Human Value Nonexistent?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey Mystic...from what I gather you very much feel (or hope, or desire, or whatever) for "praise" to be something objective (specifically objective in the way you use the word). Presumably so that you will have a solid way to measure things relative praise, or worth that does not boil down to "because I say so"....but consider this.

Are you not setting the relative value of the very concept when you refuse to be satisfied with how such is defined to begin with? Is "praise" and "worth" as set by me, or any other subjective value not "worthy" of being called such? Why?

[Mystic]

Hey Mystic...from what I gather you very much feel (or hope, or desire, or whatever) for "praise" to be something objective (specifically objective in the way you use the word). Presumably so that you will have a solid way to measure things relative praise, or worth that does not boil down to "because I say so"....but consider this.

Are you not setting the relative value of the very concept when you refuse to be satisfied with how such is defined to begin with? Is "praise" and "worth" as set by me, or any other subjective value not "worthy" of being called such? Why?

I'm not claiming anything. I am claiming I don't know. Or don't know that I don't know even.

It maybe that relativism and objectivism is a paradox, and that relative praise needs belief in objective praise, but objective praise is impossible with existence of relative praise.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, you don't know, that's cool, but you do seem to be fairly resistant to the idea that praise isn't like a rock in a field (that it's just a list of conditions..and that this is okay). You're unsatisfied with my explanation of praise for no reason? You assign no value to my explanation whatsoever, you're neutral?

[KichigaiNeko]

What you seem to be lacking is an honest appraisal of your own thoughts Mystic.

Wow. If you are the result of Islam then it really is worse than say buddhism

[genkaus]

We all give different significance to actions and accomplishments. This doesn't mean there is an actual measurement to our actions. But you are assuming our actions can be of significance (meaning). You are assuming there can be praiseworthy actions. In other words you are just asserting the conclusion.

Our instinct to believe in praiseworthy actions. We wouldn't have survived if we didn't. But just because we have the concept of praiseworthy actions and praise an action, it doesn't make it praiseworthy.

On the contrary, that is exactly what does make it praiseworthy, because there is where the very concept of praise comes from.

Your justification was that because we have these concept and we created them, they are somehow objective or have a basis and are not delusions.

Wrong. I'm saying that because we have these concepts and we created them, they exist at a conceptual level. The same way all the concepts of measurement of physical things exist as well.And because they are based on facts of reality - on actual physical things such as actions or accomplishments - that they are objective and not delusions.

I showed that reasoning is non-sequitur, so what is your basis to it other then resorting to "we have a concept of it, therefore it's not a delusion".

You would, because you didn't understand it in the first place.

I am not even sure we do have a concept of it or a rather a belief in it. What I mean by a concept is a firm grasp of what is the essence of praise.

What the fuck is that?

It maybe an impossible concept, just as "the being that cannot be any greater or have anything" greater is a concept people have, but it maybe rationally impossible.

You cannot say what is rationally possible or impossible before you understand what it is.

Do we even have a concept of what makes something praiseworthy or do we have belief in praise and go on that instinct and create our own significance to actions.

We do have a concept of what makes something praiseworthy.

You are the one making the claim I am the agnostic confused one.

Clearly. But you haven't given any rational arguments against the the arguments I gave in support of my claims.

I read it again, it's exactly what you said.

Then this time, use glasses.

True, but that there exists any objective measurement or worth, is not proven either.

Have you read my "objective morality argument" where I argue for exactly that?

Doesn't seem to be the case of the human condition. Belief in praise maybe a myth. But we can't live without that myth.

That's because it isn't a myth.

Well I'm not saying it's tribalism, I'm saying the evolutionary roots of created by a long history of tribalism development and moral development may incline us to believe in a certain type of explanation as opposed to another. It may also be the root cause to mythical belief, like belief in a metaphysical form to our actions or a soul.

So, you don't know if tribalism makes us more inclined to believe in myths - you just feel it might - and without any concrete reason for that belief, I might add. Come back when you have an actual argument to make - not just empty hypotheses.

[Cyberman]

If someone feels that something has met their criteria for "praiseworthy" it is praiseworthy.

So if a Muslim believes killing an apostate in obedience to God is praiseworthy, it's praiseworthy?

I've noticed something of a pattern lately. Just about every time someone makes a point or offers an opinion, Mystic, you come back with an appeal to the worst case scenario.

[Mystic]

Right, you don't know, that's cool, but you do seem to be fairly resistant to the idea that praise isn't like a rock in a field (that it's just a list of conditions..and that this is okay). You're unsatisfied with my explanation of praise for no reason? You assign no value to my explanation whatsoever, you're neutral?

You are saying we assign value, therefore it has value. In the sense it has value to us, you are right. In the sense we believe it has value. Yes. But we tend to believe, we should value something, because it does have value. Take away objective value belief, and there would be not subjective value.

For example, without me believing the Night of Qadr is worth then a thousand months objectively, I cannot make it worth more to me that a thousand months.

[genkaus]

In the sense we believe it's it's praiseworthy, not that is.

Unless it can shown to be.

We can give worth to an action, it doesn't mean it has any worth.

Yes it does. We just gave it to it.

It is praised to us, but it doesn't mean it's actual worthy of being praised.

Unless you prove that it actually is worthy of being praised

But when we give worth to something, we believe it has worth.

Maybe that's because we just gave it.

I'm only saying do we know there is such a thing or are we naturally inclined to believe in a myth of worth, through pure instinct.

We do.

[Mystic]

Unless it can shown to be.

Yes, unless it can be shown to be. But we don't know if praise can be shown to be. We assume it can.

Yes it does. We just gave it to it.

Subjectively, yes it has worth to us, but it doesn't mean there is actual basis to it.

Unless you prove that it actually is worthy of being praised

Yes, true. But just because we believe something is worthy, doesn't it mean it is.

We have a concept of praise, but it maybe paradoxical.

Maybe that's because we just gave it.

But we give it worth out of believe it has worth. So it seems circular:

"We give it worth, therefore it has worth"
"Why do we give it worth, because it has worth"

Paradoxically confusing.

We do.

How?

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe you give things worth out of belief that they have worth, I don't..I have criteria (depending on the thing I'm considering- and subject to change) that determines whether or not something has any worth.

It's known as "having standards".