Nobody genuinely believes that developing one's capacities has independent value. Like Kant says, a villain can use his virtues for ill. He can be a good architect of torture chambers or an exceptional killer of men. So, whenever some pseudo-aristotelian or marxist speaks of the development of capacities as having "independent value" remind them of this and ask them to give you a qualifier that reveals some other, typically hedonistic, end.
When they do that I press them and usually they meant "inherent" but are ESL (or half-literate). Awareness of the human conditions is important for narrowing focus to truth, in this case that truth being the person you are speaking to and their intent.Your latter idea is accurate and it's good that you stay alert to it. Although, be wary of your own predilections. None of us are saints.
>>25557414>>25557429have sex
>>25557453Ok*sexes you*
>>25557414>no one genuinely believes learning to manipulate your environment has value on an individual level unless they are *checks note* are pure of heartlol
>>25557453Ok*rapes you*
>>25557414>independent value.not real
>>25557725Perhaps so. I am criticizing that.>>25557461No one said this. Medtime.
>>25557903True just don't believe your lying eyes. Coward.
>>25557906Why are you talking like a boomer?
>>25557909why is unc so goofy frfr chat gang
>>25557414>Nobody genuinely believes that developing one's capacities has independent value.Yes, but it's a useful delusion.
>>25557414>Like long-dead faggot X says...No one cares about 'theories' that were mentally masturbated two centuries ago. Philosophy is cope, introspection is cope. Mogging is all that matters. How do these stupid thoughts help you mog?
>>25557941People do care about them. Prestigious institutions literally study these people and take them seriously. You just haven't read them. You are just a mindless hedonist who only cares about gratification, but thankfully you do experience pain and anxiety too. I suppose that's what makes God so great.
>>25557911>meaningless niggerbabblego deal drugs or something
>>25558105You just don't know what the meaning is, mon-keigh. Also, what am I a Sackler or something? Fucking rekt him.
>>25557414>marxists aren’t hedonisticBoy do I have news for you. Marx may have criticized Mill’s class-less ethics built upon a universal metric of pleasure or pain, but a more subjective one with class structure in it isn’t off the hook.Marxists don’t tend to talk about individual ethics though, the closest is if you accept Sartre’s unification of his existentialism and Marxism, and then accept Barnes’ existentialist ethics built on top of Sartre. And even then it’s about choosing for the greater freedom of all and working for socialism and communism towards that end, which is rather hedonistic and somewhat utilitarian even if not related to pleasure or pain.
>>25557941You are short and fat
froge
