Humanistic Economics?

I value all people as equal human beings regardless of class or social standing. I always see the worth of the person. I am very against classism and all such prejudice or discrimination basis on social class. This includes individual attitudes and behaviors, systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes including people without means such as vagrants or homeless. The current system, sadly, works on the premise in which the less you have, the less you get. And to me as an axiologist this current system is not an ethical just way to apply humanity. Religion and gods are archetypal classism and all such prejudice or discrimination basis on social class. A benefit of application axiology is to present a clearer view of value not something which we do without thinking but under positive intentionality. Intentionality of axiology view of value or what lacks value is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs valueizing/value judgments are utilized or needed. Intentionality of axiology new view of value is presented for the sake of positive benefit establishing a future ethical humanistic persuasion in society. I hold an axiology goal that our future society is a secular humanistic society that will be built by people of ethical humanistic persuasion, whose intellect, emotion, and will are centered on a Heart of equality, liberty, ethical care and justice. I hold an axiology goal that the faculties of intellect, emotion, and will motivate us to seek the values of...

“I don’t always know, but must choose what works best.”

“I don’t always know, but must choose what works best.”   Such as, how reason extracted from an understanding of the real world can assist in choices that are more accurate in their answers or conclusions. Reason is more reliable than, faith extracted from beliefs that do not connected to the understanding of the real world, like faith in prayer for healing over medical treatment or faith in some fable about the origin of everything, that doesn’t match the existing knowledge about the origin of everything.   This analysis of which to choose can be navigated with choosing that which is the most reliable.   Reliabilism: a general theory of knowledge.   Reliabilism strives to ascertain whether the general belief-forming process by which method the belief was formed and how reliable it is to produce a high ratio of true beliefs. Reliable standards for true beliefs commonly rely heavily on asking good questions and bing skeptical or reserved before establishing an answer.   How can know whether a process of true belief is reliable in general or not? Justificational status of a belief must somehow depend on the way the belief is caused.   Wishful thinking, gut feelings confused reasoning, hasty generalization or guessing are not proper ways of justification if they nether hold or require evidence. Their common feature is unreliability: they tend to produce false beliefs in a large proportion of the cases.   Critical thinking, logic, or good inductive/deductive reasoning are proper ways of justification if they relate to evidence. Their common feature is reliability: they tend to produce true beliefs in a large proportion of...

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth To me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), subjective (Coherence theory of truth), or to the objective (Correspondence theory of truth).   *Pragmatic theory of truth: very subjective   “our ideas are true if they work to solve problems, are useful”   A common feature is a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts such as truth; and an emphasis on the fact that belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of an inquiry. The pragmatic maxim is a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose, advising on an optimal way of “attaining clearness of apprehension”. Ref Ref    *Coherence theory of truth: subjective/objective   “our ideas are true if they are internally consistent not contradictory”   A common thinking is to regard truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. There is no single set of such “logical universes”, but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly discussed under this title. A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs hold...

Fideism “faith-ism”

Fideism (faith-ism) is Theistic Reality Confusion A rationalist mind rejects the use of the “F” word, FAITH as anything but FEELINGS. We use feelings and emotions in every thought that enters or leaves our minds we never stop emoting but that is not the same as trying to actively claim to use feelings and emotions as if they are facts and evidence i.e. FAITH (an expression of Fideism “faith-ism”).   “Fideism (from the Latin “fides” or “faith”) is the view that religious belief depends on faith or revelation, rather than reason, intellect or natural theology. In this respect, it is in direct opposition to the doctrine of Deism. More accurately it objects to evidentialism, the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence. As a result, it holds that theology may include logical contradictions without apology. It may or may not also involve active disparagement of the claims of reason. Fideism teaches that rational or scientific arguments for the existence of God (see the section on Philosophy of Religion) are fallacious and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the truth of Christian theology because Christian theology teaches that people are saved by faith in the Christian God (i.e. trust in the empirically unprovable) and if the Christian God’s existence can be proven, either empirically or logically, then to that extent faith becomes unnecessary or irrelevant. Therefore, if Christian theology is true, no immediate proof of the Christian God’s existence is possible.”  In religious faith beliefs, it is common to hear expressions like “believing with your heart” or “believe in faith alone no facts needed”...

I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth “Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ), also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments. In philosophy, dialectic or dialectical method implied a methodology used for examining and cognition of philosophical objects. Dialectical methods demands the users to examine the objects in relation to other objects and to the whole system, and examine the objects within a dynamic, evolutionary environment. Dialectical method is usually contrasted with metaphysical method, which examine the objects in a separated, isolated and static environment. Dialectical method has three main forms corresponding to three developmental stages. Naive dialectic, emerging in ancient history, mainly relied on intuition and personal experience with limited supporting scientific evidences. Idealistic dialectic, a product of classic German idealism and reaching its zenith in the works of Hegel, was the first systematic form of dialectical method. Materialistic dialectics, built mainly by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, adapted the Hegelian dialectic into traditional materialism. The term dialectic is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgment. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent, proving one’s argument correct, and proving the opponent’s argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however, clear winners are frequently determined by a judge, a jury or group consensus....