Ah, you edited. Makes things a bit easier.

First, about pursuing riches being rational and meaningful. For that, we have to start at the end.

Life is temporally limited. Chances of dying probably are 100%, if you look at past results. Since one can't assume the unknown, all we have for sure (for sure being a very relative concept) is one single lifetime.
We can now take three routes; we can either say that there are no valuable things, and thus that that single lifetime has no value, nor do the things one does with it, we can say that only things without temporal limitation are valuable (may seem like an odd idea, but it can be defended rather well with some elaborate reasoning), and thus that that single lifetime has no value, nor do the things one does with it, or one could go with the most popular route.
The popular route, ofcourse, holds that there are valuable things, that a single lifetime is valuable, and that the things one does with his single lifetime are valuable as well.

If one holds that a life is valuable, and that the things one does with it are valuable as well, there are two possible positions. Either the value of life is solely intrinsic to life itself, or it is not. If it is, it does not matter what one does with it. If it isn't, apparently actions are valuable as well. In this case, it only matters what one does if actions have different values.

Let's assume that different actions do have different values, and that it does matter what one does. If we do this, we have a problem. On what do we base the values? If we base the values on the actions themselves, we are playing a game of randomness, hardly an option for deciding on real values.
So, let's choose an alternative - let's base the values of actions on the results of those actions. This at least gives us the possibility to come up with non-random values.

One possibility is to say happiness is the ultimate value. One could very well argue that hapiness is intrinsically valuable. After all, it's the one thing which feels good for everyone. In that case, however, one would be forced to admit that the happiness of others is just as valuable as that of oneself. After all, there is no objective reason to consider oneself more important than others. In this case, the pursuit of riches for oneself would be irrational and without value (or at least with relatively little value), since it is very clearly not the best way to create happiness for humanity as a whole. So, let's look at some other options.

One could, after a drinks, say that money and material possessions are intrinsically valuable. That would just be silly, though, since it would once again be completely random. One may just as well say that lack of money and material possessions are intrinsically valuable, and that humans should therefore pursue those things. One could even say the same thing about venerial diseases, for that matter, with the same (complete lack of) arguments.

But what about hedonism? Maybe the pleasures wealth brings are valuable? At least, if one says that they are valuable in themselves, and not because of the potential happiness they bring. This position faces the same problems as considering happiness the ultimate value: there is no reason to place more value in one's own pleasure than in that of others, and pursuing riches would most definitely not be the best way to bring pleasure to humanity... or oneself for that matter. Even a heroin addiction would probably do a better job at that.

One way to giving value to the pursuit still remains open, namely that of social approval. There is no doubt as to whether the pursuit of riches brings social approval. It does. But what makes social approval valuable? Most certainly not rationality... after all, social approval is about as random as things can get - just look at socially accepted fashion, beauty, convictions, ideals etc. over the years.
Social approval only gets it's value from one place, namely our "herd instinct". Just like wolves strive to become the leader of the pack, chimps strive to rise in group hierarchy, lions strive to become the alpha animal... humans strive to rise on the social ladder. Not a rational decision, but an instinctive, animalistic one.
And just how meaningful is this? Well, it depends. Ofcourse, for the dog becoming the leader of the pack it's perhaps the most important thing in his life. To us, humans, the dog becoming the leader of his pack is irrelevant. To us, humans, the dog is but a dog, an irrational animal, acting purely on instinct, leading an unimportant life, which doesn't mean a thing when looking at the big picture.


To this you would undoubtedly reply with something about meaning and values being subjective, so here's a small pre-emptive strike :winkwink: :
If values and meaning are subjective, you will have to accept that objectively speaking, your views are as valid as those of a random neonazi skinhead, that the lifestyle of a crackwhore is just as meaningful as the lifestyle of Gandhi, that any discussion about values or morals is impossible and that child rapists are on the same moral level as you are.

Working on a novel about the dichotomy between freedom and social/psychological ties, the effect of the certainty of death on the choice between those, and how those things are related to different types of satisfaction in life.

Nature demands the best rise to the top. its not for everyone. :winkwink:

stop making things up. when asked, most kids do NOT want to be popstars, actors, or models.

there's nothing wrong with wanting to be the alpha wolf.

This is a nice liberal idea but its false.
Society (the group I belong to) has decided as a whole what we value and what we don't. We value success. If you don't, no one is keeping you from opting out.

No, wrong again. *moral* and *success* are not linked except by society's losers in their attempt to explain why success is bad.

says you.
when you're on the outside looking in, you can only guess as to why we accept people as role models.

I love liberals. always telling others how much they should have and what is unnecessary.

enjoyment of life, opportunities to learn, to travel, to give your children a head start to succeeding themselves, good schools for them, the list goes on and on.
communism failed for a reason.

So....



******s blame the white man for keeping them down.



Or did we establish something new that I missed?











Jesse Jackson does more harm to blacks that any white man could do.

This is simple. My values are the best - even better than yours.

12clicks, your style of quoting is rather annoying to quote. Nonetheless, I'll reply. :winkwink:

Nature is pretty much irrelevant in terms of values. Natural has nothing to do with valuable or right. If it did, eating with a fork would be wrong, for instance.

Because most realize that their chances of becoming one are virtually non-existent. Ask a kid if he or she would want to become one, and you'll see that most will answer yes. ()

There's nothing right with it either.
However, if it gets in the way of a fulfilling life, there IS something very wrong with it.

So you're saying social pressure doesn't exist? In that case, are you the magical man from happy land who lives in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane?

So, are you saying that the majority of people do not consider working hard, ambition, discipline, perseverence good? Or are you saying that those things are not linked to success?

So you refuse to believe that children accept people as rolemodels because they see them 24/7 on tv, billboards, hear them on the radio, get their figurines with the happy meals at McDonalds, encounter large articles about them in every single children's or teen magazine in existence, but instead choose their role models by random? Once again, are you the magical man from happy land living on Lollipop Lane?

I said nothing about "should". As for unnecessary... if you wouldn't die without something, it by definition is unnecessary for life.

Did you just admit that children with rich parents get a head start to succeeding? I think you just contradicted half the posts you made on this board :1orglaugh

As for your list... those things don't require you to be rich. Really, they don't. Loving parents, a good upbringing, friends, libraries, scholarships and perseverence go a long way.

As for communism failing for a reason... indeed it did. The reason however isn't that you need to be rich to lead a happy life.

true
False. one would be forced to admit nothing.
Life is not objective.
only if you play along with your false ideas from above.

Happyness for humanity is not my goal.

Ah, so you go for complete subjectivity. Ofcourse, complete subjectivity is irrational (or maybe you have a reason to assume that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong, whatever the subject may be?), is relatively meaningless (we can't share our thoughts, ideas, etc with others, none are really better than the others, and thus values only have an extremely limited meaning, both in time and range), and very animalistic (rationality is what sets humans apart from animals, so if you choose an irrational basis for your values, you go for instinctive perception).

Cool, I could start saving my money now that the econ is up!

jDoG

What are we talking about here?

I forgot.



I am all for the 'success' of the 30 year 'War on Poverty'.

I even send extra tax dollars because it worked so well in the past.

You all should too.

Actually, one would. You admitted that happiness is intrinsically valuable. Now, do you admit that others also have the ability to feel happiness?
If yes, since you yourself admitted happiness is intrinsically valuable, theirs is valuable as well.
Now, please give a reason why their happiness is less valuable than yours?


Btw, how did you get the idea that life is not objective?
And why, if you consider that truth is objective while bias is subjective, should we choose bias over truth in your opinion?

Jobless growth. Means nothing. :(

true but at least you know I'm reading ALL of your post.

ahh, but if nature is irrelevant to you, your values are irrelevent to others. More so considering your values conflict with those of society (as stated in earlier posts in this thread) my argument for nature has a basis, your argument for YOUR brand of values has only you.


says you. of course, backing it up with proof will be impossible.

but you see, it doesn't! it often gets in the way of the unfulfilled life of the under achiever but I'm not concerned about that.
it does not get in the way of the alfa wolf or his family.

the pressure to succeed always exists. this is not a social pressure. you're wrong.
If you lived alone in the world there would be no society to pressure you but you would still be pressured to succeed (survive)
does this help your argument?



Are you saying these are the things you find wrong with society?
good luck.
of course they are, do you disparrage them because you want a utopia where people will give you what you refuse to work for?

Not at all. Do you not have children or have you just done a poor job raising them? I shape my children's environment and they choose the role models my environment shapes them to choose.
once again, having no logic, you fall back on lollipops.


only a fool stops producing when he reaches only what is necessary.

A head start is far different then your clap trap about a silver spoon. The aim of every parent is to give their children a head start.

so be poor, no one is stopping you. It's your wish to stop people from being rich thats assinine.

"rich" is a product of success. its ok that you have no desire to succeed, just don't expect to be applauded for it.

It isn't. However, I work for my happiness. If they choose not to, they are entitled to whatever is left. nothing more.


Because any man who doesn't have a bias to himself and his family is a fool.

Tell me, Punkworld. What set of values is the best? For whom?

:eek7
Your argument has a basis, yes, one that is commonly known as the "naturalistic fallacy". I hardly think a logical fallacy is a good basis for an argument, then again, conservatives have always liked them.
And how exactly does it cause my values to be irrelevant to others? Most of the people I know, know what the naturalistic fallacy is, and know why nature can not be used as a basis for values. Not everyone shares your conservative love for logical fallacies...

The only argument for it being right would be your naturalistic fallacy. Since that's a logical fallacy, it doesn't hold.
Ofcourse, I realize you consider trees having green leaves morally right, but the rest of us consider it amoral.

Ofcourse pursuing riches never gets in the way of life... people spending too much time at their work to enjoy life and - for instance - spend time with their children is something that never, ever happens. Right?

There is a big gap between "surviving" and being what society considers "succesful".
If you believe there is no social pressure, you are either very naive or very stupid. You think highschool girls want to be cheerleaders just because they like cheerleading? You think the suicide percentage among gay men is much higher than it is among straight men because of chemical inbalances?

Ofcourse, people want to do what they do well. However, what they do is largely determined by social pressure.

You dodged the point quite nicely, ripping things entirely out of context.
Recap:

Now, please answer this: do you still say moral and success are not linked?

So you keep your kids out of school, and away from all their peers? That hardly seems healthy...

Interesting choice of words. Why do you consider production so important? Why isn't spending time with your family more important, or doing the things in life that you enjoy? Why does choosing to do that make one a fool?

So, the silver spoon doesn't give a head start that is of any real influence? Make up your mind already... is the head start important for children or not? If not, why do your children need it

Assuming you entirely evaded the point, I take it you have no other reasons why being rich would be important?
As for wanting to stop people from being rich... where exactly did I say I wanted to do that? Be rich, be poor, I don't care, that's your business. I have more money than I need, I just refuse to let the pursuit of it get in the way of the things I value most in life.

No it isn't. Rich is a measure of success in business, but it isn't in many other fields. Contrary to what you seem to believe, the world doesn't revolve around money for everyone.

Depends on what kind of values you are talking about.

For society, I think something where people are given as much freedom as possible to decide for themselves would work best.

For individuals, I think whatever brings the greatest amount of fulfillment and happiness for them would be best.

From an aesthetic point of view, I think whatever stimulates authenticity and originality works best.

etc.

That's not subjective? Why bother at all with the "I think" line then if what you are expressing is not subjective but a universal truth? Why is it that the people who believe that value systems are not subjective don't agree on which ones are good?

On a more specific note, what about individuals who are most happy competing in the social pecking order?

Who said anything about this being the universal truth? This is my view based on deliberation on the different variables in the equation. However, sadly, I am not omniscient :winkwink:

About those individuals: freedom does not take away one's possibility to take part in communities.

YOUR view? Subjective.

haha, sure kid. I'm sure there are a million invented liberal "fallacies" why failure is ok for you.
Well guess what? its not.

I tell you you can't prove something and you talk about trees. typical.

Not in my world son.
I think your confused because the "pursuing of riches" that soured you on success was working overtime at the fry-O-lator.
success is so much more than that kid.

your like an illiterate explaining to a reader why its impossible to read. We're not all socially inept like yourself. For some of us, success comes easy, for people like you it doesn't so you invent your little "values" that say success is bad.
its sad and funny all at once.

no, there is no link. they can co-exist in the same place but are not linked. build your tangent, its irrelevant.


Is this the excuse you get by with for your poor parenting?
"of course my kids are bad, of course they fail, after all, I send them to school and let them have peers."

My kids go to a good school and don't have failures for peers. anything else?

why do liberal failures like yourself think success costs you time with your family or or missing out on things you enjoy?
succeed sometime and you'll understand that thats just not so. I believe you'd call it a "liberal fallacy"




So, the silver spoon doesn't give a head start that is of any real influence? Make up your mind already... is the head start important for children or not? If not, why do your children need it[/B][/QUOTE]

I understand your confusion. this is the misunderstanding of the communists as well.
Having achieved, I'll spend the proceeds as I see fit. I choose to spend it on my children. Your inability to achieve and therefore have a choice is YOUR shortcoming, not mine.

sure kid. here's a clue. the pursuit of money has never gotten in the way of anything I value. It's sad that whatever small success you've had came a so high a cost.
you simply went about it the wrong way.

well, I'm a business man. you want to be a monk or something else, we'll use a different measure.
The only people that money doesn't revolve for is people without it.:thumbsup

Economies that don't allow for effective consumption of goods and services shrink. As a result employers lay off workers which increases misery.

email me!

Labret / Blistex, You sound a lot like Ted Kaczynski. :1orglaugh

Do you plan on living on $25 a month and waging war on the "machine"??

Done!