• MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s entertainment and thought to be gained, but it’s not of value. It’s neoliberal shit. The books aggressively push a certain set of political beliefs which suck.

          • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            No, it’s a definition. I’m a utilitarian, so I only value pleasure and avoiding suffering.

            • yetiftw@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              but what about a general definition of value that encapsulates everyone’s experiences and not only yours?

              • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I don’t care who experiences the pleasure or suffering. Individual ego is an illusion. The self is a social construct. The divisions between oneself and others are a lie.

                • yetiftw@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  you misunderstand. you told me what you value. I asked for a definition of value. something can be valuable (by being valuable to someone else) even if you yourself do not value it

                  • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Why would I agree that Harry Potter is valuable if I don’t and cannot value it, even for its net effect on others?