I just am puzzled that the economy has perverted value into utility.

And, if we all know what is intrinsically valuable why don't we show it in action and deed? Such as wanting a free education in the US or saving Social Security or increasing funding for education in general. In other words, why are our priorities misaligned with what is of intrinsic value?

I agree; but, then what is the value of philosophy?

But, we only value or appreciate things like knowledge, justice, morality, and other things mostly when we need them.

How do you explain that?

Well, mcdoodle mentioned desire. So, I find it hard to imagine something I want without desire or instrumental value. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

So, how does one differentiate from what has instrumental value over intrinsic value? After all one could say reasonably that everything is of instrumental value to the self interested man.

It can have instrumental value, no?

What are your thoughts about the compactness theorem in logic and entailment of smaller sets by larger sets that obey the compression theorem. Would that point to a never ending set of sets that contains all provable theorems?

it's why in the real world monopolies and market fixing are illegal — Inter Alia

I'm not sure if this is true; but, most business entrepreneurs aim for being a monopoly. Sometimes it's the most efficient means of resource allocation for some specific type of good or service. This is particularly true for the technology sector. Don't quote me on that.

This might interest you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

He doesn't have to, it's just basic psychology. — Agustino

Yeah, rational agents aren't all that rational. Too bad, or good, depending on whether you're a consumer or producer.

Warranted the person is an idiot.

Actually, it would be in your both interest to collude being the only two guys with the water, unless you two were like mortal enemies or something like that.

Paying $200 for it would be disgusting - I will feel like I'm getting a bad deal, and would much rather have the certainty of paying more to ensure good work. — Agustino

That 'feeling' can only be established relative to a competitors product.

Yeah, and a guy who throws a ball for a living can make more than a brain surgeon. That's just how preferences work.

But, you seem to have a very special product or service if you can charge 10000 to one company or individual and at the same time charge 1000 to another company or individual. I'm afraid we're in the twilight zone if this is taking place continuously in the market with other competitors. Either that or you're some benevolent monopoly for the type of product or service you offer.

In the case you seem to be describing is a service that has an equlibrium set not by the market but by individuals. That would be a contradiction in terms, no?

And what determines what the customer is willing to pay? — Agustino

Supply and demand. If your the only guy in town then you can charge what a monopoly charges for their goods and or services. If your code is impeccable and reliability is a concern and that's what you do best, then you can charge more over what others have to offer. It's not that complicated, qualitative wise, quantification of wants and needs is another matter.

So why is it possible to sell one website for $200 to a client, and another for $10,000, even though the same work goes in both, and they are essentially the same good? Why the price difference? The market doesn't have a single equilibrium or what? — Agustino

Depends on many factors. How much you customer is willing to pay above market price and why would they do that, how your product or in this case service differs from the rest of the competition, reputation, etc. Too many to list but you get the idea, no?

Umm, service goods or products offered obey the same relationship a commodity good does based on supply and demand. There should be no confusion with that.

My personal belief is that people have not only wants but needs. So, some commodities have, in my opinion, an inherent worth.

But that's irrelevant because again it's all about supply and demand. Value doesn't come before that and then bargained in the marketplace.

If we have a supply shortage of water, prices will go up. But over time they will come back down. What determines the level they climb to, and the level they go back to over time? I'd say the level they go up to is determined by the market. The level they go back down to is the real value (which the market approximates in the long run). — Agustino

Yeah but your only talking about supply and demand. I really don't get what's the issue. Maybe you would prefer a econometric explanation but I can't help with that.

Yeah, and that's what makes prices stable over time also, what you didn't mention. And that would be important in how a price gets determined not just based on specific cases but as a normalization of aggregate needs, wants, and preferences (say you like Italian bread more than wheat)

How is arbitrage possible then?

But, you pay for the bread at a similar average amount every week, don't you?

Not if the set of axioms is entailed by another one which is also consistent with the lower domain set?

That's a pretty common theme not exclusive to some philosophers who criticise social structures for creating psychological distress. Im sure many socialist and Marxist psychologists and social theorists should come to mind.

Hence my last post. Has this focus on creating an ideal society been futile and instead we should just focus on the individual and their beliefs about and in relation to society?

It would seem that Plato and other philosophers* took the idea to heart and went to elaborate lengths to describe an ideal state that would let people flourish and live without an 'ill mind or spirit'. Maybe other philosophers didn't take the idea at face value; but, it seems intuitively clear that what is good is ethical, and what is right is good, and a good mind is a healthy one?

I suppose Aristotle couldn't improve on Plato's Republic, so he settled with describing how people ought to behave.

*Other philosophers include but are not limited to Hobbs, Mill, Roussou, Hegel, Marx, Rawls, Nozick, etc.

Now, do you think this attempt to envision an 'ideal' state has been futile in the past and present?

I have a ton of questions but I'll leave it at that.

I've not come across a convincing account of emergence. However, as I've understood it, we know it has happened when explanations must take account of the emergent entity. So, our best theory of biodiversity is couched in terms of replicators, selection, variation. None of these emergent properties is even necessarily biological. — tom

My understanding is that the incompleteness theorems that Godel postulated can be seen as emergent phenomena from underlying axioms, although unprovable from those very axioms, which would seem like a contradiction of face value. I might be of course wrong about this.

Although someone named "Wisdom" quoting Ken Wilber makes me wonder. — Mitchell

May I ask of your thoughts on this thread, Mitchell?

Would greatly appreciate your input on thoughts about what Plato or Aristotle had to say or other philosophers.

Can you quantify supply and demand? I've seen some people draw some charts based on some usually extrapolated data, but the whole procedure seems so unscientific, it's like empty guesswork for me. When I've tried to actually apply that theory in reality, I found that it has nothing to do with reality. I don't actually use supply and demand when deciding on prices. — Agustino

Typically the invisible hand does that for you.

Nice quote. I don't think I can comment on that without making a faux pas.

No, don't give up philosophy if it's something that brings you satisfaction and joy. I struggle with schizophrenia, depression, and ADD. Something to do with dopamine I suppose; but, that doesn't make me give up on doing something I enjoy doing.

Don't let labels of negative thoughts or overgeneralizations based on labels or negative thoughts prevent you from doing philosophy.

I have piss poor concentration and struggle to sit in one spot at a time. Although I'm not sure if you want to talk about this; but, there are medications that can help you with ADD. Just beware of stimulant medication for ADD, as it can be a slippery slope if you get distracted by the hedonic qualities of stimulant medications. I'm going to try Strattera, which is a good medication for my needs.

Best of luck to you, and hope to see you post.

I feel as though this is digressing into a talk about what criteria can be used to show and understand intentionality.

Wittgenstein seems to have been a logical behaviorist to some degree (contestable), so I don't think (as mentioned) that we could never understand a lion.

However, the fact that chimpanzees or other apes have a hard time learning our language speaks about a conceptual gap based on traits and characteristics which humans have, such as a higher intelligence or some such stuff.

Heard he had multiple casual relations with his students. — Akanthinos

Stop, your making Wittgenstein sound like a human!

Sorry for being an apologetic Wittgensteinian, haha!

And if the other behaves toward you in a way counter
to your ethical standards do you attribute this to his evil intentions or do you explain this on the basis of a different worldview on his part? — Joshs

Different worldviews don't matter as long as we are both being ethical towards each other. In this case applying the golden rule.

The golden rule is worthless without insight into the other's way of construing the world. — Joshs

So differing worldviews are incommensurable? Applying the golden rule would seem to suffice for any person, as long as they aren't aliens of some sort, perhaps?

Without this insight, one is forced to impune the other's motives and this simply justifies endless wars of righteousness. — Joshs

Wars of righteousness aren't ethical or at least the ones I know of weren't based on ethics of any sort, perhaps an ethics of might makes right?

What about the golden rule? It seems that most cultures with a long enough history of thought have some version of it in their moral or ethical works? It really wouldn't be too difficult to practice the golden rule and maintain a stable mental health with respect to other people.

Well a recent example is the Bitcoin fad. People tend to give value on things they think will be worth more in the future than its current worth. Im not aware of things that have inherent worth, perhaps excluding core basket goods that serve to sustain life.

Value and its quantification is dictated by the scarcity of the commodity or service with respect to demand.

Ah, reminds me of Plato. — Mitchell

Plato. Heavy name to throw out, and I often try not referencing him due to my limited readings of his Dialogues and The Republic.

So the immoral person is mentally ill? — Mitchell

I would argue that this goes to what Thrasymachus said about justice and the lack of response from Socrates.

Another issue is that Plato spoke of the good life as something that originates from within, which Socrates talked about a 'daemon' that informed him about what is right and just. It can be argued that this 'daemon' or 'conscious' or whatever other cultural names have been devised for that inner voice that informs us about what is right or just to do is paramount to living a good and examined life. Platonists took this idea to mean that people must have a spirit, and listening to it is what constitutes being a good person. I might be wrong, but, I think Plato put a strong emphasis on conditioning the weak and frail body to realize the potential of this inner voice or soul. However, this form of education would be a far cry from what we have nowadays. The closest comparison would be some officer training program in the military nowadays. After all, Plato can be called an anti-materialist, I think?

Anyway, don't want to ramble any more than I have already.

I did some writing on 'mood' last year. There are reams of writing on 'mood disorder', but strikingly there is next to nothing on what an ordered or normal mood is, either in psychology or philosophy. We know disorder when we see it, seems to be the thinking, even if we can't define what it deviates from. — mcdoodle

Great to see you mcdoodle.

This seems to be a case where things cannot be described but shown in practice, like good behavior or acceptable behavior. (again ethics and mental health?)

I've been reading some different corners of Aristotle and thinking about 'eunoia'. It gets (mis)translated as 'goodwill' (which is Cicero's fault for the intervening Latin). For Aristotle eunoia is the feeling one experiences and expresses towards one's deepest friends - the baseline of his Nicomachean Ethics - and in rhetoric it's the emotional connection you make to those you are trying to persuade of something. — mcdoodle

Yes, I think Aristotle was a pioneer in forming a framework under which acceptable behavior would be defined as practicing ethics, in this case, virtue ethics, which then the Stoics expanded on and which even modern day therapies owe in large debt to their teachings. And, quite frankly I don't know of any other system that is as elegant and sufficient to address the issue of what constitutes healthy wellbeing. Kant's deontological ethics is too rationalistic for it to be applicable to most people. Perhaps, Rawl's veil of ignorance could be applied; but, bias is ever-present. Consequentialist philosophies seem to demand some central authority with the calculus of utility already spelled out, and having this central authority dictate the workings of society as a benevolent dictator.

I like the idea of it as a kind of baseline for mental sense-making and strength. We could form a society: the Eunoiacs. (could also be a name for a band :)) — mcdoodle

Hah, as long as it's not related to hedonism!

So, entropy is an epiphenomenon? The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an epiphenomenal law? — tom

I don't understand how computer programs are related to entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I suppose the issue is understanding how emergent properties can emerge from basic systems.

A computer program occupies the logical space created by the hardware of a computer. So, it exists as an epiphenomenon if that makes any sense.