Human Value Nonexistent?

[Edwardo Piet]

Exactly, they believe it's praiseworthy. As I said, belief in praise is foundational. But is it justified? Saying we believe it's praiseworthy makes it's praiseworthy is circular reasoning though.

If I merely said that praiseworthiness is worthy if it is deserved then that would be tautologically redundant. But I didn't just say that, I said that it's also based upon people believing that they and others are responsible.

Is it justified? What, logically justified? Intrinsic values can't be, no. Whether something is "good" or "bad" and what ought to be or should be is about the connotations alone if it is intrinsic. Things can only, logically, be extrinsically good or bad. Something can be good for or bad for something else. Extrinsic value can be logically justified, but not intrinsic value - because you can't go from facts to values, you can't go from "what is" to "what ought to be", how could you when there is no connection between their meaning? It can't be demonstrated by logic.

You'd need scientific evidence of an intrinsic value that actually exists, that's the only way it could be rationally justified, you can't prove it by logic. You can't logically break the is-ought distinction.

[Mystic]

Exactly, they believe it's praiseworthy. As I said, belief in praise is foundational. But is it justified? Saying we believe it's praiseworthy makes it's praiseworthy is circular reasoning though.

If I merely said that praiseworthiness is worthy if it is deserved then that would be tautologically redundant. But I didn't just say that, I said that it's also based upon people believing that they and others are responsible.

Is it justified? What, logically justified? Intrinsic values can't be, no. Whether something is "good" or "bad" and what ought to be or should be is about the connotations alone if it is intrinsic. Things can only, logically, be extrinsically good or bad. Something can be good for or bad for something else. Extrinsic value can be logically justified, but not intrinsic value - because you can't go from facts to values, you can't go from "what is" to "what ought to be", how could you when there is no connection between their meaning? It can't be demonstrated by logic.

You'd need scientific evidence of an intrinsic value that actually exists, that's the only way it could be rationally justified, you can't prove it by logic. You can't logically break the is-ought distinction.

I tend agree that logic can't prove it (hope this is wrong though) but I think science can only disprove it, but can never prove it.

Maybe religious people tend to feel allergic to science, because they know it cannot confirm their foundational instincts but feel attracted to religion because they feel religion confirms (although albeit irrationally) their foundational instincts.

Philosophers go out searching for wisdom thinking it will give them value, only to be confused about if there is such a thing.

Philosophy and science although benefited humanity so much now, may also destroy it in the future.

If scientifically, it is proven we have no free-will for example at all, this maybe the downfall of humanity.

If philosophically it can be proven subjective morality and objectively morality are a paradox, it maybe the downfall of humanity.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree that logic can't prove it but I think science can only disprove it, but can never prove it.

Science deals with evidence, not proof.

And, if you don't believe science or logic can evidentially justify values why are you expecting justification?

Philosophers go out searching for wisdom thinking it will give them value, only to be confused about if there is such a thing.

I think that some people are wiser than others but that is merely my opinion. If I assume I am right about that nevertheless I can make arguments following it. All I really mean by the fact that some people are wiser than others is my own interpretation of what it means for people to be "wise".

Philosophy and science although benefited humanity so much now, may also destroy it in the future.

Many things could destroy humanity.

If scientifically, it is proven we have no free-will for example at all, this maybe the downfall of humanity.

Science can't prove anything. It is based on evidence, not proof. But science has evidence that there is no free will in the sense that there's evidence that your unconscious mind has already decided what you're going to do shortly before you actually do it.

If philosophically it can be proven subjective morality and objectively morality are a paradox, it maybe the downfall of humanity.

They're only a paradox if you commit the equivocation fallacy between a definition of objectivity/subjectivity that are defined as opposites and a definition when they're not....

I'll explain: If objectivity refers to all objects in the universe and objects refer to things, then anything that is a thing - everything in other words - is an object. Therefore subjective things - subjectivity - must also be objects, so they must also be part of objectivity, so they must also be subjective. Therefore some things are entirely objective, while others are both objective and subjective.

On the other hand if we define subjectivity and objectivity as necessarily opposites, then anything that is subjective isn't an object, so it isn't a thing, so it doesn't exist.

Subjectivity is imaginary, imagination is the opposite of real, therefore it doesn't exist.

But then, in a different sense, subjectivity is imaginary, and imagination does exist in the sense that it is "there" we have an imagination.

Ignorance is bliss.

To paraphrase Stephen Fry: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?

[genkaus]

I can't seem to grasp the idea because we have a concept of praise, we therefore have a concept of objective praise.

I cannot put it in simpler terms than this - just because we have the concept of praise doesn't mean we have the concept of objective praise. Whether or not the praise is objective would always depend on what is the basis for it.

Take this highly simplified analogy - we have a concept of measurement. That doesn't mean that any objective standards for measurement are automatically available to us. For example, suppose everyone starts measuring rice by the fistfuls. Now that would be a subjective measurement, since everyone's fist has different dimensions. Does that mean that the concept of measurement is inherently subjective in nature? Or does it mean that whatever 'fist' we accept as standard has to come from something transcendental to be objective? Neither. What we fail to realize that the measurement should be determined not by the subject doing the measuring (thus making it subjective) but on the object being measured(thus objective). It is up to us - in that case - to come up with a standard of measurement. Once we establish that, that standard then becomes a thing of reality - something concrete. From that moment forward, measurements based on that standard are objective.

Currently, we very well might be in the 'fistful' stage where things like value and praise are concerned. You are assuming that the since it is always the subject who determined the amount of praise or worth due to something (such as you determining how praiseworthy an action is) these attributes are inherently subjective. But, the amount of praise bestowed should depend on the action itself - not on the one who perceives it. Just because we haven't come up with an objective standard doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be one.

You would think if we have this objectivity, we would all have agreed by now.

Do you think that the praise afforded to an action should depend on the action and not the one giving the praise?

Further question is evolution wise, did the perception of "pride" grow as primates to human evolved...But when did primate to humans ever rely on objective analytical reasoning to act morally? If it was all subjective then, and everyone was relying on subjective and united as we evolved, when did it become objective?

It hasn't become objective - yet. But its getting there.

If we always misguided in our morals, and never justified (we didn't have books to write way back when we were evolving) it, how did objectivity judgment ever take roots in a human?

Its roots can be traced to the age of enlightenment. But it hasn't grown completely yet.

[Mystic]

I cannot put it in simpler terms than this - just because we have the concept of praise doesn't mean we have the concept of objective praise. Whether or not the praise is objective would always depend on what is the basis for it.

True enough. But there even being a such thing as praise is not proven. I do agree there needs to be an objective measurement to praise for it to be objective.

Take this highly simplified analogy - we have a concept of measurement. That doesn't mean that any objective standards for measurement are automatically available to us. For example, suppose everyone starts measuring rice by the fistfuls. Now that would be a subjective measurement, since everyone's fist has different dimensions. Does that mean that the concept of measurement is inherently subjective in nature? Or does it mean that whatever 'fist' we accept as standard has to come from something transcendental to be objective? Neither. What we fail to realize that the measurement should be determined not by the subject doing the measuring (thus making it subjective) but on the object being measured(thus objective). It is up to us - in that case - to come up with a standard of measurement. Once we establish that, that standard then becomes a thing of reality - something concrete. From that moment forward, measurements based on that standard are objective.

True enough. Now on proving there is such a basis. There is a such measurement to humanities actions and intentions.

Currently, we very well might be in the 'fistful' stage where things like value and praise are concerned. You are assuming that the since it is always the subject who determined the amount of praise or worth due to something (such as you determining how praiseworthy an action is) these attributes are inherently subjective. But, the amount of praise bestowed should depend on the action itself - not on the one who perceives it. Just because we haven't come up with an objective standard doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be one.

That is true. But there being an objective standard at all is not proven either. There being a possible basis to praise is not proven either.

Do you think that the praise afforded to an action should depend on the action and not the one giving the praise?

Yes.

It hasn't become objective - yet. But its getting there.

That is not proven. Or if there such a thing as praiseworthy.

Its roots can be traced to the age of enlightenment. But it hasn't grown completely yet.

I think you are not understanding my point. Evolution wise, we praise each other right. We developed a concept of praise, but it was never objective. Now you saying humanity is getting to an objective judgement, but somehow are minds have to be capable of objective judgement. They being capable of objective judgement is not proven but seems to be disproven by evolution (naturalistically wise).

---

Science deals with evidence, not proof.

And, if you don't believe science or logic can evidentially justify values why are you expecting justification?

Because I can be wrong about my beliefs. I am hoping.

I think that some people are wiser than others but that is merely my opinion. If I assume I am right about that nevertheless I can make arguments following it. All I really mean by the fact that some people are wiser than others is my own interpretation of what it means for people to be "wise".

True, but then you believe it can have some reality and that it does, but not in exactly the way you perceive.

I'll explain: If objectivity refers to all objects in the universe and objects refer to things, then anything that is a thing - everything in other words - is an object. Therefore subjective things - subjectivity - must also be objects, so they must also be part of objectivity, so they must also be subjective. Therefore some things are entirely objective, while others are both objective and subjective.

On the other hand if we define subjectivity and objectivity as necessarily opposites, then anything that is subjective isn't an object, so it isn't a thing, so it doesn't exist.

Subjectivity is imaginary, imagination is the opposite of real, therefore it doesn't exist.

But then, in a different sense, subjectivity is imaginary, and imagination does exist in the sense that it is "there" we have an imagination.

I like that and have to think about it more.

To paraphrase Stephen Fry: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?

Happiness is not necessarily bliss. Humanities belief in their value, even to a starving african child, gives them a sense of peace. It distresses them, but gives them a sense of peace.

We hope knowledge will make us better humans, but it may not, well not in the way we hoped for.

[Edwardo Piet]

Because I can be wrong about my beliefs. I am hoping.

You're expecting science to provide evidence for the existence of intrinsic values, or logic to prove that they exist?

Happiness is not necessarily bliss.

No, but it is a requirement, so, once again, to paraphrase Stephen Fry: if ignorance is bliss why aren't there more happy people in the world?

We hope knowledge will make us better humans, but it may not, well not in the way we hoped for.

Knowledge can make us better humans in a particular sense of "better". If "better" means "less suffering", for example, then knowledge can help us be better humans because knowledge can help us find out ways to reduce suffering. But the point is that any objective value of "better" cannot be proven. We can't prove that one conception of "better" is better than another.

[Mystic]

You're expecting science to provide evidence for the existence of intrinsic values, or logic to prove that they exist?

I would like to see that it's even "possible" through naturalism perspective. We praise each other evolution wise, because it works. That doesn't make it praiseworthy. We can a concept of praiseworthiness, we take it for granted, but evolution wise, it simply is there because it worked, not that it has actual measuring reality to our actions.

I can imagine myself in whatever way I want, it won't make me who I am.

I can imagine I have value, it doesn't mean I have value, it just mean I assign that value to me.

Now it can be knowledge, but can it be knowledge evolution wise. Why would evolution create knowledge of praise as opposed to delusion of praise? If praise had to be justified, when did we ever get the justification for praise evolution wise, except that it worked.

It seems to me (though I hope I am wrong) that William Lane Craig( and ReasonableJeff) are right that such thing is not really possible without God.

And is it even possible for humans to truly measure a worth of an action? Do they know how valuable an action is really as opposed to another? They can appreciate and love a value, and praise it, but they obviously don't know the real value.

Judgement day belief provides that there is an objective judge to all our actions and to who we are.

No, but it is a requirement, so, once again, to paraphrase Stephen Fry: if ignorance is bliss why aren't there more happy people in the world?

You are right, ignorance is not bliss.

Knowledge can make us better humans in a particular sense of "better". If "better" means "less suffering", for example, then knowledge can help us be better humans because knowledge can help us find out ways to reduce suffering. But the point is that any objective value of "better" cannot be proven. We can't prove that one conception of "better" is better than another.

Maybe we can prove it to ourselves. Maybe if we break the foundations of our assumptions, we will awaken to the sword of God within the soul.

Maybe we are listening too much to people and depending too much on people, but the answer lies in a divine help within the soul.

[Edwardo Piet]

I would like to see that it's even "possible" through naturalism perspective. We praise each other evolution wise, because it works. That doesn't make it praiseworthy. [...]

It's worthy of praise to us isn't that enough for you?

Isn't it enough that people just feel good, not harm themselves, help others feel good and not harm others?

And don't forget other emotional living things of course.

[Mystic]

It's worthy of praise to us isn't that enough for you?

Well right now we believe in praise, because we believe it objective worth, even if we don't perceive it. We believe there is objective worth to us, even if we don't perceive it.

Power was worthy to Saddam Hussain, it doesn't make it a worthy cause. So no, just because we value a thing, would not make it valuable.

And if it feels good for Osama Bin Laden to advocate terrorism on the west, it doesn't mean, it's ok.

Perhaps we all believe in "The Praised one" "The Exalted one" "The Beautiful One" "The Good One"

Mohammad means the Praised one.
Ali means the High One/Exalted One.
Al-Hasan means the Good One.
Al-Hussain means the Beautiful One.

And what I mean by that, is that we believe it's possible to be a perfect human and be all good or all praised or all beautiful or all exalted.

I don't even know anymore, maybe the Quran was corrupted, maybe the Ghulats were right, and that Mohammad, Ali, Hassan, Hussain were gods, as well as rest of 12 Imams.

Perhaps there is a totally "Guided one" (Al-Mahdi).

Perhaps their is a spiritual world and we perceive praise from either demonic eyes or Angelic eyes or a mix of both.

I don't know. I'm totally confused.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well right now we believe in praise, because we believe it objective worth, even if we don't perceive it.

In what way do we all believe that praise is necessarily objective?