Value

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

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:56 am

Observer wrote: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).


That's true.

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.


I absolutely agree with the bolded. Few people know what they are striving for, and when they do, they are in most cases only aware of their intermediate goals -- not their end goal. But does non-awareness mean non-existence? If you're not aware of something taking place, does that mean it's not taking place?

Someone looking at a picture they consider pretty might not be able to analyze their feelings, and figure out that what their feelings stand for is a perception of usefulness, but does that mean that their feelings have nothing to do with utility?

Things can be useful in many different ways. I make no claim as to the manner in which pretty paintings happen to be useful. I'm merely saying they are useful in some way. That way may be -- and it probably is -- completely subjective (in the same way that medicine is) but that's beside the point.

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.


That's true. The distinction must be clarified as much as possible.

The reason I use the word "goal" in the reductive sense, as you say, is because I find little use in sticking to what people are aware of. I want to understand the mechanisms that guide people, not merely what they are aware of.

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?"


Of course, there must be a recipient. The definition of the word "value" that I provided states it.

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


Value only exists in relation to a being that has a goal. And "value is objective" merely means that what's valuable to someone is independent from what anyone thinks (or feels) is valuable to that person.

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?


It's a mistake only insofar there was a better path you could have taken. Otherwise, it is not. The fact that we will all die in the end is not an argument against our efforts to live for as long as possible. The idea is that if you cannot reach a goal, you can at least choose a path that lets you reach the point that is at the smallest possible distance away from that goal. For example, if your goal is to be immortal, and you cannot be immortal, you can at least choose a path that will let you live for as long as possible. You can, for example, choose a path that will let you live for 80 years rather than choosing a path that will let you live for 30 years.

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.


That's pretty much my point (:
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:56 am

I'll go along with Prof and his mentor Hartman on this;

Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics,[1] philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.[4][5]

Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of "right" and "good" in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of "beauty" and "harmony."
Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman's science of value.
-wiki


I believe all human are "programmed" with the function to strive for continuous improvements over prior states.

However given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technologies, it is imperative humanity expedite its moral function and other relevant functions to deal with potential threats.

For these function [moral, etc.] to be expedited and effective, all variables [known and possible] must be quantified with values as far as possible with justifications, consensus and with critical awareness of whatever limitations there are.

The most critical factor in the consideration of value is 'consensus' which in many cases are inherent with all humans, being alive [till the inevitable] has value.

Note also the Fact - Value distinction that need to be addressed.

The fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction described between:[1]

    'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.

    'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.

This barrier between 'fact' and 'value' implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments, or to defend the former using the latter.[2]

The fact–value distinction is closely related to, and derived from, the is–ought problem in moral philosophy, characterized by David Hume (1711–1776). The terms are often used interchangeably, though philosophical discourse concerning the is–ought problem does not usually encompass aesthetics.
-wiki
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Oct 07, 2020 6:29 am

The difference between "statements of fact" and "statements of value" is pretty tenuous, don't you think?

Even statements such as "I like it" that do nothing but express what one perceives to be of value (and not what's truly valuable) are statements of fact. They are either true or false. I either like watermelons (i.e. perceive them as valuable) or I don't.

Ultimately, it depends on how you define these terms. No doubt you can define them in a sensible way such that they represent different things. But in any case, statements that express what one perceives to be of value as well as statements that express what's truly of value have truth value. And that's the only thing important.

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


MagsJ wrote:Why would you be wrong? That’s what you felt at the time, so at that time you were right..


There are two different claims here:

1) What you felt at that time. (Did you feel that that something is beautiful or that it is ugly?)
(This is the claim you seem to be addressing)

2) The extent to which what you felt at that time was correct/right. (Were you right in feeling that that something is beautiful/ugly? Perhaps you should have felt differently?)
(This is the claim that is of interest to me.)
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:04 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Perhaps I worded the second question the wrong way.
I think you worded it fine. My response wasn't that kind of critique, heck it might be more of a confession. I just think that in a sense it doesn't matter. Or, it might matter, but how would we know. And then let's say there were objective values. The objective value is pedophilia is OK. I won't feel like I now share that value, even if it came from a deity. I don't think objective values let's me off the hook, should they exist. And then there is the epistemological problem of knowing what they are. Hence, Mu. Regardless of a 'yes' or 'no' I find myself in the same situation.

I define the word "value" as "the degree to which something can be of use to someone in attaining their goals".
I don't think that's wrong, but for me it puts values only as parts of some instrumental process. I value some things in the moment with no thought of what I might achieve. Now that doesn't contradict what you wrote, per se. And one could find a way to argue that one of my goals is to enjoy those moments. But for me it skews what I mean by values, because while it is true in many cases, it is not at all how I would word it in others.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:18 am

KT wrote:I think you worded it fine. My response wasn't that kind of critique, heck it might be more of a confession. I just think that in a sense it doesn't matter. Or, it might matter, but how would we know.


"What matters" is another term for "value".

Thus, the question of whether value is objective or subjective is the question of whether what matters is objective or subjective.

The answer to this question underpins the process by which we assign value to things, so I'm inclined to believe that knowing the right answer to this question is rather important.

And I think that most people do, it's just that they don't consciously think about it (since in most cases there is no need to.)

The reason I bring it up here in this thread (and on this forum) is because there are people on this forum (and many more outside of it) who think that value is subjective.

And then let's say there were objective values. The objective value is pedophilia is OK. I won't feel like I now share that value, even if it came from a deity. I don't think objective values let's me off the hook, should they exist. And then there is the epistemological problem of knowing what they are.


A brain won't endorse any view unless it is motivated to do so. You wouldn't accept that WW2 never happened, even if it were true, unless you previously went through a process that convinced you of its truthfulness. The same goes for value statements such as "Having sex with children is good for you".
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:48 am

KT wrote:I think you worded it fine. My response wasn't that kind of critique, heck it might be more of a confession. I just think that in a sense it doesn't matter. Or, it might matter, but how would we know.


"What matters" is another term for "value".
It can be, but for the issue is: even if there are objective values, I still have my values AND the objectivity of the values cannot reach me. I am immersed in life.

the question of whether what matters is objective or subjective.

The answer to this question underpins the process by which we assign value to things, so I'm inclined to believe that knowing the right answer to this question is rather important.
So, let's say you found out that values were objective. If you didn't know what the objectively correct values were, what difference would it make. If you did learn what those values were, are you sure that would change your values. I don't think it would change mine, though it might make me feel confused or guilty or afraid. My values come from me and my life experiences. I can't see how finding a list of the correct values would make much difference. I suppose I might keep my eyes open more, to see if I could be convinced, now by life alone, to have those values. IOW not simply draw conclusion based on deduction or something, but actually CHANGE values I don't think the knowledge would make a difference. Experiences might. But they might drive me even further way from whatever the objective values were.

And I think that most people do, it's just that they don't consciously think about it (since in most cases there is no need to.)

The reason I bring it up here in this thread (and on this forum) is because there are people on this forum (and many more outside of it) who think that value is subjective.
And I respond mu to that assertion also.

And then let's say there were objective values. The objective value is pedophilia is OK. I won't feel like I now share that value, even if it came from a deity. I don't think objective values let's me off the hook, should they exist. And then there is the epistemological problem of knowing what they are.


A brain won't endorse any view unless it is motivated to do so. You wouldn't accept that WW2 never happened, even if it were true, unless you previously went through a process that convinced you of its truthfulness. The same goes for value statements such as "Having sex with children is good for you".
[/quote]Sure but facts while often entwined with values are a whole nother ball game. There is stuff in my DNA and you could come with proof on paper that God says this value is the right one. I do not necessarily at all bow down to a deity, if the value matters to me, which it would since it is a value.

And here's another rub, an epistemological one. Let's say you come with an argument that values are objective. I have to trust myself that your argument is correct and that trust will have subjective elements. I have to make gut estimations of my ability to recognize a flawless argument. I have to intuit that I have looked at the argument enough for wholes. IOW I have to trust myself. And I would also have to admit that I might have missed something.

Well, I trust myself around my values. Not that they are correct but that they are my values. I am not sure why one trusting myself should override the other. And it wouldn't. You convince me more or less that there are objective values and in addition you then demonstrate that value X is one of these. If I hate that value, I am not going to switch over even if your argument SEEMS correct.

I highlight 'seems' because things that seem correct now may not seem like that later. I am not going to start accepting adults having sex with children because your argument seems solid on both counts. Where there is a clash between my values and what seems correct, I am going to go with my values. Otherwise I am betraying myself. Even if it turns out I was 'wrong' or wrong.

Descartes I think therefore I am I consider superficial. I would say I feel and value therefore I am. Those are much more intimate portions of myself. Now of course thoughts and feelings and values are not separate things. And also Descartes meant more than verbal thinking. But still we have this handed down English translation and it has always struck me as odd, because of what thoughts means in English.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:51 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:So, let's say you found out that values were objective. If you didn't know what the objectively correct values were, what difference would it make. If you did learn what those values were, are you sure that would change your values. I don't think it would change mine, though it might make me feel confused or guilty or afraid. My values come from me and my life experiences. I can't see how finding a list of the correct values would make much difference. I suppose I might keep my eyes open more, to see if I could be convinced, now by life alone, to have those values. IOW not simply draw conclusion based on deduction or something, but actually CHANGE values I don't think the knowledge would make a difference. Experiences might. But they might drive me even further way from whatever the objective values were.

That's disturbing.

But it gives explanation for this response
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
And I think that most people do, it's just that they don't consciously think about it (since in most cases there is no need to.)

The reason I bring it up here in this thread (and on this forum) is because there are people on this forum (and many more outside of it) who think that value is subjective.
And I respond mu to that assertion also.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Let's say you come with an argument that values are objective. I have to trust myself that your argument is correct and that trust will have subjective elements. I have to make gut estimations of my ability to recognize a flawless argument. I have to intuit that I have looked at the argument enough for wholes. IOW I have to trust myself. And I would also have to admit that I might have missed something.

Isn't that the whole point in thinking? You seem to be saying that it is better to just be an animal and don't try to understand and further guide your instincts with conscious reasoning as though to say, "don't trust your mind, just do what you feel".

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Well, I trust myself around my values. Not that they are correct but that they are my values. I am not sure why one trusting myself should override the other. And it wouldn't. You convince me more or less that there are objective values and in addition you then demonstrate that value X is one of these. If I hate that value, I am not going to switch over even if your argument SEEMS correct.

Cavalier. You don't care what makes rational sense and you don't want to care about it. You feel no value in thinking and acting rationally. You enable your feelings to control your future even when they are blinded by their own fear of rational guidance. Why have a conscious mind at all?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I highlight 'seems' because things that seem correct now may not seem like that later.

Merely a lack of confidence in your ability to think. So you are saying that because you do not trust your ability to think, it is better not to try.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am going to go with my values. Otherwise I am betraying myself. Even if it turns out I was 'wrong' or wrong.

You are already betraying yourself. Your rationalizing the idea that your feelings have the ultimate authority over your conscious reasoning - "My emotional urges = good. My logical reasoning = bad. If it feels good, do it. Until I experience that it is poison, I'm going to eat it. A lion has never attack me before, so why should I be concerned?"

I am not saying that what you are displaying is right or wrong. I am merely expressing what I am observing.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:18 pm

I just think that in a sense it doesn't matter. Or, it might matter, but how would we know. And then let's say there were objective values. The objective value is pedophilia is OK. I won't feel like I now share that value, even if it came from a deity. I don't think objective values let's me off the hook, should they exist.

Ahh, the freedom of choice.

One can decide to go against "objective value". (The "objective value" could be determined by God or society.)

There are consequences but they may be judged to be acceptable. :D
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12053
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:32 pm

Reward and punishment to control people's feelings. Society controlled by hormones and virtue signals. 2+2=5 if the media subtly makes it seem like that is what society accepts - "Of course Mr Trump colluded with the Russians. Everyone knows that. He is a bad person and we can see it. Let's leave science, personal investigation, and critical thinking out of it. All of that stuff is just white supremacy anyway. Mathematics is racist. It feels so much better to just go along. My feelings tell me all that I need to know (even though I haven't even looked into what might be controlling them)."

Did he say "mu" or "moooo"?
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:28 pm

phyllo wrote:
I just think that in a sense it doesn't matter. Or, it might matter, but how would we know. And then let's say there were objective values. The objective value is pedophilia is OK. I won't feel like I now share that value, even if it came from a deity. I don't think objective values let's me off the hook, should they exist.

Ahh, the freedom of choice.

One can decide to go against "objective value". (The "objective value" could be determined by God or society.)

There are consequences but they may be judged to be acceptable. :D
Right. I think most of us would draw a line in the sand on some things even if they seem objective.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:41 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Isn't that the whole point in thinking? You seem to be saying that it is better to just be an animal and don't try to understand and further guide your instincts with conscious reasoning as though to say, "don't trust your mind, just do what you feel".
Of course thinking is involved. Whether it is subjective or objective thinking is involved. But what I am saying is, if I have a certain value, gained over time through experience, intuition, and yes, thinking, sure it might be possible to convince me to change my value via some argument - but not core ones. I mean, talk about about pedophilia and it is not going to change my mind. Even if you happen to be right, and present me with the objective argument
two problems remain.

It might SEEM objective and even be objective, but it will still only seem objective to me. Seem. And then I will have my gut revulsion of pedophilia. Since as an embodied fallible human I can always wonder if an argument about values merely seems objective, but in fact isn't, I will not override my value.

Cavalier. You don't care what makes rational sense and you don't want to care about it.
Of course I care about what makes rational sense. You could convince me that if my value is X, but my behavior Y leads to undermining X, I am all ears. But if you come and say God says pedophilia is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves pedophilia is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.

Are you different?

You feel no value in thinking and acting rationally. You enable your feelings to control your future even when they are blinded by their own fear of rational guidance. Why have a conscious mind at all?
Give me an example of an objective value. Show me that I my rational mind must accept this value as objective. We can start with something specific.

Gosh, I sound like good old Iambiguous.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I highlight 'seems' because things that seem correct now may not seem like that later.

Merely a lack of confidence in your ability to think. So you are saying that because you do not trust your ability to think, it is better not to try.
Nope. I gave the specific context. I made no generalization. We are talking about values.

Can I convince you with rational arguement to like Butterscotch icecream? Choose another ice cream if you like that one. A flavor you hate. And then tell me how someone could convince you that your value is objectively wrong, when it comes to ice cream. We can start there.

Or you could choose what you value as beauty or morals.

Show me how this is done. 1) to prove that your sense of what an objective moral is objective and then 2) what you do when the behavior called moral repulses you. Give an example where you changed yourself via logical argument and decided something was objectively good. Not in some minor application way, where you don't actually change your core values, not just when someone pointed out that if X is your core value then doing Y will help.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am going to go with my values. Otherwise I am betraying myself. Even if it turns out I was 'wrong' or wrong.

You are already betraying yourself. Your rationalizing the idea that your feelings have the ultimate authority over your conscious reasoning - "My emotional urges = good. My logical reasoning = bad. If it feels good, do it. Until I experience that it is poison, I'm going to eat it. A lion has never attack me before, so why should I be concerned?"
Nope. I am both my feelings and thinking. Given that I see no possible way to prove that value X is objective, I will not be able to convince my feelings that pedophilia is good, regardless of how good your argument is on paper. But give it a shot. Or let me know about yourself.

I am not saying that what you are displaying is right or wrong. I am merely expressing what I am observing.
The word 'betray' is pejorative, so in fact you did say what I was displaying was wrong. You are not just observing. You are in the muck with the rest of us. Your judgments run through the whole response. Which is not a problem. I don't think you understood what I was saying, but here you are in situ with the rest of us judging people.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:04 pm

I am both my feelings and thinking.

Indeed.

I doubt that life can be reduced to only feeling or only thinking.

Everyone uses some sort of mix.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12053
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:40 pm

Karpel,

Objective morals are always the same:

Nobody wants their consent violated. Consent is always violated in zero sum realities no matter how hard we try not to violate consent.

Objective morality: we all need to get out of a reality like this. (Good)
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:47 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Karpel,

Objective morals are always the same:

Nobody wants their consent violated. Consent is always violated in zero sum realities no matter how hard we try not to violate consent.

Objective morality: we all need to get out of a reality like this. (Good)
The objective reality is that we can't get out of this objective reality.

Therefore, one needs to adapt to the reality.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12053
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:56 pm

phyllo wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Karpel,

Objective morals are always the same:

Nobody wants their consent violated. Consent is always violated in zero sum realities no matter how hard we try not to violate consent.

Objective morality: we all need to get out of a reality like this. (Good)
The objective reality is that we can't get out of this objective reality.

Therefore, one needs to adapt to the reality.
He's also confusiong universal with objective, and making a claim he can't prove, much as I sympathize with his project and goals. And actually people do want their consent violated. I see this all the time. They can want this because they are not unified. They are not monads. Which is sad. They even violate their own consent which they often don't notice because they are dissociated.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:02 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:The difference between "statements of fact" and "statements of value" is pretty tenuous, don't you think?

Even statements such as "I like it" that do nothing but express what one perceives to be of value (and not what's truly valuable) are statements of fact. They are either true or false. I either like watermelons (i.e. perceive them as valuable) or I don't.

Facts and values are two distinctly different things, to me.. one is definitive, whereas the other requires discernment.

Facts require hard evidence, values do not.. values only require a reaction to external stimuli, to prove that they exist and are pertinent to us.. if no-body else.

Ultimately, it depends on how you define these terms. No doubt you can define them in a sensible way such that they represent different things. But in any case, statements that express what one perceives to be of value as well as statements that express what's truly of value have truth value. And that's the only thing important.

I use definitive to categorise "statements of fact", and discernment to categorise "statements of value", to differentiate between the two, in my mind. This way, I can separate fact from fiction, and so make better judgement-calls, decisions, and choices.. with ease.

Magnus wrote:
Magnus wrote:If you feel something is beautiful, you might be wrong. Do you agree with that?
MagsJ wrote:Why would you be wrong? That’s what you felt at the time, so at that time you were right..

There are two different claims here:

1) What you felt at that time. (Did you feel that that something is beautiful or that it is ugly?)
(This is the claim you seem to be addressing)

2) The extent to which what you felt at that time was correct/right. (Were you right in feeling that that something is beautiful/ugly? Perhaps you should have felt differently?)
(This is the claim that is of interest to me.)

Well no.. because I would have already initially discerned if something was aesthetically-pleasing to me or not, next.. to what degree it was or wasn’t pleasing to me, and lastly.. whether I liked it, wanted it, wanted to buy it, etc.. or not.

Pizza is delicious (a feeling), but I am highly allergic to it and to all processed foods (a fact), so I choose not to eat pizza nor all other processed foods (a decision).

How can a person have felt differently, when that is how they were feeling at the time? That doesn’t make sense to me. We can feel differently after that initial reaction to the stimuli, due to a change of heart and/or mind, but that doesn’t change the initial feeling we initially had.. such changes are time-dependent, and not just whim-dependent.
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 » Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:12 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Karpel,

Objective morals are always the same:

Nobody wants their consent violated. Consent is always violated in zero sum realities no matter how hard we try not to violate consent.

Objective morality: we all need to get out of a reality like this. (Good)
The objective reality is that we can't get out of this objective reality.

Therefore, one needs to adapt to the reality.
He's also confusiong universal with objective, and making a claim he can't prove.


Oh, I can prove that claim, I’m just not going to. BUT !! You have many people on earth who would be more than happy to prove that claim to you.

To phyllo...

This entire reality is our collective imagination. Heaven/hell all of it!

If we want to change it, we can.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:16 pm

When you change your mind, you change everything.

But I suspect that's not what you mean.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12053
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

phyllo wrote:When you change your mind, you change everything.

But I suspect that's not what you mean.


Well, the first phrase just means change occurs.

No that’s not what I mean.

If we bring all our souls together we can do anything we want. Right now, this is our bright idea. I’m not a fan anymore, but here we are.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:31 pm

No, we can't "do anything we want".

We can choose how to think about not being able to do anything we want.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12053
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:34 pm

phyllo wrote:No, we can't "do anything we want".

We can choose how to think about not being able to do anything we want.


Phyllo, you really don’t get it.

This, all of this, is our collective imagination.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:02 pm

Can we stay on-topic please.. try not to ruin somebody else’s thread.
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 » Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:07 pm

MagsJ wrote:Can we stay on-topic please.. try not to ruin somebody else’s thread.


It’s about value. We made all this shit together, including value. What people do or don’t value. If you can’t rise to my dimension, that’s not on me. We literally made this shit together. I came out of our co-creation as a counter-balancing force. Just like all of you, I’m here for a reason.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:35 pm

KT wrote:It can be, but for the issue is: even if there are objective values, I still have my values AND the objectivity of the values cannot reach me. I am immersed in life.

[..]

So, let's say you found out that values were objective. If you didn't know what the objectively correct values were, what difference would it make. If you did learn what those values were, are you sure that would change your values.


Note that the subject of this thread are the two questions presented in the OP. There is no third question, no question such as "Can people shape their perception of what's valuable to fit reality?" I am not saying this is an unimportant question, and I am certainly not saying that we shouldn't be discussing it here in this thread, but let's not bring it to the forefront. Let's discuss it if you want, but let's not forget what was actually asked in the OP.

I don't think it would change mine, though it might make me feel confused or guilty or afraid. My values come from me and my life experiences. I can't see how finding a list of the correct values would make much difference. I suppose I might keep my eyes open more, to see if I could be convinced, now by life alone, to have those values. IOW not simply draw conclusion based on deduction or something, but actually CHANGE values I don't think the knowledge would make a difference. Experiences might. But they might drive me even further way from whatever the objective values were.


I think what you're saying, but without being aware of it, is that in order for you to adopt certain view, you need to go through a process that will genuinely motivate you to adopt it. And that's what I said in my previous post, but for some reason, it does not resonate with you. That's fine.

Note that some sort of deductive reasoning is involved even in processes that are almost, if not completely, unconscious. For example, your brain employs it each time it sends you a visual signal that what's presented to your senses is of blue color.

1) Any light with wavelength between 440 nm and 485 nm is of blue color.
2) This particular light has a wavelength of 460 nm.
3) Therefore, this particular light is of blue color.

You don't do this consciously, right? But your brain does it anyway. And it doesn't stop there. Your brain can do, and it does, far more complex reasoning outside of your consciousness too. The process of figuring out what's valuable and what isn't is an example. The feeling of beauty, is in fact, a signal sent to you by your brain that it estimates that the object under consideration is valuable.

The question posed in this thread -- the second one, that is -- is merely whether this process, whether one is actively or retroactively conscious of it or not, is influenced by what is real such that what it estimates to be of value may not in fact be of value.
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:13 am

I hate long posts. I have to sneak in short moments without my wife finding out, sometimes using my phone so I apologize if you are similar.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:sure it might be possible to convince me to change my value via some argument - but not core ones.

Exactly what distinguishes "core values"? Where is the line drawn and which draws that line - emotion or logic? Something can change them. Which dictates that logical argument can go no deeper than some preset, authoritarian limit - initial first appearance instincts or higher cognitive reasoning? You appear to be saying that first instincts, set by whatever means, gets to limit what any cognitive reasoning has permission to change (exactly what socialism proposes for all society - nothing is allowed to change our rulers' priorities unless they give permission - which means that they avoid any improvement no matter how rationally sound). The egotism of the inner mind, I think.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Even if you happen to be right, and present me with the objective argument
two problems remain.

It might SEEM objective and even be objective, but it will still only seem objective to me... Since as an embodied fallible human I can always wonder if an argument about values merely seems objective, but in fact isn't, I will not override my value.

That is what I meant by not having faith in your own reasoning capacity. Some people are right in thinking that they could not possibly be wrong about certain issues, that there is no possible alternative. Those are the people I want to inquire of in order to find out when they are actually right. When I can see that they are right (through detailed and careful logic), that there really is no possible alternative, I can then adopt what they have said as probable "absolute truth" over prima facie instinctual or emotional urges. And even if I cannot be absolutely certain, there is a point where probability is on the side of the logic rather than the instinct.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Cavalier. You don't care what makes rational sense and you don't want to care about it.
Of course I care about what makes rational sense.

Well let me say that you care less than I do. :)

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You could convince me that if my value is X, but my behavior Y leads to undermining X, I am all ears.

The issue is how much trouble someone else has to go through versus how determined you are to learn. I am certainly not suggesting that you just listen to anyone for years on end. I prefer to listen to the tone and discipline of the speaker to see if he truly has solid reasoning for whatever he is claiming. That requires effort on my part to earnestly inquire and contemplate the possibilities. But I have a practical limit. I can't bring myself to dismiss truly solid characterizations even if I instinctively feel that they couldn't possibly be right. On the other hand when someone presents no sense of rationality even after a challenge I dismiss them pretty definitively (that happens a lot now that I can actually interact with people more). But that is just me. Everyone has to live within their own bubble.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:But if you come and say God says pedophilia is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves pedophilia is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.

Are you different?

Yes I am, especially recently.

As far as the God reference, it would very much depend upon who was saying it so it isn't really about God saying anything but rather the credibility of the person who is speaking for God (damn few on that list). There is a very slight chance of God speaking directly and that chance is even more minuscule. So let's move past that.

You say that you will not override your revulsion regardless of "proof". That seems both interesting and revealing. My wife is very much that way (very feminine). It indicates a serious lack of confidence that what you call a "proof" is really trustworthy, or alternatively perhaps a dedication to an ideology that forbids rational thought from interfering with your hedonism (my wife being a little of both). Let's assume the former.

As far as me being willing and capable of changing my instinctive urges, I have a variety of examples. A simple list of examples concern merely food preferences. A far more serious one involves something more recently that I discovered literally from interacting with Magnus on this board when I not only convinced him of something that had to be logically true, but at the same time, myself. My issue became and is still pending, what to change in my instinctive behavior in order to align with my new cognitive understanding. I'm still working on that one.

Due to a trip to New York and my willingness to "try new things" I got infected with a few American staple foods that were seriously revolting to me - American "hotdogs", mustard, boiled spinach, green peas, scrambled eggs, and others. I couldn't bring myself to finish eating the American hotdog with mustard and relish. And when I discovered what is in hotdogs (very different from German franks) I felt that I had terribly betrayed myself by being willing to experiment. That part hasn't changed very much but the others things on the list I discovered through credible sources were actually good and healthy foods. I just couldn't stand the new taste.

So being dedicated to the idea that I shouldn't merely take the urging of my senses as gospel, I decided to work those other foods into my diet. Fortunately in my family I often cook for myself, although to the dismay of my wife.

I started with that disgusting thing called "mustard". I research it to find that it was actually an aid in digesting such things as American hotdogs but other things as well. So with that in mind I slowly allowed mustard to become something that I liked. At that time, I didn't know anything about any specific methods involved. I just felt my way through it and managed to get to the point where I actually prefer a little mustard on my scrambled eggs (my wife is still revolted by even the sight of scrambled eggs). The boiled spinach and other things I managed to slowly work in as well. Now my preferences, my "feelings" and senses, are different because I chose to cause them to be different rather than letting them dictate my diet and my level of comfort.

It wasn't until I was reading through James' posts that I discovered exactly what I had been doing and why it all works. I now actually understand how the whole "Spell of Changing" works and how to use it intentionally. So now when I cognitively discover that some behavior or preference can be improved, I can instill the improvement - I change my "values". I suspect that I could alter all but the most serious addictions.

On one issue the value(s) that needs changing is a serious challenge. It relates to very core values, the most fundamental values. I am still trying to figure out the details of exactly what to do about that one. My point is that because I have cognitively, rationally, logically discerned that an instinctive urge is misaligned with my pentacle goal, I owe it to myself to first ensure that I am right and second to find a way to alter even my most core values to fit what I have learned to be wiser.

So yes, I think that I am different than what you confess.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
You feel no value in thinking and acting rationally. You enable your feelings to control your future even when they are blinded by their own fear of rational guidance. Why have a conscious mind at all?

Give me an example of an objective value. Show me that I my rational mind must accept this value as objective. We can start with something specific.

I don't think so. We couldn't begin with something that you strongly refuse and we can't begin with anything you already accept. That leaves us with only being able to begin with something that I am sure I could convince you of very shortly (in a post or two) even after your certain immediate rejection. How can I know that in short order I could change the mind of someone who has already said that his core values cannot change (are not allowed to be changed)? It would be like trying to convince Ecmandu that 1=2 really is a contradiction even if referring to 2 infinite lines versus 1 infinite line. People instinctively defend any prior claims they have made to the point of absurdity (just look at American media and politics).

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I highlight 'seems' because things that seem correct now may not seem like that later.

I can agree with that. If something merely "seems" right then you haven't actually recognized an irrefutable proof. The problem is whether you can realize that any proof is actually irrefutable. If you can't realize that then of course you will always have doubt and always just go with whatever feelings you had prior. Why bother to learn to like American hotdogs with mustard if you don't really have to? But then that leaves you as someone who has to be coerced into doing anything that is actually good for you unless your feelings happened to have already been aligned. You said that you were a "fallible human" - all the more reason to seek out fixes for those fallible feelings.

It seems to me that logic is only for the purpose of identifying mistaken instinctive urges, much like Science itself. If you can't be confident of logic then you certainly can't be confident of proposed science theories. Yet I bet you are merely because other people give you the "feeling" that they are right. You seem to be persuaded by the presentation skills of others - media. You seem to be a societal product easily reprogrammed by those who gave you your values early on. Some call that "having no soul of your own".

I really don't mean to be demeaning. I am just trying to clarify the relevant distinction with a bit of hyperbole. I won't take offense if you do the same. I believe that you can choose to alter even your "core values" once you identify truly irrefutable reasoning.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Can I convince you with rational arguement to like Butterscotch icecream? Choose another ice cream if you like that one. A flavor you hate. And then tell me how someone could convince you that your value is objectively wrong, when it comes to ice cream.

Yes you could as described before.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Or you could choose what you value as beauty or morals.

Yes I have and currently still updating. I have to confess that it is harder to reverse something that is first appealing to something unappealing.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Show me how this is done. 1) to prove that your sense of what an objective moral is objective and then 2) what you do when the behavior called moral repulses you. Give an example where you changed yourself via logical argument and decided something was objectively good. Not in some minor application way, where you don't actually change your core values, not just when someone pointed out that if X is your core value then doing Y will help.

Okay briefly. The more serious issue that I mentioned before was the subject that James called MIJOT - Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time. I found myself explaining what I was certain that meant to Magnus to the point that shortly after I finished, I realized how exactly true it really is and so became something that I should seriously consider in my own choices. That became seriously disturbing. The logic of it is irrefutable once you get completely familiar with it. I can't deny it. So in reality I would be betraying myself if I did not set it as a pentacle priority to any and all future choices or urges.

What that MIJOT is saying is that my, and your, and everyone's actual unchangeable highest priority in life is to live as long as possible as joyously as possible regardless of whatever reasoning or urges you might obtain. Right now you might disagree with that - not see the irrefutable logic involved. But suppose we had that discussion and you saw that it really is unquestionable. Would you accept it deeply enough to include it in your core long and short term goals and decisions? You have been saying that no you would not because you would not accept the logic enough. That is the problem - not accepting logic enough to give it real authority. You probably believe that there can be no such logic of absolute certainty. I have seen that argument a lot. I think that what it comes down to is knowing when there is no escape worthy of pursuing merely to appease your feelings. That takes some growing up and masculinity that most people just don't possess. What needs doing is more relevant than what is supposed to be done.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Given that I see no possible way to prove that value X is objective, I will not be able to convince my feelings

As I said. It is only because you cannot see when there is no escape from the reasoning that proposes taking up the challenge to change your urges. You require a greater extreme of convincing than perhaps any that could be offered regardless of clarity in communication. Some (many) people just can't get there.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You are in the muck with the rest of us.

You and most people assume judgments that aren't there (that's why observers don't interact). But you are half right in that I am getting there - "in the muck". :)
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]