Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo I said "intrinsic" as applied to "value" is meaningless. Intrinsic as applied to physics is a different context, a different meaning. Apples and oranges. |
Maybe the people naming it "intrinsic value" meant the physics-definition then. (seems like the math and physics definitions of stuff is people-count-wise prevalent here.) I still do not get what you mean with "valuer".
The definition "An irreducible primary that is logically undeniable" does not define irreducable, nor primary, nor are those words plain English. My definition would rather be "An assumption, which does not conflict with itself", and demand that if someone takes a set of axioms to be true:
-None of them conflict. (you mean this with logically undeniable?)
-None of them follow from each other.(which does not mean they may not depend on eachother) (irreducible to you?)
And perhaps simplicity, no fluff where not needed.(irreducible to you?) Problem with that is, that a "fluffy" axiom can possibly not be split in multiple axioms while still giving an equivalent statement. It would be an assumption to assume that you can always split axioms when they are "fluffy", one that i do not want to make at the point of defining axioms. If i would want to assume that, i would do that seperately of the definition of axioms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo One's axioms determine one's metaphysics and epistemology. These form the foundation of a philosophy (implicit or explicit) which has ethical and political ramifications. Consequently (and I am over-simplifying greatly here for brevity), one's axioms ultimately determine if they have a problem with sticking a gun in my ribs. That's important to me. It should be to you, as well. |
Of course that is important.(eh you think life is an important contest then
, or are you backing off on that?) As I said, we were only hypothetically exploring axioms and consequences, and not in real life.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jasper84 So you love me too | Perhaps not in the way you are thinking.... |
I am getting the fear that you love me for replying shallowly dragging the discussion down. Are you thinking enough before posting?
Often you just quote someone else with a negative remark along. Like you did not explain with "a value implying a valuer" at all when asked. If someone disagrees, barking what he said wrong at them does not exactly helps. So please explain some things you said.
