X-Message-Number: 30163 References: <> From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: satisfaction Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:59:53 +0100 On 16 Dec 2007, at 17:23, wrote: > We want the satisfaction of overcoming dissatisfaction. Even so, I > think that long-term or overall satisfaction is currently a > reasonable rough > statement of an individual's basic criterion for action.) Changing the term doesn't change the problem. First, you must operationalize what you mean by 'satisfaction', next you must show that it is possible to add up satisfactions over a period in order to get a reasonable approach to deciding future action. While there has at least been an attempt of operationalize 'happiness', I don't believe this has been done for 'satisfaction'. We are really talking here about fundamental ethical principles for guiding human action. I have posted a literature list on ethics earlier. > > Again, > >> Change, thus, would have to be a result of fundamental >> transformations in the self and society. > > This completely bypasses the main point, which is what (I, you, > he, she) > should do right now out of the choices available. The whole point > of any valid > philosophy is how to optimize your personal future. Is it possible > that the > main effort of an individual should be to try to effect social > change? I think > not for any reasonable person. To change oneself? Yes, and > deciding how best > that can be done is the primary problem. Part of the solution is > direct and > relatively simple, to participate in cryonics and work to promote > it in > practical ways. These conclusions spring from a certain ethical framework. Any argument must first specify what it is. From your follow up post: > Even so, use of the term > feel-good has, I believe, the very great merit of putting the > focus where it > belongs, on the benefit of the individual. This presumes a philosophical position. Trying to argue from it is an error in reasoning - assuming the consequent. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30163