[extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc.

[Lee Corbin]

Jef writes

> You're typically careful with your choice of words, but after 
> two cycles of this thread it seems you're aggressively debating 
> what you thought I said rather than looking to understand my 
> points and contribute constructively to the discussion.  

Sorry.

> Misconception 1:  Intrinsic good
> I'm referring to the well-known understanding that *intrinsic* 
> good isn't a coherent concept.

Well, weren't you the one who brought it up?

> When we talk about "good" it must be relative to the value system
> of some agent.

Of course.  I even go so far, in careful discussion, to substitute
"I approve" for "good".  But you weren't buying that either.

> Any perceived goodness is not intrinsic.

Well, then let's just not used the damned word?

> As I said earlier, we can agree on much of what is good
> because we share much of our fundamental values due to
> common evolutionary heritage.  But it's not intrinsic

whatever that means

> and it's not absolute.  I think you know this perfectly
> well, but keep reading "intrinsic" as if I were saying
> "obvious" or "objective." 

Well, just stop using that word, and the problem goes away :-)

> Misconception 2:  Happiness directly corresponding to good
> I've tried to make clear that happiness is not necessarily
> an accurate or direct indicator of what is good.

Now that we've established that I have no idea what you mean
when you use "intrinsic", we devolve to the point where I
don't have much confidence in what you mean by "good". What
do you mean by THAT, now?  What is "good"?   And don't think
that just because I happen to be curious about what you mean
that this gives you license to continue to flail me with the
term; whenever a word starts giving trouble, I've always
said, start looking for circumlocutions that mean what you
want to say only using different words. We both have adequate
vocabularies.

> I think you could easily agree with this and then we could
> move on to more interesting things.

Alas, yes.  I will try harder to agree with what you write,
whether I understand it or not.  But you must accept some of
the responsibility (as you said), and so I guess you should
try to write things that are more agreeable to me.

> I've tried to point out that applying these terms as
> absolutes leads to contradiction,

I don't do that!  I try always to avoid "the good" in careful
discussion. Luckily you and I, as you say, do tend to approve
of the same general kinds of things, insofar as the human
situation goes.

> I was seeking understanding (possibly agreement) on these
> two points with the hope that the discussion could move on
> to more interesting issues such as mitigating the effects
> of those evolved systems which impair....

Not following you exactly here, but I'll start a new thread
and maybe we can make the progress you hope for there.

> BTW, breaking up a person's statements in order to call
> bullshit on a phrase out of context is dirty pool,
> regardless of whether you apologize for it in your
> next sentence.

Sorry.  I do tend to go ballistic whenever I hear anyone
start defending the virtues of suffering. I hope that *this*
apology is acceptable to you.

Lee