Bridging the gap: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Bridging the gap » Bridging the gap

Bridging the gap
Is it possible to legitimately dissolve differences in values?

Page: 1 2 3

Bridging the gap

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 129

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:54 AM:	#21
Providing everyone chooses their values for themselves on what they have experienced and learnt then you are fine to argue with that person because they shouldn't believe your answer just because you said it but they should only believe it you have said something that they also find true, from which they will adapt their philosophy accordingly for themself. This isn't negotiation where you try and reach a middle ground. And feel free to argue on emotional and consequential grounds because these are things are what goes towards making your neighbours values. And if they haven't gone towards making your neighbours values, then he won't listen anyway. Now of course you won't believe this just because I have said it. If you choose to believe it, it is because you have chosen to believe it and likewise if you pick just bits from it it is because you have chosen to believe it. This is one of the many problems with the education system in that it expects someone to learn a syllabus through someone else telling them and through an implicit belief in the value of learning.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/01/09 - 11:49 AM:	#22
atightropewalker wrote: Providing everyone chooses their values for themselves on what they have experienced and learnt then you are fine to argue with that person because they shouldn't believe your answer just because you said it but they should only believe it you have said something that they also find true, from which they will adapt their philosophy accordingly for themself. This isn't negotiation where you try and reach a middle ground. And feel free to argue on emotional and consequential grounds because these are things are what goes towards making your neighbours values. And if they haven't gone towards making your neighbours values, then he won't listen anyway. When I said that it moves from philosophical to negotiation, I meant that it moves from intellectual, to pragmatic. These would be the only legitimate venues of discourse for persuasion that I see available. Presupposing honesty, I cannot assert my values above another person without having intellectual grounds, or pragmatic grounds. I can either demonstrate them better, or I must act in accordance with this presumption to sustain my well being. If the former then I would be justified in asserting my values above others who hold opposing ones, even if they do not accept this -- but if the latter, then only negotiation is open to me as an honest means of discourse. Because in negotiation one recognizes the other person's position, and rather than asserting your values above theirs, you merely assert their existence and the consequences of their existence, with respect to their values. Also in doing so, we at least agree to be open to possible malleability of some of our values, if need be. Now of course you won't believe this just because I have said it. If you choose to believe it, it is because you have chosen to believe it and likewise if you pick just bits from it it is because you have chosen to believe it. This is one of the many problems with the education system in that it expects someone to learn a syllabus through someone else telling them and through an implicit belief in the value of learning. Well, I certainly don't believe you that I have a choice in what I believe, or find convincing, at all. Edited by Wosret on 11/01/09 - 03:15 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 129

Posted 11/01/09 - 01:13 PM:	#23
Wosret wrote: When I said that it moves from philosophical to negotiation, I meant that it moves from intellectual, to pragmatic. These would be the only legitimate venues of discourse for persuasion that I see available. Presupposing honesty, I cannot assert my values above another person without having intellectual grounds, or pragmatic grounds. I can either demonstrate them better, or I must act in accordance with this presumption to sustain my well being. If the former then I would be justified in asserting my values above other who hold opposing ones, even if they do not accept this -- but if the latter, then only negotiation is open to me as an honest means of discourse. Because in negotiation one recognizes the other person's position, and rather than asserting your values above theirs, you merely assert their existence and the consequences of their existence, with respect to their values. Also in doing so, we at least agree to be open to possible malleability of some of our values, if need be. I feel you must treat your values as certainty or there is no point in living to your values. But also don't recognise them as absolute. This bit is difficult but I guess is acheived by applying your values as absolute but develop them with uncertainty. You have to assume that at that moment in time your values are best, you should never assume them inferior because then they are not your new values. If you happen to agree on someones point then that is ideal but you should always consider your current values as absolute. I would also say to avoid I'd rather see aiming for the pragmatic. I'd rather see people aim for their ideals and fall into pragmatism where it fails. If you aim for what works you invariably get a sub-standard version of what exists already (you certainly cannot improve it) and I believe that is of no-use to anyone.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/01/09 - 03:02 PM:	#24
Wosret wrote: Presupposing honesty, I cannot assert my values above another person without having intellectual grounds, or pragmatic grounds. I can either demonstrate them better, or I must act in accordance with this presumption to sustain my well being. If the former then I would be justified in asserting my values above other who hold opposing ones, even if they do not accept this -- but if the latter, then only negotiation is open to me as an honest means of discourse. One example is evident in the differing conceptions of justice offered by the utilitarian and Rawls (who assumes a more Kantian theory of value). It seems that Rawls would not be able to convince the utilitarian by appealing to justifications based on his own theory of value, which the utilitarian clearly does not accept. He can, however, appeal to other criterion, e.g., workability. We can not always convince our opposition to adopt our value system, but it is sometimes possible to convince them to abandon theirs. The theory that we can poke the most holes in is usually not the most coherent one.
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/01/09 - 03:26 PM:	#25
What you say is true. I think that when one asserts a value, and their justifications are faulty for holding it, either factually, or deductively -- then we can certainly build a case for why they should abandon it.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.