Replies

You included learning in your reply before, as your intent or goal, I asked “why is learning better than not learning?” You objected at this point. To attempt to overcome your objection: Is learning better than not learning? (to you).

Learning is interesting. Some people watch sports day in and day out, the same game reloaded, because they find it interesting. Is it better to watch sports or not? Better in what sense?

The same thing with learning? Better or worse in what sense? If you are learning all about astronomy and your final is in English literature, than astronomy will not be better for your academic achievement but it may feel 'better' while it lasts because it tickles your fancy, and is entertaining.

That's why I don't label anything as better or worse, or speculate if it matches my 'purpose.'

Thanks for your reply. I'm going out of order. And, again, I'm hoping in part to better communicate terms.

The same thing with learning? Better or worse in what sense? If you are learning all about astronomy and your final is in English literature…

Here, we're describing learning as a conditional value. It's value is dependent upon another. If our goal is graduate (assume that graduate is better than not), then passing the Eng. Lit. final is better than failing (another conditional value) and since learning Astronomy tonight is opposing passing the Eng. Lit. final, then learning Astronomy - tonight - is not better than learning Astronomy.

Here's the hierarchy I'm referring to: learning Eng. Lit. > Passing Eng. Lit > Graduating. Each of the subsidiary values are dependent upon the value of graduating. IF graduating does NOT have value, then the others lose their value.

Conditional values get their name by requiring certain conditions in order to be true.

Again, terms.

So choosing,we we are making choices we are, hopefully, following the logic of: IF I want X, I need to do/choose Y.

Each conditional value can be state as a "because". Shorthand summary in this case could be: Learning is better than not learning because I want to graduate.

But then we reach: Why is graduating better than not? Before I mentioned being frozen if all we had was logic and conditional values. Each time we examine a conditional value we logically find the value we make this conditional upon. If we "because" it, we find the next, then the next. Forever.

IF all we have are conditional values and make our choices purely logically. We never run out of the need for the next "why/because".

This is also a limit of logic or reason. Each "proof" is a reason. And we can ask of each new reason, "why?"

Until we come upon something unconditioned - or assumed or axiomatic, "self-evident", etc.. Which we in certain cases call absolute (or objective.) This is a "just because" (no reason needed).

Whether these absolute values exists, are true, can be known etc., are what we were looking at earlier. I took this road of illustration in hopes of better communicating what I felt I was not communicating well.

Now, your statement: fundamentally it all comes down to feels good-feels bad

To keep with the terms, can we say "feels good" is an absolute value"? Or is it conditional? Is it like learning above? Would you do something that feels bad because it fulfills a higher goal?

It's gets complicated; what does "feels good" mean? I get a shot that "feels bad" but taking care of my health "feels good."

But, take an extreme example: giving one's life painfully for another. Doesn't feel good and eliminates all future feeling good.

You can say he did because to avoid a life of feels bad if he didn't; the ultimate avoidance of "feels bad". But at least we are a level above pure survival instinct and sense gratification.

What of conscience? Does not doing something that hurts your conscience, "feels bad" in this sense, tell us anything about humans? Does it tells us anything about non-conditional values? Is "feeling bad" the cause or the result?

Human values of honesty, charity, compassion… if they feel good, does this remove their value - objectively? If it feels good to someone to lie and steal and be cruel, are these then of equal value to their opposite? Is the truth of any value solely always subjective?

This may be your position. If so, I'd still appreciate your view of what conscience is.

I've gone on too long. Thanks.

I'm not being complete without including a definition of unconditional values. This is of inherent value. Value in themselves without need of condition.

The best way to phrase this is "all other conditions being equal, does it have value"?

In the case of learning before, we looked at various conditions that decide if it has value in this instance. In the case of unconditioned, we assume all these conditions are equal - no greater or lesser value either way. We remove these from affecting learning by assuming them to be equal, balance out, not affect the equation either way.

Then we ask: Does learning have value? Or: is kindness better than cruelty - all other conditions being equal.

If our answer is yes, we are saying it is an unconditioned, or absolute, or objective, value. Whether these exist, can be known, etc... this is helpful to more quickly identify and define what it is we're talking about.