Me: >> I agree. We don't need any scientific concept of value to lead a >> comfy life within the confines of this society. We only need it if we >> want to know what the deeper content of value is so we have a better >> sense of how to give that content a different social form, how to >> build a better society, one more adequate to our humanity. That's >> all. Eubulides:
> Which is question begging. And before: > In all my years of living, suffering and study I've yet to > see/think/feel that there is a shred of evidence that we *need* the > concept, let alone theories, of value, to reduce the self-inflicted > suffering of humanity. Tell me how this is a distorted rephrasing of your statement: "We need no explanation of how and why our society values particular things and, therefore, how and why our society allocates its resources in particular ways. Answers to these questions (hows and whys) will not help us to lead better lives, to build a better society. So, trying to answer these questions is a total waste of our society's resources." One answer to such a statement would be: You may not see/feel the need, but lots of people have seen it/felt it, which is why -- at least since Aristotle -- they have proposed a host of explanations that in some ways complement and in other ways contradict each other. Just based on that, the onus seems to be on you. Another answer, through rhetorical questions: Are you implying that the particular ways in which our society is allocating its resources is just fine? If not, how do you think we could figure out better ways to allocate such resources (what I call "the productive force of labor," which -- in my view -- is the resource of last analysis) if we don't critically examine these ways in the first place? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
