Before The Light
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


'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.'
 
HomeLatest imagesSearchRegisterLog in

 

 Proof of self-valuing

Go down 
4 posters
AuthorMessage
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeMon Nov 14, 2016 11:43 am

Humans respond more to their beliefs about reality than they do to reality itself.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7307
: 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeMon Nov 14, 2016 12:15 pm

Exactly right.... hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.
Back to top Go down
Sisyphus
Path
Path



Posts : 1647
: 1649
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeMon Nov 14, 2016 6:00 pm

I must, with sadness, agree.
Back to top Go down
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending


Posts : 293
: 307
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeWed Nov 16, 2016 11:17 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right.... hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God. But can you say that one really exists?
Does a belief make it so?

Perhaps beliefs are real in the same sense that an auditory or visual hallucination is but if examined further, it becomes something entirely different.


Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn't make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as 'real' enters in here.




Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7307
: 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeWed Nov 16, 2016 1:13 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right.... hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God.  But can you say that one really exists?

You misread.

I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear.  Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

Furthermore, I dont believe in "true belief" vs "false belief". A belief is per definition a not knowing.



Quote :
Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn't make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as 'real' enters in here.  

Or rather "what do you believe can be considered as 'real'". And why you believe that.
Back to top Go down
Sisyphus
Path
Path



Posts : 1647
: 1649
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeWed Nov 16, 2016 7:36 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:


I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear.  Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

I had a hard time with this when I first started interacting on internet forums. My problem was that I couldn't establish in word what my understanding was regarding "beliefs".

Yes, beliefs are real in the individual's mind. But what is believed may be nothing more that illusion and/or delusion. But the belief still remains real.

Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7307
: 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeWed Nov 16, 2016 10:56 pm

Cause and effect: a person believes he can fly, but he cant. So he runs out of the window and dies. The belief has killed him. Id say that belief was pretty real. He was just wrong, but people being wrong is a pretty fucking real thing.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7307
: 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeWed Nov 16, 2016 11:01 pm

And by the way yes that really does happen. A fellow tried it above the garden next to my room when I was 20. So I have learned that idiotic beliefs are realer than brilliant insights sometimes. Because an insight doesnt necessarily lead to action. What's even worse, often a brilliant insight is too comprehensive to be implemented in any other than a stupid way.

This is why Islam keeps winning, it's just easy to believe all that and then die soon and gladly. Its just a path of little resistance, that has as its main generator a lust for the feeling of partaking in omnipotence. I can assure you it is a powerful drug Christianity in all its passion cant attain to the comprehensiveness of an Allahic release. To pour ones entire soul out, a heroin like relief.

Precisely like todays liberals: they feel entitled to the entire world and to the death of all those who feel differently, and this coincides in both cases with an absolute shutdown of thought.
Back to top Go down
Sisyphus
Path
Path



Posts : 1647
: 1649
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 6:10 am

Yeah, points well made. I'm not much of a "belief" kind of guy. I prefer proof gathered from experience. So, from your above, we have experience that man cannot fly. So don't try it.

And really, if our belief defies the natural processes of nature/man then we should discard that belief. Religions are based in faith and beliefs without proof. And yes, Islam is worse than Christianity.

Self-valuing includes valuing the processes of nature. If we ignore the nature of the universe we are in fact placing false value on our self.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 9:47 am

Yes, but remember that believing isn't only about the obvious content of the belief, it is also about the act itself of believing, what this means and why it is possible at all, and even the belief-contents are more complex than simply a direct relation to reality/nature or not. Human subjectivity comes before human belief; by this I mean that beliefs are symptoms, not fundamental. This is why judging people for their religious or politically beliefs is just a kind of pathological madness and not compatible with philosophy. Beliefs are secondary expressions of more primary processes, subjective process and historical process and existential process for example.

Many beliefs are justified only in how they A) link feelings together and justify/express feelings in certain ways, and B) form shared common connections and grounds between people. Beliefs regulate self-psychological and social phenomena, and this is often the more primary function of the belief than simply to render a decision about "what is real". This is something that I notice atheists often miss, and why atheists are often so dull and non-philosophical; atheists often think of belief only as a kind of scientific fact-content expressing, the atheist will say "well if a belief doesn't match with reality/nature then it must be rejected"---- not so. The at least equal function of belief to this are the deeper psycho-subjective and social implications of beliefs, namely the atheist is disregarding an entire scope of the value of beliefs.

And remember too that we often know things which we haven't formulated clearly into "a belief", and we also often act on knowledge that isn't "a belief" but another kind of knowledge, such as pre-conceptual or instinctive or feeling-based action. What we call a belief is a very very small part of the overall process by which human beings act, have knowledge, and subjectively function and grow further into existence. What is meant by philosophical honesty and "soul" is far larger than what I said meant by "belief". And in fact, under philosophy we see beliefs are transformed into a totally different quality, because the "belief" and its associated contents are paired more and more with those other subjective and knowledge ranges, and also with other equally deepening beliefs, thus filling out the inner mental universe as linking idea to idea and feeling to feeling, and idea to feeling and feeling to idea, until the old ideological method of believing that is common for most people just falls away and is replaced with authenticity of being.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 9:54 am

If the atheist has his way and removes all beliefs that are "not true", this would remove far more than just a bunch of untrue belief-contents. Also you have to remember that most people aren't in a position to need to make 100% accurate true or false determinations all the time, our beliefs are simply not needed to be that computer-like and scientific most of the time. Atheistic despise for untrue beliefs, usually religious beliefs, is actually a form of analytic thinking that is deeply pathological and anti-philosophical when taken to this extreme, namely when applied out of context and beyond its mandate. We aren't computers, and life isn't a series of empirical tests performed in a lab. The scientific-atheistic, analytic mindset just isn't required beyond a limited role it plays, and certainly should not be allowed to replace the deeper soul-regions of the human, most of which are still beyond the possibility to even speak about or "believe or disbelieve" in.
Back to top Go down
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending


Posts : 293
: 307
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 11:24 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right.... hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God.  But can you say that one really exists?

You misread.

I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear.  Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

Furthermore, I dont believe in "true belief" vs "false belief". A belief is per definition a not knowing.



Quote :
Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn't make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as 'real' enters in here.  

Or rather "what do you believe can be considered as 'real'". And why you believe that.

No, FC, I didn't misread it.  A belief is only "real" to the individual but not necessarily real. This is why I asked "what is real" or what can be determined to be real?
If one's belief does not turn out to be true, fact, than it isn't real. Just so much fluff.

How is the belief any different than the content? Aren't they one and the same thing?  If I'm wrong, explain. I can't see the distinction between the belief and its content.


False belief is what turns out to not be based in fact.
What I meant b y true belief is  belief which becomes real, in other words knowledge,  by accident. One didn't believe because they "knew", that's knowledge, one only believed because they chose to believe, to have faith in something they could not know.
Thjere is belief and then there is knowledge.

Perhaps we need Wittgenstein to explain this.
I know what you're trying to say though that a belief is real. But on the other hand, if someone believes in elves, can it be said that that belief has any bearing in "reality"?
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7307
: 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 12:18 pm

Arc, youve failed.

Bye.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized


Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 6:21 pm

Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn't disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

Believing: the act of having  belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief's contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)

Let's say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief's contents.

To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely "believed", but also B) what we call "believing" can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall; but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to *believe* that if I drop a cup it will fall. The "belief" here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing's occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying "I believe the cup will fall" is just  habit of language, which really means "I know the cup will fall".
Back to top Go down
Sisyphus
Path
Path



Posts : 1647
: 1649
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 9:11 pm

Capable wrote:
Yes, but remember that believing isn't only about the obvious content of the belief, ...

No disagreement with what you said here. I didn't express myself well in that post above. Next time I'll do better.
Back to top Go down
Sisyphus
Path
Path



Posts : 1647
: 1649
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 9:18 pm

Capable wrote:
If the atheist has his way and removes all beliefs that are "not true", this would remove far more than just a bunch of untrue belief-contents. Also you have to remember that most people aren't in a position to need to make 100% accurate true or false determinations all the time, our beliefs are simply not needed to be that computer-like and scientific most of the time. Atheistic despise for untrue beliefs, usually religious beliefs, is actually a form of analytic thinking that is deeply pathological and anti-philosophical when taken to this extreme, namely when applied out of context and beyond its mandate. We aren't computers, and life isn't a series of empirical tests performed in a lab. The scientific-atheistic, analytic mindset just isn't required beyond a limited role it plays, and certainly should not be allowed to replace the deeper soul-regions of the human, most of which are still beyond the possibility to even speak about or "believe or disbelieve" in.

No argument. But I will point out that I'm not an angry Atheist. I just don't hold to beliefs that I find serve no useful purpose for me. Useful/useless is an important concept for me. It is an attempt to reduce the amount of judging of things and people.

I've not mentioned it here yet but I prefer to live spontaneously as often as I can. Just do what feels natural. No, I don't want to have a computer brain.
Back to top Go down
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending


Posts : 293
: 307
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeFri Nov 18, 2016 10:23 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Arc, youve failed.

Bye.

Ouch.
But you're correct. I will concede to your argument.
It's always a good thing when I come to realize that I am NOT thinking out of the box and that I have a blind spot.


Back to top Go down
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending


Posts : 293
: 307
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeFri Nov 18, 2016 10:49 am

Capable,

Quote :
Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn't disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

True but what I failed to do is to realize that there is not only physical reality but also immaterial or ethereal reality (if I'm using the correct words). That is the nature of belief's reality - it is immaterial though it stems from the material brain to the mind to thought.
If I am to "see" my thoughts as having "existence" on some other level of reality, then I must also realize that belief is "real" too - is some kind of thing.
I see the flower - it is a material thing so it is real but so is the scent of that flower a reality.

I was so focused on "false" belief, that I equated that with belief itself having no true reality. I was blind-sided.



Quote :
Believing: the act of having  belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief's contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)


True. That all points to belief as being part of reality.
What is the saying - "Something cannot come from Nothing".
As FC and yourself pointed out - belief has "existence" because of cause and effect consequences, et cetera.
The material world and its influence brings it into existence.
I had to remember, to realize tat "reality" itself is not always physically tangible.



Quote :
Let's say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief's contents
.

Yes, I get that now. Again, I was more focused on the content of belief as cancelling out the reality of belief.
I can hardly believe that I've been in a philosophy forum all of this time, 8 years, and thought that way. Absurd.


Quote :
To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely "believed",


...taken on faith.


Quote :
but also B) what we call "believing" can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall;

But wouldn't that still be called "knowing"?



Quote :
but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to *believe* that if I drop a cup it will fall. The "belief" here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing's occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying "I believe the cup will fall" is just  habit of language, which really means "I know the cup will fall".

C) But would you really say "I believe" in this instance? The only time you might I believe in this situation would depend on perhaps how precariously slow to the edge of something the cup was, no? I'm not quibbling here - sometimes we can only believe and times we can know.

There is always two sides to the coin, at least figuratively speaking. I'm glad that this happened. It's a reminder to me of how I often think.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross


Posts : 7307
: 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitimeTue Nov 29, 2016 12:17 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Capable,

Quote :
Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn't disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

True but what I failed to do is to realize that there is not only physical reality but also immaterial or ethereal reality (if I'm using the correct words). That is the nature of belief's reality  - it is immaterial though it stems from the material brain to the mind to thought.
If I am to "see" my thoughts as having "existence" on some other level of reality, then I must also realize that belief is "real" too - is some kind of thing.
I see the flower - it is a material thing so it is real but so is the scent of that flower a reality.

I was so focused on "false" belief, that I equated that with belief itself having no true reality. I was blind-sided.

I see you've understood now Arc. So Im going to make it slightly more complex.

The term "false belief" actually never had any meaning for me because to me, all belief is "false" - i.e. "Belief" implies the absence of knowledge... which, in a certain way, makes it 'false' to believe, period. So belief is basically false to begin with. But that doesnt make the action fo believing less of a reality, as it grounds your actions, and these are real.

An action cant be "false".


This is not a value judgment- the falsity of belief, i.e. of not-knowledge experienced as certainty, can lead to good things. We can believe a situation is better than it is and based on that belief, act with good spirits, and actually improve the situation.
Based on illusion, we can change reality for the better.

This is the great paradox of knowledge versus wisdom.

Quote :
Quote :
Believing: the act of having  belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief's contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)


True. That all points to belief as being part of reality.
What is the saying - "Something cannot come from Nothing".
As FC and yourself pointed out - belief has "existence" because of cause and effect consequences, et cetera.
The material world and its influence brings it into existence.
I had to remember, to realize tat "reality" itself is not always physically tangible.



Quote :
Let's say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief's contents
.

Yes, I get that now. Again, I was more focused on the content of belief as cancelling out the reality of belief.
I can hardly believe that I've been in a philosophy forum all of this time, 8 years, and thought that way. Absurd.

These are all relatively new insights.
In fact Ive not ever seen them formulated as straightforwardly as I do - often this comes across my path as my task, to rigorously formulate ideas that have been half-born by good, but soft minds.

Quote :
Quote :
To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely "believed",


...taken on faith.

Faith, or in the childs or artists case, imagination.

Schopenhauers idea of "will and imagination" might be interesting for you to look into.

Quote :
Quote :
but also B) what we call "believing" can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall;

But wouldn't that still be called "knowing"?

A scientist will often say "I believe" when he means "I know". It's a way of covering the theoretical possibility of things going the other way by some yet undiscovered law, of which a true scientist is always aware.

A true scientist will, when he knows that he really knows something, be quite marveled. He knows how rare true knowledge is, how few things are truly certain.

Hume has explored this domain of almost-certainty, or what, with a stretch, we may perhaps term "true belief"; i.e. belief that has been verified, over and over again, so for it to become knowledge, even if the cause is not understood.

"True certainty" vs "false certainty": in the former, the cause of the thing that is certainly the case is understood; i.e. it is understood why the thing is certainly the case. A false certainty can occur when it appears a thing is simply always the case, but one does not know why.

Quote :
Quote :
but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to *believe* that if I drop a cup it will fall. The "belief" here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing's occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying "I believe the cup will fall" is just  habit of language, which really means "I know the cup will fall".

C) But would you really say "I believe" in this instance? The only time you might I believe in this situation would depend on perhaps how precariously slow to the edge of something the cup was, no? I'm not quibbling here - sometimes we can only believe and times we can know.

There is always two sides to the coin, at least figuratively speaking. I'm glad that this happened. It's a reminder to me of how I often think.

These moments of change in the machinery of ones thought, that is what philosophy is made of. Be proud of your capacity to make such changes. It's rare.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content





Proof of self-valuing  Empty
PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing    Proof of self-valuing  Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
Proof of self-valuing
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Who is the Self-Valuing?
» Self-valuing: a theoretical examination
» Self-Valuing Ethics
» Self-Valuing Logic
» Valuing as desire

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Storm :: Logic-
Jump to: