rogerg
New Member
Posts: 16
Likes: 6
|
Post by rogerg on Apr 8, 2021 6:27:37 GMT
Hello friends, I wrote down some thoughts of how people use value systems, in case someone would be interested in reading and discussing them... Since the dawn of time, when first protohumans climbed down from trees and started building a civilization, being unable to perceive the whole reality as it is, they started creating cognitive tools that would help them explore, simplify and interpret the surrounding world in a way necessary to at least survive and procreate. And one of such tools, needed to orient oneself in the world, is a value system. As David Hume pointed out, "you cannot derive an ought from an is", meaning you cannot come to a value judgement from a scientific observation. Therefor any claims of "we do not need faith, as we have science!" are absurd. Science is a great tool for exploring the natural world, but it is completely unable to tell you how to use the results of this exploration. It can tell you how to split atoms, yet whether you should split them in a power plant or above an enemy city is a value judgment. Usually, people are indoctrinated into those values systems by a religion, philosophy or culture in general. Sometimes people are able to construct their own systems. Afterwards confirmation bias kicks in and the adept starts seeing his value system as the one and only true, while competing systems are perceived as delusional. Such bias clearly has its evolutionary advantages, as people sharing the same value system can act in unison and be victorious over those, who are unable to cooperate due to different value system. So, while value systems are arbitrary, at times it might be beneficial to act as if they are not. Usually, such value systems come down to answering the following three questions: how did the universe come into being? what is our relationship with the world? / what is our life goal? / how we should treat each other? what happens after death? It might be wise to evaluate those systems not from perspective of perceived truth (as none of them can be objectively proven to be true or false), but rather by their effect on the individual and the society in general. For a value system to become viral, it usually needs to be at least loosely based in what is known as a "hero's journey" – hero feels a call to adventure, finds some supernatural guidance, fights the dragon, usually dies in some way, but then is reborn to guide his disciples to paradise. It seems that whether this journey contains a supernatural being or not is just a "marketing gimmick". Therefor all those arguments between theists and atheists are futile, as instead of focusing on the values proposed by the given system, they focus whether the hero had his revelation after studying in a library or rather after inhaling a burning bush and supposedly communicating with a supernatural deity. Author believes it is wise to pick a desired outcome on a dogmatic level (because I said so) and then pragmatically chose a value system that would most likely lead to the given outcome in a particular situation. In other words, pick the ends dogmatically, then choose the means pragmatically. Any means are good, as long as they work in the current situation and are not counter-productive to the end goal. If one discovers that the given means do not work, he should reevaluate the situation and choose more appropriate means. Unfortunately, most people do it vice versa – they link their self-worth with using some particular means, convince themselves that those means are the only true and will lead them to the best outcome possible, and then follow them blindly, without an exact end in mind. Even seeing that those means do are not working in the given situation, people often are unable to reconsider and keep pushing until the system crumbles on itself.
|
|
rogerg
New Member
Posts: 16
Likes: 6
|
Post by rogerg on Apr 10, 2021 6:29:01 GMT
I thought from the Sermon on the Mount -
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Love Your Enemies “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 10, 2021 7:03:09 GMT
I thought from the Sermon on the Mount - “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Love Your Enemies “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. I understand this as a follower of the Old Testament who knows history. Slapping the cheek was a Roman insult and the point here is don't resist those more powerful than you are. "Love your enemies" is implied in the Old Testament but it only applies to enemies within your community. Supporting your own community is very highly valued in the Old Testament. Note that Jesus never said "Love ALL your enemies". Both the Old Testament and Jesus talk about "your neighbor". Jesus discusses the meaning of this in Luke 10 which Christians badly misunderstand. I wrote about this here. Jesus didn't hesitate to lash out at those he considered to be evil. Jesus actually provides a great example of how people should behave. It's too bad that Christians don't understand him.
|
|
rogerg
New Member
Posts: 16
Likes: 6
|
Post by rogerg on Apr 10, 2021 9:20:55 GMT
Truly so. ( I guess Christians act more as their church tells them. They probably would be scared to interpret the bible in a way different, to what they community belies.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 11, 2021 16:54:50 GMT
Hello friends, I wrote down some thoughts of how people use value systems, in case someone would be interested in reading and discussing them... Since the dawn of time, when first protohumans climbed down from trees and started building a civilization, being unable to perceive the whole reality as it is, they started creating cognitive tools that would help them explore, simplify and interpret the surrounding world in a way necessary to at least survive and procreate. And one of such tools, needed to orient oneself in the world, is a value system. As David Hume pointed out, "you cannot derive an ought from an is", meaning you cannot come to a value judgement from a scientific observation. Therefor any claims of "we do not need faith, as we have science!" are absurd. Science is a great tool for exploring the natural world, but it is completely unable to tell you how to use the results of this exploration. It can tell you how to split atoms, yet whether you should split them in a power plant or above an enemy city is a value judgment. Usually, people are indoctrinated into those values systems by a religion, philosophy or culture in general. Sometimes people are able to construct their own systems. Afterwards confirmation bias kicks in and the adept starts seeing his value system as the one and only true, while competing systems are perceived as delusional. Such bias clearly has its evolutionary advantages, as people sharing the same value system can act in unison and be victorious over those, who are unable to cooperate due to different value system. So, while value systems are arbitrary, at times it might be beneficial to act as if they are not. Usually, such value systems come down to answering the following three questions: how did the universe come into being? what is our relationship with the world? / what is our life goal? / how we should treat each other? what happens after death? It might be wise to evaluate those systems not from perspective of perceived truth (as none of them can be objectively proven to be true or false), but rather by their effect on the individual and the society in general. For a value system to become viral, it usually needs to be at least loosely based in what is known as a "hero's journey" – hero feels a call to adventure, finds some supernatural guidance, fights the dragon, usually dies in some way, but then is reborn to guide his disciples to paradise. It seems that whether this journey contains a supernatural being or not is just a "marketing gimmick". Therefor all those arguments between theists and atheists are futile, as instead of focusing on the values proposed by the given system, they focus whether the hero had his revelation after studying in a library or rather after inhaling a burning bush and supposedly communicating with a supernatural deity. Author believes it is wise to pick a desired outcome on a dogmatic level (because I said so) and then pragmatically chose a value system that would most likely lead to the given outcome in a particular situation. In other words, pick the ends dogmatically, then choose the means pragmatically. Any means are good, as long as they work in the current situation and are not counter-productive to the end goal. If one discovers that the given means do not work, he should reevaluate the situation and choose more appropriate means. Unfortunately, most people do it vice versa – they link their self-worth with using some particular means, convince themselves that those means are the only true and will lead them to the best outcome possible, and then follow them blindly, without an exact end in mind. Even seeing that those means do are not working in the given situation, people often are unable to reconsider and keep pushing until the system crumbles on itself. You speak of a Value System, but the posts in this thread refer to or allude to an Ethics (a system of morals). I meant to respond yesterday: A value system should not be restricted to Morality or to Law. Furthermore, it should be primarily positive, that is, about what should be done (what is good or proper to do). I think not in terms of an Ethics or a Law-Code but of a Life-Self-Management, which young people especially need and should be a major subject in schools. Where to begin? Instincts and drives, such as hunger, reactionary violence, etc. -- for months of discussions, posts, or books. Do you want to try?
|
|
rogerg
New Member
Posts: 16
Likes: 6
|
Post by rogerg on Apr 12, 2021 9:19:03 GMT
Yes, of course. It is a shame that such Life-Self-Management isn't taught in schools. On the other hand, it seems that to this day we, humans, don't have such system and the best we can do is scour different cultures, looking for bits of wisdom that we could put together. )
One thing I could say for sure about such system is that it should go along with human nature. So people would love it and feel attracted to it. Otherwise, like modern Christianity, for example, to which most people react by rolling their eyes and running away, is a non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 12, 2021 23:46:25 GMT
Speaking of value systems and humans making their own to have a different value system...do you think one value system is better than another? If we use science we can see species fight for their survival in different ways. They must have a value system that wins or loses right?
Of course, if a value system help you ( and your specie or tribe in general ) to survive and out-compete your opponents, then it clearly is a superior value system. Of course, there are nuances, like the system should be working in the long run, etc.
Survival of the fittest is it's own value system, to describe one value system as superior to another is to promote an underlying value system which is superior to another thus making the value system as circular. If circular all value systems are self justifying thus necessitating all value systems to have some element of truth. Dually if one system is superior to another, and this is a value system then this underlying value system is superior to itself thus leading to contradiction.
|
|
rogerg
New Member
Posts: 16
Likes: 6
|
Post by rogerg on Apr 13, 2021 6:25:55 GMT
Those, who did not have survival on their priority list aren't here to tell us about it. Therefor I see survival & procreation as a priory good.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 13, 2021 16:21:08 GMT
The first "value system" - according to how you have defined it above - is our infant behaviour: what parents ordered us to do (to eat food, etc). The next one is the language you're primary using.
So, I don't know how are you gonna striking at any value systems holding some human laws /e.g. politeness/ and using the language??
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 13, 2021 17:33:47 GMT
Those, who did not have survival on their priority list aren't here to tell us about it. Therefor I see survival & procreation as a priory good. This necessitates survival of the fittest as circular given not only is it the self referentiality of the survivor repeating him/herself across time and space but the moral system of survival is moral because it is survival. If survival of the fittest is the ultimate value system then an underlying value system determines it as the ultimate good thus contradicting itself as the underlying value system is the ultimate good. In simpler terms in defining a value system as good an underlying value system is necessary in determining what value system is good or which is not. Dually many who are not fit for survival do so due to the excess of resources. Survival is defined thus through a context but as context changes so do survival rate. Survival Is Thus Context Adaptation ThereforE Making Survival Purely Contextual, As Context Changes So Does Survival.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Apr 13, 2021 19:34:08 GMT
Hello friends, I wrote down some thoughts of how people use value systems, in case someone would be interested in reading and discussing them... Since the dawn of time, when first protohumans climbed down from trees and started building a civilization, being unable to perceive the whole reality as it is, they started creating cognitive tools that would help them explore, simplify and interpret the surrounding world in a way necessary to at least survive and procreate. And one of such tools, needed to orient oneself in the world, is a value system. As David Hume pointed out, "you cannot derive an ought from an is", meaning you cannot come to a value judgement from a scientific observation. Therefor any claims of "we do not need faith, as we have science!" are absurd. Science is a great tool for exploring the natural world, but it is completely unable to tell you how to use the results of this exploration. It can tell you how to split atoms, yet whether you should split them in a power plant or above an enemy city is a value judgment. Usually, people are indoctrinated into those values systems by a religion, philosophy or culture in general. Sometimes people are able to construct their own systems. Afterwards confirmation bias kicks in and the adept starts seeing his value system as the one and only true, while competing systems are perceived as delusional. Such bias clearly has its evolutionary advantages, as people sharing the same value system can act in unison and be victorious over those, who are unable to cooperate due to different value system. So, while value systems are arbitrary, at times it might be beneficial to act as if they are not. Usually, such value systems come down to answering the following three questions: how did the universe come into being? what is our relationship with the world? / what is our life goal? / how we should treat each other? what happens after death? It might be wise to evaluate those systems not from perspective of perceived truth (as none of them can be objectively proven to be true or false), but rather by their effect on the individual and the society in general. For a value system to become viral, it usually needs to be at least loosely based in what is known as a "hero's journey" – hero feels a call to adventure, finds some supernatural guidance, fights the dragon, usually dies in some way, but then is reborn to guide his disciples to paradise. It seems that whether this journey contains a supernatural being or not is just a "marketing gimmick". Therefor all those arguments between theists and atheists are futile, as instead of focusing on the values proposed by the given system, they focus whether the hero had his revelation after studying in a library or rather after inhaling a burning bush and supposedly communicating with a supernatural deity. Author believes it is wise to pick a desired outcome on a dogmatic level (because I said so) and then pragmatically chose a value system that would most likely lead to the given outcome in a particular situation. In other words, pick the ends dogmatically, then choose the means pragmatically. Any means are good, as long as they work in the current situation and are not counter-productive to the end goal. If one discovers that the given means do not work, he should reevaluate the situation and choose more appropriate means. Unfortunately, most people do it vice versa – they link their self-worth with using some particular means, convince themselves that those means are the only true and will lead them to the best outcome possible, and then follow them blindly, without an exact end in mind. Even seeing that those means do are not working in the given situation, people often are unable to reconsider and keep pushing until the system crumbles on itself. NATURE IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY Voltaire had a moral dilemma over an earthquake in Lisbon: What God would allow that? The answer is that the power of genius is the only supernatural entity. All these "Acts of God" are the fault of society's jealousy, ingratitude, and suppression of genius. That is the why the passive and proudly ignorant masses of the less intelligent are punished for their negligence.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 13, 2021 19:46:05 GMT
Hello friends, I wrote down some thoughts of how people use value systems, in case someone would be interested in reading and discussing them... Since the dawn of time, when first protohumans climbed down from trees and started building a civilization, being unable to perceive the whole reality as it is, they started creating cognitive tools that would help them explore, simplify and interpret the surrounding world in a way necessary to at least survive and procreate. And one of such tools, needed to orient oneself in the world, is a value system. As David Hume pointed out, "you cannot derive an ought from an is", meaning you cannot come to a value judgement from a scientific observation. Therefor any claims of "we do not need faith, as we have science!" are absurd. Science is a great tool for exploring the natural world, but it is completely unable to tell you how to use the results of this exploration. It can tell you how to split atoms, yet whether you should split them in a power plant or above an enemy city is a value judgment. Usually, people are indoctrinated into those values systems by a religion, philosophy or culture in general. Sometimes people are able to construct their own systems. Afterwards confirmation bias kicks in and the adept starts seeing his value system as the one and only true, while competing systems are perceived as delusional. Such bias clearly has its evolutionary advantages, as people sharing the same value system can act in unison and be victorious over those, who are unable to cooperate due to different value system. So, while value systems are arbitrary, at times it might be beneficial to act as if they are not. Usually, such value systems come down to answering the following three questions: how did the universe come into being? what is our relationship with the world? / what is our life goal? / how we should treat each other? what happens after death? It might be wise to evaluate those systems not from perspective of perceived truth (as none of them can be objectively proven to be true or false), but rather by their effect on the individual and the society in general. For a value system to become viral, it usually needs to be at least loosely based in what is known as a "hero's journey" – hero feels a call to adventure, finds some supernatural guidance, fights the dragon, usually dies in some way, but then is reborn to guide his disciples to paradise. It seems that whether this journey contains a supernatural being or not is just a "marketing gimmick". Therefor all those arguments between theists and atheists are futile, as instead of focusing on the values proposed by the given system, they focus whether the hero had his revelation after studying in a library or rather after inhaling a burning bush and supposedly communicating with a supernatural deity. Author believes it is wise to pick a desired outcome on a dogmatic level (because I said so) and then pragmatically chose a value system that would most likely lead to the given outcome in a particular situation. In other words, pick the ends dogmatically, then choose the means pragmatically. Any means are good, as long as they work in the current situation and are not counter-productive to the end goal. If one discovers that the given means do not work, he should reevaluate the situation and choose more appropriate means. Unfortunately, most people do it vice versa – they link their self-worth with using some particular means, convince themselves that those means are the only true and will lead them to the best outcome possible, and then follow them blindly, without an exact end in mind. Even seeing that those means do are not working in the given situation, people often are unable to reconsider and keep pushing until the system crumbles on itself. NATURE IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY Voltaire had a moral dilemma over an earthquake in Lisbon: What God would allow that? The answer is that the power of genius is the only supernatural entity. All these "Acts of God" are the fault of society's jealousy, ingratitude, and suppression of genius. That is the why the passive and proudly ignorant masses of the less intelligent are punished for their negligence. Hi, Sage! Nice to see you again! An amazing quote! I remember I read about 1753 Lisbon's earthquake. Russo had another opinion, but this Voltaire quote rings the bells. Society loves playing "broken phone" or - to dress white to black, black to white, and taking part in other masquerades. Wearing masks, i.e. hypocrisy, became a daily routine. Surely, that a predictable move of theirs is to blame the others in their own faults.
|
|
rogerg
New Member
Posts: 16
Likes: 6
|
Post by rogerg on Apr 13, 2021 19:58:13 GMT
Harris, Fry and other 'intellectuals' often ask similar questions, such as why God would allow a nun killed in an earthquake or a child to die of leukemia... but am I the only one to see that such question is self-contradictory? If we assume there is God, then there is no death in a final sense. Then life on this earth is sort of a role playing simulator. For example, a soul can choose to experience itself as a soldier, so it is born in time and place to fight in WWI and die under shell fire in the battle of Somme, for example.
Therefor, if human life is just a thrill-ride for the soul, it makes all the 'evil' totally OK.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 13, 2021 20:29:06 GMT
Harris, Fry and other 'intellectuals' often ask similar questions, such as why God would allow a nun killed in an earthquake or a child to die of leukemia... but am I the only one to see that such question is self-contradictory? If we assume there is God, then there is no death in a final sense. Then life on this earth is sort of a role playing simulator. For example, a soul can choose to experience itself as a soldier, so it is born in time and place to fight in WWI and die under shell fire in the battle of Somme, for example. Therefor, if human life is just a thrill-ride for the soul, it makes all the 'evil' totally OK. I apologize for the interruption to a dialogue. But why should we consider this: "God's scenario" = "a role playing stimulator" as a true? Why comparing it with a certain social concept should make it be worse? A society, or its cultural fruits, gave such a concept, not God himself. If to say "It's God who is charge about all these (crimes, killings, etc)", then after there there should be no "there is evil", because our complaining about this should be categorized into God's actions too; and our thoughts, ideas, and whatnot.
|
|
rogerg
New Member
Posts: 16
Likes: 6
|
Post by rogerg on Apr 14, 2021 6:58:58 GMT
I'd say because it makes most sense. As otherwise you don't have a good explanation of why God permits evil happening.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 14, 2021 9:20:39 GMT
I'd say because it makes most sense. As otherwise you don't have a good explanation of why God permits evil happening. ...Or it makes sense for the atheists. In non-atheists models the world isn't a battlefield, but a chance to show yourself as a virtue or a kind person – the one who loves, not hates. Surely, the Evil Question aka Theodicy isn't easy for any Monotheist, but it doesn't mean there are no explanations. I must apologize that I can't type about it now – phones are uneasy for me to type anything I wish. So, as soon as I get a keyboard, I'll try to write about it in details.
|
|