Meaning what? That everyone has them? Or that everyone has the SAME feelings? Please explain.
Yeah, me too. I thought maybe he went on vacation or something. As much as he dished out, I would have thought he could take a little bit of less-than-gentle response.
I like that. What about you, Jasper? I had skimmed through the posting of the german law, so I caught that. It's a good phrasing.

By this I mean that everything experiences feelings (pain, ect.), but not necessarily from the same stimulus. But for this to true, you must be able to separate sensory feelings, from things like pride and success ect. which arises from cognitive thinking (and therefore is not universal. Maybe thats and axiom...

AXIOM: All feelings or actions that arise from cognitive thinking are not universal. (Kinda like the unpredictability theory, watching someone, even if they don't know, can change their actions)

#1 - It's all so simple

#2 - Your beliefs are the filters that shape your reality. If you change your beliefs, you change your reality.

Hi.... my first post here. I was killed in a car accident in 2001 and "came back" spontaneously after about 15-20 minutes (by the best estimates of the first responders I spoke with). They were working on getting the other guy out of his car.... he was alive... when someone saw me move.

That incident changed my life in profound ways.

We humans tend to complicate the hell out of everything. Have fun. It is what it is.

I was unaware that you were elected to speak for the group. One would think they would have made a better choice.

Perhaps it was unclear (my apologies if so), but the only thing I provisionally conceded is that "Things that cannot be proven wrong need not be true." The second clause you quoted "These can neither be refuted nor denied" answers why they should still be considered axioms.

Define "dignity" and "inviolable". From whence comes this "intrinsic" value? Value to whom?

Think much of yourself, eh?

Life sometimes intervenes. Besides, I find nothing here scary. Least of all, you.

Offer of proof?

The unpredictability theory, as stated here, is an example of something irrefutable not necessarily being true. There is no way to test this, one way or the other.

Welcome.

Wishing you "Good Luck" seems kinda unnecessary at this point.

@utabintarbo: heh i was part-but-not-entirely-joking about you being scared i guess. You did a similar thing implying we were threatened. (btw i will have to go over what you said earlier, bit confused about that now, and that time thing) I am pretty scared of those glowing eyes!
@reiki: You have a point though. Seems off topic, since it is about why you should discuss philosophy in the first place. I you wish to, make a thread. We are way to intelectual to have fun.
Does that axiom say anything at all? not-universal -> actions arising from cognitive thinking could be anything. Maybe saying they are different in each consciousness says something but for what use?
Actually, I personally do not like that idea at all. As i said earlier should i look down all day to prevent me killing ants by standing on them? The dignity of life is already covered by the feel-good ethics axioms in my view. Different consciousnesses having different weights of importance in feel-good and all. (Hmm maybe i should note that feel-bad of a creature is "negative" feel-good) I have the feeling that maybe you are constructing the feel-good axiom without knowing it yet, because maybe later, you will argue that you value human life more than a rats, and a rats more then a ants life. In other words giving them weights.
He posted bits of the German law earlier, and as a law it is pretty well thought out. (holy shit Sherlock :-p, it is a constitution ) But not as actual axioms. And i think there are pretty good reasons to keep it that way, even if there was some kind of consensus about axioms. (like people deluding or using ill logic themselves as to what the conclusions should be, as talked about earlier.)
Although i do not like it as an axiom, as i said above, I think that this issue is the same as the one that good and feel-good has. It is probably intrinsic to ethics-axioms that this problem turns up somewhere.

have these words multiple meanings in english?

sorry, I don't know what you mean, could you please use some easier terms?

No, not really.
Intrinsic_value_(ethics) Actually, his question makes no sense. "From where comes this value that comes from within?" The term "intrinsic value" suggests that it has value for its own sake, and then he asks for who's sake it has value.

I sense that this question is designed to make a point. Would you care to make your point explicitly?

About that definition of dignity, at #40, http://socialdiscussion.com/religion...html#post62519
I replied to similar criticism on good and feel-good (ethics-arguments), my summary #63 might be a little to short on that. My answer was basically to admit that those are not really answered, but what we associate with being (feel-)good, is used as what is good. I do not think referring to a definition in dictionaries is anywhere near satisfying. It will probably use some other undefined words. and making a set of axioms, you need to actually know how to give definition yourself, or an excuse why there is no definition. (I think i am forced to define feel-good so inconclusively because i do not see any way out) (btw still do not like that axiom about human dignity, see my above post) (looks like what i am talking about is similar to that intrinsic value link, maybe ill read that later)
(whitespace modified)
He is presenting it as an axiom, silly, does not need to prove it. Or are you still using your old definition of an axiom, in #63 i suggested "defining an axiom any assumption. Anyone can assume any set of axioms (s)he believes do not contradict.", hmm i should have added that they should not follow from each other either.(but that does not mean they do not rely on each other) BTW never heard of unpredictability theory before.
I still do not dig that axiom, you mean something like: You cannot predict what feelings or actions follow from thinking. Eh, do I know what others think in the first place? And why add the word "cognitive", might aswel just say thinking.

Actually, I am interested in how this "intrinsic value" was determined to exist. I also have an issue with the very concept of "intrinsic value", in that the term "value" implies a valuer, yet the term "intrinsic" implies that a valuer is unnecessary. It seems oxymoronic.

So any assumption is equally valid as an axiom? Proof is unnecessary? Bah! Why bother?

Because it is interesting to see the consequences of some given set of assumptions.

Do you have value?

Life as an experiment? To what end? For whose benefit?

I do. To myself and those who value me.