Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84  But one could (somehow) believe that it is intrinsic that burritos should be loved, i think that is what they mean. I think it stems from the idea that humans nearly all like some kind of food, and nearly all like sex, and people think there is something underneath that that is universal. But i think that is the realism side of the story, and i do not believe that. (some things people among humans like are very common, though) |
But then that "one" would be the valuer. Intrinsicism requires (by definition) that a thing have value
in-and-of-itself, without regard to the presence of a valuer. I don't see how this is possible, in that the act of "valuing" is a conscious act of a volitional being. This is differentiated from a "universal" value (ie. everybody likes burritos) in that the valuer is all people included in "everybody".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 Thanks for explaining the wording, yes it helps.  How does this work in "An irreducible primary that is logically undeniable"? Your definition of 'primary' seems to relate to importance. I think something like "not derived from or reducible to something else; basic; "a primary instinct"" from googling define primary would be closer. Does it in this context mean something like that the axiom should not have stuff on it it does not need? |
It should be a fundamental fact. And yes,
lex parsimoniae applies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 Perhaps i should try an axiom defining spree: ... |
No. Please don't. We already seem to have too many definitions muddying up this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 So we are not even allowed to talk about them? Understanding people with axioms we consider bad may help use convince them to those we consider good. But then again, maybe we are wrong ourselves, maybe there is an axiom that is better then we are considering. (What axioms do you chose? You still think those three are the only ones possible? What about the ethics-axioms?) |
I didn't say that they should not be discussed. But if they are, expect that they will not merely be accepted with no criticism. I have my views on the subject. I will express them. This should not be a surprise by now.
The concept of "ethical axioms" makes no sense. Ethics is a higher-order form of philosophical undertaking. It is dependent on one's metaphysics and epistemology. Having an "ethical axiom" is akin to putting a foundation on the second floor of the house. It's bad engineering of a philosophical system.
"Ethical axioms" are simple shorthand rules for those unable to or uninterested in delving into the rather more complicated aspects of philosophy. See the "Ten Commandments" for an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 Sorry for the ESL problems. I tried to find some sarcasm modules, but could only find proprietary ones.) |
I had meant ESL in the "English as a Second Language" sense. Or else your OSS sarcasm module works fairly well after all.
