Announcement

**GeneralTacticus** · February 13, 2003, 06:03

"Knights of the Coconuts"?

**GeneralTacticus** · February 13, 2003, 06:11

But this is a prime example of a value based decision !

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, pretty much everything we do is values based. Our values shape the way we percieve the world, and the way we percieve the world is what we abse our decisions on.

**Jamski** · February 13, 2003, 06:20

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
But as I have repeatedly pointed out, pretty much everything we do is values based. Our values shape the way we percieve the world, and the way we percieve the world is what we abse our decisions on.

And I have never disagreed with this. Most of the decisions we make are either subconcious (instinctive, automatic etc) or value based. We, the human race, make very few actuall rational decisions. Do you really claim that a decision based on a value judgement is a rational one? Sure, it may be rational to choose the "best" option, but the decision as to which is "better" or "worse" is a values question.

And what's wrong with kokonuts?

-Jam

**GeneralTacticus** · February 13, 2003, 06:23

But what's not rational about making a decision based on your values, provided that said values make sense? Your values are the base from which you make your decision, which can then be rational or not.

EDIT: And there's nothing wrong with coconuts, just the idea of "Knights of the Coconuts" is something I find very funny. Sounds like something Terry Pratchet or Douglas Adams would have come up with.

**Jamski** · February 13, 2003, 06:34

Well having not seen the movie yet, I guess I'll find out tonight what the coconut thing is all about.

But what's not rational about making a decision based on your values, provided that said values make sense?

1.) Values are a matter of opinion.
2.) Opinion has no place in a rational argument
3.) Who decides what makes sense?

Example : A Christian has a set of (moral?) values. These are derived from his opinions (religious beliefs). For him these values make perfect sense. For us he is talking rubbish.

-Jam

**GeneralTacticus** · February 13, 2003, 06:38

1.) Values are a matter of opinion.

Of course.

2.) Opinion has no place in a rational argument

Opinion is what rational arguments are all about. Unsupported or illogical opinion has no place, though.

3.) Who decides what makes sense?

In order to make sense, it has to be consistent, logical, and based on something that's objectively true.

Example : A Christian has a set of (moral?) values. These are derived from his opinions (religious beliefs). For him these values make perfect sense. For us he is talking rubbish.

Because he has faith in a god, while we don't.

**Jamski** · February 13, 2003, 06:48

Sorry, my mistake.

2.) Opinion does not make a rational argument.

quote:
3.) Who decides what makes sense?

In order to make sense, it has to be consistent, logical, and based on something that's objectively true.

So who decides this? The problem with many discussions is that the parties cannot agree on an objective truth (Consider the Hindu idea of truth as an elephant described by a group of blind men)

Because he has faith in a god, while we don't.

Thank God

-Jam

**GeneralTacticus** · February 13, 2003, 06:52

2.) Opinion does not make a rational argument.

Of course not, so ti requries a rational argument to prov eit, then it is a rational argument

Seirosuly, because all argument is ultimately based on opinion, saying that nothing base don opinion is acceptable means that you are essentially a nihilistic sollipsist (sp?).

So who decides this? The problem with many discussions is that the parties cannot agree on an objective truth (Consider the Hindu idea of truth as an elephant described by a group of blind men)

Objective truth is usually defined as soemthing that can be seen, or that can be demonstrated either physically or with a thought experiment.

**Jamski** · February 13, 2003, 07:09

Yes, I'm probably pretty nihilistic when it comes down to the bone. We can't really prove anything unless we start from a shared set of assumptions. That's really what Wittgenstein is all about with his endless numbered paragraphs, just trying to establish some kind of "logical" assumptions to base the rest of the arguments on. I mean, he starts with a real big one :

"Everything that is the world, is the case"

and builds up to

"One does not survive the Death"

But we can generally agree on most of our assumptions, I hope. We have to assumme, for the sake of this discussion, that we have free will, that we are capable of rational thought, that the laws of Physics hold, that we can trust that what we percive with our senses is an accurrate representation of what actually is, and so on. Without these, and other, assumptions, we would not be able to live. But we cannot "prove" these thing rationally. Are we then in the same situation as the Blind Faith Christian? I say not. We know (I hope) that much of what we "believe" is an assumption which allows us to comprehend the world we (may) live in.

With this in mind can we agree on an assumption that :
"It is in general not a rational act to take the life of a human being, although the act may be rationalised depending upon one's values concerning one's own life against the life of other people"

Would you sign your name to that?

-Jam

**GeneralTacticus** · February 13, 2003, 07:10

With this in mind can we agree on an assumption that :
"It is in general not a rational act to take the life of a human being, although the act may be rationalised depending upon one's values concerning one's own life against the life of other people"

Would you sign your name to that?

Yes, I would.

**Jamski** · February 13, 2003, 08:00

Wonderful.

Shall we proceed?

*looks at the time*

-Jam

**GeneralTacticus** · February 13, 2003, 08:02

10 past 11 PM here. We'll have to carry on tommorow.

**Maniac** · February 13, 2003, 11:14

Originally posted by War of Art
Yes, I'm probably pretty nihilistic when it comes down to the bone. We can't really prove anything unless we start from a shared set of assumptions.

Everything is probably relative.

that we can trust that what we percive with our senses is an accurrate representation of what actually is,

**Jamski** · February 14, 2003, 03:48

Its just an assumption. Nothing is really real.

-Jam

**Cedayon** · February 14, 2003, 14:08

Originally posted by War of Art
Its just an assumption. Nothing is really real.

The necessary and logical nigh-solopsist conclusion from such premises.

Announcement

The Everlasting CCCP !

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment