Value

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

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:23 am

Umm... just to interject...

Most Americans eat eggs and hotdogs with catsup!!

Sorry about the mustard thing!

Mustard is reserved for sandwiches (if you want it)
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:35 am

Ecmandu wrote:Most Americans eat eggs and hotdogs with catsup!!

A bit too vulgar without need. Why not peanut butter on pizza? :-?
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:09 am

[quote="Magnus Anderson"
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.[/quote]Perhaps I am missing what you mean. I certainly think that what I value is influenced by what is real. I don't think that I merely have a subjective experience completely disconnected from reality. (this is very simplified, but I don't want to get too far into metaphysically controversial areas). But to me that is different from saying that my values are objective. I wouldn't say that someone with different values, for example, is making an objective mistake - unless I felt I could show that cognitive errors are taking place and there are inconsistancies. IOW if they say they value having the skill of the best arguments and so therefore they want no criticism. I would then feel that there is a contradiction, a misunderstanding. I am not going to think that their value of wanting to be able to create the best arguments is wrong, but I will think that their understanding of what leads to that might be faulty. Now this example is of what many here might consider a positive value. But I would have the same reaction if value in question was viewed by me as something negative.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:52 am

obsrvr524 wrote: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.
No worries. Respond to what you can. I am not on a phone. I'll pick my spots and be shorter, so I may not respond to everything then. [and yet it ended up long despite my leaving some thing unresponded to]



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.

No, it's a recognition of the situation I seem to find myself in. And what seems to be the situation of others.

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.
And then you have a split self. As do I on a number of things. So what do you do to get integration? What do you do now that your head and heart, say, no longer agree?

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. :)
And I would guess that you have a less complete sense of what you actually believe. But we are both speculating. I would guess that like many you take your official, wordy verbal beliefs, what you would fill out on a form if asked, to be your beliefs. That like many people you confuse on portion of yourself with yourself. And, to repreat, we are both speculating. And really, why go ad hom, as you in the first post. Yes, I was ad hom about myself, i the sense of talking about what I do. So, focusing on problems in that argument is going to be ad hom in the to the man sense. But you go further and perform mind reading and criticize me personally, no just my arguments. And then to top this off you say you are just observing. But you are not just observiving. So why don't you avoid the personal judgments and judge my arguments and drop the enlightened guy schtick? Just observing, just the rational poritons of the brain, not feminine, not negatively judging, just noticing schtick. I think it would be rather interesting to see what your wife makes of your 'objectivity'. I'll bet her intuition regardless of her skills on paper with deduction, is nevertheless spot on about some of this. You got skin in the game and it's skewing your evalutaion of people including yourself. There's limbic system all over this stuff, but under a pose.
'
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".
Thank you for adding the scare quotes. That is precisely it. There is a problem of providing proofs when it comes to values. An epistemological problem.

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.
Ibid. I addressed this. YOu first interpreted as I must distrust my own reasoning abilities. Going incorrectly ad hom. But let's see if you actually address the issue and also give concrete examples of your own process.

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.
Great a specific example. So here you had a judgment that something was bad and you actually went and experienced it. You had an entirely imaginative judgement about something you hadn't experienced. It was not a situation, really, of sense experience vs a correct idea. It was a lack of sense experience and then new experience. It wasn't the logical cortex showing the limbic system or the lower portions of the brain their value was wrong. It was one part of the cortex testing the conclusions of another part of the cortex.

And my tastes in food have changed over time, as my body changed to adulthood. As I encountered better versions of certain foods, higher quality. As I encoutered intermediate tastes. I never made it to blue cheese which I still find revolting regardless of quality, but I do now like cheeses that would have disgusted me as a child. But NOT through objective argument. I had experiences over a long period of time. The process perhaps might have been shortened by someone or myself saying 'maybe that was poor, supermarket shit you got'. So, I would then try something anew. But the primary changes were physiological - I do think changing bodies desire both new tastes and different tastes, though not always - and experiential, rather than someone showed me what was objectively true and what tastes, therefore, one should logically have. And that my extending myself, also, was guided very much by desire.

I would also not assume that someone who just likes their cheddar is make an objective mistake in their values.

[just got this from my exchange with Magnus]IOW now you like mustard. Are you really going to argue that if someone does not like mustard, they are necessarily wrong?have an objectively wrong value? That what you achieved through your reasoning and experiential process was not merely finding out you did or could like mustard, but that you now have objectively better taste than someone who does not like mustard?
You learned what you actually like, cool. I do that kind of thing too. I even did it with mustard. But I don't confuse that with objective values. I am better in touch with what I value/like. But that doesn't make my value objective or universal, even. Not even within my own species. Are dogs mistaken if they don't like some food I like? But heck, as said, values aren't even intraspecies universal, which is also an entirely different category from objective.

So, there is a polemical aspect to my response to the OP, which I may have misundestood, I am still trying to triangulate his intent and meaning. I should hope it is obvious that reasoning plays a role in my life.

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).
Yes, I get that. I did not mean, let's test the idea and I will show you you can't convince me so it is not objectively true and/or there is no other way to be than my way. That's the Iambiguous approach. But I want to know what you are talking about via an example. I promise not to say 'Well, you didn't convince me, so it can't work.' I think I will 1) know better if we are actually talkign about the same things and 2) be able to discuss in a more concrete way my objections to objective values.

Any ¨proof' that value X is the right value, depends utterly on a shared value premise. You can only deduce from a shared value to prove that some secondary or derived value is correct. IOW at best it is a universal value in homo sapiens should such a thing exist not an objective value. Though actually what you have is an assumption that all creatures , really, deep down, have the same core values. That's not my experience. Not anymore.

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?
Curiosity, desire, knowing that seeming not to be good is also fallible, changes in me....

I place a high value on integration. Most people manage to have new conclusions, some based on very good processes others less so. They don't seem concerned much about their internal ecology. You actually came to like mustard. I will take that as a given. I think most people don't actually know, when it comes to moral values, interpersonal values, social values....what they actually like, need, and are experiencing. I don't think they have a great deal of introspective ability. They slide new slogans into their minds. Every extremely smart people, and they are not concerned about where their limbic systems are and what (and might intuit) and really getting these things aligned. They confuse their thinking selves with their full selves and further they judge their emotional selves and desiring selves, often, and do not want to see some kind of integration of thinking and feeling or prefrontal cortex and limbic. They maintain their splits and act as jailers one part of the brain to others. I recognize greatness in both 'parts' (and yes, I recognize that even in people who maintain strong splits, the two parts are inevitably intertwined) and while emotions and desires can be confused and mistaken about what my particular organizm needs, the mental verbal functions have a certain kind of hubris not only it this person's ability to deduce, say, but in humans in general, even the smartest, in what they deduce. I don't merely side with my emotions and tell my thoughts to fuck off. But if my emotions and thoughts are arriving at different conclusions, well, we are just at the very beginning of an enormous process. Because I respect my emotions and I see that those who don't, generally end up extremely confident in deductions that have inherent flaws.

You're taking me as saying I don't respect my thoughts. But I do. I hope that is clearer now. But I also respect my emotions and intuitions. And I notice in those who don't are not as good at noticing when their so called proofs are driven by them.

And hey, why do you, presumably with a masculine mind, given your judgments, allow someone with a feminine mind to control what you do in a philosophy forum? IOW one could look at our dynamic as the masculine mind judging my mind as too under the control of the feminine mind. But it just seems like you have an another person acting out the role of your own feminine mind. She takes that role. She is irrational, not you. And yet, she has some control over you, keeps you from doing what you really want to do, presumably a good masculine activity, one with strong objective reasons to be valued. Does this take place in other areas? Why have you allowed another person to take on the role of your limbic system? Have you really resolved the split in your own mind? Or do you have another person taking on the role of your own limbic system, very common in marriages, so you can feel superior to it and see it as not you? And now you can play that game with me too. ' I'm just observing.' A Buddha.

When it is so obvious that this Buddha has skin in the game and is doing things he claims he is not. Such a fundamental disconnect. I mean, this was such a fundamental disconnect in your response to me. A so obvious denial. And one that I find common in those who see their mascluine minds as superior to what they judge as feminine minds.

Anyway...a great read coming at this from a slightly different angle is....
https://www.amazon.com/Master-His-Emiss ... 0300188374
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:14 am

KT wrote:I certainly think that what I value is influenced by what is real. I don't think that I merely have a subjective experience completely disconnected from reality. (this is very simplified, but I don't want to get too far into metaphysically controversial areas).


You mean to say that the process by which you judge whether something is valuable or not is influenced by your perception of reality?

Can you confirm that?

If so, that means that your value judgments can be wrong because they depend on something that can be wrong -- your perception of reality. (I assume you agree that perceptions can be wrong.)

And that means that value is objective. (Recall that by "value is objective" I mean "what's valuable to someone is independent from what anyone thinks (or feels) is valuable to that someone".)

Whether or not humans can change their value-related beliefs is a separate issue that has to do with how flexible humans are (specifically, the degree to which they are capable of adopting new beliefs and acting upon them.) I am told that some animals are born with a set of beliefs that they have little to no ability to change in response to new experience. They don't think -- thinking here understood as the process by which existing beliefs are revised and new ones are formed -- but stick to their initial beliefs no matter what. This makes it possible for them to act quickly. I think that humans, at least some of them, are better than that. But either way, that's not exactly the subject of this thread. (Though it's a related and moreover interesting topic to discuss.)
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:24 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
KT wrote:I certainly think that what I value is influenced by what is real. I don't think that I merely have a subjective experience completely disconnected from reality. (this is very simplified, but I don't want to get too far into metaphysically controversial areas).


You mean to say that the process by which you judge whether something is valuable or not is influenced by your perception of reality?
Yes.

If so, that means that your value judgments can be wrong because they depend on something that can be wrong -- your perception of reality. (I assume you agree that perceptions can be wrong.)
The specific evaluation can be wrong. I hate red cars so I hate that car. But it's not red. Oh, yeah, it was the orange street light that confused me. But my hating red cars is not right or wrong. It's a taste issue.

And also, even then. I could be wrong in relation to my own values. But that doesn't mean I can be right. Let's say my perception is correct. It is a red car. That doesn't mean my value judgment that it is a bad color for a car is now right. Or that the guy who likes red cars has the wrong value. There's a kind of category error here.
If I like butterscotch ice cream and you don't, is one of us wrong?

Your position also, I think, assumes that all of us are really the same deep down. That deep down we all want and need the same things, that if our perceptions and logic were very good, we would all have the same values. I don't think that's true.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:14 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ...

It seems that I made the mistake of thinking that we were talking a little more collaboratively. I have to confess a bit of disappointment. I thought you were speaking a little more positively than you now seem to have been and you seem to have been reading me as more negative than I know I intended to be. I'm still a little new at this two way posting thing.

So I guess I will take your advice.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:drop the enlightened guy schtick
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:28 am

KT wrote:The specific evaluation can be wrong. I hate red cars so I hate that car. But it's not red. Oh, yeah, it was the orange street light that confused me. But my hating red cars is not right or wrong. It's a taste issue.


I see.

And also, even then. I could be wrong in relation to my own values. But that doesn't mean I can be right. Let's say my perception is correct. It is a red car. That doesn't mean my value judgment that it is a bad color for a car is now right. Or that the guy who likes red cars has the wrong value. There's a kind of category error here.
If I like butterscotch ice cream and you don't, is one of us wrong?


Not necessarily. You We can both be correct.

My claim is merely that "I like butterscotch ice cream" means "I perceive that butterscotch ice cream is of use to me in some way" which means that whether or not butterscotch ice cream is of use to someone is decided by reality.

I am not claiming that what's valuable to you is necessarily what's valuable to everyone.

Your position also, I think, assumes that all of us are really the same deep down. Your position also, I think, assumes that all of us are really the same deep down. That deep down we all want and need the same things, that if our perceptions and logic were very good, we would all have the same values. I don't think that's true.


There's a number of beliefs related to the subject of value that are usually treated as if one of them being true logically necessitates that all other beliefs are true as well (and vice versa, that if one of them is false that all others are false as well.)

Let's separate them:

1) VALUE OBJECTIVISM.
What's valuable to someone is independent from what anyone thinks (or feels) is valuable to that someone. (And when I say "anyone" I literally mean anyone -- that someone including.)

2) VALUE UNIVERSALISM.
What's valuable to one is what's valuable to everyone. This means that things have the same value for everyone.

3) HIGHEST GOAL UNIVERSALISM.
The highest goal of every human being is the same.

I agree with #1 and #3 but I disagree with #2.

The subject of this topic, however, is only #1.
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby fuse » Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:02 am

Going into this blind, just my initial thinking on the OP.

Value = a pre-defined bearing or orientation

Values are objective and perceptible in the sense that the concept maps to something about us that’s real and knowable, if indirectly, and even if we don’t entirely understand it.

Values factor into the premises of all our activity. They give weight and meaning to our decisions. Everyone has a set of values, no matter how conflicted or suppressed. They aren't a static set, but I'm not sure they are so freely altered either.

Another question is whether values can be good and bad, and whether judgements about value can be made without recourse to values.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4581
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:16 am

MagsJ wrote: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.


Suppose you marry an alcoholic who ends up physically and verbally abusing you every single night and every single day for every little thing you do that he finds in one way or another unpleasing to his eyes and ears. Wouldn't you, in such a case, say that you made the wrong decision? You are certainly not going to say "But how can I have decided differently, when that is what I decided at the time?" Even though that's true. The idea is to evaluate past decisions in light of something you didn't know previously. Of course, that won't teleport you back into the past and let you change your decision, but that was never the point anyways. The point is to ask yourself, "Could I have done better?" That's all.

The same applies to foods. Perhaps pizza tastes good but it shouldn't actually -- even if tastes are difficult to change. You want to figure out what's better so that you can eventually train yourself to make what's better part of yourself. You want to develop a new way of feeling -- a better one -- in order to replace the old -- the worse one.
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:40 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
KT wrote:The specific evaluation can be wrong. I hate red cars so I hate that car. But it's not red. Oh, yeah, it was the orange street light that confused me. But my hating red cars is not right or wrong. It's a taste issue.


Not necessarily. You We can both be correct.
Great, then A and -A can both be true, so we are not talking about objectivity. Edit [I just went back to the OP and I see you first phrased it as true vs. false values. Then under that the word objectivity came up. I can see using 'true' value as meaning something that fits the person, their desires and needs. Though to me a value isn't true or false, assertions about the world are true or false. I suppose if I say I like ice cream and I don't then on a factual level that statement is false. And I do think people can be wrong about what they themselves value. But speaking in general, I wouldn't say 'like ice cream is a true value' nor would I say 'liking ice cream is a false value'. ] We are talking about we can be making choices suited to ourselves, or...?

My claim is merely that "I like butterscotch ice cream" means "I perceive that butterscotch ice cream is of use to me in some way" which means that whether or not butterscotch ice cream is of use to someone is decided by reality.
Including our subjective desires and experiences and quirks. OK, I don't disagree.

I am not claiming that what's valuable to you is necessarily what's valuable to everyone.
OK, to me that would be inherent in objective values. But if you mean that what we value is connected to reality and affected by reality, sure.

Your position also, I think, assumes that all of us are really the same deep down. Your position also, I think, assumes that all of us are really the same

Let's separate them:

1) VALUE OBJECTIVISM.
What's valuable to someone is independent from what anyone thinks (or feels) is valuable to that someone. (And when I say "anyone" I literally mean anyone -- that someone including.)

2) VALUE UNIVERSALISM.
What's valuable to one is what's valuable to everyone. This means that things have the same value for everyone.

3) HIGHEST GOAL UNIVERSALISM.
The highest goal of every human being is the same.

I agree with #1 and #3 but I disagree with #2.

The subject of this topic, however, is only #1.
Great. Could you rephrase number 1 and also give an example so I understand it. And then 3, what is the highest goal of every human being?
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby fuse » Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:53 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:1) VALUE OBJECTIVISM.
What's valuable to someone is independent from what anyone thinks (or feels) is valuable to that someone. (And when I say "anyone" I literally mean anyone -- that someone including.)

When I think of values, it's usually in terms similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(ethics)#Personal_values
In this way, values cannot be independent of judgement - they are the pre-conditions for it. Values make judgements possible.

I think there's a shift in the way people talk about values. We're all mostly talking about the same overall phenomenon, but we're focused on different aspects of it: there's a being > that being has preferences and makes judgements > about things and relations in the world. The shift is that some focus on the being's internal structure/conditioning that generates its preferences and judgements, and some focus on the qualities of the objects of judgement.

From the former point of view, values refer to the internal structure or conditions of beings that generate their behavior.
On the latter view, value refers to the objective qualities/relations that make things valuable, whether someone thinks so or not.

In a way, I think these are both correct. The things that people value have objective qualities that can be interpreted in various ways, and can also be misinterpreted. In other words, there is something about both the object and the subject that leads to the subject's valuation of the object/relation. Ultimately, given a different set of internal values, a person would likely value different things. It's also the case that interpreting the world outside oneself differently (e.g. losing the ability to see changes the way one perceives the world) (e.g. hallucinations) (e.g. through the lens of more/different experience) (e.g. changes in perspective/understanding) would also impact one's valuations.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4581
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Value

Postby phyllo » Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:12 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
MagsJ wrote: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.


Suppose you marry an alcoholic who ends up physically and verbally abusing you every single night and every single day for every little thing you do that he finds in one way or another unpleasing to his eyes and ears. Wouldn't you, in such a case, say that you made the wrong decision? You are certainly not going to say "But how can I have decided differently, when that is what I decided at the time?" Even though that's true. The idea is to evaluate past decisions in light of something you didn't know previously. Of course, that won't teleport you back into the past and let you change your decision, but that was never the point anyways. The point is to ask yourself, "Could I have done better?" That's all.

The same applies to foods. Perhaps pizza tastes good but it shouldn't actually -- even if tastes are difficult to change. You want to figure out what's better so that you can eventually train yourself to make what's better part of yourself. You want to develop a new way of feeling -- a better one -- in order to replace the old -- the worse one.

I think that this exchange sheds some light on one of the issues here ... which is defining value in terms of usefulness.

Let's say that I need to change a lightbulb on the ceiling. I select an old wobbly chair. IOW I think it has value to me for the task.
The chair collapses, I fall down and the lightbulb remains unchanged.
In hindsight, I was wrong about the "value" of the chair, I misjudged the usefulness of the chair.

One can say that objectively, something was adequate for achieving a goal or it was not.

But is that really objective value? And how would it apply to beauty? Or butterscotch ice cream?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12053
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Value

Postby MagsJ » Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:37 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
MagsJ wrote: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.
Suppose you marry an alcoholic who ends up physically and verbally abusing you every single night and every single day for every little thing you do that he finds in one way or another unpleasing to his eyes and ears. Wouldn't you, in such a case, say that you made the wrong decision? You are certainly not going to say "But how can I have decided differently, when that is what I decided at the time?" Even though that's true. The idea is to evaluate past decisions in light of something you didn't know previously. Of course, that won't teleport you back into the past and let you change your decision, but that was never the point anyways. The point is to ask yourself, "Could I have done better?" That's all.

Seeing that the decision (to marry) had already been made and marriage had, the only lesson that could be learned.. after the fact, was on how best to quickly rectify the bad (not really, wrong) decision, and in the meantime.. to minimise the physical and psychological abuse being experienced.

One could have only done/chosen more wisely, if they knew that the person harboured such behaviour beforehand, but the person in turn could have removed themselves from the situation and left.. if they weren’t happy in the marriage, rather than take that frustration out on the other. Two people, two channels of decision-making.. not just one.

The same applies to foods. Perhaps pizza tastes good but it shouldn't actually -- even if tastes are difficult to change. You want to figure out what's better so that you can eventually train yourself to make what's better part of yourself.

So even if something tastes great but is toxic to us, the wise thing to do is to abstain from it. Just out of interest.. why shouldn’t pizza taste good? :-s

Many foods and thoughts aren’t of value, and so only hinder a person's individual progress.. causing stagnation of body and mind, so making better judgements to remedy that is the most wise and value-laden way forward.

You want to develop a new way of feeling -- a better one -- in order to replace the old -- the worse one.

This sounds very familiar.. I’ve heard it somewhere else, before. Is that what that Planet Caravan video was pertaining to? it really is quite something. :)

To feel differently, is to start to think differently first.. positive affirmations and all that, and those new thoughts should then permeate throughout your very soul. :P

I recommend Zazen as your first port of call.. you find a wall to sit in front of, and stare at it. :D
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 » Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:20 pm

fuse wrote:values cannot be independent of judgement - they are the pre-conditions for it. Values make judgements possible.

And the fact that there is an objective highest value allows for all supplementary judgments to also be objectively accurate or not.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:46 pm

phyllo wrote:But is that really objective value? And how would it apply to beauty? Or butterscotch ice cream?
Yes, I wonder about this also. To me my finding person X attractive need not be either universally agreed upon, let alone objectively a correct attraction. Or as it says in the OP, a true value. It could be right for me, given what I like, but that seems circular. I like women with intense facial expressions and rounder faces, say. I can't see now this can be true, except to say that if I say that and I am being honest, then it is truly my value.

A different issue is that it doesn't seem to me a means to a goal, but an end it itself: those values. Eating butterscotch ice cream does not bring me closer to some goal. Except to the extent that I want to eat things that I like (with provisos for health perhaps).

Then if we get into values like valuing freedom or security or creatvity most, I don't think one can say that the way I prioritize these values is not true or false, but is a matter of my taste. Or something very like taste. I cannot say that someone who values security higher than I do and freedom, say, much lower, and creativity not much at all, is wrong or that his values are false.

Maybe if I see that he really does seem to value freedom as much as I do,while saying he'd rather be safe than free, and even takes risks to protect his freedom, I could perhaps argue that he has falsely evaulated his own priorities. But I can't say his values are false.

At least, as far as I can tell. I have asked Magnus to clarify some of this so perhaps this will get clearer.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby thinkdr » Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:06 am

Hi there

Magnus,
I'm glad to see that you are interested in this topic. Yet the posters so far in this thread write as if Dr. Robert S. Hartman – the world’s leading authority on Value Theory – (more formally known as 'Axiology') never even existed !
His definition if "value" offered in his classic book, The Structure of Value, (1967) has now been applied to the field of Ethics.

In the first link below, at its outset on p.3, the author tells us he will
operate on the premise that an understanding of the concept “value” is logically prior to a comprehension of the concept “moral value.” This discussion falls within the area known to philosophers as ‘meta-ethics.


Then, in the chapter on Morality we note, in the third paragraph on page 26, this passage, which is a simplification of the actual logic that Robert S. Hartman discovered/created:
“Value - by definition - involves a match... to put it in plain language: a match between the ideal and the actual. When the actual fulfills the ideal, there is value.”


Then, on p. 32, he goes into the topic in greater depth, as follows (quoted by permission):
UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT “VALUE
As Dr. R. S. Hartman taught us, When something exemplifies its concept, when to your mind it is as it is supposed to be, you are likely to judge it as valuable or to speak of it as ”a value .” Then your mental picture of it (your conception) corresponds with your perception of it and its properties.*
Just as "value" in general involves a correspondence between two sets, "moral value" does also. Morality and moral value mean the same in this system. The two sets for morality are the set of one's behaviors and the set of one's ever-evolving ideals. Morality means "walking the walk, not just talking the talk." It means avoiding hypocrisy and corruption; it means authenticity: being real (rather than a pretender or a phony.)


Hartman himself gets more technical as he explains that Value involves a one-to-one correspondence between the extension - the properties of what is being valued - and the intension of the concept under which the item being valued falls. The intension contains attributes - names of properties - and those are what correspond to the properties.
The attributes are in the mind, and are associated with the meaning of the concept; the properties are perceived by the five senses. You may ask: in the mind of whom? They are in the mind of the one who is judging or appraising the value.
So, to sum up, x is valuable to Judge J at time t. And, taking C to mean the concept, of which x is an example, or instance, or referent:
X is good [fully valuable] as a C if and only if;
1) X is a C.
2) Cs have attributes a,b,c,d,e,f,g, …etc. …
3) And x is a. [x has the property a.]
X is b.
X is c ….etc. …….

This definition is known as The Axiom of Value in Formal Axiology [Value Science.]

Wiki has articles on all these topics, including a bio on Dr. Hartman as well.

If this does not cover the subject for you, or anyone else, then it is necessary to study The College Course manuscript. cited below at the end, for further clarification and more details.

.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:22 am

KT wrote:Great, then A and -A can both be true, so we are not talking about objectivity.


I would say that The Law of Non-Contradiction applies even to statements of value. The ice cream you speak of is either good for you or it is not. It cannot be both. Correct?

We are talking about we can be making choices suited to ourselves, or...?


Previously, I defined value as that which is of use to someone.

The ice cream you speak is good or bad in relation to someone. It is not good or bad on its own. That makes no sense. But whether it is good or bad in relation to someone is independent from what anyone thinks or feels. You might think that it's good for you, but in reality, it might be bad for you.

Great. Could you rephrase number 1 and also give an example so I understand it.


Do you agree that utility is objective?

Do you agree that what's useful to someone is independent from what anyone thinks is useful to that someone?

What's useful? That which can help you attain your goals.

If you want to live, then water and food are useful (because you cannot live without them) whereas poison is not only useless but harmful (because it can kill you.)

If you think or feel that you should eat something poisonous in order to stay alive, you'd consider that a mistake, correct?

Whether or not a thing T is useful to a person P is decided by 1) person P's highest goal, and 2) the consequences of person P using thing T.

Thus, judging whether or not a thing T is useful to a person P does not merely depend on your perception of that thing T but also on your perception of the consequences of person P using that thing T.

Does that make sense?

If so, the same applies to value because value is merely another word for utility.

There are many cases in which it is useful to make a distinction between what we like (value) and what works (utility.) For example, it is typical for people to say that their cell phone works (in the sense that they can use it to call people, text them, surf the Web (even though noone does that anymore), etc) but that they do not like it (in the sense that it does not look good.) There's nothing wrong with making such a distinction per se (in fact, it happens to be useful) but when dealing with philosophical issues such as the one presented in this thread it is an obstacle (due to the language acrobatics involved.) It's like when Mary accuses John of generalizing when she actually means that he's over-generalizing. The anatomical structure of the term implies nothing wrong (since generalization per se is not a bad thing) but the meaning of the term does. Such acrobatics are perhaps necessary in certain cases but they make doing philosophy difficult.

My claim is that a phone that looks good is a phone that we perceive to be useful in some way that is typically not obvious to us. The fact that the use of something that looks good is not immediately obvious is what allows many to conclude that "looking good" has nothing to do with utility.
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:51 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
KT wrote:Great, then A and -A can both be true, so we are not talking about objectivity.

I would say that The Law of Non-Contradiction applies even to statements of value. The ice cream you speak of is either good for you or it is not. It cannot be both. Correct?
I would like to explore that a bit, but now is not the right time. I think it is better for me to agree here. Let me say why I bring this up. With objectivity, usually one is talking about what is true for everyone. Scientists can take the same testing protocols and find the same results, in any lab anywhere. When we talk about objective, we generally contrast with subjective, which tends to mean NOT based on personal beliefs of feelings. The latter term being telling for me in this context. If I say butterscotch icecream is good, this is about my feelings. Of course it is triggered by real qualities 'out there' in the ice cream, but the combination is not objective. It is a subjective value triggered by real things. With scientific research regardless of the feelings and subjective experience of the scientist, sodium will burn in water. Any scientist will experience this, observe it.

So, yes the law of Non-contradiction holds for my subjective experience of the ice cream. I value its taste higher than other tastes. But to me it is strange to say my value is true or objective.

My reporting of my value might be true or false, but not the value itself.

If someone else dislikes butterscotch (and who wouldn't) their value is not false. I don't know what these words ADD to my value.

It is my value. It is an objective value. It is a true value. I don't see these adjectives as adding any information OR they are incorrect.

Previously, I defined value as that which is of use to someone.

The ice cream you speak is good or bad in relation to someone. It is not good or bad on its own. That makes no sense. But whether it is good or bad in relation to someone is independent from what anyone thinks or feels. You might think that it's good for you, but in reality, it might be bad for you.
I can value it simply because I like the experience of it.

Do you agree that utility is objective?
No, not in the usual sense of that term when coupled with my value. Butterscotch may not have utility. It is not objective utility or other people should all value it, also.

Do you agree that what's useful to someone is independent from what anyone thinks is useful to that someone?
I think we have much more flexibility than that. I could have been a detective or an actor and both choices would have led to very interesting lives for me despite requiring quite different value and priorities.
What's useful? That which can help you attain your goals.
I don't think my values are all about the future. I mentioned this before, though perhaps I missed your response. I value things as ends also. Values are not just means for some future experience.

If you want to live, then water and food are useful (because you cannot live without them) whereas poison is not only useless but harmful (because it can kill you.)

If you think or feel that you should eat something poisonous in order to stay alive, you'd consider that a mistake, correct?
I could eat oatmeal cookies or butterscotch ice cream. There is no instrumental reason to choose one over the other.

Whether or not a thing T is useful to a person P is decided by 1) person P's highest goal, and 2) the consequences of person P using thing T.
I don't think values are only intrumental.
Thus, judging whether or not a thing T is useful to a person P does not merely depend on your perception of that thing T but also on your perception of the consequences of person P using that thing T.

Does that make sense?

If so, the same applies to value because value is merely another word for utility.
I don't agree and I think one wedge can be seen that I often choose between things that could both be instrumental or not and not influenced by just one highest value. Could you say what our common highest value is?


My claim is that a phone that looks good is a phone that we perceive to be useful in some way that is typically not obvious to us. The fact that the use of something that looks good is not immediately obvious is what allows many to conclude that "looking good" has nothing to do with utility.
Which would mean that Beauty is never a value in itself, right? I don't think that is the case. Or to put it another way we would be confused if we thought we actually valued Beauty, its actuallly a means only or a distraction or a false value. Is that what you are saying?

I don't love my wife only because it will help me achieve a goal.

I'm getting a vague sense of a kind of teleological neo-Darwinianism in this. This is an intuitive leap, but I am getting the same feeling of teleology making any creature's value to improve its survivability. But this is confused. Yes, it's behavior may affect its survivability but for the creature its values are not instrumental, nor is evolution itself. I am playing with an open hand, here. I can't fully connect this yet, it may be a mere useless association or it might be useful. We'll see.

I suppose this intuition could be translated into...it seems like all values are FOR a goal in your schema, whereas I see them as BECAUSE of the qualities and tendencies of my organism. Some of these tendencies and qualities are motivated towards goals, some are not.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:17 am

thinkdr wrote:Hi there

Magnus,
I'm glad to see that you are interested in this topic. Yet the posters so far in this thread write as if Dr. Robert S. Hartman – the world’s leading authority on Value Theory – (more formally known as 'Axiology') never even existed !
His definition if "value" offered in his classic book, The Structure of Value, (1967) has now been applied to the field of Ethics.

As usual you are too hasty just as like how you reached hasty unsubstantiated conclusions on Trump.

Note the objective truth here in this post re Hartman;
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 0#p2777140
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 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:37 am

KT wrote:With objectivity, usually one is talking about what is true for everyone.


What does "true for everyone" mean?

A belief either corresponds to reality (in which case it is true and thus an instance of truth) or it does not (in which case it is false and thus an instance of falsehood.)

It makes no sense to say that a belief is true or false for someone.

And yes, I do not believe that listening to music, looking at pictures and reading stories is an end in itself. It is a means to an end. We do these things in order to remind ourselves of things that we'd like to have in our lives.

"Beauty is the promise of happiness."
-- Stendhal
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:05 am

Doesn't "objective" mean true despite everyone?
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Value

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:58 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
KT wrote:With objectivity, usually one is talking about what is true for everyone.


What does "true for everyone" mean?

A belief either corresponds to reality (in which case it is true and thus an instance of truth) or it does not (in which case it is false and thus an instance of falsehood.)

It makes no sense to say that a belief is true or false for someone.
O
Nor that a value is only true or false for 1 person. That is that person's value and not someone else's, that we can say. That's my point. But if it can be true that I don't like butterscotch ice and true that you do, and our values are both true, then it is not like other kinds of truths. And these values need have no goals, but be ends. But beliefs are not necessarily values. I am not sure why you are talking about beliefs above. Beliefs and values are very different entities ontologically. I can believe that the earth circles the sun on an ellipse. That's not a value. I might not care at all about that or find it even bothersome, but hold it's true.

My values simply cannot hold for everyone. WE have different bodies, for example. And different bodies have different pleasures, needs, desires, skills, enjoyments, priorities, yes, goals, but not just goals. Further I could value something that shortens my life, but increases my greatness in art, while someone else, increases the amount of children they have and does less art because of that. I don't think we all have the same highest goal, nor can we tell if someone has the true value for them. They have that value. We have no criteria in many cases to say it is false. Sometimes we might if their value contradicts what they themselves say their highest value is or highest goal. But otherwise, I don't think so.

Now I know you have said something about it being true for that person and their goals, but as I said, I see this adjective as not adding any information.

And I do not think that everyone has the same ultimate goal. I used to, but not anymore. But let's see what the highest goal is we all share and perhaps I can see mroe clearly.

I think we need to focus on this hightest good we all share, what it is and if it is the same for all of us.

And yes, I do not believe that listening to music, looking at pictures and reading stories is an end in itself. It is a means to an end. We do these things in order to remind ourselves of things that we'd like to have in our lives.
So, I am sitting on my backporch and bird flies by and I value this experience more than the one before the bird gracefully flew by, I did something to remind myself of....?

I don't eat icecream I like to remind me of something. I don't move toward a person I am drawn to to remind myself of something.

"Beauty is the promise of happiness."
-- Stendhal
Beauty is often already happiness.

It also seems to me that one portion of the self often decides what the values of the whole self are, using its logical, verbal and limited view. And also making everything insrumental. OUr intuitions can also lead us to what we value and since much of child rearing teaches us to have splits, there is a serious epistemological issue involved in decdiing we know Value x is false.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Value

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:25 pm

I’m going to annoy you all again...

There is only one value that every being in existence shares: nobody wants their consent violated.

Very simple. Every being shares this value.

We have absolutely no choice in a zero sum existence but to violate consent no matter what we do.

From a collective value standpoint, this type of existence is objectively bad/evil.

That’s what we’re in. Bad/evil.

People who act out are reflecting existence as it is. There’s nothing noble about that. Being noble in this existence is not acting out... it’s telling existence to go fuck itself when it’s like this, and just trying to be kind to the greatest extent possible - which is an easy task to fail.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10800
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Value

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:36 pm

Observer wrote:Doesn't "objective" mean true despite everyone?


Yes, it means "true despite what anyone thinks".

"Food is valuable to Ecmandu" is true despite what anyone thinks about the truth value of that statement. Even if everyone thought that that statement is false, it would still be true.

Trouble is, I am not sure that's how KT interprets that word.

KT wrote:But if it can be true that I don't like butterscotch ice and true that you do, and our values are both true, then it is not like other kinds of truths.


Earlier I said that I define the word "value" to mean "that which is of use to someone". Notice the emphasis.

Values aren't true or false on their own. They are true or false in relation to someone.

In other words, you can't say "Ice cream is good" but you can say "Ice cream is good for X" where X is someone. The former statement is nonsensical, so it has no truth value. The latter makes sense and it has truth value that is independent from what anyone thinks about it.

But beliefs are not necessarily values. [..] Beliefs and values are very different entities ontologically. I can believe that the earth circles the sun on an ellipse. That's not a value. I might not care at all about that or find it even bothersome, but hold it's true.


Beliefs are most definitely not values though they can be of value and they can be about values.

I am not sure why you are talking about beliefs above.


Because it is beliefs that are either true or false. Of course, we also use these words -- "true" and "false" -- to describe things that are not beliefs (e.g. values) but such a use is not a literal one.

"True value" is merely a short version of "What's really of value to someone".

"False value" is merely short for "What's not really of value to someone".

Perhaps I introduced some confusion by speaking of true and false values in the opening post of this thread, but in my defense, such a liberal use of language isn't unheard of. It is not rare for people to speak of true and false kings (and kings aren't beliefs), true and false gods (gods aren't beliefs either), true and false needs (needs neither), false friends (these are neither people nor beliefs but words) and so on.

So, I am sitting on my backporch and bird flies by and I value this experience more than the one before the bird gracefully flew by, I did something to remind myself of....?


I am not sure what's going on behind the scenes in that particular case but in many cases the process of appreciating (= enjoying) art is for the most part nothing but the work of art informing us of things that we'd like to have in our lives.

I don't eat icecream I like to remind me of something. I don't move toward a person I am drawn to to remind myself of something.


Note the part that is bolded and underlined:

Magnus wrote:And yes, I do not believe that listening to music, looking at pictures and reading stories is an end in itself. It is a means to an end. We do these things in order to remind ourselves of things that we'd like to have in our lives.


Eating ice cream and interacting with people is not there.

KT wrote:Beauty is often already happiness.


The expectation of future happiness usually makes one happy in the present (:

It also seems to me that one portion of the self often decides what the values of the whole self are, using its logical, verbal and limited view. And also making everything insrumental. OUr intuitions can also lead us to what we value and since much of children teaches us to have splits, there is a serious epistemological issue involved in decdiing we know Value x is false.


I think the real difference is between people who are self-aware and those who are not.

Intuition is also logical. Hell, even the simplest type of observation is logical. (I gave an example earlier, I think.)
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users