Objective values vs Pragmatism

[Nick_A]

"even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

Popeye wrote in the World Savior Pandemic OP:

Change however requires something humanity is apparently in want of, that lacking is self-control. Other life forms lack this self-control as well, but nature has always checked naturally other animal forms to keep the balance. With humanity, humanity has managed to override these checks with its science and tecnologies, as a result, we have a planet that in the not to distant a future, will not support life, will cease to be a living planet. Without this said self-control we leave it to nature, which no doubt could mean a planet without humanity. Arise, pandemic, perhaps this and what is to follow is natures trump card, a planet saver, but the cost will be the decimation of humanity worldwide. What are your thoughts on this, do you think this pandemic is just a warning shot across the bow of the space ship earth?

We've learned in the three day grace period thread that secular Man denies objective value so the value of the cycles of life is determined by "might makes right" and the laws of government. The life of a fetus has no objective value so its subjective value is determined by others.

It is the same with the planet earth. Since it has no objective value for secular Man, we are free to do with it as we will. It makes no difference since Man determines value so we worry about it tomorrow. Of course, belief in tomorrow continues and sustains all the cycles of life. It is only natural when fetuses and the world lack objective value and pragmatism determines their value. Do what we will to it and we'll worry about it tomorrow.. If we are oblivious of the lawful cycles of life for the earth and humanity, why be concerned about fetuses or the needs of our earth? Man determines their value

Change requires today rather than tomorrow. When Man is oblivious of objective value, the value of today is based on personal subjective values. When Man has become incapable of experiencing objective value made known through his conscience, what is more natural than pragmatism?

Simone is right. It is partial satisfaction to know why we are crushed. Unfortunately there is nothing to be done as long as our species believes in relative man made values and the pragmatic efforts which sustain them.

"We must make the individual man aware of his conscience so that he understands what it means that only a few will survive the next war. This man will be the cosmic man." Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 99.)

The cosmic man may be Man's conscious evolutionary future but for now, Man's immediate future, lacking any awareness of objective values, is determined by "might makes right" and the participation in the lawful cycles of nature including war and peace. The dominance of the contradictory attitudes of society governed by pragmatism assures that nothing can change except the hypocrisy of the speeches defending pragmatism given in Plato's Cave.

[Atla]

"even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

Popeye wrote in the World Savior Pandemic OP:

Change however requires something humanity is apparently in want of, that lacking is self-control. Other life forms lack this self-control as well, but nature has always checked naturally other animal forms to keep the balance. With humanity, humanity has managed to override these checks with its science and tecnologies, as a result, we have a planet that in the not to distant a future, will not support life, will cease to be a living planet. Without this said self-control we leave it to nature, which no doubt could mean a planet without humanity. Arise, pandemic, perhaps this and what is to follow is natures trump card, a planet saver, but the cost will be the decimation of humanity worldwide. What are your thoughts on this, do you think this pandemic is just a warning shot across the bow of the space ship earth?

We've learned in the three day grace period thread that secular Man denies objective value so the value of the cycles of life is determined by "might makes right" and the laws of government. The life of a fetus has no objective value so its subjective value is determined by others.

It is the same with the planet earth. Since it has no objective value for secular Man, we are free to do with it as we will. It makes no difference since Man determines value so we worry about it tomorrow. Of course, belief in tomorrow continues and sustains all the cycles of life. It is only natural when fetuses and the world lack objective value and pragmatism determines their value. Do what we will to it and we'll worry about it tomorrow.. If we are oblivious of the lawful cycles of life for the earth and humanity, why be concerned about fetuses or the needs of our earth? Man determines their value

Change requires today rather than tomorrow. When Man is oblivious of objective value, the value of today is based on personal subjective values. When Man has become incapable of experiencing objective value made known through his conscience, what is more natural than pragmatism?

Simone is right. It is partial satisfaction to know why we are crushed. Unfortunately there is nothing to be done as long as our species believes in relative man made values and the pragmatic efforts which sustain them.

"We must make the individual man aware of his conscience so that he understands what it means that only a few will survive the next war. This man will be the cosmic man." Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 99.)

The cosmic man may be Man's conscious evolutionary future but for now, Man's immediate future, lacking any awareness of objective values, is determined by "might makes right" and the participation in the lawful cycles of nature including war and peace. The dominance of the contradictory attitudes of society governed by pragmatism assures that nothing can change except the hypocrisy of the speeches defending pragmatism given in Plato's Cave.

Most seculars would prefer objective values as well, most of them believed in objective values when they were little and the world seemed a better place. But then they realized that these objective values are nowhere to be found. They are subjectivists not out of malignance, but because subjectivism is true.

Objective values also aren't found via awakening. Awakening isn't vertical and it doesn't lead to a triune perspective. The illusion of a triune perspective is probably something that people with fragmented minds experience, when they went through a partial awakening and also somewhat connected the fragments of their mind.

[Steve3007]

We've learned in the three day grace period thread that secular Man denies objective value so the value of the cycles of life is determined by "might makes right" and the laws of government.

This is not the standard definition of the word "we".


Values are, by definition, held by people. So "objective values" is an oxymoron for the same reason that something like "objective emotions" is. There have been a lot of topics here in the past on this general theme of "without objective values, or an objective source of morality, we all act like selfish monsters" or similar. The problem, of course, is that the thesis isn't borne out by the actual evidence. Hence, in the "three day grace period" topic of which this topic seems to be a continuation, stuff about infanticide had to be invented in order to support the thesis. i.e. a strawman had to be erected.

[Nick_A]

Hello Atia

Most seculars would prefer objective values as well, most of them believed in objective values when they were little and the world seemed a better place. But then they realized that these objective values are nowhere to be found. They are subjectivists not out of malignance, but because subjectivism is true.

Objective values also aren't found via awakening. Awakening isn't vertical and it doesn't lead to a triune perspective. The illusion of a triune perspective is probably something that people with fragmented minds experience, when they went through a partial awakening and also somewhat connected the fragments of their mind.

I define objective values as Plato believed: Objective values such as truth, good, and beauty, are those that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent on his or her perceptions or beliefs.

Relative or pragmatic beliefs are based on the idea furthered by Protagoras who said "Humans are the measure of all things."

So for Plato, objective values always existed and for Protagoras, humans invent them in accordance with their desires and call them objective values. Which perspective is closer to reality IYO?

[Nick_A]

We've learned in the three day grace period thread that secular Man denies objective value so the value of the cycles of life is determined by "might makes right" and the laws of government.

This is not the standard definition of the word "we".


Values are, by definition, held by people. So "objective values" is an oxymoron for the same reason that something like "objective emotions" is. There have been a lot of topics here in the past on this general theme of "without objective values, or an objective source of morality, we all act like selfish monsters" or similar. The problem, of course, is that the thesis isn't borne out by the actual evidence. Hence, in the "three day grace period" topic of which this topic seems to be a continuation, stuff about infanticide had to be invented in order to support the thesis. i.e. a strawman had to be erected.

Steve, I'm asking you the same question I did Atia: Have objective values always existed as perennial truths independent of Man or do you side with Protagoras and his belief that Man is the measure of all things?

[chewybrian]

There have been a lot of topics here in the past on this general theme of "without objective values, or an objective source of morality, we all act like selfish monsters" or similar. The problem, of course, is that the thesis isn't borne out by the actual evidence. \

Perhaps this reflects poorly on people who think this is the way people are wired, as they could be projecting their own personality out onto the world. Maybe they would like to run amok, if not for rules. In fact, though, I think a lot of people do want to be good. You might say our wiring is neutral, at least.

But, I prefer to believe what Socrates said, despite not being able to prove it. Nobody is purposely evil. We do bad things because we fail to grasp the long term benefits of being good, and chase after the short term temptations of the perceived rewards of being bad. We do a crap job of the calculations in our heads of what will benefit us best. We see the short term payoff right in front of us, and don't correctly judge it against the payoffs that take longer to come to us. We forget about hedonic adaptation, and wrongly assume that the thing in front of us is the worst or the best thing ever.

[Nick_A]

There have been a lot of topics here in the past on this general theme of "without objective values, or an objective source of morality, we all act like selfish monsters" or similar. The problem, of course, is that the thesis isn't borne out by the actual evidence. \

Perhaps this reflects poorly on people who think this is the way people are wired, as they could be projecting their own personality out onto the world. Maybe they would like to run amok, if not for rules. In fact, though, I think a lot of people do want to be good. You might say our wiring is neutral, at least.

But, I prefer to believe what Socrates said, despite not being able to prove it. Nobody is purposely evil. We do bad things because we fail to grasp the long term benefits of being good, and chase after the short term temptations of the perceived rewards of being bad. We do a crap job of the calculations in our heads of what will benefit us best. We see the short term payoff right in front of us, and don't correctly judge it against the payoffs that take longer to come to us. We forget about hedonic adaptation, and wrongly assume that the thing in front of us is the worst or the best thing ever.

Chewybrian you tell me. Are the motivations for abortions of convenience for pragmatic interests essentially the same as genocides for pragmatic convenience? When people have lost awareness of objective values, what is easier than adopting ones own justifiction for killing?

[LuckyR]

There have been a lot of topics here in the past on this general theme of "without objective values, or an objective source of morality, we all act like selfish monsters" or similar. The problem, of course, is that the thesis isn't borne out by the actual evidence. \

Perhaps this reflects poorly on people who think this is the way people are wired, as they could be projecting their own personality out onto the world. Maybe they would like to run amok, if not for rules. In fact, though, I think a lot of people do want to be good. You might say our wiring is neutral, at least.

But, I prefer to believe what Socrates said, despite not being able to prove it. Nobody is purposely evil. We do bad things because we fail to grasp the long term benefits of being good, and chase after the short term temptations of the perceived rewards of being bad. We do a crap job of the calculations in our heads of what will benefit us best. We see the short term payoff right in front of us, and don't correctly judge it against the payoffs that take longer to come to us. We forget about hedonic adaptation, and wrongly assume that the thing in front of us is the worst or the best thing ever.

Chewybrian you tell me. Are the motivations for abortions of convenience for pragmatic interests essentially the same as genocides for pragmatic convenience? When people have lost awareness of objective values, what is easier than adopting ones own justifiction for killing?

One cannot logically equate abortion and genocide motivations. Just because you can write that sentence, doesn't make it so.

[Sculptor1]

Chewybrian you tell me. Are the motivations for abortions of convenience for pragmatic interests essentially the same as genocides for pragmatic convenience? When people have lost awareness of objective values, what is easier than adopting ones own justifiction for killing?

What "objective values".

By definition objectivity is valueless. Objective values is a contradiction in terms.
ALL values are reassessed with time and generations. What was good 100 years ago no longer applies. What is good in the USA is not necessarily good in Ireland, or Saudi Arabia.
This whole thread is a mindnumbing stream of trash.

Whatever values you might have have to be established and argued for as and when they occur. You have to fight your case with what you have, by appealing to emotions and reasons. Cultural norms change and so do opinions.

There is no doubt that feminism is a massive reaction to male domination; institutionalised rape; and the virtual slavery of marriage; lower wages; fewer rights ad infinitem.
Woman have been made to carry children they did not ask for or want. The ancient right of abortion has been removed from them in recent historical times, by MEN.
It should be of no surprise that women want to be able to chose for themselves how their bodies are used.

Hysterical comparisons to genocide, presumably as some attempt at emotional or political motivation are clearly not "objective".
The obvious patritian attitude by which men decide upon the fate of women is not a great line of argument.
It seems to me that bringing a child into the world is a ghreat repsonsibility - one that men rately face at the same level as women. And there should be some things to consider.
NONE of these have objective answers
Why does an overpopulated world need another child?
Was the prgnancy planned and would the bad timing adversely affect the future of a marriage with other future children?
Would forcing a woman to keep the foetus mean an unwanted child?
Can the woman raise the child to the standard of the culture in which she lives?
Does the woman have the mental strehth to bring up a baby on her own?
Would the child suffer from prejudices , such as of colour, bastardy, disability etc.
Would going full term mean the woman suffers physically or mentally?
If the pregnancy is the result of rape, would this bare negatively on the future of the child/mother relationship.

What termination date limits can be reasonably set by society to avoid causing pain to the foetus, and how can these be balanced with other considerations above.

If you can tell me where "objective" fits into any of these, I'll listen and have a giggle.

[Steve3007]

Steve, I'm asking you the same question I did Atia: Have objective values always existed as perennial truths independent of Man or do you side with Protagoras and his belief that Man is the measure of all things?

Since I said in my previous post that, with my word usage at least, "objective values" is an oxymoron, you should be able to work out how I'd answer this question.

In my view, there are things which are true regardless of whether there are any people (men) to define or measure them. So, in that sense man is not the measure of all things. But, by definition, values are not among them because, by definition (or at least the definition that I use), values are about the things that people value. So no people, no values.

But I gather there is debate about what exactly Protagoras meant by "Man is the measure of all things" and whether he actually meant it do be ambiguous. Obviously, taken at face value with no supporting explanation, it could mean various different things, from solipsism to a rejection of the reification of abstractions.

[chewybrian]

Chewybrian you tell me. Are the motivations for abortions of convenience for pragmatic interests essentially the same as genocides for pragmatic convenience? When people have lost awareness of objective values, what is easier than adopting ones own justifiction for killing?

Everyone beat me to it, but, obviously, there are no "objective values". The real world tells us things like might makes right, or the fact that we can benefit from pacts of mutual cooperation and protection. These facts of the world are often in conflict, and the way we rank their importance is purely subjective. Having made these subjective rules, then we can make logical conclusions that follow from the assumptions or opinions. For example, we can prioritize the rights of the mother or the rights of the fetus, and your so-called "objective values" will follow logically. But, logic built upon assumptions and opinions does not shine a path to objective truth. The real truths of the world, like those I mentioned, do not imply anything until we have our own desires, preferences, opinions and such to impose on the situation.

[Pattern-chaser]

Have objective values always existed as perennial truths independent of Man...?

[My highlighting.]

No, they haven't.

Values are, by definition, held by people. So "objective values" is an oxymoron for the same reason that something like "objective emotions" is.

As Steve said, and for the reasons he stated, "objective values" is an oxymoron.

[Nick_A]

Steve and Chewybrian: I will refer to a previous post.

I define objective values as Plato believed: Objective values such as truth, good, and beauty, are those that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent on his or her perceptions or beliefs.

Relative or pragmatic beliefs are based on the idea furthered by Protagoras who said "Humans are the measure of all things."

So for Plato, objective values always existed and for Protagoras, humans invent them in accordance with their desires and call them objective values. Which perspective is closer to reality for you?

Objective values begin with the forms as non material ideas. As they devolve into creation they become fragments or devolved material representations of these ideas which life with the potential for consciousness subjectively interprets and defines as morality. The act of creation and creation itself serves a universal purpose

On the other hand, Protagoras didn't believe in a conscious source or a universal purpose so came to believe that Man is the measure of all things since the universe lacking purpose serves Man.

Man in need of organization from chaos invites the state to establish morality according to its subjective needs,

Since Plato believed that objective values originated with the forms, he believed they could be experienced through a person's conscience when active in Man.

For Plato the universe or the GOOD is the measure of all things we can experience through conscience while for Protagoras, Man is the measure of all things and human meaning and purpose meaning should be decided by the teachings of the state. Two opposing views we see in the world today: Secularism vs Universalism. I side with universalism; how about you

[Nick_A]

So how does the question of universalism and it concern for objective values affect secularism and its pragmatic concerns?

How does secularism appreciate abortions and genocides of convenience? For example millions of Muslims are Being Killed and Tortured in China's “Re-education Camps” Yet the World Continues to Stay Silent About it.

The Jewish Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and the one going on now are all convenient for believers in might makes right. Secularism argues details but has forgotten the big picture or the cyclical cycle of life itself spanning from conception to death. We no longer value it and only argue the pragmatic value of a part of it like the value of a birth.

How many young girls are even aware that they determine the future quality of our species through child birth. A woman of greater inner quality seeks a similar man so carries herself in a way that represents respect for life. Yet advertising teaches to get what you can with the excuse of equality. If men can be idiots, women can be bigger idiots in quest of equality. She has lost her essential purpose.

The modern obsession with fragmentation and specialization moves man further from being able to see the forest for the trees. Man is able to do more and more things but doesn't know what to do. It must result in the ritual of self destruction.

[Atla]

Hello Atia

Most seculars would prefer objective values as well, most of them believed in objective values when they were little and the world seemed a better place. But then they realized that these objective values are nowhere to be found. They are subjectivists not out of malignance, but because subjectivism is true.

Objective values also aren't found via awakening. Awakening isn't vertical and it doesn't lead to a triune perspective. The illusion of a triune perspective is probably something that people with fragmented minds experience, when they went through a partial awakening and also somewhat connected the fragments of their mind.

I define objective values as Plato believed: Objective values such as truth, good, and beauty, are those that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent on his or her perceptions or beliefs.

Relative or pragmatic beliefs are based on the idea furthered by Protagoras who said "Humans are the measure of all things."

So for Plato, objective values always existed and for Protagoras, humans invent them in accordance with their desires and call them objective values. Which perspective is closer to reality IYO?

Objective truth, objective good, objective beauty etc. would make for good objective values. However, the "secular man" could only find subjective versions of them, even though he was searching for objective ones. It's not a matter of preference, but a matter of evidence.