3 ms·

I couldn't disagree more. The limitations are of the author's rational reasoning, not of rational reasoning itself. You can reason about what brings you pleasu

I couldn't disagree more. The limitations are of the author's rational reasoning, not of rational reasoning itself. You can reason about what brings you pleasure, and make rational decisions to pursue it. The size of the entertainment industry shows the way society is structured can value art. Many big cities still have big green parks. Many strawmen arguments by the author. The author just finally realized that emotions aren't rational relative to the circumstances. That doesn't mean they are beyond rational reasoning. It also doesn't mean society doesn't value them. There's no such thing as society valuing something, there are individual humans making individual decisions. If some of those humans value something, their decisions will reflect that. No such thing as intrinsic value. There's individual humans and their individual decisions in individual situations. Their decisions might not even be consistent, and different humans will make different decisions.

Cornelius267 4y ago
"The limitations are of the author's rational reasoning, not of rational reasoning itself. You can reason about what brings you pleasure, and make rational decisions to pursue it." This is just kicking the can down the road. Why would you want to make a decision to pursue this thing that you decided brings you pleasure? Is pleasure in and of itself reason enough? We know that all logical systems contain true statements that cannot be proven. This is a fundamental feature of all logical systems, so why should we expect that this restriction does not apply to our own internal logical systems? I have recently had a similar realization as the author, and so this resonates with me. No matter what, you are engaging in some sort of ontology, some sort of idea that decides what is and is not, and what defines value. You can either engage with this ontology and critically reflect upon it, or you can pretend that you don't have one and therefore miss things that may otherwise have been evident to you.

Cornelius267 4y ago

"The limitations are of the author's rational reasoning, not of rational reasoning itself. You can reason about what brings you pleasure, and make rational decisions to pursue it." This is just kicking the can down the road. Why would you want to make a decision to pursue this thing that you decided brings you pleasure? Is pleasure in and of itself reason enough? We know that all logical systems contain true statements that cannot be proven. This is a fundamental feature of all logical systems, so why should we expect that this restriction does not apply to our own internal logical systems? I have recently had a similar realization as the author, and so this resonates with me. No matter what, you are engaging in some sort of ontology, some sort of idea that decides what is and is not, and what defines value. You can either engage with this ontology and critically reflect upon it, or you can pretend that you don't have one and therefore miss things that may otherwise have been evident to you.