Value ontology is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Quote (by me)
Satyr: Have you ever studied value ontology, it's the stupidest thing I ever heard. There are 2 kinds of people, people who are so stupid they can only comprehend the world on the simplest level. Like liberals, people who believe in equality etc, everything has to be simplified to the most basic form, if everyone is not "equal" it's "evil", why because equality is the simplist thing their mind can comprehend.

And there's other people, like JJ, who the world is simply not enough. It is not enough to simply explore the world, they have to make everything more confusing than it already is, in order to sound intelligent and entertain themselves, and turn everything into complex bullshit. And this is the kind of shit like Value Ontology. What are your thoughts of Value Ontology?

Me:

"The problem JJ has is he is not that intune with his emotions.
His value-ontology fails because it is very wispy and cloudy.
Personally, I don't have the brain stamina to read all of his walls of texts.
I dont think his value-ontology discovers any new truths about the universe, just makes the universe more confusing to understand.
But I can't actually argue with him, because he will bombard me with walls of text that I don't have the stamina to read.
You see, value refers to a mental emotion, an emotion that something is valuable.
Or, it refers to a mathematical system or logic that determines something has some future utility.
It is different from molecular bonds. Rock molecules are not self-valuing nor do they value anything."

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

I just got a warning from the mods, for defending myself after JJ visciously attacks and insults me for no reason.

Such equality.

[James S Saint]

I just got a warning from the mods, for defending myself after JJ visciously attacks and insults me for no reason.

Such equality.

At ILP??

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

I just got a warning from the mods, for defending myself after JJ visciously attacks and insults me for no reason.

Such equality.

At ILP??

Who knew.

[iambiguous]

I just got a warning from the mods, for defending myself after JJ visciously attacks and insults me for no reason.

Such equality.

Clearly, in forums such as this, moderation "in reality" becomes intertwined in enforcing "the rules" and the politics embedded in the reactions of particular moderators to the opinions of particular posters.

It's not an exact science in other words.

Now, any number of folks have been banned here because, by and large, they were unable to contain themselves in the way of curtailing the huffing and puffing and the name-calling.

Objectivists by and large who, for all practical purposes, felt compelled to fulminate against any and all conflicting objectivists who dared to insist that it was in fact their own "general description" of human interactions that really Explained Everything.

So, in order to sustain this psychological compulsion to make that crucial distinction between "one of us" and "one of them", they would [over and over and over again] "go too far".

They would, for all intents and purposes, "go berserk" against their own rendition of the "retards"

And then they were gone. Reduced to contributing nothing at all.

Thus they really need ask themselves if it was worth it?

Better perhaps to "play the game" politically and continue to post than to rant and rave, get booted, and claim that their own ranting and raving was being "picked on".

Well, unless of course I'm wrong.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Ranting and raving is fine, according to the vague and somewhat flexible rules, as long as I don't directly rant and rave too hard on another person.

If my rant and rave is intellectually targetting, ranting against their philosophy, not so much as targetting their personhood, then it's generally acceptable.

Futhermore, I'm generally allowed to insult people, who aren't part of the forums, but not allowed to directly insult other members for no good reason.

But you know, some people are allowed to break the rules and some people aren't. Some people are allowed to have self-defense in some states, and in other states you go to prison for trying to defend yourself from an attacker.

[Mr Reasonable]

Consider yourself lucky. There's way stupider shit out there that you might have heard. If this ontology is the studidest thing you've ever heard then you should be glad.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Consider yourself lucky. There's way stupider shit out there that you might have heard. If this ontology is the studidest thing you've ever heard then you should be glad.

I'll take your word for it, my brain can only take so much.

[Mr Reasonable]

Go and sit in a hipster bar with some headphones on so no one thinks youre listening, amd eavesdrop on random hipster conversations. You'll be so ready to come back and talk about this ontology it'll blow your mind.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Go and sit in a hipster bar with some headphones on so no one thinks youre listening, amd eavesdrop on random hipster conversations. You'll be so ready to come back and talk about this ontology it'll blow your mind.

As much as I hate 'em, when I'm at cafe's, all the hipsters I see are doing architecture and building things with their fancy computers.

[Mr Reasonable]

Yeah they suck.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Yeah they suck.

Even so, the fate of the world is in their hands.

Scary to think about.

[Mr Reasonable]

I think the fate of the world is in the hands of the banks.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

I think the fate of the world is in the hands of the banks.

Banks and hipsters aren't mutually exclusive, ya' know.

[Mr Reasonable]

True.

[iambiguous]

Ranting and raving is fine, according to the vague and somewhat flexible rules, as long as I don't directly rant and rave too hard on another person.

No, on the wrong person. Even if only subconsciously [in this human--all--too--human world], moderators will tend to be more lenient towards those they are generally in agreement with with regard to any actual substance in the post.

So, if making your point is important [and you're not just in Kid mode], you have to play the game.

Look at folks like Satyr. He pretends to feel nothing but disdain for the "retards" here, but he must know how foolish he was to self-destruct over and again. He would like nothing better than to be "lecturing" us here. If only because there are so many more people who would read his stuff. But [invariably] he becomes incensed when others [either conflicting objectivists or folks like me] refuse to think about everything in exactly the same manner in which he does.

He can't help himself: huffing and puffing, he fulminates contemptuously to or about the "morons" that ubermen qua "serious philosophers" of his ilk must contend with.

It's all about the "psychology of objectivism" in my view.

In fact, the irony regarding KT is that what gets you dumped into the dungeon isn't the huffing and puffing so much as refusing to kowtow substantivey to Satyr's gene/meme narrative.

But, to their credit, you are much less likely to be banned from the forum. The dungeon is something that I would like to see installed here as well.

But you know, some people are allowed to break the rules and some people aren't. Some people are allowed to have self-defense in some states, and in other states you go to prison for trying to defend yourself from an attacker.

Yes, exactly!

Welcome to the real world.

Again, if you have opinions about things that you would genuinely like to convey to others [and are not just in here venting or scapegoating others for all the other shit in life that pisses you off] you have to be willing to accommodate the politics.

Now, that doesn't work all the time, true. Otherwise Postmodern Beatnik would not have "banned me for" life here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

But, at most forums, it's still the best of all possible worlds.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Well I tried to enter the forums, it let me login on my old account, but it won't let me view anything. It just says "You do not have permission to view this section of the site." I never broke any rules, and I never got a message saying I was banned or anything.

Shouldn't a philosophy forum like, make most threads available to the public and not perpetuate ignorance?

[Magnus Anderson]

Now, that doesn't work all the time, true. Otherwise Postmodern Beatnik would not have "banned me for" life here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

That's a dead forum.

People who used to post on it moved here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/

Maybe you should try posting there?

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Now, that doesn't work all the time, true. Otherwise Postmodern Beatnik would not have "banned me for" life here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

That's a dead forum.

People who used to post on it moved here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/

Maybe you should try posting there?

Ugh, looks like the new forum catered to the whole Hipster style. Also, how will I show threads from the old forums, I want to read them but now I can never read them.

I hate the hipster style, I like this style this is my style.

This is my style:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKGydWrGEjc

This is the hipster style:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCBSSwgtg4

I HATE THE HIPSTER STYLE!!!!

[Alf]

Value ontology is the stupidest thing ....

Stupidest, yes, but also most narcissistic, most solipsistic, most nihilistic.

I just got a warning from the mods, for defending myself after JJ visciously attacks and insults me for no reason.

Such equality.

According to the narcissistic and homosexual VO "god", a stone is a cow, a planet a bacterium, ... and an insult a part of his meal for his narcissism ..., and all this just because this solipsistic nihilist has said so.

So to him, equality means and has the same function as everything else: supporting and mirroring his maniac delusion that he is in agreement with himself.

Vanity Occultism. "I am God, and the Reality is My Mirror"!

Vanity_Occultism.jpg (35.15 KiB) Viewed 1374 times

I just got a warning from the mods, for defending myself after JJ visciously attacks and insults me for no reason.

Such equality.

At ILP??

Yes, at the "liberal" and "egalitarian" ILP.

[Anomaly654]

I have not heard of value ontology before reading this thread, so did a quick google just now and found this definition on some other board:

Value ontology is the interpretation of "being"/"the world" as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by "valuing", that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.

Value ontology therefore refers to a logical circularity that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure.

The theory explains why what exists exists and persists through time, by making it evident that whatever does not have a "self-valuing" (such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.

My question to UP1001 [assuming the definition above is agreeable] is 'what do you find 'stupid' about this view? This is the first and to date only brush I've had with the concept, so understand I am doubtless missing a lot. But from my thinking the definition above could be describing anything from a modification of evolutionary theory to that of a design argument to support the existence of God. What am I missing?

[Mr Reasonable]

Is the liberal egalitarian thing something ILP claims to be? Or is it something that someone else claims ILP to be?