Yes

@Rouqen so material gain is the primary need?

Man needs it to survive and attain happiness

no no @Beemann

Not like money

That's what I think their dichotomy was based off of

Material vs immaterial gain

Nope

I think along the lines of the means to obtain the end

To what end?

There was a question if there is only matter @Beemann

And why should this be a primary?

Ah

I said stronk yes

I thought it was about the dichotomy

You asked about how to obtain happiness or why I believe money is a major factor to gaining happiness.

So happiness is the end

Happiness being the end

Happiness is always the end

If you have a goal

And achieve it

You get happiness

But to say money is a primary in obtaining this would mean reality contradicts this fact as people with money have killed themselves or suffered mentally

Money is not primary to get happy

But thats a result of other factors

But in this society

It is a means

Money is power.... but it's lonely at the top

So arent the other factors to be considered

Money is a means to stability. From the baseline of stability you can pursue higher goals

^

^

Money is only a tool or an objective societal value

Tools are necessary to hitting goals

Man can barter still without money

BREAK THE TREE WITH A FIST @SantaSoc

money is a store of subjective value

RAAAAAAAAWR

its useful because we are lazy

Money is objective in the context of society

Yes @Grenade123

No ill just act like a korean and eat the tree

Pursuing money for its own sake is like pursuing happiness for its own sake. You're not considering the purpose of a thing

No purpose

is it? its value isn't. @Existence is identity

Just a thing

Stuff has no purpose unless you give it purpose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHeJm8roCGQ
gold

Because value is subjective

I hate gold

For example

And silver is way better

Not true. You can choose to not use a hammer for its purpose but it still has one

Whether you use it or not is up to you

I mean a value estimated from the standpoint of the best possible to man, i.e., by the criterion of the most rational mind possessing the greatest knowledge, in a given category, in a given period, and in a defined context (nothing can be estimated in an undefined context). For instance, it can be rationally proved that the airplane is objectively of immeasurably greater value to man (to man at his best) than the bicycle—and that the works of Victor Hugo are objectivelyof immeasurably greater value than true-confession magazines. But if a given man’s intellectual potential can barely manage to enjoy true confessions, there is no reason why his meager earnings, the product of his effort, should be spent on books he cannot read—or on subsidizing the airplane industry, if his own transportation needs do not extend beyond the range of a bicycle. (Nor is there any reason why the rest of mankind should be held down to the level of his literary taste, his engineering capacity, and his income. Values are not determined by fiat nor by majority vote.)

I can give a hammer a purpose of chopping trees

@JohnOakman KEK

not smart

But it can be done

You can choose to use the hammer as such but it's not the purpose of a hammer

In your eyes

Just as the number of its adherents is not a proof of an idea’s truth or falsehood, of an art work’s merit or demerit, of a product’s efficacy or inefficacy—so the free-market value of goods or services does not necessarily represent their philosophically objective value, but only their socially objective value, i.e., the sum of the individual judgments of all the men involved in trade at a given time, the sum of what they valued, each in the context of his own life.

or the drill

She should use a rubber mallet

Perspective

or you know... let the drill do the work

The hammer is designed to hit things, not chop things. It's evident when you use it

@Whithers

smash the wall

faster

its designed to fit a purpose yes

Ok

that's a lot of damage

given by the people

It's designed with a purpose

with enough force you can "cut" a tree down with a hammer

Yes @Beemann

By people

This does not mean, however, that the values ruling a free market are subjective. If the stenographer spends all her money on cosmetics and has none left to pay for the use of a microscope (for a visit to the doctor) when she needs it, she learns a better method of budgeting her income; the free market serves as her teacher: she has no way to penalize others for her mistakes. If she budgets rationally, the microscope is always available to serve her own specific needs and no more, as far as she is concerned: she is not taxed to support an entire hospital, a research laboratory, or a space ship’s journey to the moon. Within her own productive power, she does pay a part of the cost of scientific achievements, when and as she needs them.

with a big enough lever and a good stand point, you can elevate earth

u know

If there was no people nothing would have worth

Wrong btw @JohnOakman

You would need to plant a thing on the sun

hehe

@Rouqen You cannot measure value without context

what

@Whithers semd help

Lmaoing

Market value is societal objectivity

Make russia be sending essays in 30 seconds

Context is again

Given by people

This does not prove its subjective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3iXXmkX3gU

It is

You like when you break limbs? @Existence is identity

It fits its context through a standard using reason

Your

Someone does probably

That would be a contradiction of life and its bodies implications

How

But im talking about societal value not limb breaking

That is out of context

Is gold valuable

<:NPC:500042527231967262> <:NPC:500042527231967262>

Is gold valuable @Existence is identity

Yeah

People make it so

Is iron valuable

das mine:

Like I said this doesnt disprove it

It fulfills a standard

balanced @Coochie coo

Good

except of spiritual

It is in regard to a free market that the distinction between an intrinsic, subjective, and objective view of values is particularly important to understand. The market value of a product is not an intrinsic value, not a “value in itself” hanging in a vacuum. A free market never loses sight of the question: Of value to whom? And, within the broad field of objectivity, the market value of a product does not reflect its philosophically objective value, but only its socially objective value.

But thats just me

https://twitter.com/notch/status/1070436218523987968 (dunno which channel is appropriate for this one)

Context exists mathematically though, so how is it given by people?

Example?

pls

got more egoism, pragmatism and asceticism

It is given by reality but made into a way people can understand it

Gold is worthless

It is not rare

You dont listen

@Rouqen

I mean, by percentages it's pretty uncommon.

I think the global gold supply currently available makes a 50 foot cube.

But please don't do that, a lot of people would get upset.

Objects change properties dependent on when they're measured, basically

I would want to see that @Bookworm

Add enough speed to shit and the measurements change

will look pretty

Just like how you get time dilation

@Rouqen What do you not understand though

it was pretty stable currency for a milenia if we dont count spanish gold rush

You never refuted any of my points

Didnt know this was a debate

Also

Don't your points support me

No

About societal value

The only objective value is energy imo

It proves it is objective in the context of societal value

lmao

Societal is not objective

Lol thats funny

shit

doesn't work

wait

Why delete that?

@Rouqen Oh god

> me

Holy shit, I didn't know Notch was so based

I thought that tweet was fake at first

Notch is based

Notch sits on top of his pile of Fuck You money and BTFOs people

Fuck you money loo

A true capitalist

Notch is what happens when a normal person doesn't have to lie.

Isnt that trump

Notch is a legend

It is in regard to a free market that the distinction between an intrinsic, subjective, and objective view of values is particularly important to understand. The market value of a product is not an intrinsic value, not a “value in itself” hanging in a vacuum. A free market never loses sight of the question: Of value to whom? And, within the broad field of objectivity, the market value of a product does not reflect its philosophically objective value, but only its socially objective value.

By “philosophically objective,” I mean a value estimated from the standpoint of the best possible to man, i.e., by the criterion of the most rational mind possessing the greatest knowledge, in a given category, in a given period, and in a defined context (nothing can be estimated in an undefined context). For instance, it can be rationally proved that the airplane is objectively of immeasurably greater value to man (to man at his best) than the bicycle—and that the works of Victor Hugo are objectivelyof immeasurably greater value than true-confession magazines. But if a given man’s intellectual potential can barely manage to enjoy true confessions, there is no reason why his meager earnings, the product of his effort, should be spent on books he cannot read—or on subsidizing the airplane industry, if his own transportation needs do not extend beyond the range of a bicycle. (Nor is there any reason why the rest of mankind should be held down to the level of his literary taste, his engineering capacity, and his income. Values are not determined by fiat nor by majority vote.)

Most people have it in them to be as pure as Notch.

Notch is pretty great.

Most cannot be.

Trump has to lie sometimes to get deals done.

But Notch has no such ambition.

I am an atheist, but I do also understand that we still haven't found a structure that is better (to fill that void) than what religious tribe has given us... @Rouqen

Notch just one punches everything.

@Rouqen Did you see the message?

@Coochie coo well I mean there's always the structure we had, minus Jesus really. The issue is that social pressure and other structures went too

U mean that giant wall of text @Existence is identity

Yeah

Don't you think we should look towards reforming religion PPP instead of getting rid of a fundamental aspect of the human experience

Why would you reform a metaphysical contradiction?

Destroy everything

thats why secularism is a thing @Dvir

I would rather have a monolatric pluralistic society than a secular one

whats that @Dvir

Lets bring back contradictory tribal concepts

Thats totally not a bad idea

yes I agree with that as well , there was always some sort of religious structure, obviously Jesus only goes back 2 thousand years... theres been thousands of religions@Beemann

@Dvir

Oh I just mean that you can have shared cultural identity without it being tied up in a metaphysical entity

@Existence is identity I see your point. I agree with the airplane thing, but here is a thing
Plane is faster, more energy to use then a bike, because energy is what makes anything. Energy is has true value because it is defined in matter. Gold is defined objectively in the society because of its rarity and nothing else, making it a valid commodity. Speaking from a purely objective point of view nothing has more value then anything else in a material sense. I hope I didn't botch the wording.

The issue is that you need a sort of baseline purpose or people start to get a bit antsy

i personally like the idea of civic nationalism

There are four stances a state can take on religion: theistic, pluralistic, secularistic, and atheistic. A pluralistic society keeps its fundamental religious values while accepting all other religions that share said fundamental moral principles. Monolatry is the belief that the one transcendent God should be worshipped while accepting differentiating views of religion so long as they agree on that shared value.

@Rouqen Id agree but things have to measured by certain standards and context as for everything being the same in reality is still measured by reality

Thus religions like judaism, christianity, hinduism, and others will be able to coexist because they all believe in the the ultimate One God from which all comes from, even if in the case of Hinduism there are multiple deities, all deities are believed to be aspects of the One God.

Sure, but I also have a problem when religion becomes authoritarian, like the catholic church, modern islam today, SJW mind disease, etc... @Dvir

@Coochie coo All of collectivism becomes authoritarian

Lol

That is understandable, but the current ailment of intersectionalism is the result of a lack of moral absolutism, a lack of religious absolutes, thus with the extreme moral relativity within our society a new form of moral absolutism has arisen from the laxity of the society.

but people also want evidence for what they're praying to as well @Dvir

I also give gold and silver more value then iron. Right now I am just being as objective as I can in my judgement of worth @Existence is identity

@Dvir wouldnt that be unreasonable having ONE true religion and also , yea sure you can keep being animist

not all collective groups/ religions have been authoritarian @Existence is identity

@Rouqen Like I said if is consistent with the context and doesnt contradict it is correct. This also means it must refer back to context

What also seems to be incompatible is "we all believe in this one God" and non belief

@Coochie coo The difference between modern collectivism and todays is time

*past

I don't believe God has direct control or influence over the Universe or is a conscious being but I nonetheless believe the concept of God to be an extremely important idea that must be upheld, since it serves as unifier to all the dissonant aspects of reality in a way that simply describing it as the Universe cannot.

like the Amish, the Mennonites

just be spiritualist

Not follow a named god

believe in a supreme being

Nameless

>believe in a supreme being
Nah

I am atheist

So I don't care

Either way

The Übermensch?

Ubermensch is a goal more so than a supreme being

yes

or become atheist and and follow the one true individualism

but perhaps it could be met on a individual level?

I do it @Purple Phoenix

Feels good

Well that's the idea, yes

Ubermensch is an idea not a metaphysical contradiction in the way that god or an ascended diety is

I also believe the human consciousness to be the closest connection in the Universe to God, and that God is an expression of the shared underlying Human consciousness

@Rouqen yea it does

The Ubermensch is part of Nietzsche's post-God outline, basically

@Dvir Humans still have to correspond to laws of reality

its a concept in the philosophy

Our bodies do, but there is an undeniable dissonance between reality and the human consciousness.

No check your premises one is wrong

Also they can evade reality but not the consequences

The consequences still occur outside of the consciousness and are then transmitted back to it.

Since consciousness in itself is a very ephemeral concept and we have yet to quantify it and it is likely we will never be able to quantify it in a conventional manner.

Ewwwww.

Are y'all niggas gettin existential.

Consciousness is not quantifiable.

Well, actually, I suppose that would be wrong.

when I do magic mushrooms, I feel very spiritual, its like I can feel love with my eyes, lol, its in the nature, the clouds and little cutesy buggies on flower petals 🌈

You can count consciousness, but you can't measure its magnitude in concrete amounts.

Count the neurons

Consciousness counted

Mushrooms can mess up senses but it cant change reality

If you have no idea what you're talking about, is that consciousness's fault, or your own?

A single neuron is not conscious

Oh boi

Count the synapses then

A single synapse is not conscious

@Rouqen no i would count the network highways