[snipped Scooby Doo's entertaining beatnik jazz riffs. . .]
Er, uh, excuse me? Mr. Obi Wan Kenobi?
You wrote:
>
>Even the greatest philosophers and thinkers of the last 25 centuries believe
>in 'intrinsic' value. Did not anyone read my messages on 'autopoeisis and
>oxaresis' by Aristotle.
Is it really accurate to say that people have believed in "intrinsic value"
*as such*, for 25 centuries?
Isn't there a difference between: (a) what people historically have valued
over the millenia due to a belief in God (or Whatever) that leads them to
value whatever it is that God values; and
(b) the modern secular conception of "intrinsic value" as it is commonly
used, say, in the context of analytic philosophy e.g. where it represents
some sort of nonnatural property that "supervenes" (whatever that is!) on
natural facts and properties?
just curious if Mr. du wah would recognize any distinction between the two
historical conceptions of what he's calling "'intrinsic' value."
JT
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|