Quote:
Originally Posted by Blowtus
I have in some sense accused you of what Dennett terms 'greedy reductionism' - that by looking to underlying factors you in effect explain away what is being explained.
|
interesting. I don't think I'd disagree with that any more than when skeptics 'explain away' the magic of twin babies (it's not that 'a man impregnated a woman, and a god impregnated a woman, and one of the two brothers is a divine man' as an ancient myth has it), or god's miracles, or alien UFOs, or any of that stuff - you can use psychology and science to show why people come to the explanations they do, and give a more solid explanation for what it really is. it's not an argument against it, or a condemnation of it, just an accurate accessment of the process being undertaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blowtus
I now quite strongly want to see 'values' as ends in themselves, and 'satisfaction in relation to x value' as the designation that the end has been or will be, at least partially fulfilled. I don't think satisfaction can exist independently, it is always 'the satisfaction *of* something'. Pretty much the paradox of hedonism, I think.
|
I'm not sure about the phrasing of your first sentence there, but I'll pursue the second:
I think that relies heavily on a misunderstanding---treating all things as emotions; 'satisfaction' as synonymous with 'pleasure', where I've clarified 'pleasure' itself is a means toward satisfaction---the state in which you do not desire to seek further pleasure.