(January 14, 2016 at 1:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(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.

If it's "his knowledge of himself and he's the criteria"...what does that have to do with us, again?  Sounds to me like you're discussing some situation where you have some relationship to an object (or god, whatever) with "objective value"...not that you have any yourself.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, you don't -become- a baseball player just because you have some relationship with or to a baseball player....right? That would be silly.

(January 10, 2016 at 9:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Valuing something is placing it within the context of a plan or purpose. Things are always valuable to be used toward some goal. This is the province of intention. Without some form of goal directing the valuation of the thing, the thing is without value. So no, a thing can't be inherently valuable as value implies the designs of an intentioning agent.

If value implies the designs of an intentioning agent, then value is measured by each agent according to their plan or purpose. But how does value attach to an end, if value is determined by an end? Where does an end derive the absolute value by which it imparts relative value to other things? Or, are all ends of equal value? Do they lack value altogether?

(January 21, 2016 at 3:09 am)Nestor Wrote: Where does an end derive the absolute value by which it imparts relative value to other things?

This gets complex very quickly, but we have global project(s) in the 'self', and the absolute value is imparted by feelings bubbling up from the subconscious to reinforce or impede approach to avenues toward completion of a goal. Let's say you want to be a doctor, but have only finished your bachelor's degree. Certain projects will elicit favorable emotions: applying to medical school, taking a medical internship, and so on. Other projects will elicit anxiety or negative emotions: going to a tech school, committing to a contract to work outside the medical field, starting a career. Most of us have an image of the self we'd like to be, even if it's rather dim; and our emotions work to propel us toward actualizing that image. (Though in my case, inertia plays a role as well. Ideally, I would like to be healthy and fully abled. Each day I monitor my health and experiment with ways to improve it. My goal of being fully abled cannot be realized because I am missing fingers. My stagnation on that goal tends to elicit anxiety and discomfort.)

I don't think starting with human intentionality will make things very clear, since it involves evolutionary events we can't know about interacting with an environment so complex it can't be understood.

I'd like to talk about non-sentient events which branch: specifically lightning. How is it that lightning makes its quite complex branching as it reaches up toward the sky? It seems that we are looking at the path of least resistance, here, and that in this context the "best" path of the lightning is that which offers least resistance to the natural processes involved.

We often think of desires and intention as active forces, connected to human will. But what if rather than saying we chase our ambitions, we think of obedience to ambition as the path of least psychological resistance? In this case, no matter WHAT goal someone seems arbitrarily to establish, it can be assumed that the person is following the path of least resistance both in choosing that goal and in its execution-- much as while each branch of lightning takes a unique path, it is following only a single principle.

If this view is correct, then there is an objective value for ALL goals and the actions leading to them, no matter how they vary among individuals, and not only that, the goal will be adhered to 100% of the time simply by the nature of things.

Objective value, obviously.

(January 21, 2016 at 6:05 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 3:09 am)Nestor Wrote: Where does an end derive the absolute value by which it imparts relative value to other things?

This gets complex very quickly, but we have global project(s) in the 'self', and the absolute value is imparted by feelings bubbling up from the subconscious to reinforce or impede approach to avenues toward completion of a goal.  Let's say you want to be a doctor, but have only finished your bachelor's degree.  Certain projects will elicit favorable emotions: applying to medical school, taking a medical internship, and so on.  Other projects will elicit anxiety or negative emotions:  going to a tech school, committing to a contract to work outside the medical field, starting a career.  Most of us have an image of the self we'd like to be, even if it's rather dim; and our emotions work to propel us toward actualizing that image.  (Though in my case, inertia plays a role as well.  Ideally, I would like to be healthy and fully abled.  Each day I monitor my health and experiment with ways to improve it.  My goal of being fully abled cannot be realized because I am missing fingers.  My stagnation on that goal tends to elicit anxiety and discomfort.)

So, is there a way by which one might evaluate this image of the ideal self, to say whether it is actually (objectively) better or worse than any another image? Might not one's pleasant feelings which arise from accomplishing certain tasks be better, not just as a matter of their own judgement, but in principle, in the case that their goal is a career as a doctor who cares for the ill, versus the parallel progress and pleasure another acquires in becoming the most decorated commander of Boko Haram, say? Might I be mistaken about what I think is the best self that I want to strive towards?

(January 21, 2016 at 6:29 am)Nestor Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 6:05 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: This gets complex very quickly, but we have global project(s) in the 'self', and the absolute value is imparted by feelings bubbling up from the subconscious to reinforce or impede approach to avenues toward completion of a goal.  Let's say you want to be a doctor, but have only finished your bachelor's degree.  Certain projects will elicit favorable emotions: applying to medical school, taking a medical internship, and so on.  Other projects will elicit anxiety or negative emotions:  going to a tech school, committing to a contract to work outside the medical field, starting a career.  Most of us have an image of the self we'd like to be, even if it's rather dim; and our emotions work to propel us toward actualizing that image.  (Though in my case, inertia plays a role as well.  Ideally, I would like to be healthy and fully abled.  Each day I monitor my health and experiment with ways to improve it.  My goal of being fully abled cannot be realized because I am missing fingers.  My stagnation on that goal tends to elicit anxiety and discomfort.)

So, is there a way by which one might evaluate this image of the ideal self, to say whether it is actually (objectively) better or worse than any another image? Might not one's pleasant feelings which arise from accomplishing certain tasks be better, not just as a matter of their own judgement, but in principle, in the case that their goal is a career as a doctor who cares for the ill, versus the parallel progress and pleasure another acquires in becoming the most decorated commander of Boko Haram, say? Might I be mistaken about what I think is the best self that I want to strive towards?

Objectively? No, not according to my framework. Though the feelings we have toward a specific goal will be formed by the combined forces of nature and nurture, from evolution on the one hand in terms of what projects might avail themselves to a self, to the nurturing views of one's peers as to the status of certain goals. So no, not objectively, but relatively, different goals may or may not appeal to us.

(January 21, 2016 at 6:29 am)Nestor Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 6:05 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: This gets complex very quickly, but we have global project(s) in the 'self', and the absolute value is imparted by feelings bubbling up from the subconscious to reinforce or impede approach to avenues toward completion of a goal.  Let's say you want to be a doctor, but have only finished your bachelor's degree.  Certain projects will elicit favorable emotions: applying to medical school, taking a medical internship, and so on.  Other projects will elicit anxiety or negative emotions:  going to a tech school, committing to a contract to work outside the medical field, starting a career.  Most of us have an image of the self we'd like to be, even if it's rather dim; and our emotions work to propel us toward actualizing that image.  (Though in my case, inertia plays a role as well.  Ideally, I would like to be healthy and fully abled.  Each day I monitor my health and experiment with ways to improve it.  My goal of being fully abled cannot be realized because I am missing fingers.  My stagnation on that goal tends to elicit anxiety and discomfort.)

So, is there a way by which one might evaluate this image of the ideal self, to say whether it is actually (objectively) better or worse than any another image? Might not one's pleasant feelings which arise from accomplishing certain tasks be better, not just as a matter of their own judgement, but in principle, in the case that their goal is a career as a doctor who cares for the ill, versus the parallel progress and pleasure another acquires in becoming the most decorated commander of Boko Haram, say? Might I be mistaken about what I think is the best self that I want to strive towards?

Wow, Nestor's comment just earned 3 Kudos from the 3 forum Christians lol.

(January 21, 2016 at 7:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 6:29 am)Nestor Wrote: So, is there a way by which one might evaluate this image of the ideal self, to say whether it is actually (objectively) better or worse than any another image? Might not one's pleasant feelings which arise from accomplishing certain tasks be better, not just as a matter of their own judgement, but in principle, in the case that their goal is a career as a doctor who cares for the ill, versus the parallel progress and pleasure another acquires in becoming the most decorated commander of Boko Haram, say? Might I be mistaken about what I think is the best self that I want to strive towards?

Wow, Nestor's comment just earned 3 Kudos from the 3 forum Christians lol.

I am in an interesting place, philosophically, where I often find myself between atheists who reject anything that isn't known directly by perception, and religious believers who don't know how to place restrictions on their imagination.

(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?

We need not concern ourselves with whether a value is objective or subjective, only with whether a value is conducive to the wellbeing of sentient creatures or not. If any one value is proven to not be conducive to wellbeing than it needs to be treated as that, namely bad. That's all there is to it.