living in reality is gained by thinking about anything outside of life in reality? How does the knowledge of a state after life (literally a zero) improve any efficacy for facing the non-zero, and the great multitude of reality? Efficacy to what end, what aim? What kind of "efficacy"? According to what standard of value is "efficacy" judged? If survival and pleasure are both part of the standard of value, and if these sometimes conflict with one another, then at least some mixture of efficacious rationality and efficacious evasion would be required. The OP is a good example of that. If the standard of value dictates the pursuit of untruth when survival and pleasure are at odds, then efficacious evasion is a virtue and it leads to greater good according to that standard of value. Certainly blindness, to the extent it thwarts pursuit of values in general (according to whatever standard) would be counter productive. BUT if the extent of that blindness did not thwart the general pursuit of values in this life... not in any significant way.. and in fact only thwarted the "sight" of a fact whose knowledge is a disvalue (according to the standard in the OP) and pertains only to something which lies outside of life's possibilities and choices and is in any case unavoidable, then that so called Blindness in fact becomes a virtue. This is equivalent to the conclusion that evasion of truth can be a value. Do you not agree that according to the standard of value of the OP that at least one truth can be a disvalue? What if I chose "carefree experience" (not "life" nor "a pleasant life") as my pre-moral choice, and my standard of value was "the mental state of being completely care free"? I think it trivial that according to that standard (which I am not claiming is a valid or workable standard) the at least one truth surely can be a disvalue. The same goes for arbitrarily choosing as the pre-moral choice "pleasure as such", or "complete peace of mind". HD if you had to identify what is wrong with the early conclusion "truth (at least one truth) can be a disvalue" what would it be?