… Vlad said (paraphrased) “by invoking boundaries as a concept”. If that doesn’t make sense to you, okay, but, while I agree Critch doesn’t quite argue for the concept’s applicability, I do think he lays out a bunch of concepts and how they could relate, and this should at least be an existence proof for “it is possible to develop a theory that accomplishes the “care about allowing the continued survival of existing things without wanting to create more.”
I appreciate the update. The actual meaning behind “invoking boundaries as a concept” is what I’m interested in, if that is the right paraphrase.
If it made intuitive sense then the question wouldn’t have been asked, so your right that the concepts could relate but the crux is that this has not been proven to any degree. Thus, I’m still inclined to consider it a personal opinion.
For the latter part, I don’t get the meaning, from what I understand there’s no such ‘should at least be an existence proof’.
Why do you need more than one description of such a value system in order to answer your original question? This isn’t about arguing the value system is ideal or that you should adopt it.
And, like, respecting boundaries is a pretty mainstream concept lots of people care about.
Why do you need more than one description of such a value system in order to answer your original question?
I don’t think I am asking for multiple descriptions of ‘such a value system’.
What value system are you referring to and where does it appear I’m asking that?
Also, I’m not quite sure how ‘respecting boundaries’ relates to this discussion, is it something to do with the idea of ‘invoking boundaries as a concept’?
I appreciate the update. The actual meaning behind “invoking boundaries as a concept” is what I’m interested in, if that is the right paraphrase.
If it made intuitive sense then the question wouldn’t have been asked, so your right that the concepts could relate but the crux is that this has not been proven to any degree. Thus, I’m still inclined to consider it a personal opinion.
For the latter part, I don’t get the meaning, from what I understand there’s no such ‘should at least be an existence proof’.
There’s ‘proven correct’, ‘proven incorrect’, ‘unproven’, ‘conjecture’, ‘hypothesis’, etc...
Why do you need more than one description of such a value system in order to answer your original question? This isn’t about arguing the value system is ideal or that you should adopt it.
And, like, respecting boundaries is a pretty mainstream concept lots of people care about.
I don’t think I am asking for multiple descriptions of ‘such a value system’.
What value system are you referring to and where does it appear I’m asking that?
Also, I’m not quite sure how ‘respecting boundaries’ relates to this discussion, is it something to do with the idea of ‘invoking boundaries as a concept’?