What else could it be? — Janus

The Bible gives them as two separate "rules" - since I'm going to sleep I don't have time to go in more depth than that now.

If you can love your neighbour as yourself, then you will necessarily possess inner peace under all circumstances, which is salvation. — Janus

So what does this have to do with social engagement? You can love your neighbour as yourself and have fellow feeling without actually being engaged in society. If you disagree, then it follows that someone locked in prison and away from all contact with other people cannot possess inner peace under all circumstances, and hence cannot attain to salvation. Nor can a hermit on Mt. Athos for that matter.

To you basic science is absurd, we already know that.
Whilst it might be possible for a mouse to reduce the number of its mitochondria, it is likely that this would have to be achieved over a period of weeks and months. There is a good reason why there are no life-forms the size of elephants that are huge fur-balls with hear rates of a minimum of 300 bpm. Elephants beat at 30bpm
You really need to pay more attention. — charleton

No, it is YOU who needs to pay more attention and read more science. Just because they have more mitochondria does not mean that those mitochondria will all be active producing energy - to begin with, they will not have sufficient hydrocarbon molecules to produce energy. And it is possible that cells have too many mitochondria for their energy needs, in which case nothing bad happens - there's no overheating. All that happens is that some mitochondria are less active than others, and lysosomes start surrounding those mitochondria and breaking them apart. There might be an issue due to increased oxidation and free radicals.

You have very little understanding of how complex systems function and the kind of negative feedback loops that allow for self-regulation.

Sociopaths and psychopaths characteristically lack empathy and are thus more likely to be lacking conscience and moral intuition. — Janus

Sure, they have decreased empathy but they don't lack it completely. Having even a shred of empathy is sufficient to then imagine the rest. For example, if one feels bad when they see a man tortured, but not when they see him get kicked in the leg, then they can imagine feeling bad in the latter case too - or at least imagine that they ought to feel bad, even if they don't.

I agree with you that people are "punished" by, in the sense that they suffer on account of, their immoral actions, (or more accurately they suffer because of the dispositions that give rise to those actions) but I don't think that can be considered a "threat of divine punishment" or even a divine punishment; it is an outcome of human nature; a natural suffering. — Janus

But who made human nature such that you suffer when you do evil? This is a structural occurence - in that sense it is of divine origin.

In cases where people do immoral things because of irresistible impulses that are due to imbalances in brain chemistry that are correlated with some psychiatric conditions then medication may indeed cause them to abstain from performing immoral acts they otherwise would have. — Janus

Hmmm - I'm not so sure they are truly irresistable. I think regardless of imbalance, there is always a degree of self-control that can be exerted if one learns how to exert it. The thing is, the brain isn't necessarily "one person". So one part of the brain may give whatever directions it wants to, there will always be, so long as the person retains consciousness, another part of the brain that can oppose it.

What does salvation consist in then, other than loving your neighbour as yourself? it is the removal of focus from the self that saves, as I see it. — Janus

Well, loving God with your heart, mind, and body is more important than loving your neighbour as yourself, but, salvation consists in none of those I would say. Salvation consists in being at peace (deep inside) regardless of external circumstances.

I don't think hermits are even as close to salvation as properly socially engaged people, unless they are of the rare breed of human that genuinely have no need of human society. — Janus

Why is social engagement a good thing? Most people share this belief, but in my opinion, it's simply because they are afraid of themselves. They cannot stand even a little while with themselves, they get bored, and they're willing to do most of anything to escape that feeling. Just because you're not feeling any pain/discomfort doesn't mean that you're necessarily doing a good thing. You have to think in context. Social engagement is a distraction for most.

There are, for example, many millionaires who made a lot of money, quit working, and then suddenly found that they are depressed, bored, and all the rest. Some of them even went as far as committing suicide. So when such people are taken out, whether by their own choice, or by another's choice, from society, they break apart. Why? Because they don't know how to be with themselves. That's a weakness, not a good thing in my opinion - it makes you into a slave.

Few are the people who, like Pascal, or Montaigne, learned to spend large amounts of time by themselves without much social interaction, without breaking apart, going mad, etc. It's a skill, and I think one that it's very important to learn.

For example, I take those saints who sit in a hut all day on Mt. Athos and don't meet anyone, in continuous prayer, meditation and contemplation of God to be closer to salvation than your average socially engaged lad. So the idea that social engagement is necessary for salvation (or even happiness), exists because there already is something wrong with ourselves, and we cannot become happy just being with ourselves. Instead, we become bored - and it is boredom that pushes as, as it were, to seek engagement. So most engagement is not authentic - it comes as a result of seeking to escape a pain or a discomfort. That's why, for example, even amongst many married people there are lots of conflicts and disagreements and unhappiness. At least, conflict itself is a means of relieving boredom, and it's a relatively simple one, other means take greater creativity and more originality.

I would say that for most people the existentially salvific aspect of religious belief consists predominately in social involvement, in communion — Janus

Why would social involvement or communion be salvific? I think that's not what salvation is taken to mean. Social involvement or communion MAY (depending on personality type & circumstance) be helpful in getting you to feel good and positive about your life. But salvific? I think not.

I think it's much the other way around, that a change in consciousness usually leads one to engage more in their society, be more loving, etc.

In fact, to prove the absurdity of the mouse exploding or of the elephant freezing, it suffices to just think if a creature could not have evolved that had the shape of the elephant, but the size of a hamster. I think it very well could. And if this is possible, then we can clearly see that the form (size in this case) quite likely does act in a top-down manner on the matter, deciding, in this case, the metabolic rate.

'Form', or size in this case, cannot be thought of as transcendentally imposed on some indifferent 'substrate' of material or 'matter': both must be thought of as imminently co-arising from processes of evolution (in the case of living things, anyway). — StreetlightX

I disagree for the potential reasons stated above. These seem to be really vacuous and silly thought experiments, because we're not sure what would happen if we actually enlarge the mouse. The metabolic rate may remain the same, or it may slow down. Both are possibilities.

It's very likely that form acts in a top-down manner on matter.

Nobody is stating the obvious. If you enlarge the mouse would the metabolism rate not change? I'm guessing it would, because the organism would seek to adapt if it gets too hot. Meaning it would signal to its cells to slow down. I've had a look at a few of his videos earlier this morning, and he seems to have very very little awareness of what is known as "form" in philosophy. This video makes this clear.


He only discusses "pattern" from 5:00-5:30 and wastes all the other time discussing matter.

For example "I believe that we are all equal", does not mean that I know we are equal, or that we are equal. This is a moral value that I hold as an aspiration. A aspiration that we deserve to all be treated equally before the law.
The clumsy use of the term "belief" here above is not tantamount to knowledge in any sense.
Am I getting through? — charleton

I never said belief is equal to knowledge. I asked you some specific questions, can you please focus and answer my questions, and not talk about things that I haven't yet asked you about?

I failed to make a distinction between knowledge and unjustified belief. Can you explain how? — Agustino

Can you also explain what justifies belief? (and please don't tell me evidence, explain what evidence consists of). — Agustino

With Knowledge I do not employ Faith. I use previsional trust that my information is correct, until I discover contrary information. — charleton

Right, so you believe something based on reasons - evidence is an empty word. Reasons are just other things you believe. Ultimately we have to reach something that you believe for its own sake, because it is self-evident to you. Those are things you take as properly basic, that you believe on faith.

No. — charleton

What other alternatives are there? So if believing in the absence of evidence, and believing based on evidence do not exhaust all possibilities, what other possibilities are there?

Belief is a thing taken to be true regardless of evidence, information or reason. — charleton

No, that's not the traditional definition of belief. Have a look in the closest dictionary please. Here's one:

Belief = conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

This, although, can be confused with "knowledge" is not the same thing at all.
Why don't you stop and think for a second. I know you are not completely stupid.
Take the two definitions above as two ends of a spectrum. — charleton

If you are familiar with philosophic tradition, you would know that many philosophers have defined knowledge as justified true belief. So I don't see how I'm being dumb. You're just pretending I should accept what you say as if it is the most evident thing in the world. Clearly it's not, and that's not just for me, but for many people.

You know damn well that some people accept and believe things without a reasonable warrant. But on the other end of the spectrum there is such a thing as rigorous method that leads to near certain knowledge. — charleton

So one can believe in the absence of evidence, or one can believe based on evidence right?

Exactly. Belief is useless and unimportant. I'm only interested in knowledge. You make my point for me. — charleton

Then you can't have a discussion, so you're really wasting your time here.

And secondly, there is no knowledge without belief.

This is simply nonsense.
1) You say some shit
2) I doubt that shit, based on knowledge. Faith based belief has nothing to do with it. — charleton

What you call knowledge are merely things you have faith in.

And belief is not knowledge. — charleton

Sure, that doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't involve belief though.

Touché :-d — Wayfarer

Why are you upset? I can't follow what it is you're trying to say.

Do you disagree with this?

So all the metaphysics in the world are completely useless, since metaphysics doesn't give you any insights. Spiritual practice, ie prayer, meditation, contemplation does. The spiritual practices change how you feel about the world - not metaphysics. — Agustino

No.

Metaphysics doesn't serve any purpose. — Wayfarer

So, like a ladder, once metaphysics has served its purpose it can be discarded. — Wayfarer

I read what you wrote and I'm quite confused about what you're trying to say. One the one hand you say metaphysics doesn't serve any purpose, and on the other you talk of metaphysics having served a purpose :s

As regards 'feeling differently' - I feel as though I did undergo a genuine Platonist epiphany a long time ago. Epiphanies are very elusive, they generally come and go in an instant. You could compare them to being out at night, and there's a lightning flash, and it reveals something amazing - just for long enough to see that it's there, and something about its nature - and then it falls dark again, but you still have a memory of what you saw.

In my case, it was the insight into the non-material reality of number. My very first post on philosophy forum was about this very idea. But when you try to explain it, you get funny looks.

Now, in that phrase above, I would not say of the 'intelligible things' that they 'clearly exist', but that they are real. They're real in a noetic or intelligible manner, but in a different mode to the reality of phenomenal objects. Whereas hardly anyone seems to get that there could be any other level or domain of being, than the phenomenal domain. You know the expression 'out there somewhere'? That is usually said of anything we might be considering the reality of - that it's 'out there somewhere', which denotes that it's real or that it exists. And for most of us, 'what exists' and 'what is real' are the same. We have an instinctive world-picture in which we picture ourselves as intelligent subjects in the world described by the natural sciences; and because it's instinctive, we're for the large part unaware of it; it's simply reality to us, it is 'what everyone thinks'. So seeing through that, or realising that it is literally just an attitude or mental construction - that does change you. Realising that 'what exists' - the phenomenal domain known to science - is only one slice or aspect or domain of reality, is indeed 'a realisation'. It's not simply understanding a verbal description. There's another Platonistic term, namely, metanoia, which nowadays is (unfortunately) translated as 'conversion', but it means something more profound than that. It's like a noetic transformation, a different way of understanding the nature of existence. And, sure, that does completely change how you 'feel' about life. — Wayfarer

It seems to me that metaphysics is useful only to prove that your conception is possible. Metaphysics can prove possibility, never actuality. You'll never convince anyone of your metaphysical position by recounting metaphysics to them. Nobody gains any sort of insight through the reading or study of metaphysics, except insight into how reason, concepts, etc. work. In other words, you learn that metaphysics is useless, or only useful after the fact.

You speak of contemplation with an entirely different sense to the Christian or Medieval sense of contemplation. In Christianity, contemplation refers to the activity that you know as meditation in Buddhism. Meditation, in Christianity, refers to the activity that you call contemplation - thinking about things more deeply. So there is prayer, which is opening yourself up and asking for inner strength, etc. there is meditation, which is pondering over the wisdom of Scripture, the life of Christ, etc. etc. and there is contemplation (both active and passive), which is sitting silently and watching.

So all the metaphysics in the world are completely useless, since metaphysics doesn't give you any insights. Spiritual practice, ie prayer, meditation, contemplation does. The spiritual practices change how you feel about the world - not metaphysics. You can study metaphysics all day long and you won't get anywhere in terms of changing how you feel about the world.

It may be true that the 'ignorant masses' need and will respond to threats of divine punishment, or else they will not behave morally; and even then, perhaps they will not...

Sociopaths and psychopaths...? I don't know what to do about them; they are often highly intelligent. — Janus

Sociopaths and psychopaths aren't all bad or immoral though. For example, about 1/100 persons is a psychopath. You've quite probably met some of them, lived with them, been friends with them, etc.

So not all psychopaths are the cold-blooded rapists and murderous, scheming serial-killers you hear about on the news. Most of these people live relatively normal lives. In fact, some of the dangerous psychopaths score relatively low on corresponding medical assessments - though it is true that most of the dangerous ones tend to be around those who score very high. Psychopathy tends to be more of a personality than anything else - it's true that having this sort of personality does predispose you to certain immoral behaviour, which becomes more tempting than it would be otherwise.

Some prime psychopathic traits:
• Low fear and high pain tolerance.
• High self-confidence and assertiveness in social settings.
• Impulsivity.
• Defiance of authority.
• Difficulty with empathy.

Psychopathy itself seems to be a gradation from less psychopathic to more psychopathic. Take someone like Elon Musk - it's very likely that Elon is a psychopath. In fact, many in positions of leadership will have at least some psychopathic traits. If you think about it, many Presidents will come to mind, both current and past.

Now I would imagine that most criminals who commit crimes don't have something mentally wrong with themselves per say. They're just immoral.

So, threats of divine punishment could be seen as a form of "noble lie". — Janus

It's not a lie at all, threats of divine punishment are absolutely true. Someone who commits an immorality will get punished by the action itself, the punishment actually is inescapable. But failing to be aware of the punishment, many expect to encounter it in the future.

On the other hand, perhaps if education, and if necessary medication, were adequately improved, there would be far fewer people who required such threats in order to behave well towards their fellow humans. — Janus

I think it's a fantasy to think medication can make people more moral.

Such experiences cannot coherently be objectified in the kinds of ways you seem to want to objectify them: in terms of "realms" or "higher authority" or "transcendent being". — Janus

So, Wayfarer, of what use is metaphysics? Because it seems to me that one can read and become acquainted with many many metaphysical theories, and still not "feel" any differently about his or her life.

but instead seem to rely on Wiki quotes and book reviews to get a sense of what they are all talking about. This inevitably leads to a distorted picture, I would say. — Janus

Yeah, this is an important point. Many times I've first read Wiki and other secondary sources before diving into a philosopher, and it turns out that by reading them I got a completely different impression than by reading the secondary sources. One such philosopher was Spinoza, or why not, even Wittgenstein. Sometimes I do wonder how come the Wiki is so far off the actual philosopher.

Precisely because of populism, and fads. Everything is positivism, and post-modernism. Someone can just massive word salads that no one understands, but if the words are big enough, and it doesn't rhyme they must be a genius. They can just quote idiots, and have zero follow through that isn't rhetorical asides at not being of their level, and all they accolades are theirs. — Wosret

Yeah, but then pretty much all society functions that way unfortunately... The interesting thing is how such things can be countered or kept in check at least.

I would add that many people here have built exquisite conceptual labyrinths, which may be lacking of any and all meaning, but it takes an enormous amount of effort to go through them in a rationalistic fashion, so no one does it. The large intellectual scaffolding is also a psychological defense mechanism - since it lets you think you have a grip on things. I know some people here who for years have basically been repeating the same thing over and over ad nauseam...

Continental philosophy (not a super fan of the distinction between continental and analytical), like Emerson is fucking beautifully poetic. — Wosret

Sure, some bits of it are. But even things like Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, etc. etc. they are still in discourse form - they aren't narratives or poems (though things like Thus Spake Zarathustra most certainly are different).

And then there's the issue that this site is heavily Anglo anyway - even old PF was pretty much. Not that there aren't people who want or can discuss other things, but just a general observation. People just expect air-tight step-by-step arguments here, and are unwilling to admit of creative leaps or feeling based philosophy that cannot be scientifically verified.

I was told that the whole topic was questionable as philosophy because it was about the soul, and that's fucking ridiculous, you guys have the views of every average high schooler in western culture, if this were 1930s Germany, you'd all be fucking Nazis. You're just echoes for populism and fads, with no substantial knowledge of the history of philosophy. — Wosret

Yes, unfortunately, this is unavoidable when literarily all mods are atheists or lean towards atheism. It's a problem that I've signalled for a long time, but, since there is much unwillingness in changing the team up from time to time, it's difficult to fix. I never understood why we can't have moderator elections and moderators who switch from time to time.

Regarding the deletion of the poem, I think the other issue here is that philosophy itself has tended to favour heavily rationalistic, scientistic and step-by-step means of presenting ideas. So it's almost impossible to imagine Kant writing philosophy in the form of a poem, or a narrative. So historically poetry and narrative have been left to religion, and philosophy has sought to distance itself from it. Of course, I think because of this distancing philosophy has become somewhat blind.

So yeah, I'm all butt hurt and I'm leaving. Laterz. — Wosret

That would be sad, since you are one of the people who are creative enough to have interesting views and opinions that can shake things up here a little bit. There is a lot of monotony many times otherwise.

Keep in mind that it takes time to change things, even in the moderation, so if people like you leave, this site will just become a worse place.

:-d

If you are going to blather on about folk, you ought to at least spell their names right. — apokrisis

Done X-)

And this Osho ... have you been a fan of him long? — apokrisis

I first read Osho when I was 12-14, so yes. Not a "fan" as such, I disagree with him on a lot of things too. But not on the bit that I've quoted.

Doesn’t really seem to be your usual sort. — apokrisis

Yeah, of course it doesn't seem like it to you cause you never understood my position to begin with.

You think his life was some kind of shining example, eh? Tell us more. :D — apokrisis

Well his life certainly does seem to have been better than that of a lot of Western philosophers for that matter. But that's an aesthetic judgement. For example, Peirce was frequently depressed, easily irritated, angry, drank a lot, etc. doesn't sound like a great life to me.

The Western philosopher creates great edifices of thought, but his whole life is so poor. — Osho

One might add here, just like Peirce's life was poor, despite his great intellect. So of what use that intellect, if all his theories couldn't bring him peace?

Ever the authoritarian, eh? — Wayfarer

Authority and dogma are not opposed to mysticism, they can and often do go hand in hand.

'realising an identity which is not subject to death' — Wayfarer

Why is this of relevance? This cannot be the core of spiritual practice since it is not valuable in and of itself. It seems quite self-concerned in many ways.

I realise you need to make this come out right for transcendent Christian metaphysics. But that's your loss. Wake me up when you are tired of being a historical curiosity. — apokrisis

No, this actually has nothing to do in particular with Christian metaphysics, anymore than it does with Buddhist metaphysics, or pretty much any other religion or spiritual practice out there. Here's a fragment from Osho that treats many of the same points as me:

You cannot think about truth; either you know it or you don’t know it. How can you think about love? Either you love and know, or you don’t love and you don’t know. There is no third alternative. Nietzsche lived just in thoughts. Otherwise he had the potential of being a Gautam Buddha for the West. He had the capacity, the caliber, but the West has missed the very dimension of meditation. Their philosophers have remained only thinkers. The East has not produced great philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche - there is no parallel in the East. The East has never bothered about polishing, sharpening, thinking, knowing that by thinking you cannot arrive at your being, to your truth, to your godliness, to self-realization. Nietzsche lived a miserable life, full of worry, anxiety, anguish, angst. This is strange. Such a great thinker, but his life is nothing but anguish. Gautam Buddha may not have been such a great thinker. He was not, but his life was so calm, so quiet, so peaceful. And the strangest phenomenon is that the Western philosopher has been thinking, “What is truth?” and has never been able to find it. And the Eastern mystic, non-philosopher, has never been thinking about truth. He has been on the contrary, dissolving thoughts, getting out of the mind, finding a space in himself where no thought has ever entered. And in that space he has encountered God Himself. The Western philosopher creates great edifices of thought, but his whole life is so poor. — Osho

So it is useless that you blabber on about more and more technical refinements of some Pierceian theory or whatever, since theories do not change life - they do not make life more beautiful, they do not remove anxiety, etc. In other words, theories are irrelevant to value - we do not find value by means of theories.

I'm not convinced that this is presented as a dichotomy by Wittgenstein. Science is surely not solely empirical, but rather has the form of a grammar for dealing with empirical language. — Banno

Is the word "dichotomy" present in the part that you quoted from me? :P In the bit you quoted I referred to it as a distinction. That's how Wittgenstein treated it. I've referred to it as a dichotomy only when I meant to say that empirical & conceptual do not cover everything there is.

Science is surely not solely empirical, but rather has the form of a grammar for dealing with empirical language. — Banno

Of course, since science relies on language and conceptual grammar for its theories. But it is empirical in the sense that science deals with causes of real things or events in the world. Philosophy doesn't.

Yet aren't we obligated to introduce analysis and conceptualisation and empiricism in order to value? Otherwise wouldn't our values "drop out of consideration as irrelevant"? — Banno

I don't think so - I think values show themselves in the attitude we have towards the world, which comes prior to conceptualisation and empiricism. First I find myself having certain values, and those values determine what I want to do in the world, which determines how I engage with it and what is of significance to me. I cannot find what is of significance by analysing concepts or by studying physics.

While what cannot be said ought be passed over in silence, it remains that one can show what can not be said. Perhaps that is what Beethoven and Goethe could do. — Banno

The other interesting issue is why is it that value cannot be said? Is it because value is subjective, and cannot be intersubjectively (or objectively) verified - and there is no private language that can hold meaning?

Spiritual principles don’t have to rely on ‘threats of divine punishment’. — Wayfarer

What need for the supernatural or an afterlife then? — Janus

What's wrong with threats of divine punishment? Threats of divine punishment are useful for those who cannot see the negative effects of immoral actions.

On the contrary. Everything the Nazis did was strictly according to the law. Of course the law itself became corrupt. Perhaps that's what you meant. But that shows that even the "rule of law" can be problematic. We see such instances in the contemporary news from time to time. — fishfry

The "law" is really an automatisation of justice, much like Bitcoin would be an automatisation of payment systems. If you look at human history the trend is to go from less automatisation to more automatisation. But there is a problem that is often forgotten with moving from less automatisation to more. The more automatisation there is, the more inescapable control there exists, and the less freedom in the real sense of the term. In other words, people are more and more removed from the decision-making process. And the way the system is setup is that those who control what the laws are can always blame the law for the oppression of their brethren - ie, we're just following the law. They no longer have to assume full responsibility.

Labor theory of value and all that? — fishfry

I was recently working on a mini-project now that I'm on holiday. Developing (programming) a centrally controlled economic system that would allocate resources fairly across the economy and writing a paper for it. There is a relationship between the labor-theory of value and perfect competition under capitalism.

In perfect competition, there are no profits for anyone. That means that price/unit = cost/unit. All costs can be quantified in units of labor-time. Raw materials are also quantified in terms of the time it takes for them to be obtained. So all costs of a firm, not just direct labor, can be quantified in units of labour time. That means that in perfect competition, prices can be quantified in units of labor-time.

If we think fundamentally, what is an economy? It is the allocation of time for the fulfilment of needs. We have a limited pool of time in the economy and infinite needs. Needs are of two categories - essential (we die without them), and wants.

If the economy is formed of one person stuck on an island, then he will need to decide what needs he has, and then prioritise those needs, and then use his time to start fulfilling them one by one (as many as he can). The same idea follows in a group.

So money is really a shadow of time - it is time that is essential. Now, labour-theory of value has a short-coming. It cannot decide how much 1 hour of taxi-driving is worth compared to 1 hour of engineering. Why not? Because it cannot decide which one we need more of - taxi driving or engineering.


(Now, this isn't exactly true. If a centrally planned economy has an exterior - other external economies that it doesn't control - then it can quantify all internal opportunity costs in terms of the prices goods can be traded at externally, and it would work. The problem really comes when there is only ONE centrally planned economy, with no exterior. Imagine your company owned all the resources and all the economy of the entire world - how would you decide what gets produced first, in what quantity, at what price, etc?)

A subjective theory of value is required for that, and to determine it, we only need to make use of the demand curve. How much some participant X is willing to pay for some good Y is a quantification of his subjective need. And the demand curve shows us how much each participant is willing to pay.

We can obtain values that are directly comparable to each other by referencing how much each participant is willing to pay as a percentage of his income or total money. So if I'm willing to pay 90% of my income for good A, and you're willing to pay only 10%, then I need it more than you, even if that 90% may mean $50, and for you 10% may mean $500 in absolute value. That's the very communist version - the more capitalist one is by price, regardless of income or wealth, but we will privilege those who have more money. So call this price, how much each is willing to pay, as subjective price. The former price (the one obtained from labour-theory) will be known as cost of production.

Now, only the goods where subjective price >= cost of production will be produced.

Under this system nobody would own factories, and other means of production. Everyone would submit orders for all products to a central computer. An order consists of the quantity desired, the type of product, and the price/unit one is willing to pay. Participants compete on price - those willing to pay the most will get their orders executed first (the only exception would be everything labelled as essential goods, which will always be sold at the cost of production). This guarantees maximum efficiency of circulation.

How will people be rewarded? Well, we start from the fact that $1 = 1 hour labour-time. Money is all digital, the central computer keeps track of how much money is in the wallet of each participant in the economy, and it can do this, because it processes all orders and has all information. So that's the base salary so to speak. However, since non-essential goods are transacted at subjective price, that means that it is possible for some goods to make a lot more than the labour that went into them. Say good A made $500 in one day, and it took 10 hours to produce the quantity of good A that made $500. That means that good A made $50/hour labourtime. So the production of good A is worth x50 the production of the standard good at the base rate.

The workers who worked those 10 hours, will receive ALL the income after raw materials, etc. have been paid. So that will be how one worker can earn more than another - based on how needed he is, where money is used to quantify the need for him (based on the worth of the products he produces).

Goods will get produced based on price. Those that people are willing to pay most per unit will be produced first.

I have more on this, but any thoughts so far?

I would comment on more things and in more detail, but I'm going to sleep first.

Regardless, this is precisely the kind of Scholastic quibbles that are actually irrelevant to value. All you see is empirical and conceptual things, and you call that truth. You even try to subjugate value to empirical concerns :s

The value stems from feeling. — Janus

I think many don't understand how value cashes out in relation to the other sides of life. This "blindness" to the centrality of value to life, such as what your work is, how you live, what you pursue etc. is often obscured. People don't understand that this attitude towards the world comes before experience and not after. Changing this attitude, that's the job of spiritual experience, meditation, prayer, poetry, art, etc. Without this, there seems to me to be no energy available for doing other things. You may want to paint, but if you lack the motivation, you can't do it, regardless of how much you want to and how necessary it is seen to be. Life without value is dead - it's a machine, a mere mechanism. And yet it puzzles me to no end that some people just cannot become aware of this.

I'm not sure why this is the case? I'm not sure what our language is doing other than, at least in some sense, accurately depicting the world around us. It might be the case that there are certain expressions in language that are not just mere ostensive definitions, but the fact that language has meaning, seems to indicate to me its meaningful in virute of something about our experiences -- and these experiences are given content by the world (considering they are not in a vacuum). — Marty

Wittgenstein would say that this is the fundamental metaphysical illusion - the bewitchment of our intelligence by language.

Language isn't meant just to depict (or represent) the world around you, but rather to allow you to act in the world around you in certain ways. "Give me the brick", "pass me the apple", "it costs $5", "I'll be at your place after 5:00" etc. Those aren't descriptions or depictions of anything, they are ways of interacting with the world. You learn these concepts by using them to get things done in the world. It is the common practice that gives them meaning.

Sure, language can also be used to describe something for a certain purpose to someone. But that's just one of its purposes, and not the only one, contrary to the metaphysical representationalist account.

So it's wrong to go from the usefulness of language, to the idea that it therefore reflects some other underlying reality.

I'm perplexed by an idea that takes there to be anything outside of the "empirical, conceptual"
(which I take to be taken together: experience.) — Marty

Refer to this post and further replies.

Why would you counterpose the Holocaust against law? The nazis made a sham of the law, replacing it with the rule of persons like Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, et al. — Bitter Crank

Exactly - so the law is actually only as good as the people behind it. That means that whether it's based on the law, or based on the dictates of a supreme leader, what matters the most is the wisdom of the people behind the system, not the system itself. I also draw attention to the fact that a tyrannical law is worse than a tyrannical dictator since it legitimises tyranny and makes it acceptable.

which was to demolish Cartesian phenomenology and dissolve mind-body problems, — sime

What a petty aim - I would most certainly hope that wasn't his aim. No, his aim was to introduce a new way of doing philosophy. That it dismantled whatever - that's secondary, and ultimately really irrelevant. Also, he very likely undertook all this to clear the way for what truly matters, which were matters of value - which he almost never spoke of. Everything else is formed of petty matters that aren't of great relevance or importance - except in the minds of some academics who came after him and inherited his philosophy.

I am saying that they are not dichotomous domains, but inseparable aspects of a single cognition or application of language, for Wittgenstein did not accept the analytic-synthetic distinction, and he drew attention to grammar, — sime

So... what does this have to do with anything? :s And why are you bringing the analytic-synthetic distinction in discussion? This has nothing to do with it.

Wittgenstein would disagree that the empirical - conceptual is not a real distinction. He, at length, including in §109 which I've quoted, stresses that philosophy, unlike science, is NOT an empirical investigation (ie trying to find the causes of real things which happen in the world) but rather a conceptual undertaking (ie understanding the grammar of our concepts). This distinction is so important that it's probably the absolute cornerstone of Wittgenstein's late philosophy.

Wittgenstein's remarks concerning language were just a special case of more general considerations of what it means to say that one is "following a rule", which for Wittgenstein boil down to external criteria of assertion such that it only makes logical sense to speak of "following a "rule" when there are independent means of checking whether or not one is following the rule independent of one's definition of it within an appropriately normative context where talk of obeying or breaking rules is motivated. — sime

Right, so you're agreeing with me that there is no private language based on aesthetic intuitions or whatever of that kind. The "independent means of checking" are by nature social.

So 'S' can now be said to mean that "his blood pressure is rising", and we can now understand what the private-linguist is saying by 'S', i.e. he can now be said to infer something public. — sime

This means that the private linguist is actually not a private linguist at all, since he's using a public sign to convey the meaning of his utterance (blood pressure rising).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/137842

You are wrong because Christianity is both the cause and the solution to nihilism. Only a false Christianity was displaced. Refer to the post linked.

My "Utopia" is democracy in which equality is striven for and not stiffed by a rich aristocracy. — Cavacava

So whoever manipulates others the best ought to govern?

My "Utopia" is a just society under rules of law. — Cavacava

Will that justice be enforced? At least with a despot you have an enemy, you can go after him. But with the law, who can you go after? That's why the law was invented - nobody is responsible anymore - the law is blamed. The law orders the Nazi officer to yank the Jews out of their homes and to the gas chambers they go... So he knocks on the door "Sorry ma'am. It's the law, I'm forced to now yank you from your home and put you on this train. My apologies, I'm just obeying the law. If you want, you can file a complaint on the train later".

What you have outline is not, and cannot constitute a just society. — Cavacava

I agree, I never said it is just.

People are people, basics human facts don't change, you wrote your own rebuttal. — Cavacava

One basic human fact is that people get bored. Another basic human fact is that people like arbitrariness and freedom, and detest being forced to do things. Your utopia of equality, etc. involves (1) maintaining the same regime forever, and (2) forcing people to fit in certain norms. So it will fail, it's against human nature.

Your bucolic idealization is just that, history has always proved it wrong or is there any doubt that social inequity was a major contributing factor to the French Revolution. — Cavacava

What does being proven wrong by history mean? That it changes and disappears? Then history has proved everything wrong, and it will continue to prove everything wrong (in terms of social organisation that is).