Value ontology is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Anomaly654]

I have not heard of value ontology before reading this thread, so did a quick google just now and found this definition on some other board:

Value ontology is the interpretation of “being”/“the world” as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by “valuing”, that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.

Value ontology therefore refers to a logical circularity that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure.

The theory explains why what exists exists and persists through time, by making it evident that whatever does not have a “self-valuing” (such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.

My question to UP1001 [assuming the definition above is agreeable] is 'what do you find ‘stupid’ about this view? This is the first and to date only brush I’ve had with the concept, so understand I am doubtless missing a lot. But from my thinking the definition above could be describing anything from a modification of evolutionary theory to that of a design argument to support the existence of God. What am I missing?

[Mr_Reasonable]

Is the liberal egalitarian thing something ILP claims to be? Or is it something that someone else claims ILP to be?