Page 1 of 1

How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:39 am
by thinkdr
In the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics this forrmula shows up time and again:
I > E > S.
It is a sound formula for the reasons we will explain in this thread.

This thread also is in keeping with Kant's book, Logik, written earlier, but translated into English in 1800, a book in which he introduces three basic kinds of concepts: the construct, the abstraction (or classification or categorization), and the unicept (or singularity.)

He also explains three kinds of method: the Synthetic - the method of science, where one begins with primary properties and then adds secondary refinements later;
the Analytic method, which is the procedure in philosophy [of clarifying and analyzing vague concepts in an effort to make them more clear and sharp. It proceeds by comparing and contrasting, by categorizing, rarely defining terms, 'having words chasing words,,' etc.;
and then Kant tells us about (what today we would speak of as) the axiomatic method where the "synthetic a priori" is central. That latter - the axiom - takes a fertile assumption, spins out its implications employing both deduction and induction.

Robert S. Hartman (1910 – 1973) created the ‘Axiom of Value.’ With the Axiom of Value – which is the formal definition of the term “value” (which we will soon elucidate) - and with standard set theory, we will below demonstrate that once the axiom is applied to the concept value itself, it comes up with three basic dimensions: S, E, and I. This, as you will note, is a logical procedure.

{It yields potentially hundreds of definitions of other terms that are related to one another, bother both as to degree of “betterness”, and as to how they correlate with other terms having the same dimension of value.} Here is a link to a chart containing some of these new terms; there will, of course, be some primitive terms that are undefined, as in any system. See the table in End Note 4 (see pp. 64-66) here: ... ETHICS.pdf

, we will explain later that when the axiom is applied to the concept “value” we derive three dimensions of value, as follows:

[There are three kinds of number which mathematicians acknowledge: finite; denumerable; and nondenumerable. Or, to say it another way, finite, countable, and uncountable.

[To illustrate, think of “7” (or the letter n in algebra which refers to) numbers which are finite. Then think of the integers: these numbers are countable but nonfinite since they go on indefinitely. And then think of the number of points in a continuous line segment: which is an uncountable number.]

...continued in next post.....

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:45 am
by thinkdr

So a value which - by definition - has only a finite amount of the properties required to fulfill its description (i.e., its concept’s intension) will be named S-value – where S stands for Systemic. (For all practical purposes, the intensions of these concepts are finite but elastic.)

A value which is defined as having only a denumerable (a countable) amount of properties will be spoken of as an E-value, where the E stands for Extrinsic.

And a value which – by definition - has a nondenumerable (an uncountable) amount of the property-names (attributes) which are needed to describe something (or someone) having uncountably-many properties {such as your mother, your wife, your dear friend, your priceless treasure, a museum-quality artifact, etc.) ...that value dimension we shall dub I-value, wherein I stands for Intrinsic.

Intrinsic values are seen as gestalts, for if asked to list all the features of one’s girlfriend or mother, a person wouldn’t know where to begin to enumerate them – there are just so many. Enumeration is inappropriate and is not necessary.

I think we all agree that the formula 90 > 20 > 4 is true with regard to arithmetic. It is the same with the three basic dimensions of value - with regard to valuation: A higher infinity is greater (in size) than a lesser infinity .{For example, The number of posssible curves in hyperspace is larger than the number of integers.}

And that lesser infinity is in turn greater than a finite amount. An infinity of what? In this case, an infinity of meaning. And, as we are about to explain, value depends upon meaning.

The Systemic values arise by the fulfillment of mental constructs. They are constructed by the mind. They are defined into being: the result of postulation. Definitions are of finite length. {For example, "a circle is a cross-section of a sphere." or "force equals mass times acceleration." Both definitions are finite in size.}

The Extrinsic values arise by the fulfillment of worldly matters, socio-economic concerns, daily business, functionality, pragmatic matters.

And the Intrinsic values are the result of the fulfillment of situations to which we have given ourselves, our involvements, our deep interests, our loves, our highest appreciations, our realities.

Common applications of the dimensions are: I-values are people values and spiritual values; E-values are the value of things and stuff from everyday life, the daily material values; and the S-values are the Intellectual values. To fulfill in this context means for the actual (properties) to match the ideal picture of something or someone you have in your head. When the qualities of the actual correspond one-to-one {bijectively} with the conceptual attributes there is fulfillment. And thus, value.

... to be continued below.....

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:47 am
by thinkdr
To continue with the argument for the validity, the coherence, the correspondence with daily life, and the inspired creativity of The existential, logical Hierarchy of Value formula....... please see the following post.

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:53 am
by thinkdr
...This that follows is the last installment of the argument for the soundness of the HOV formula ....

"The name sets the norm” Hartman liked to say. By this he meant that the meaning of the concept that goes with the label you put on whatever you are valuing – the name – sets the norm: when you name (or designate, or associate a word to) an object, there is a meaning of that word that is associated with it. That meaning is the measure: it provides a norm for the object (of your attention) to fulfill.

If it does match, if it does fulfill its concept, then you will likely tend to consider the object to be a value, or to 'have value.'

The logical Hierarchy of Values (HOV) is shown concisely in the formula I > E > S.

Among the formula’s interpretations are: Life takes priority over materials; Health is more important than Wealth.

Material (and wealth) it tells us are more valuable than theories, systems, ideologies and schools of thought.

Also it tells us – as the old saying goes – “Life is larger than logic.” It is ‘existential’’ because it affirms life – the life of individuals. That is one of the main thrusts of existential philosophy. [Cf. S. Kierkegaard, EITHER-OR].

One result we can derive from these definitions is that I-value is richer in properties than is E-value, and that E-value is richer in properties than S-value. These relationships, as you may recall, can be depicted in a formula, the HOV. When we apply the definition of value to the very concept “value” itself what results are these three basic dimensions of value; and we arrive at the necessary conclusion that I-value is more of a value (more valuable) than E-value, and that E-value, in turn, is more of a value than S-value.

Value is a function of meaning: the more meaningful something is, the more valuable it is. This provides us with a hierarchy of values HOV).

Let us review some of the fine points: Meaning serves as the measure (of a concept’s value.) For purposes of logic, ‘meaning’ is the intension of the concept; it consists of a definition, and the exposition – or description – of the features that make up that individual (item or person.) These features, or qualities, are property-names or they are properties. {Every concept has a name (a designator or label), a meaning (a set of property-names or attributes) and an application. A member of the class of application is a referent (a case or an example.) A referent possesses properties. [For more details, and extensive applications of this derivation, see M. C. Katz - BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach ]

Questions? Comments?