'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:32 am

Is value-ontology to be associated with;
A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,
B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),
C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?

Once that decision is made, Value-ontology can have a basis for deducing ethical standards and morality and thus gain social significance. Until then, from my perspective, it will remain merely more noise.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:22 am

From my understanding, what we call value-ontology here is a reversal of the classical philosophical paradigm. Philosophy has first studied the nature of being, ontology, then built a morality on top of that. What we think is that ontology, that being, can only be discovered after valuations have been made, after a value system has been established. The primary ontological factor then, for a morality of this kind, must be that entity which empowers and makes the valuation possible in the first place: the valuing and creating self. The study of ontology then becomes the study of what is theoretically possible, conceivable, for the valuing subject in terms of experience, it becomes the attempt Adorno pointed towards in this quote, "Perspectives must be produced which set the world beside itself, alienated from itself, revealing its cracks and fissures, as needy and distorted as it will one day lay there in the messianic light."


Morality (value) as primary, ontology as secondary, that is the basic premise. Following it through would eradicate the distinction between essence and appearance, noumenon and phenomenon, that Nietzsche often criticized and which had stifled philosophy by the 19th century.



This value before ontology notion I would sum up with this quote by Athanasius: Ει ουν φιλοσοφητέον είτε μη φιλοσοφητέον, φιλοσοφητέον. [Man, by virtue of his daemonic nature, must be a philosopher, rather he wants to or not, rather he philosophizes or not.]

The corruption of philosophy, morality's loss of its primary quality, goes as far back as Plato.

Traditional ethical philosophy and morality have phrased the Good in a language quite distinct from the language that traditional philosophy uses to phrase the True. The true has always been purely representative. The truth, in the old Platonic sense, as the Ideas, are not positive specifications of knowledge. They are conditions of possibility of knowledge. Like the law of identity, a thing is what it is and no other thing. That is not itself a positive piece of knowledge, but is rather a representative kind of knowledge: it merely represents the transcendental object by which the empirical consciousness holds itself in existence and sustains the process of thought. I want to begin a new ethical philosophy that treats the Good in just this way, as purely representative, as a condition of possibility for the empirical, lived, finite, meaning-seeking consciousness. Our morals do not accomplish such a representative act, they do not represent to us a transcendental object. Our moral and ethical philosophies have tried to be merely positive designations of knowledge. Do this or do not do this. This is a virtue, that is a vice, etc. This owes itself to the primal error by Plato, who spoke of the good in a different language than he used to speak of the true. The true was spoken of as a representative idea, whereas the good was discovered within Eros' loving gaze, was born of this gaze, and because it was related only to Eros, only to the lover and not the beloved object itself, not the transcendental order to which truth belonged, which truth represented, this "good" served for Eros as a merely positive objectification of knowledge rather than as a representative of the transcendental. The foremost goal of a new ethical philosophy must be to re-imagine "ethical ideas," that is, purely representative goods. In the way in which the idea sustains the process of thought and holds the empirical consciousness in existence, "ethical ideas" must sustain a process that I call the "erotic-daemonic," and that new ethical philosophy which engenders them must hold the transcendental objects and those truths which represent these objects in existence, must hold the "ontological" philosophy in existence, by continually recovering those conditions of limitation within the empirical consciousness from which such truths were born.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:07 pm

Sooo...
Was that A, B, or C ?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:55 pm

A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,
B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),
C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?









The questions you posed are irrelevant. All people already do seek to assess value as defined by their own self. It's a psychological fact and reality, not a point of debate. That's why Christians cherry pick what they like out of the bible and ignore the rest. Some people submit to the value defined by the society they live in because they're weak and they like order, they like to be ordered and to take orders. Here they are still valuing on the basis of their own self and what they are. And I am pretty sure the only way to define a value system is "cognitively" and the only way to apply it is "as we wish."
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:10 pm

So "Value-Ontology" represents (C).
Is that the consensus?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:39 pm

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/not_sure_if_srs.jpg

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/3/2/281b6b95-a2de-476f-8516-2962d077e794.jpg

Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:00 pm

So value-ontology means, "life and reality are whatever you want them to be" -the motto of the anarchist and solipsist.
"Truth (ontology) based on want (value)"?
Hmm.. a bit disappointing.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:30 am

First of all, that has nothing to do with anything I said, second of all, want is not value, third of all, see above.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3823
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:16 am

Parodites has answered the question of a value-ontological morality as far as it can be answered directly, which means that he already took the step from "pure" value-ontology to describe the sort of ethics that derives from it. But such ethics have nothing to do with the type of commandments you (James) seek. The simplest answer to your question is: An ontology does not describe what should be, but what is. Value ontology does not prescribe anything to man that man does not already prescribe to himself. It is at first a means to un-prescribe impossible, nonsensical and useless prescriptions, and therefore enables/opens up, rather than that it imposes on man any limitations or laws.

The only commandments/prohibitions that can be seen as following from value ontology directly are those that can be imposed on external rule, government. The individual can not be effectively commanded except by manipulating the commanding that he himself is. He can not be directly, unconditionally commanded except by threatening him with suffering and death, and this does not produce any allegiance, reliability. He is best commanded by manipulating his perception of his own commanding nature (manipulating his self-perception), so as for it to suit the type of commands one wants to give him. One can only precisely and enduringly command an individual by making him think that he is being commanded in name of himself -- in terms of his self-valuing. In this light I can address the three options.




"A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,"
People, and al beings, inevitably do this, whether anyone says they should or not. Value ontology explains this inevitability. If tere is any "should" here it id that we should give up the effort of trying the change this tendency, and aim for a flexible society with no direct commands, except for a few "thou shalt nots" (kill, etc) and a few provisions from which one can only benefit (roads, clean water, etc).




"B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),"
Society represents the social terms in which a human can see his own self-valuing reflected. An individual simply can only submit himself to a rule/law that something in his being agrees with. If there is nothing to agree with, he will rebel or allow himself to be imprisoned / killed.

There are weaker and stronger self-valuings (beings), just as there are more and less stable elements. The weaker a self-valuing is, the more it will tolerate of society and the less it needs of society to conform to him. A being of maximum strength/stability is able to exist either alone or commanding whatever is around him. Society may try to regulate self-valuings interactions with each other so that a strong beings tyrannnical influence (what Nietzsche calls "bestowing virtue") is only exerted on those who benefit from this rule/standard-giving.

A society based on value ontology can have no central value-prescribing command, it can only limit what strong entities do to weaker entities who do not voluntarily submit, as well as provide for goods/values that are of general benefit. It would follow that ideally, government is sustained not by taxes but by voluntary contributions.




"C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?"
In as far as an individual has the need or desire as well as the capacity to cognitively define at all, they might benefit from defining their value system so. But since a value system is already implicit in anyones being, it works whether it is cognitively defined or not. What should be cognitively defined is a philosophically sound model for the interactions/exchange of values. The absence of this is the only real problem of our current world. This is the void from which all modern evils (such as the ones you are predicting will bring the end of the homo sapines) are spawned.


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:33 am

Fixed Cross has pointed out what I did, my rationalist meta-physician friend. Your questions are irrelevant. The point of debate is how values are actually created and defined, how they should be defined and created. Value ontology is a method for creating values, as opposed to the other methods that exist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:59 am

The errors of ontology have been manifested in morality, because man's existence as an ontological subject has taken primacy over his existence as an ethicizing subject. For example, free will is a major basis for modern morality, when it is in fact nothing more than an error of ontological philosophy. Inverting ontological and moral philosophy would eventually help us realize a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience, something that eluded Kant and for which he has been criticized, as I said:

The primary ontological factor then, for a morality of this kind, must be that entity which empowers and makes the valuation possible in the first place: the valuing and creating self. The study of ontology then becomes the study of what is theoretically possible, conceivable, for the valuing subject in terms of experience...



Value ontology would be a method for refining a self-consistent, internal vision of life which, objectively specified, would provide such a "philosophical concept of experience." The philosophy that emerges out of it would deal, even in the extremity of its ontology, with things rooted in perception and experience, (and therefor the truth) since everything must first pass through the refining, self-consistent, internal conception of the world and the self, established through a cultivated valuation(s).






A quote by Nietzsche seems fitting:

This ridiculous overestimation and misunderstanding of consciousness has the very useful consequence that it prevents an all too fast development of consciousness. Believing that they possess consciousness, men have not exerted themselves very much to acquire it; and things haven't changed much in this respect. To this day the task of incorporating knowledge and making it instinctive is only beginning to dawn on the human eye and is not yet clearly discernible; it is a task that is seen only by those who have comprehended that so far we have incorporated only our errors and that all our consciousness relates to errors.










Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:02 am

James S Saint wrote:
One must always point the way to others in accord with where they stand.
..assuming that one isn't interested in merely talking to himself.

Assuming that none of the options in the OP were applicable, an appropriate response would have been something like;
"None of the above, but instead,
D) Value-ontology should be associated with...."

rather than the somewhat egotistical and nonsensical response, "your [OP thread topic] questions are irrelevant"

I seriously have no need for a lecture from any of you about how reality or a mind functions nor the errors of society's mental acrobatics. You expose how you think with every statement you make, for example your blindness to the connection between "want" and "value".

Parodites wrote:
Fixed Cross has pointed out what I did, my rationalist meta-physician friend. Your questions are irrelevant. The point of debate is how values are actually created and defined, how they should be defined and created. Value ontology is a method for creating values, as opposed to the other methods that exist.
In that very short quote (compared to all you have written), you point out the exact reasoning for the question (the ONLY question that is relevant in THIS thread). You state that value-ontology is a method concerning how ethics "should be defined". That is exactly what the "irrelevant" OP question is about. It is not about how everyone throughout history has been inferior and all of the foolish errors those pathetic people in the past have made. If you want to lecture about that, at least provide an example of such an obvious error, but on a different thread.

As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, "value-ontology" and relate it to something other people can see clearly (as well as clarify it better to yourselves), you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as "some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about".


And btw, a physicist is not a physician.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:20 am

I didn't notice your sub-name was "rational metaphysicist." I always glanced at it and read it simply as "rational metaphysics," because my brain tends to just ignore things that either don't exist or don't make any sense, like "metaphysicist."
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:31 am

Look, fuckhead, I told you what value ontology was to my mind, others have no doubt done the same before. The only dark cloud I have my head in is my reason for still talking to you. Don't tell me about being egotistical, either. I don't much enjoy talking to other human beings in the first place, I'd prefer to just bury my head in a bottle of pills and listen to music all day, and I consequently don't have any qualms about speaking to those human beings that fail to amuse me, provoke me, or give me something to think about in any way I see fit. I said your OP questions were irrelevant because they're irrelevant. I defined very specifically what I see value ontology as. I'm not going to reduce either it or myself to fit into the cloistered sentence-long verbal turd of one of your stupid fucking questions. Anything else?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:36 am

"All people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?"




No, man. They should define it lymphatically, or testicularly, or with their pituary gland. What other way is there to define it besides cognitively?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:59 am

By the way, looking through all of your posts, I am convinced you are either suffering from some form of dementia, or you are out of your mind.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3823
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:22 am

If the intention behind the OP is to acquire a morality in the form of a "thou shalt" (to humans) then value ontology should be ignored. It should indeed be considered irrelevant to the traditional moralist (the "thou-shalt"-sayer), as it reveals the cognitive void underneath such moralities.

Untranslated, the OPs points are very far away from having to do anything with value ontology. However, efforts have been made to relate value ontology to the intention suspected behind the OP. It seemed that the intention was to find out what type of morality can be won from value ontology. These efforts have apparently been wasted on you, yet you confirm the suspected intention by quoting "method concerning how ethics "should be defined"" as what the OP is about. Why then have you ignored answers you have received, and say that you have gotten no answers?

The only reason I can think of is that the answers you have received are not simple enough for you. If this is the case I have to disappoint you -- indeed, there is no simple, swift and conclusive way from value ontology to a formulation of a morality. We've just begun the work, and since it is philosophical work, which means that it runs deep and moves slowly, we will not be finishing it anytime soon. Panicky calls about the end of mankind are not going to speed up the process.

The only effort you could make that would speed up this particular process is trying harder to understand what value ontology is, and trying harder to understand the replies you get and the posts you respond to. If the OPs point was simply to discredit value ontology as "vague" or "a dark cloud" to provoke the authors to change it, then it is fortunate that it has been misunderstood and caused some useful replies.




"As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, "value-ontology"
It is convenient to know how you really stand toward this thinking.

"and relate it to something other people can see clearly"
It has proven perfectly understandable to a good number of people already, all of them (how coincidental!) of highly refined intelligence. It has met some resistance from people who want to use it in a way for qwhich it is not designed (you) and those who feel threatened by it (certain Nietzscheans)

" (as well as clarify it better to yourselves),"
Presumption. That you fail to see clearly it does not mean that this unclarity exists outside of you.

"you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as "some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about"."
Ignoring for a moment that we are sensibly defining already, such a prospect is delightful compared to the prospect of scrambling to mutilate the thought to fit the urge to be subjected to "thou shalt" like commandments.

It may take one year, ten years, or a thousand years for this thought to take hold on a large scale. It may never take hold. In any case it will not be compromised by its creators to suit fearful urges or anti-philosophical demands.


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:47 am

Let him hodgepodge some more random math and science concepts together and call it a ToE.



Why are you even on this site Saint? You have more posts than any member of this forum and you aren't even interested in value ontology, you're here to rant about how you discovered a Theory of Everything.



I am going to offer the absolute briefest explanation of value ontology which I can:



Value ontology is a way of philosophizing that grants ontological primacy to the human agent (the valuing subject, named many things by many people- for Nietzsche, will, for Heidegger, Dasein, for me, the daemonic, for Kierkegaard simply the self or that which despairs) rather than ousia or being. It gets beyond, in this way, the distinction between truth and appearance and deals with questions of being in a language derived from a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience rather than an abstract, Aristotelian table of categories, something which Kantian philosophy has always lacked.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3108
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:45 pm

Parodites wrote:


Value ontology is a way of philosophizing that grants ontological primacy to the human agent (the valuing subject, named many things by many people- for Nietzsche, will, for Heidegger, Dasein, for me, the daemonic, for Kierkegaard simply the self or that which despairs) rather than ousia or being. It gets beyond, in this way, the distinction between truth and appearance and deals with questions of being in a language derived from a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience rather than an abstract, Aristotelian table of categories, something which Kantian philosophy has always lacked.

As an absolute briefest explanation, I'd say that's not bad.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus

"It is a tedious thing to be always beginning life; they live badly who always begin to live." --Seneca

"I kick ass, all these other humans suck balls." --Inmendham
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3108
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:36 pm

James S Saint wrote:
As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, "value-ontology" and relate it to something other people can see clearly (as well as clarify it better to yourselves), you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as "some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about".

This sums well the core of your critique here: value ontology cannot produce anything which can be related/relevant to "other people", it is a unclear "cloud" with insufficient (or at least insufficiently demonstrated) substance.

Unfortunately, I guess for you, as you may have noticed here much is being written and worked on with respect to this, the supposed unclarity of the thought, as well as its supposed irrelevancy to the world at large. Thinking back to when this site was created, about 3-4 months ago, what we call "value ontology" (remember this is just a label, the content is always much more than a label can capture, and the collection of this content/s under a single name is more of a regrettable necessity than anything else, at least for me) was something barely in its infancy compared to what it has become now. Which is not to say that it is presently "very much", with respect to what it could be, must become, will become. It is a work-in-progress, and as Fixed Cross noted, such works as these philosophical projects take much time and the progress tends to be slow. The thought has become much clearer, more defined and delineated. At times this takes a form of declaration and explication, at other times a more negative form of "what it is not". Both are acceptable, of course. Also important is to note that defining a thing is never as clear-cut as "this is that", "x=y", that sort of thinking finds a home in mathematics, perhaps in some sciences, but has little home in philosophy. To believe that a thought, any object of thought or philosophic inquiry -- indeed any subjective experience or "will to" subjectivity at all -- can be absolutely defined in this manner is nothing short of idiocy. To believe such reveals that one fundamentally misunderstands what it even is that is going on when we say we are "thinking" or "philosophizing" or "seeking truth". Experience is not black and white, no matter how much you (think you) want it to be.

Value ontology largely precludes truth/s as closed-impositional constructs, "thou-shalt"'s, solely positive-empirical or -nominal declarations. Rather the truths of what can be gathered under the heading "value ontology" are far more phenomenological, subjective and applied-direct. Their borders extend outward and vanish from sight behind horizonal lines, and inwardly these continue to vanish ahead of themselves, always hinting at what later begins to more fully and substantially disclose itself. Space/s are mapped, terrains marked, but no absolute boundaries are discovered.

As has also been pointed out already, failure to see clarity cannot be assumed to result from without alone. You must factor in the possibility that such unclarity is arising as a consequence of you yourself, for whatever reason. To circumvent this possibility it would be necessary for you to construct a sufficient and precise critique that would show where and how value ontological thought/s are inadequate, miscalculated or incorrect. What I find unfortunate is that you have not seemingly attempted any such precise critique, not generated of such a counter-position a substantial content and possibility for exploration, but have rather only stagnated at the most basic polemical level, interjecting occasional implied hints toward your own ideas as if this sort of vague inference constituted an actual argument, much less a rebuttal.

I for one would love to see a detailed critique of "value ontology", which would mean you first define its core concepts as they seem to you and then proceed to demonstrate their partial or total invalidity. I am serious, I really wish you could provide such a demonstration. As a young and still-developing thought, value ontology desperately needs such attacks -- but they must be good, useful attacks, of course. Potent, powerful, specific, forcing change/s upon the attacked object. In short, drawing blood. My main problem with your critique/s is they entirely fail to even bruise, let alone draw any blood.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus

"It is a tedious thing to be always beginning life; they live badly who always begin to live." --Seneca

"I kick ass, all these other humans suck balls." --Inmendham
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...   

Back to top Go down
 
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to...
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: