On Aug 19, 11:17 pm, "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Marc welcome back! I had not seen you here for months.
No. That's because after the terrible insults levelled at me by some
I had to take a break to make absolutely certain that my arguments,
theories (and java code) are all impeccable and unbeatable ;) And I'm
very pleased to report that they now are.
As you know, I've been studying computer science. A year in I'm
fluent in java, object oriented technology, data and process
modelling, UML, Systems Analysis etc etc.
I make a decent system analysis and programmer, but I don't have much
math talent. Kinda knew that already.
Any way, after absorbing all this knowledge my thoughts are clear,
crisp and fully sane. My theories cut with impossible speed and power
now. I have come through my own 'existential crises' and all my basic
contentions are proven correct. You can be sure that the fact I've
shown up again means that I'm very very very very very very very very
very very very very very confident I was right about it all. :D
> Concerning objective values, as we have discussed in the past, I don't
> see any rational argument in support of their existence.
Ah yes, this old debate. I started out sure that objective values
existed, I had a period of serious doubt, now I'm sure again :)
Please carefully read my earlier posts in this threads.
> if one has chosen to consider the elimination of the human species as
> a priority value (like some fundamentalist deep ecologists have
> written), there is just no way you or I can rationally persuade them
> of the contrary. Of course we _can_ try to persuade them not to act,
> but this does not have much to do with values.
Ah, you see, this *not* what I mean by 'objective values'. I was able
to see how objective values could exist by carefully seperating out
different levels of abstraction.
As I explain, there are three levels of asbtraction:
(1) An ethical rule itself
(2) A goal and procedures for moving towards goal (the optimization
(3) Platonic Ideals
(1) and (2) are not objective. Only (3) is. And I don't think (3)
takes the form of a value directly. It's a wholly abstract
construction of the form:
beauty has abstract properties A B C D E F G H I J K etc
Look at the example above. No goal or ethical rule is specified
here. It's simply an abstraction which could be applied to many
possible situations. Rather like the laws of physics.
It's certainly true that the ethical rules we make are human
constructs. I agree with you there. But as I explain above, on a
higher level of abstraction there can still be objective platonic
ideals. I will try to explain this more fully later.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at