T3 or T4

[carter]

After reading up on the two, they seem to be almost the exact same hormone? What are the differences between the two? I gues my real question is which one is better than the other, meaning which one is more effectivie whn trying to burn muscle. I noticed at ar-r that only t3 is offered? Is T3 prefered?

[perfectbeast2001]

you want to burn muscle????? Well t3 will do that if used without AS. It is also a good fat burner. t3 is the stronger of the 2. They are both thyroid hormones, http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=199887
gives an explanation of the difference.

[carter]

you want to burn muscle????? Well t3 will do that if used without AS. It is also a good fat burner. t3 is the stronger of the 2. They are both thyroid hormones, http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=199887
gives an explanation of the difference.

LOL, no i meant fat... I'll be running my second cycle in Jan. and i'm considering using one of these thyroid therapies incorporated with clenbuterol during PCT. I've read and heard that either hormone will burn both muscle and fat if not using AAS, especially if the diet is not perfect, but i'm hoping to REAALLY focus on my diet post cycle.

I will delve into that link you included and i really appreciate the help. I'll be back with some ????? i'm sure..

[perfectbeast2001]

aha that makes more sense!! Wouldn't run any thyroid hormone during PCT as they will just add to the catabolism. Add it to the cycle instead or use alternative fat loss drugs in PCT (clen ,ECA,DNP not all at once though!)

[carter]

*HIJACKING MY OWN THREAD*

Hey beast, i noticed in your workout log that you've ran IGF-1. Would this be a preferred method to maybe help maintain my "anabolic " state during PCT?

[cfiler]

Don't run it through PCT.

During a cycle is fine. You would want to take it while "on" otherwise you may be loosing muscle with it.

[carter]

Don't run it through PCT.

During a cycle is fine. You would want to take it while "on" otherwise you may be loosing muscle with it.

thanks cfiler, that's what i'll most likely do. The last thing i wnat is to fight from added catabolism during PCT. In fact, i may just stick to clen for PCT and not run t3 during this next cycle. After readinig the link provided, T3 would seem to be preferred though. Thanks for the help guys

[perfectbeast2001]

*HIJACKING MY OWN THREAD*

Hey beast, i noticed in your workout log that you've ran IGF-1. Would this be a preferred method to maybe help maintain my "anabolic" state during PCT?

yes I found it great for PCT. Many others have also used it in PCT with good results.

[*Narkissos*]

Don't run it through PCT.

During a cycle is fine. You would want to take it while "on" otherwise you may be loosing muscle with it.

I run t4 during pct.

think about 'why' guys run clen during pct.

[*Narkissos*]

which one is better than the other, meaning which one is more effectivie whn trying to burn muscle. I noticed at ar-r that only t3 is offered? Is T3 prefered?

Others will differ.. but i don't think the two are comparable... as 'better' is relative to the state of application.

I use t4 with preference.

I've used t3 with success.. but i find it to depletive.

T4 i like because i can boost my BMR while still maintaining a 'full' look to my musculature.

t3 is directly metabolically active.. while t4 requires specific metabolic/dietary conditions to be effective.

The limiting factor for the latter compound is the body's ability to convert t4 to t3 tru the enzyme deiodinase... 'Limiting factor' because low kcal dieting causes a deactivation of this enzyme.. limiting the conversion of t4 to t3 as the body attempts to stunt metabolic output.

I don't cut on below maintenance kcals anymore tho so i personally don't experience this cessation.

Thus my preference for the latter compound.

Also.. i think t4 supplementation activates a number of other pathways which t3 administration does not.

Narkissos

[*Narkissos*]

Others will differ.. but i don't think the two are comparable... as 'better' is relative to the state of application.

I use t4 with preference.

I've used t3 with success.. but i find it to depletive.

T4 i like because i can boost my BMR while still maintaining a 'full' look to my musculature.

t3 is directly metabolically active.. while t4 requires specific metabolic/dietary conditions to be effective.

The limiting factor for the latter compound is the body's ability to convert t4 to t3 tru the enzyme deiodinase... 'Limiting factor' because low kcal dieting causes a deactivation of this enzyme.. limiting the conversion of t4 to t3 as the body attempts to stunt metabolic output.

I don't cut on below maintenance kcals anymore tho so i personally don't experience this cessation.

Thus my preference for the latter compound.

Also.. i think t4 supplementation activates a number of other pathways which t3 administration does not.

Narkissos

Regardless of the compound chosen from the above... a boatload of research is needed before you undertake supplementation with any.

I see so many on the boards reach for these compounds indiscriminately...

If you're a casual lifter.. as opposed to a competitive athlete, i think you should stay away from them personally.

Nark

[perfectbeast2001]

^interesting stuff Nark^

[Property of Steroid.com]

If you're a casual lifter.. as opposed to a competitive athlete, i think you should stay away from them personally.

Nark

Philosophically, I tended to feel the same way, in the past. I suppose it comes from being a competitive athlete and placing my goals as being of intrinsically more worth than someone elses casual goals of looking good at the beach.

After working with literally dozens of clients, I no longer feel that way.

I have a client in California who just wants to look good and be strong, and his goals and dedication to them are of no less value to him as (for example) my goal of winning a championship or making an all star team. I worked with Ms. New Jersey, and can't really say that the trophy she now has is of any higher worth than someone's self-image or self worth, relative to them.

The girl who won the Ms. New Jersey was more thrilled to qualify for nationals (figure) than another friend of mine was when she turned pro (fitness). And who's to say that the fat kid who used some thyroid meds, clen , aas, whatever...and now gets more ass than a toilet seat isn't even MORE thrilled at achieving his own goals than the two girls I just mentioned? In the end, even if you're competing, it's still recreational...and on a relative scale of importance to the individual, no less important than....you know, whatever someone elses goals are.

I understand your point of view, and previously thought the same way, but on further examination (I have a degree in philosophy, and I suppose I overthink things), I have a revised position.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

[silverback300lbs]

well said

[SVTMuscle*]

well said

Yeah Anthony has a positive view on AAS for those who dont compete which is great because he can really justify use rather well.



I prefere T4 over T3 frankly because I hear it is alot easier to rebound from t4 oppose to t3, although there is really no rebound at all anyways, but I guess im just paranoid about long term thyroid damage

[Jay-Ace]

Philosophically, I tended to feel the same way, in the past. I suppose it comes from being a competitive athlete and placing my goals as being of intrinsically more worth than someone elses casual goals of looking good at the beach.

After working with literally dozens of clients, I no longer feel that way.

I have a client in California who just wants to look good and be strong, and his goals and dedication to them are of no less value to him as (for example) my goal of winning a championship or making an all star team. I worked with Ms. New Jersey, and can't really say that the trophy she now has is of any higher worth than someone's self-image or self worth, relative to them.

The girl who won the Ms. New Jersey was more thrilled to qualify for nationals (figure) than another friend of mine was when she turned pro (fitness). And who's to say that the fat kid who used some thyroid meds, clen , aas, whatever...and now gets more ass than a toilet seat isn't even MORE thrilled at achieving his own goals than the two girls I just mentioned? In the end, even if you're competing, it's still recreational...and on a relative scale of importance to the individual, no less important than....you know, whatever someone elses goals are.

I understand your point of view, and previously thought the same way, but on further examination (I have a degree in philosophy, and I suppose I overthink things), I have a revised position.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

What does this actually say??

It's over engineered and TBH fairly non-sensical.

Anthony please elaborate....

[Snrf]

I get it

[Property of Steroid.com]

What does this actually say??

It's over engineered and TBH fairly non-sensical.

Anthony please elaborate....

If it's over-engineered and I elaborate, then wouldn't it be "over-over-engineered"?

Yeah Anthony has a positive view on AAS for those who dont compete which is great because he can really justify use rather well.

I can justify basically all of my vices just as well...I think that's where having a degree in philosophy really pays off...

[Jay-Ace]

If it's over-engineered and I elaborate, then wouldn't it be "over-over-engineered"?

Over-engineered as in you've padded your statement out with "filler" for the sake of padding it out.

Elaborate means to perfect, I mean please elaborate on the meaning. Remove the filler!! I respect your knowledge, but you do have a tendency to pad things out!!

No offence, but if Imay suggest you read a book called "Writing For Engineers", I believe you would find it most enlightening. Especially having had tutoring in Philosophy.

Jay

[Property of Steroid.com]

Over-engineered as in you've padded your statement out with "filler" for the sake of padding it out.

Elaborate means to perfect, I mean please elaborate on the meaning. Remove the filler!! I respect your knowledge, but you do have a tendency to pad things out!!

No offence, but if Imay suggest you read a book called "Writing For Engineers", I believe you would find it most enlightening. Especially having had tutoring in Philosophy.

Jay

Err...I wasn't tutored in philosophy..I earned a degree in it...

My other degree is in English actually...I think my writing skills are up to par, but I'll take into consideration your suggestion(s). When I started writing I felt the same way...that I was a better researcher, and not much of a writer.

Here's the baisic message of what I was saying:

The plastic-piece-of-shit trophy that bodybuilders try to win at contests is no more noble of a goal, nor entitlement to using chemicals to improve one's physique, than the simple desire to do so.

It's just slightly less abrasive in the form I gave above...with the "padding" as you call it. The form above is called, in books on persuasive writing, "Felt/Find/Feel".

In essence, to convince someone of your point of view, you tell them you initially felt the same way, but then you have found ample evidence to suggest otherwise, and now you feel the opposite way about things. So while I wasn't up to par in Engineering for Writers, or writing for engines...I think that the format I followed was pretty decent. I've found this format to be most useful, over others, for getting a point across when I don't want to be abrasive.

So yea, I've read a couple of books on writing in my pursuit of that degree in English, though admittedly, "Writing for Engineers" wasn't part of the curriculum. Maybe I now feel that I should stick with what I know for now, i.e. the format I learned whilst in pursuit of my English degree...it's brought me a modicum of success in this field, I think.

(For extra credit, go back over this post, and find the "Felt/Found/Feel" format I've cleverly hidden within it, in reply to your post! Give yourself a gold star if you find all the key words!)

[*Narkissos*]

Here's the baisic message of what I was saying:

The plastic-piece-of-shit trophy that bodybuilders try to win at contests is no more noble of a goal, nor entitlement to using chemicals to improve one's physique, than the simple desire to do so.

Ouch.

[Jay-Ace]

(For extra credit, go back over this post, and find the "Felt/Found/Feel" format I've cleverly hidden within it, in reply to your post! Give yourself a gold star if you find all the key words!)

Yeah yeah enough of the gold stars, I've been to uni & not looking to go back!

What I was meaning is that this is more of a technical subject to talk about, as are all of medicine's avenues. I have no doubts that your English skills are more than adequate, just that sometimes a more "laymans terms" approach may be more appealing to lesser knowledgable members looking for an answer forthwith.

But thanks for clearing that up, and yes I agree with your perspective on this matter!!

[Property of Steroid.com]

Ouch.

See? It was far better in the original format!

[Jay-Ace]

See? It was far better in the original format!

But people didnt get the original meaning, otherwise they would have said "ouch" earlier!!

[*Narkissos*]

Regardless of the compound chosen from the above... a boatload of research is needed before you undertake supplementation with any.

I see so many on the boards reach for these compounds indiscriminately...

If you're a casual lifter.. as opposed to a competitive athlete, i think you should stay away from them personally.

Nark

Let me extrapolate...

..or elaborate rather... (before the verbal gremlins frown on the poetic liberty in the use (or misuse) of 'extrapolate' ...As the aforementioned would suggest my opinion to be akin to 'known fact')

/end verbose disclaimer.

To expand... on the abovementioned 'competitive athlete'.. it is my belief that such a moniker (generalised pseudonym) encompasses the actual fitness athlete.. and those that make a living from their bodies.

I think if the after conducting a cost-to-benefit analysis (or rather a risk analysis)... and the risk/cost is deemed acceptable, the application of the compound(s) is viable.

The problem with the casual user is that he/she seldom assesses the potential risks.

It has become the normative state that if one wants to acheive 'x'-condition ('X' being the ultimate/ideal), that one should just casually pick up a bottle of t3 and clen and go for it.

Personally i don't think the use of any of the above compounds is safe.. thus, in my humble opinion... the use by the casual enthusiast is not justifiable.

Trophies: plastic pieces of shit, as alluded to by A. Roberts, are irrelevant to this argument.

Narkissos

[Hackamaniac]

The verbal assasin, is in the building

[Jay-Ace]

Let me extrapolate...

..or elaborate rather... (before the verbal gremlins frown on the poetic liberty in the use (or misuse) of 'extrapolate' ...As the aforementioned would suggest my opinion to be akin to 'known fact')

/end verbose disclaimer.

To expand... on the abovementioned 'competitive athlete'.. it is my belief that such a moniker (generalised pseudonym) encompasses the actual fitness athlete.. and those that make a living from their bodies.

I think if the after conducting a cost-to-benefit analysis (or rather a risk) analysis... and the risk/cost is deemed acceptable, the application of the compound(s) is viable.

The problem with the casual user is that he/she seldom assesses the potential risks.

It has become the normative state that if one wants to acheive 'x'-condition ('X' being the ultimate/ideal), that one should just casually pick up a bottle of t3 and clen and go for it.

Personally i don't think the use of any of the above compounds is safe.. thus, in my humble opinion... the use by the casual enthusiast is not justifiable.

Trophies: plastic pieces of shit, as alluded to by A. Roberts, are irrelevant to this argument.

Narkissos

Yup, I think the problem is that many people do not know HOW to assess the potential risks!!

A risk assessment cannot be carried with a post or two in a public forum.

[marcus300]

Let me extrapolate...

..or elaborate rather... (before the verbal gremlins frown on the poetic liberty in the use (or misuse) of 'extrapolate' ...As the aforementioned would suggest my opinion to be akin to 'known fact')

/end verbose disclaimer.

To expand... on the abovementioned 'competitive athlete'.. it is my belief that such a moniker (generalised pseudonym) encompasses the actual fitness athlete.. and those that make a living from their bodies.

I think if the after conducting a cost-to-benefit analysis (or rather a risk analysis)... and the risk/cost is deemed acceptable, the application of the compound(s) is viable.

The problem with the casual user is that he/she seldom assesses the potential risks.

It has become the normative state that if one wants to acheive 'x'-condition ('X' being the ultimate/ideal), that one should just casually pick up a bottle of t3 and clen and go for it.

Personally i don't think the use of any of the above compounds is safe.. thus, in my humble opinion... the use by the casual enthusiast is not justifiable.
Trophies: plastic pieces of shit, as alluded to by A. Roberts, are irrelevant to this argument.

Narkissos

very true nark

[Property of Steroid.com]

Let me extrapolate...

..or elaborate rather... (before the verbal gremlins frown on the poetic liberty in the use (or misuse) of 'extrapolate' ...As the aforementioned would suggest my opinion to be akin to 'known fact')

/end verbose disclaimer.

To expand... on the abovementioned 'competitive athlete'.. it is my belief that such a moniker (generalised pseudonym) encompasses the actual fitness athlete.. and those that make a living from their bodies.

I think if the after conducting a cost-to-benefit analysis (or rather a risk) analysis... and the risk/cost is deemed acceptable, the application of the compound(s) is viable.

The problem with the casual user is that he/she seldom assesses the potential risks.

It has become the normative state that if one wants to acheive 'x'-condition ('X' being the ultimate/ideal), that one should just casually pick up a bottle of t3 and clen and go for it.

Personally i don't think the use of any of the above compounds is safe.. thus, in my humble opinion... the use by the casual enthusiast is not justifiable.

Trophies: plastic pieces of shit, as alluded to by A. Roberts, are irrelevant to this argument.

Narkissos

Then, to avoid further and unwanted mistakes on my part, I would add that (perhaps?) you ought have said "Professional" rather than "competitive" ...many people compete without being professional...

But I understand the hesitance to use that word (professional) also...here's why:

Interestingly, though...in the world of physique competitions, "Professional" doesn't mean that one earns income from one's actual physique, nor income related to anything of the like. It simply means you have met certain criteria to compete at a particular level (above the national level). That's always been a strange one for me to understand...how someone can claim to be a "Professional" when they don't earn direct income from what they claim to be a professional at....

Example: My friend who is a professional fitness competitor now has to pay $200/year for her pro-card instead of $70/year for her NPC card. So her turning professional was a net gain of NEGATIVE $130. She also has to pay more to enter shows.

In many ways, I am similarly entitled to be called a professional beer drinker...I pay to do it, and to do so legally, I also needed a card (drivers licence).

I do think that the argument that people should follow risk/reward based judgements, and if you thusly define casual use as one who uses something without that analysis, and in spite of that analysis coming out poorly, then yes, that's bad.

However, you've simply substituted "money" for "piece of shit trophy" in that counterargument, and I still find my original argument to stand as being the better of the two.

Here's why: The acquisition of a good body has no less objective value than money. It may even, in many cases, have far less subjective value.

In that case, it doesn't entitle you to the "right" to use more/different drugs to achieve the goal of earning money. A good body may indeed make you happier than money. I find that the for your argument to have merit, there must be more quantifiable objective value in money over a nice physique, and I don't feel that to be a justifiable position.

In the relegating of trophies to being irrelevant, you relegate most of your argument to irrelevance. You substituted material gain (in the form of money) for material gain (in the form of a trophy), which doesn't strengthen your argument at all. Most of the people I know who have trophies for physique competitions paid thousands for contest prep, and in the cases of the women, thousands again for their suits.

In the end, if happiness is the ultimate goal (identified as the only thing with inherant value), then indeed the piece of shit trophy and what it symbolizes is worth far more than the money (in the eyes of most competitors, it is....they lose thousands in their prep costs). And if happiness is the goal, then why is the acquisition of money through drugs more noble or give more entitlement to drugs than the acquisition of having a nice body, which arguably brings at least as much (if not more) happiness?

[*Narkissos*]

Yup, I think the problem is that many people do not know HOW to assess the potential risks!!

True.

This is because most people choose the shortest route between their current state and their desired state.

Anxillary reading is one such 'skipped step'...

I believe the analogy is: "the shortest route between 'a' and 'b' is a straight line".

However... human development, though linear, does not follow a straight line.

Rather, in science, development processes are quantified with reference to 'curves'.

e.g. the growth curve; the development curve, etc.

Thus is is beyond me why people skip the essential steps...

Actually.. it isn't beyond me.

The actuality is that skipping steps falls inline with that deemed normal and accepted by today's global societal normative values: the "i want it now" phenomenom.

A risk assessment cannot be carried with a post or two in a public forum.

Fact.

Narkissos

[Property of Steroid.com]

True.

This is because most people choose the shortest route between their current state and their desired state.

Anxillary reading is one such 'skipped step'...

I believe the analogy is: "the shortest route between 'a' and 'b' is a straight line".

However... human development, though linear, does not follow a straight line.
Thus is is beyond me why people skip the essential steps...

Actually.. it isn't beyond me.

The actuality is that skipping steps falls inline with that deemed normal and accepted by today's global societal normative values: the "i want it now" phenomenom.


Narkissos

This is also why you have income from doing consultations with people. They aren't willing to do as much of the necessary reading (identified by you as the essential steps) to achieve their goals. So, you have that knowledge, and they pay you for it, to avoid taking several of those necessary steps.

Nothing wrong with that...it gives you some income, and allows you to help people achieve their goals and a deeper understanding of what's required; but through working with you, they can avoid doing much of the research that they don't want to do.

It's symbiotic.

[*Narkissos*]

Hooker you antagonistic bastard...

You can be eloquent when you choose to be... I'm starting to like you again

I miss having people who force me to think outside the base parameters.

Most threads here now just require the regurgitation of info.. with minimal support from new research.

That being said...

I do think that the argument that people should follow risk/reward based judgements, and if you thusly define casual use as one who uses something without that analysis, and in spite of that analysis coming out poorly, then yes, that's bad.

No immediate argument here.

However, you've simply substituted "money" for "piece of shit trophy" in that counterargument, and I still find my original argument to stand as being the better of the two.

I do however disagree with your original argument. The insertion of money as a justifiable cause is not the basis of the argument.. it is solely a non-inflammatory example (whereas the statement: "plastic piece of shit"... represents the extreme opposite )

The basis of the argument is applicable 'justifiable cause' and that deemed acceptable risk.. v.s. the non-consideration of risk factors (etc.) in casual use..

An argument supported by your previously quoted statements.

Here's why: The acquisition of a good body has no less objective value than money. It may even, in many cases, have far less subjective value.

That i do disagree with as well... as 'good body' is too generalised.

I somehow do not buy into the train of thought that equates 'good body' with health.

Further.. the casual use of the above compounds negates the generalised category that the casual user would fall under: "health enthusiast"... as the use of the above compounds outside that deemed medically applicable, is not 'healthy'.

In that case, it doesn't entitle you to the "right" to use more/different drugs to achieve the goal of earning money. A good body may indeed make you happier than money. I find that the for your argument to have merit, there must be more quantifiable objective value in money over a nice physique, and I don't feel that to be a justifiable position.

True.. but when that which precipitates the achievement of the aforementioned 'good body' pre-empts the degredation of health is the risk acceptable?

This is the base of the arguement: Finding and alloting 'acceptable risk'.

For most that consider it.. there is no acceptable risk.

And again alluding to the opening argument.. the limitation therein is that most simply do not consider the risk factors.

re: casual use.

In the relegating of trophies to being irrelevant, you relegate most of your argument to irrelevance.

I disagree.

As 'trophy', is just a material substitution.

Again.. the argument is 'justifiable cause'.

You substituted material gain (in the form of money) for material gain (in the form of a trophy), which doesn't strengthen your argument at all.

Far from weakening the argument... it strengthens it.

Think about it.

Supporting one's family through the money earned from one's physique may be one's justifiable cause.

Yes even your trophy may be deemed by another as justifiable cause.

What you have not seemed to realise is that i removed 'trophy' because you correlated it with the statement 'plastic piece of shit'.. which i found inflammatory.

Justifiable cause is relative to the immediate individual.

The base argument: that which i'm not circumventing, is that the 'casual user' does not take the steps to establish 'risk'; to classify 'risk'; and further, to justify 'risk'.

Narkissos

[LivingItUp]

your body turns t4 into t3...

[*Narkissos*]

This is also why you have income from doing consultations with people. They aren't willing to do as much of the necessary reading (identified by you as the essential steps) to achieve their goals. So, you have that knowledge, and they pay you for it, to avoid taking several of those necessary steps.

Nothing wrong with that...it gives you some income, and allows you to help people achieve their goals and a deeper understanding of what's required; but through working with you, they can avoid doing much of the research that they don't want to do.

It's symbiotic.

But you do realise that the hiring of a consultant does not de-regulate (/skip) a step right?

Rather it condenses said step.

[Property of Steroid.com]

The base argument: that which i'm not circumventing, is that the 'casual user' does not take the steps to establish 'risk'; to classify 'risk'; and further, to justify 'risk'.

Narkissos

No...this is the strongest argument you made. That the end result may be a lessening of happiness (in the form of the risk coming to fruition, in more quantifiable terms than the reward), and that is the only reason a casual user could be said to have less merit in their use of (whatever) than someone else. You have to define casual user as someone who the risk/reward ratio is poorly asessed. In that case, a probable lessening of their overall happiness is the end result.

"Feeding your family" is not of intrinsic value...it leads to happiness, just as the trophy, or the good body (albeit probably more happiness).

For something to have intrinsic value, it needs to have value in and of itself...and (for this discussion's sake) feeding one's family may have no value to someone who hates their family. Happiness, however, still has intrinsic value to that person. Nobody tries to be happy because it will achieve some other goal; it is an end (Aristotle argued, the only end) with intrinsic value.

Thus, casual user, if you define that person as someone who is likely to be less happy as the end outcome of their risk/reward gamble, is the only person who shouldn't use (whatever drug will skew that risk/reward ratio unfavorably). That's the strongest argument I think you've made. But it's not based on income, feeding your family, a trophy, or anything else...it's based on happiness. (Which is the argument I originally made.)

[perfectbeast2001]

my brain hurts..

[Snrf]

Whoever came up with that "test kills brain cells" study should sit in one of of Narks and Anthony's arguments....

[*Narkissos*]

"Feeding your family" is not of intrinsic value...it leads to happiness, just as the trophy, or the good body (albeit probably more happiness).

Maslow's "Hierarchy of need"..

Re: Maslow's Theorem..

..would argue otherwise however:




^^whereas the security (albeit financial for this example) of family is one of the lower-order needs.

Lower order needs being base needs.

Higher order needs not being realised til lower order needs are satisfied and personal growth acheived.

For something to have intrinsic value, it needs to have value in and of itself...and (for this discussion's sake) feeding one's family may have no value to someone who hates their family. Happiness, however, still has intrinsic value to that person. Nobody tries to be happy because it will achieve some other goal; it is an end (Aristotle argued, the only end) with intrinsic value.

Well put..

Narkissos

[Property of Steroid.com]

But you do realise that the hiring of a consultant does not de-regulate (/skip) a step right?

Rather it condenses said step.

I suppose it can do either. You can tell them what to do and why they're doing it, or you can just tell them to do it. In one case, it condenses the step, in the other, it negates it. They don't know anything more than they did before hiring the consultant....

Actually, I'll let you in on a secret:

That's the ultimate goal of many consultants and especially prep gurus...

They tell the client what to do without explanation or reasoning. This way, the client never learns anything except for what they need to do at that particular moment, for that particular contest or whatever...and the trainer/consultant never has to fear losing the client (or income) because they've actually never taught them anything...they just told them what to do.

[Property of Steroid.com]

Maslow's "Hierarchy of need"..

Re: Maslow's Theorem..

..would argue otherwise however


Narkissos

That's a different context than what we're talking about. That theorem doesn't argue for the intrinsic value of things, it simply places them in a heirarchical order, in an attempt to show which are necessary for others to be possible(in pyramid fashion) Ultimately, all of those things in the Hierarchy contribute to happiness...but none of them have intrinsic value as defined. The theorem isn't arguing that any of those things take the place of happiness, it ultimately gives a rank and order (very subjective) to them based on some kind of logical inference.

Consider Socrates...at the end of his life, he didn't have anything in the "safety" level of the pyramid (he was sentenced to death and ultimately accepted that and killed himself), although he had everything in the levels above it. Thus, by counterexample, you can clearly have things in the upper level of the theory without having things below it. That proves that the lower levels of the pyramid are neither necessary nor sufficient for the upper levels. And in this case, in that format, they aren't necessary nor sufficient for happiness. In other words, the example you're giving, doesn't work in this context.