(January 10, 2016 at 4:58 pm)wallym Wrote: I think the language we use when talking about value muddies up the waters, allowing for 'objective value' talks to slide in as a thing.  And I think it's because of the way we talk about subjective value as an abstract idea when the reality is it's no such thing.

What is subjective value really?  

It is a tangible biological process of evaluating the desires of an individual in a moment.  Really, it is only subjective in the sense that the scope only applies to one person in that moment.  But really, it is a fact.  A measurable truth, no different than eye color or gravity.  Person A at moment B values C.

So what is objective value.  Where does that exist?  How does it not contradict the truth that is the individuals tangible values?  

If I have blue eyes, Bob has green eyes, and Tim has yellow eyes.  The idea of a universal eye color is nonsense.  By describing things as tangible instead of opinions, it leaves no room for an overarching objective value to exist.

--
Am I missing anything here?

I think absolute values do not exist outside of mathematical equations.

(January 14, 2016 at 8:43 am)Losty Wrote: I think objective values do not exist outside of mathematical equations.

Absolutely *wink wink*

(January 13, 2016 at 11:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Of course the word can has multiple denotations (which is different from connotation BTW). If you cannot figure out which denotation is relevant to the conversation you might want to have your head checked out.

Your insistence that it must be transcendence of the physical shows that you don't engage in the conversation in good faith, relevance being decided by your preferences.  Is that how serious this is, a word game?  Why not just say;

"I demand that objective value/morality be non-physical in nature and/or origin - this is my requirement"

....?  I ask, because it's clear that the word transcendence has been used to avoid openly making this demand.  The irony in your "correcting" me over the terms denotation and connotation will be lost, on you, I'm sure.  Let's run with it though..a little more honestly this time.  We won't use the word transcend, we'll say -precisely- what we mean.

Objective value/morality cannot be physical in nature or origin, and must be intrinsic.  Gee, I can't imagine the problems with this statement..in regards to human beings.

Losty: I'd say that is correct. The values themselves can be a measurement, but that measurement is an interpretation of reality, not part of reality itself. It's an abstract concept and as such can only exist "within" abstract systems like mathematics.

So often God gets compared to an abstract concept like numbers by a theist, unaware that they just argued God out of literal existence.

Objectively measured subjective values, I would say yes. Objectively existent values, I would say no.

Robvalue, what you've shown is we cannot arbitrarily makes ourselves the standard of objective value of a person. That said, neither can God, but it must be witnessing in truth with respect to himself and the reality of the object with respect to himself. However this perception and creating and increasing or decreasing in value, has to have some sort of reality, in which there is one who maintains the value of people in truth.

However we would not have any subjective value of a person were it not a belief in objective value. It seems then the human nature is to acknowledge a Lord and one who makes us inherit actions objectively and truly.

The question is it also in our nature that we know this Lord will make us face the truth of his judgement to some degree? I think this is also in our nature. Hence the belief in day of judgement seems not far off from our basic instincts that we meant to know our true value.

Why is there any necessity for the qualifier "with respect to himself"?  What does that have to do with value? I still don't believe in objective value, despite having plenty of subjective value assessments.

As long as I so much as exist...your beliefs will be plainly false. An impressive and obvious miscalculation on your part, I'd say.

(January 14, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why is there any necessity for the qualifier "with respect to himself"?  

The reason because it's related to his knowledge of himself and he is the criteria.  It's connected to him through his name/face which is a living connection. There is no objective value but that it is found in God. The relationship with Him is the measurement of it. And all things are derived from it's relationship to God.

(January 14, 2016 at 1:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The reason because it's related to his knowledge of himself and he is the criteria.

Can you say that in English, please?

(January 14, 2016 at 9:17 am)Vic Wrote:

(January 14, 2016 at 8:43 am)Losty Wrote: I think objective values do not exist outside of mathematical equations.

Absolutely *wink wink*

Bahh that's what I meant. Lol. Close enough. I really need to start sleeping more often.