The Ultimate Value and the signs of it in ourselves.

[bennyboy]

Perception sees the value in it or is it assigned? If it's the former....

Value clearly isn't a property of things, since some things are valued by some and not by others.  Nor does it need to be assigned.  I don't have to sit around and decide that water is of value to me, or to attribute value to water.

Value is an awareness of our own reaction to a thing.  If I'm thirsty, I value water.  If I'm a normal adult, I value sex.  If I'm a normal child, I value candy and toys. I have awareness of the degree to which I require / want various things, and this is value. There's no expression of the will of god, or of a Platonic idea, or anything else, required.

[Mystic]

Think of the following categories:

1. Something or action or state that ought to be valued but is not.
2. Something or action or state that ought to be not valued but is.
3. Something or action or state that ought to be valued to a degree but there is shortcoming in that degree (we value it too little).
4. Something or action or state that ought to be valued to a degree but there is overstep to that degree (we value it too much).

Is there such thing as ought to be valued?

And I do agree that this requires emotion which is why I said before love has a sacred language and judgment and perception and faith in value......and is the proof of value...the eye towards value.

Let us deal with extreme cases:

Sadam sees power as valuable to him. Question is power really something valuable to him.

You see what I'm saying, we can falsely value things and we can values things that should be valued, and we can fall short of valuing things as they are meant to be valued or over value things that are not meant to be valued to that degree.

Also, when you assign values things relative to you, don't you have to believe you have inherent value?

Can just believe we are of value without belief in inherent value in ourselves? Can we believe we should value ourselves without belief in inherent value as a property of who we are?

Thanks for the more mature discussion.

I am happy we are thinking about these things more deeply!

[bennyboy]

Sadam sees power as valuable to him. Question is power really something valuable to him.

Yes. He values it, so it is valuable to him. That's what valuable means.

What you seem to mean is whether it's really good for him, ultimately. That's a philosophical sinkhole, but I'd argue yes, for Saddam, power was good, in that it was an expression of his humanity.

You see what I'm saying, we can falsely value things and we can values things that should be valued, and we can fall short of valuing things as they are meant to be valued or over value things that are not meant to be valued to that degree.

I don't believe there's false or true value, unless something is not what it appears to be when you value it. If I value water in the desert, and it turns out to be a mirage, it's of no value to me.

Also, when you assign values things relative to you, don't you have to believe you have inherent value?

Nope. I want water, and I'm motivated to get it. I value it. Instinct is sufficient, and is mostly independent of my views about my self-- unless I am trying to die or something.

Can just believe we are of value without belief in inherent value in ourselves? Can we believe we should value ourselves without belief in inherent value as a property of who we are?

Value isn't a belief system. It's a statement of the weight of importance you put on things. This ranges from how much I value a certain food over other choices when I'm shopping, to how I think human beings should live. Obviously, most people put a lot of importance on themselves, and that's pretty natural.

[henryp]

That was some sloppy wording by me with personal perspective.  I'm not talking about the individuals opinion.  I'm talking about them being the reference point.

Using your earlier example:
If I said "How big?"  I'd expect the response of "How big what?"

But if I said "How big is the moon?"  That's a question with a real answer.

The same goes for value.

"How valuable is a bike?" (to who or what?) vs.  "How valuable is a bike to MK."  

You can guess at it, like you can guess at the size of the moon.  You know it gives you exercise, and gets you to school, and maybe riding it causes you some happiness.  

Objectively, though, with complete information I suspect there is a very real measure of the happiness it causes.  A real measure of the health impact.  A measure of it's utility to you.  

The point being, that with complete information, I think it could objectively quantified how much positive and negative impact individual actions have in fulfilling the goals of a person.  Although, it's important to note, I don't think the person is fully aware of their goals, either, which is why I brought up the brain.  I believe our brain runs the little voice we identify as ourselves, rather than the voice running the brain.  Which is why, as you've said, a person can genuinely think they are doing what's  best for themselves, and be wrong about it.

Can we make something valuable to us without believing in inherent value? We can, but it would have no justification and we would be in paradox:

See the thread:  https://atheistforums.org/thread-15323-p...#pid355134

Strawberries are not inherently delicious.  Would that make someone finding strawberries delicious paradoxical?

[Mystic]

Can we make something valuable to us without believing in inherent value? We can, but it would have no justification and we would be in paradox:

See the thread:  https://atheistforums.org/thread-15323-p...#pid355134

Strawberries are not inherently delicious.  Would that make someone finding strawberries delicious paradoxical?

When it comes to the taste of your soul, though, I do agree it requires one who tastes it, but is our own taste or others taste of it, what defines its taste?

What I mean by that, is Sadam thinks he maybe an Arab hero, he has a concept of himself, others are of multiple visions, these are all perceptions of who he is in one sense, but they are not in agreement.

So when it comes to taste of strawberry, how we taste is real.... it's nothing we can do about it. Our opinion on that taste and how we enjoy, I do believe free-will plays a part as well as our mood on that day, and exactly what we ate or didn't eat near that time can have influence.

When we think of ourselves, do we just experience who we are like strawberries or are we making a measurement according to standards we believe in? What are those standards and where do they come from?

Can we just make our own standards as we go? Or is it like a spiritual tongue that has a taste? If it's the latter,  what is based upon? If the former, how are we making it, in case of tongue we have something that makes us taste things along with conversion thing by our brains....but what is the taster and converter with respect to personhood?

We change our minds often, we change standards throughout our lives, change our views, we are in flux.... and all this is used to "taste" ourselves and others.....

So what I'm saying, is when we do so we believe there are objective standards and objective value, and we do so to estimate those.

A good example is the Night of Qadr. We can't make it worth a thousand months without believing it is. We may not value it according to it's true worth but for us to value more than other times, we have to have some sort of thought that it's likely or there is a good chance or it is better than a thousand months!

We can't make ourselves better than everyone else by simply convincing ourselves we are.

There is a real measurement to who we are, and we try to estimate it. 

We can't even make relative measurements to who we are, inaccurate ones, without belief there is an actual value.

In the case of strawberries, we know they have properties which our tongue converts to taste....

When perceiving ourselves, what is the converter of properties of ourselves or others, that we attempt to convert and our mind perceives things, and what are the properties being converted?

Let's continue with this important discussion....but one suggestion, that is let's all try to be honest about this issue as well!

[bennyboy]

When it comes to the taste of your soul, though, I do agree it requires one who tastes it, but is our own taste or others taste of it, what defines its taste?

There are too many assumptions involved in your last post. First of all, that there is a soul. Now, you talk about the "taste" of the soul, which I don't think really means anything.

If by soul you mean "what it's like to be me," then it's pretty obvious who defines it-- nobody. It is an expression of the DNA, the brain, and the environment.

[Mystic]

When it comes to the taste of your soul, though, I do agree it requires one who tastes it, but is our own taste or others taste of it, what defines its taste?

There are too many assumptions involved in your last post.  First of all, that there is a soul.  Now, you talk about the "taste" of the soul, which I don't think really means anything.

If by soul you mean "what it's like to be me," then it's pretty obvious who defines it-- nobody.  It is an expression of the DNA, the brain, and the environment.

What I meant by soul was not an ethereal thing but it was just to clarify the identity rather then the physical brain.

Can you elaborate on the point you made, because DNA and brain and environment, cannot give value, as they are physical objects....so elaborate on it and also refer back to what everyone has agreed upon, mainly value is not inherent, but something perceived and given, mainly through love.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's absurd.  It makes absolutely no sense to say that a physical object can't do what physical objects demonstrably can do............

I get that you think some non physical something is giving things value as well, and that these values are more accurate than the values we lowly physical objects give, but who cares, physical shit is still giving things value even if non-physical shit is also doing that, or doing it even better.

[Mystic]

I am not talking about the whole thing coming together (the person) which is why I am asking for clarification. Does he mean the parts or does he mean the whole thing together (ie. the mind/soul).

[bennyboy]

There are too many assumptions involved in your last post.  First of all, that there is a soul.  Now, you talk about the "taste" of the soul, which I don't think really means anything.

If by soul you mean "what it's like to be me," then it's pretty obvious who defines it-- nobody.  It is an expression of the DNA, the brain, and the environment.

What I meant by soul was not an ethereal thing but it was just to clarify the identity rather then the physical brain.

Can you elaborate on the point you made, because DNA and brain and environment, cannot give value, as they are physical objects....so elaborate on it and also refer back to what everyone has agreed upon, mainly value is not inherent, but something perceived and given, mainly through love.

Of course those things can give value.  I have a genetically-determined ability to self-monitor, and value comes from that.  For example, I need sufficient water.  As my water resources are deplenished, I place water higher and higher on my list of things that matter.  That's value.

As a reproducing organism, I have a very strong instinct to reproduce.  As a social animal, I also have a strong instinct to do no harm to those I care about.  This brings me into conflict: I could potentially mate with someone other than my wife, but I will risk being caught and seeing the hurt I have caused.  So far, no cheating; potentially-- I hope not, but the libido is strong.  I value those things on different levels and for different reasons, creating an awkward asymmetry-- which you would probably categorize as the struggle between our godly nature and our demonic nature or something.  But all in all, it's just me living out my existence as the human animal that I am.