Value

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:19 pm

Yet another very basic subject, one which has been discussed who knows how many times in the past.

I am starting this thread in order to see where each one of the active forum members currently stands on the issue.

There are two questions to be answered and they happen to be rather simple.

1) What is value?
(Or: What is the definition of the word "value"?)

2) Are there true and false values?
(Or: Are there objective values and perceived values?)

The following is a list of expected participants:

1) Fixed Cross / Jakob (Value Ontology)
2) Silhouette (Experientalism)
3) phoneutria
4) Karpel Tunnel
5) Ecmandu
6) Prismatic
7) Everyone else I left out

Here's my answer to the first question:

Magnus wrote:Value is the degree to which something is useful in attaining one's goals.


And here's what phoneutria has to say:

phoneutria wrote:there's whole bodies of work on the "disinterestedness" of aesthetic
which is another way to say that true aesthetic appreciation does not consider at all it's use
but simple beauty as an end
I think value goes much deeper than use
because we humans don't exactly live in a world of objects
we live in a world of meanings
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:52 pm

I like pragmatism and phoneutria’s answer is pragmatic.

What do I think value is? Referents that matter to everyone.
Last edited by Ecmandu on Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:53 pm

I would say that phoneutria's answer is mystical.
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:57 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:I would say that phoneutria's answer is mystical.


It’s inarticulate. But we’re basically saying the same thing in different words, well, not exactly the same thing.

Value is not solipsistic to me.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:04 pm

Well, she's explicitly stating that "value goes much deeper than use". There's a possibility that she's using the word "use" in a way different than I do and that would make it likely that we're saying one and the same thing using different language. But if that's not the case, if she's using the word in the same exact way that I do, then she's necessarily disagreeing with me.

To feel that something (e.g. a painting, a woman, etc) is beautiful is to perceive that something as being in some way useful to attaining your goals. Moreover, since such feelings are perception, and not reality, they might be wrong. This means there are true as well as false feelings of beauty.
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:15 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Well, she's explicitly stating that "value goes much deeper than use". There's a possibility that she's using the word "use" in a way different than I do and that would make it likely that we're saying one and the same thing using different language. But if that's not the case, if she's using the word in the same exact way that I do, then she's necessarily disagreeing with me.

To feel that something (e.g. a painting, a woman, etc) is beautiful is to perceive that something as being in some way useful to attaining your goals. Moreover, since such feelings are perception, and not reality, the feelings of beauty might be wrong. This means there are true as well as false feelings of beauty.


Beauty is in concepts that transcend the senses. I don’t consider this to be ‘use’. From my perspective you are both correct.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:28 pm

If you feel something is beautiful, you might be wrong.

Do you agree with that?
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:31 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:If you feel something is beautiful, you might be wrong.

Do you agree with that?


Again, it’s pragmatic. If I feel blood squirting from a persons neck is beauty... but then, what the fuck happens to you? Some pretty horrible shit from spirits eventually ... and the observer in it never sees beauty , even though they may have initially.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:36 pm

Is that a yes or no?
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:39 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Is that a yes or no?


I agree with it. The results make ALL the difference.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:41 pm

#-o
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:44 pm

iambiguous wrote:#-o


Iambiguous,

I’ve seen so much shit in my life that I thought was beautiful at the time and it turned out from collective consciousness to be ugly. That’s called regret.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby MagsJ » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:07 am

_
Value means a master/slave dichotomy, so a pimp/whore dichotomy.. the minute someone evaluates your price, is the minute you become a commodity/a slave/subservient to another’s need/a prostitute.

I’m not expecting a reply to my reply, any time soon.. like, never! :lol:
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20471
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:28 am

MagsJ wrote:_
Value means a master/slave dichotomy, so a pimp/whore dichotomy.. the minute someone evaluates your price, is the minute you become a commodity/a slave/subservient to another’s need/a prostitute.

I’m not expecting a reply to my reply, any time soon.. like, never! :lol:



A person isn’t great until they make everyone great.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Mowk » Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:18 am

Form over function? Designs purpose is to function, putting little squares and leaves in the corners is a fabrication. If it doesn't function on some level it doesn't.

A urinal is function over form.

Value? Idealism? People are dying, for a lot of not very good reasons. Where is the value in that? So I would define value as the opposite of dying of a man made cause. Doubly so if its sake is for public appearance.

Can the investment in a product over time equal human life denied?

How can a belief in individual rights advocate that a women doesn't have her individual reproductive right?
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2016
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:22 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:1) What is value?
(Or: What is the definition of the word "value"?)
Something or a process or a criterion or a quality you prefer, look for, want, desire, put effort into finding/being near/creating/experiencing

2) Are there true and false values?
(Or: Are there objective values and perceived values?)
Mu!
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:33 am

Did you mean "Nuu"?
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:34 pm

I think mu refers to godel, Escher, Bach
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby MagsJ » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:18 pm

Old Chinese *ma 無 is cognate with the Proto-Tibeto-Burman *ma "not". This reconstructed root is widely represented in Tibeto-Burman languages; for instance, ma means "not" in both Written Tibetan and Written Burmese.[1]

The term is often used or translated to mean that the question itself must be "unasked": no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou's answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both correct and incorrect.

The word features prominently with a similar meaning in Douglas Hofstadter's 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach. It is used fancifully in discussions of symbolic logic, particularly Gödel's incompleteness theorems, to indicate a question whose "answer" is to
    un-ask the question,
    indicate the question is fundamentally flawed, or
    reject the premise that a dualistic answer can or will be given.[22]
"Mu" may be used similarly to "N/A" or "not applicable," a term often used to indicate the question cannot be answered because the conditions of the question do not match the reality. A layperson's example of this concept is often invoked by the loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?",[23] to which "mu" would be the only respectable response.[24]
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20471
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:23 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Did you mean "Nuu"?
No, Mu as in a Zen response to the question of whether dogs have the Buddha nature.
Not that I'm a Buddhist and I see that the interpretation I got long ago is actually just one possible but I always took it as a refusal to answer. Not as in 'who cares?' but more of 'I see no need to get bogged down in that issue.'
See Mags above as I am sure you have.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby MagsJ » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:40 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Not that I'm a Buddhist

I thought you were..

..and I see that the interpretation I got long ago is actually just one possible..

One word, many possibles.. that’s the Asians for ya, always getting value out of their vocabulary. ; )
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20471
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:50 pm

I am thinking that "mu" is represented in English as "moot" - an irrelevant or inapplicable point.

So perhaps whether there are true or false values is irrelevant because the true/false dichotomy doesn't apply?

Taking the idea that "true" means "aligning or comporting with an accurate statement of reality" (from James) leads me to think that a value is not a statement so cannot comport with anything. It would be like asking, "Is yellow true or false?"

I think that a statement has to be asserted before the idea of true or false can be applicable and only to that statement.

"Gold has value" is a statement that is too general. Gold has value to some but not to others. So the statement might be true or false. Being too general, it is moot. And this reminds me of the infinity arguments I see so much. The concept "infinite" is too general to be applied to standard maths. Specificity must be installed in order to utilize maths with infinity (again from James' extremely detailed explanations).
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:25 pm

Perhaps I worded the second question the wrong way.

That's one of the reasons I provided an alternative wording which is:

Are there objective values and perceived values?

Not sure if that's clear enough.

If it is not, then the following post of mine (posted just a couple of posts ago) should definitely clear it up:

Magnus wrote:If you feel something is beautiful, you might be wrong.

Do you agree with that?


Here are my answers:

I define the word "value" as "the degree to which something can be of use to someone in attaining their goals".

People perceive (most commonly by feeling) that something is of value i.e. that something can be of use to them in attaining their goals. Since this is a perception, and not reality itself, it is not necessarily true. In other words, it may be false.

Thus, what's really valuable is separate from what someone thinks is valuable. You may think something is valuable when in fact it is not -- that would be a false value. Conversely, you may not think that something is valuable when in fact it is -- that would be a true value. Food is a real value because it helps you prolong your life for real. Poison, on the other hand, is not.

Note that I am NOT asking whether what's valuable for one is also what's valuable for everyone else.
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:56 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Are there objective values and perceived values?

People perceive (most commonly by feeling) that something is of value i.e. that something can be of use to them in attaining their goals. Since this is a perception, and not reality itself, it is not necessarily true. In other words, it may be false.

There is a personality category called "Analytical Reductionist" - a person who analyzes a subject by reducing its understanding down to the most fundamental level. You seem to be in that category (as was James).

I think the problem here is with the use of the word "goal". I don't think that most people think of a pretty picture associated with a goal but an extreme reductionist does. A person might like a picture without having any intended utility in mind. They might not have any utilitarian use for it but they still admire it. They see value in merely its appearance but no value in trying to use it for anything.

I look at old Greek statues with admiration but I can't imagine having any personal use for one. They represent value in that I would not want them destroyed but I wouldn't want them cluttering up my bedroom nor would I endeavor to buy and sell them. They have no personal use or utility for me. Yet I still "value them". The reductionist would say that my inner mind senses something hopeful in them and urges their conservation. That could be construed as a subtle goal. So if you are a reductionist, then I think that you are right in saying:
Magnus Anderson wrote:I define the word "value" as "the degree to which something can be of use to someone in attaining their goals".

But if you are NOT a reductionist there is no goal association because you do not have any conscious goal in mind. You merely like the thing.

So I think this subject is not merely a matter of values being associated with goals but also a matter of how you intend the word "goal" - reductively or only consciously. Until that is made clear there is going to be persistent argument.

And in addition how you use the word "objective" seems to be contentious. For there to be value doesn't there have to be a recipient to that value? It can be an objective fact (or actually a legal fact) that something has value to a specific recipient. But without a recipient being specified in at least general terms (such "to all humans") the unspecific term "value" has no meaning for objectivity issues - back to that "moot" issue. It is like saying, "Is this object objectively big?"

Magnus Anderson wrote:What's valuable is separate from what someone thinks is valuable. You may think something is valuable when in fact it is not -- that would be a false value. You may not think that something is valuable when in fact it is -- that would be a true value. Food is a real value because it helps you prolong your life for real. Poison, on the other hand, is not.

Wow. I had to think about this one for a while. I was about to just say that is another question that I would like to have asked James but I think I might have just now realized the answer.

What you are asking concerns whether something is valuable for a specific perceived goal. The problem that I see is that every goal is merely a choice gained by the perception of some other goal. You might buy an app for your iPhone only to discover that the app doesn't do what you thought. You traded money, a value, for a misperceived value. So when you purchased the app, you had an ongoing effort to achieve something that the app did not help you achieve other than to inform you that you had taken the wrong path. But what if then you discover that you didn't really need what you were trying for in the first place - the over privileged millennial who goes up to discover that he has been fighting to his own disadvantage the entire time?

In the long run is it true that every goal is merely a temporal effort that will in actuality merely lead to your death? Isn't every goal merely a mistaken effort to get somewhere that in the long run you are not going to get to? Aren't goals merely goals for the moment and always leading to waste and death?

And here we get back to the first discussion I had with you concerning MIJOT. Before MIJOT all of the effort in any life seemed simply foolhardy. James' MIJOT substantially founded the fact that actually all life's efforts do indeed have a highest purpose that cannot be refuted by any living thing. And what that means is that each chosen goal either helps toward that unmistakable pentacle goal or it doesn't. And that gets us out of the conundrum of having every goal merely a mistaken perception of value. Some goals are objectively valuable and many are objectively foolish - of negative value.

Due only to MIJOT the answer to your question is that each action you take is actually, objectively assisting you toward an objective highest purpose, MIJOT, or not. And that means that everything you assign value is of objective positive value to you or it isn't.

So just as of today I believe that there really is "objective value" that can be misperceived as positive or negative even though it really does have definitive value.

I guess being on this board isn't as totally worthless as I thought. This suddenly became fun so of value (but don't let my wife find out). :)
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby MagsJ » Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:22 pm

_
“Reductionism and holism are two different approaches in psychology that researchers use to create experiments and draw conclusions. Reductionism likes to divide explanations of behaviour into separate components, whilst holism likes to look at the picture as a whole.18 Jul 2019“
Are both not utilised, in thinking and outcomes, so i.e. in decision-making.. constantly veering between the two, but more and more veering towards the latter, as an outcome or goal is approached, required, or needed?

Magnus Anderson wrote: “If you feel something is beautiful, you might be wrong.
Do you agree with that?".

Why would you be wrong? That’s what you felt at the time, so at that time you were right.. feelings can obviously change over time, so it’s not that it becomes wrong, it’s just that you start feeling differently about the object.

Some things are intrinsically beautiful, and others are like marmite or denatonium benzoate, in that they cause feelings to fluctuate, because they are not intrinsically appealing to all of the senses all of the time, but only some of the time.

Not all connoisseurs are right, and not all lay-persons are wrong. I find Louis the XIVth furniture to be rather vulgar, but the connoisseur antique-dealer would beg to differ and so disagree.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20471
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], thinkdr