No, not life as an experiment. We're not actually going to live based on arbitrary belief systems and see what happens. We're choosing arbitrary (well, not really) belief systems and then discussing what the logical consequences of them are.

Would it not make sense to use logic in the determination of one's belief system?

If one so choses. Ah, the beauty of freedom.

deleted

What a leap, we are not talking about life here(not directly), where did that come from?
That is why we are trying to find some things we can conclude from them, can be hard in such an abstract framework.
So you love me too
Perhaps they mean that you any one valuing should be valuing things at the intrinsic value(intrinsic as more like universal). Sounds like a realists sense of good. The reference of the wikipedia article seems interesting, although long. (I only read first chapter so far, do not expect you to read it, of course) I think i cannot justify being a realist on this, i consider the (feel-)good subjective. Based on what i associate with certain things. The linked article gives some things that happen to be good in many peoples views in practice, often just things having to do with my instincts. Repeating myself; Not that i am entirely bound by my instincts to determine feel-good, i can imagine having other instincts somewhat.
I can assume creature given freedoms do what gives them feel-good. And people can tell me stuff. god damn :amazed:, a better definition of feel good right in front of me and i did not see it? Maybe i should define feel-good as the things that consciousnesses do given freedoms. That still leaves the weights of consciousnesses or the level of consciousnesses perhaps. Ditch association ditch instincts, consider it a guess of what creatures do when given freedoms. When given freedoms and it is a test do what you want to. (or tell if you can talk) Maybe the problem of defining these things is less intrinsic then i thought.

@Mr. Jaggers: Tut, tut, we are not talking about human nature.

I guess I take philosophy a bit more seriously than some other here. I view the axioms upon which a philosophy is based as being rather important.

Then they should not be so trivialized as to define them as "any set of assumptions".

Perhaps not in the way you are thinking....

Value cannot be "intrinsic". It is relational and contextual. This requires a valuer. Sorry.

@utabintarbo: I am not sure what you mean with there being a valuer.(Sure it is not playing with language?) If physicists say an aspect of some thing intrinsic they mean that that aspect cannot somehow be avoided, without that thing being some other thing, i think that is what they mean. (and that is why they want to merge it with universal value)
For one, definitions should be as simple as possible. Secondly making the definition of an axiom more complex makes assumptions required to define an axiom. Also, some more complicated definition would make axioms harder to handle, and for what purpose? (or are there assumptions required to define an assumption that could be a problem, hehe lets assume it is not a problem )
We are taking it seriously. (ok i am kidding a little here and there, but its clear when) But we are experimenting with logic and assumptions, not life itself. We want to explore options, we will not do so by trying to believe them one by one in real life.

I said "intrinsic" as applied to "value" is meaningless. Intrinsic as applied to physics is a different context, a different meaning. Apples and oranges.

"An irreducible primary that is logically undeniable". What could be simpler than that?

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.

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.
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.
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.

I love burritos from Taco Bell => I value burritos.
value =burritos; valuer=me

Irreducible: Function: adjective
1 : impossible to transform into or restore to a desired or simpler condition <an irreducible matrix>; specifically : incapable of being factored into polynomials of lower degree with coefficients in some given field (as the rational numbers) or integral domain (as the integers) <an irreducible equation>
2 : impossible to make less or smaller <an irreducible minimum>

Primary: Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
1 : something that stands first in rank, importance, or value : FUNDAMENTAL -- usually used in plural

Does that help?

As I stated, bad axioms have real-life consequences. I tend to have an issue with them. Sorry to ruin your fun.

Apparently the sarcasm did not get through. Likely an ESL issue.

Yes, they do. But how do we know they're bad? By discussing them. That's the point.

In what ways can an axiom be bad?
1) Inconsistent
Example: I believe God exists AND I believe God does not exist. Those cannot both be true, unless you attach some kind of weird meaning to them. Inconsistent system. Sometimes, we can come up with a system that does not appear to be inconsistent, but upon further investigation we find that it is. This is useful.

2) Leads to bad actions
Example: I believe that utabintarbo really is an eater of souls and further that he is coming to eat my soul next. Logically this would lead me to remove utabintarbo from existence, which would be bad for him. Again, sometimes we cannot see the end result of a belief system immediately. Discussion of the logical progression from it can reveal possible ill effects from the belief system. This is also useful.

Suppose we have some statement that seems like a nice thing to believe. It is good for us to discuss said statement so that we can determine whether it conflicts with other beliefs that we have, or whether it would lead us to do something onerous.

If we take axiom to mean something we believe but have not proved, then we all have hundreds of them subconsciously. It is a worthy goal to bring subconscious things into conscious thought so that they may be dealt with reasonably.

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)
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?

Perhaps i should try an axiom defining spree: An Axiom is any assumption that can not be split into two axioms that are together equivalent.(single clause) (and therefor cannot contradict itself, nor can any part of it be derived from another part)
A set of axioms is "reasonable" if:
- None contradict each other
- None can be derived from each other.
It might be very hard to prove these properties, so maybe we should criticizing by disproving rather then demanding proof? (how about the definition itself is it agreeable?)
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?)
Sorry for the ESL problems. I tried to find some sarcasm modules, but could only find proprietary ones.)

Basic is a good definition. I think in his definition he was drawing attention to the fact that they come first in order, not that they have importance. You must start with these, therefore we call them primary. Does that help?

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".

It should be a fundamental fact. And yes, lex parsimoniae applies.

No. Please don't. We already seem to have too many definitions muddying up this topic.

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.

I had meant ESL in the "English as a Second Language" sense. Or else your OSS sarcasm module works fairly well after all.

If they must come first, that kinda implies they are important, no?

Maybe in "intrinsicism" the 'universe' or 'god' is the valuer. Well, i believe that things might have values without us, as bits in my computer have values true/false while I do not know which. What i do not think is that we can not absolutely be sure about any of those values. (hence unrealism)
Why would one want to state in the definition that it is the first one? If the definitions do not rely on each other, the order does not make any sense. I think the definitions so far do rely on the definitions of assumption though. Sometimes a definition and axiom go together, like there is such thing definable as <lots possible here>.
Hehe, I take the opposite view; there are to many definitions outside this thread, and much of our debating is to try to clarify which definitions we are using. I am trying to state them as clearly as i can. For example, can we use Occam's razor on the naming of Lex parsimoniae?

I agree that ethics requires some assumptions about the nature of our interactions. Ethics axioms are like goals, from which sub-goals are derived. You assume them as goals so they can function as axioms from which you can derive what you should do. From my perspective, what you are implicitly claiming is that what our goals should be derivable from metaphysics.
Mathematics also has things that cannot be proven, which i would consider 'second floor'. Like wether there is an set with cardinality between that of the natural numbers and the real numbers.

English is my second language, is it noticeable in my writing? I feel the spell-checker fools with me sometimes. Sorry for claiming you did not think enough before posting. I must remind myself that most people on this forum are stubborn bastard, including me.

If those 1's and 0's switched around a bit, you would recognize the value you put on them.

I don't believe I need to go into the "'universe' or 'god'" thing.

I'm sorry. I wanted to link to wikipedia for lex parsimoniae. That may have clarified a bit. My bad.

And epistemology.

And why do you insist on alway bringing mathematics into the discussion. Mathematical axioms <> philosophical axioms.

It is noticeable, though not problematically so. Eventually the point gets through.

Oh, and I love you too.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily, all other 'sins' are invented nonsense.

--Robert A. Heinlein