5 ms·
>I think there is a dangerous mysticism in this idea of the immeasurable, incomparable, and unfalsifiable value judgement. In what sense is it dangerous and in
by frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>I think there is a dangerous mysticism in this idea of the immeasurable, incomparable, and unfalsifiable value judgement.
In what sense is it dangerous and in what sense is it mysticism?
It's actually kind of an interesting philosophical question, I linked to some background reading at the end of this post.
>Saying "my values are so complex that they cannot be reasoned about" is anti-intellectualism dressed up as profundity; it's nothing more than an excuse to stop trying to understand.
It's not anti-intellectual, it's a different intellectual viewpoint from yours.
>Oh, sure, rational thinking is great for measuring laser waves or whatever, but can you reason about the beauty of a sunset, the warmth of a lover's embrace, the blissful confusion of waking from a nap on a summer afternoon?
This isn't an anti-rational viewpoint.
[1] https://philpapers.org/archive/CHAIAI-2.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/CHAIAI-2.pdf
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-incommensurable/#ValInc https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-incommensurable/#Va...
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/#Inc https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/#Inc
[4] http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674447561 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674447561
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> It's not anti-intellectual, it's a different intellectual viewpoint from yours. It is anti-intellectual, in the sense that it posits a separate magisterium of things "too complex to reason about" (or sometimes, "too profound to dare and reason about") and asks to give up the attempt. That way lies supernatural.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoDo you think humans can gain omniscience using the scientific method?
- TeMPOraL 9y agoNo. Though I am implying that we can get asymptotically close to omniscience (to the extent it's allowed by physics; full omniscience would probably have infinite energy requirements anywy) through the systems we build - which include mental frameworks, organizational structures and computing devices.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoSo then if we will always fall short of omniscience, why should we always seek it in everything we do?
- TeMPOraL 9y agoBecause it doesn't matter that you can't walk a hundred million light years, if your goal is 5 meters away from you.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoSo why train for a hundred million light year race when you're already standing in front of the finish line? Why try to find an objective scientific/monetary measurement of the value of a subjective experience like the warmth of a lovers embrace when you can feel it directly and immediately?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoExcept our goal here is how to measure the worth of your own life. That's a lot more like "a hundred million light years" than it is "5 meters away." We've literally been trying for millennia to evaluate what 'the good life' is and are probably not that much closer than when we started.
- saghm 9y agoMaybe their goal doesn't requiring reasoning about the beauty of a sunset?
- jack9 9y ago"too complex to reason about" strikes me as a layman's way of lumping overlapping subjective and objective valuations together. I believe "too complex" is a way to describe this and, ironically, an accurate objective statement. http://maverikeducation.blogspot.com/2014/03/difficulty-vs-complexity-whats.html http://maverikeducation.blogspot.com/2014/03/difficulty-vs-c...
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago>>I think there is a dangerous mysticism in this idea of the immeasurable, incomparable, and unfalsifiable value judgement. >In what sense is it dangerous and in what sense is it mysticism? Mysticism is dangerous because it challenges the status quo ideal of extreme materialism; that your worth as a human being is defined by the size of your bank account. E.g. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
- AstralStorm 9y agoNot really. Mysticism (in this unquantifiable form) does not challenge anything. It is instead based on acceptance that things are out of your control therefore not worth to quantify in quality or to judge. A real mystic of this kind would practice a strong version of fate or destiny principle which essentially makes free will irrelevant. To judge is to measure and quantify (or classify) in a less strict way.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoMystics are spiritualists by definition, which is opposed to materialism.