The Ultimate Value and the signs of it in ourselves.

[Mystic]

How do you assign the degree that you want to take care of yourself and be good to yourself? Is it just by how it feels?

[Mystic]

Do you believe dogs believe themselves to have objective value? 

Yes I do, and  I also believe they glorify God with a praise that we don't understand spiritually. They don't have the words like we do, but, they have their own spiritual glorification of God.

[henryp]

How do you assign the degree that you want to take care of yourself and be good to yourself? Is it just by how it feels?

Ultimately, yes.  In my opinion, that's how everyone operates.  The equations can get very complicated, so it's not always evident on the surface.  But I think when you dig far enough, you find a motivation based on feedback.

[ApeNotKillApe]

It's not even a matter of opinion, we know perfectly well that pain and pleasure are naught but electrical signals and chemical reactions.

[henryp]

Do you believe dogs believe themselves to have objective value? 

Yes I do, and  I also believe they glorify God with a praise that we don't understand spiritually. They don't have the words like we do, but, they have their own spiritual glorification of God.

That's interesting.  I imagine that goes for most living stuff then?  Non-living as well possibly?

[Jenny A]

@MK:  I have read this entire thread, and I think I understand your basic argument, I just think you are wrong:

This was discussed earlier. I look at the moon, and I have subjective impression of it's size. However it's size is objectively there. There is nothing I can do about it.  I would not however have subjective impression of it's size without belief that there is an objective measurement to it.

What in the world do you think a subjective opinion about size is?  Wrong and imprecise are not synonyms for subjective.  Size is a term that can be both objective and subjective.  Actual measurements of the moon are objective, i.e. how large it it is in miles, kilometers, or cubits.  Your feelings about it's size, i.e. large or small are subjective and may have to do with how it looks, or to what things you are comparing it.  Compared to you, it's vast.  Compared to the earth rather smaller.  As a piece of the universe much smaller.  How you feel about those differences is subjective, but the actual comparisons are objective and can be expressed proportionally.  That is because size, mass, color, chemical makeup, gravitational force and numerous other things are objective measurements.  How you feel about the moon's size is not objective, it's subjective.  If you are wrong, about the moon's actual size, you are simply wrong.  It's not that your opinion is subjective, it's that you attempted an objective measurement and failed.  The difference is simple, there is a right and many wrong answers to the question what is the moon's circumference.  There is no right or wrong answer to the question how does the moon's size make you feel?

Many questions about the moon are entirely subjective:  is it pretty; is it awe inspiring; is it mysterious; is it romantic? And people do have opinions about all of those things, but there is no right answer to those questions because those are subjective questions.  The fact that some of us perceive the moon as beautiful, does not mean that there is some ultimate level of prettiness that can be measured.  

Aesthetics is an area of philosophy fraught with problems because there is no inherent prettiness in things, only a kind of subjective value we call pretty.  And it is quite subjective.  Not everyone sees the moon as beautiful in anyway at all.  With regard to other things, the perception of beauty has has changed widely over time, though the thing has not changed a wit I visit our national and state parks regularly.  These range from mountain ranges, to high deserts, to canyons, to volcanic areas.  I find them all beautiful.  But one thing is true of all of them and that is that early settlers often found them just plain ugly.  That is because they found beauty in agriculturally useful land and ugliness in the unfarmable.  With plenty to eat and surrounded by industry, most people now find the very same land unimaginable beautiful. The land did not change.  The circumstances of the people looking at it did.  That's the sign of a subjective value.

When it comes to value of the self, the questions are: 

what is it? (1)
how do we see it? (2)
how do we know there is an objective value to it (if any)? (3)
Do we have objective measurement to ourselves? (4)
If so, how do we measure it?(5)
If not, how does this measurement exist and get maintained ?(6)
What role do good actions and bad actions have to do with our quality/value/rank? (7)
What system is in place to make our value objectively increased or decreased depending on our actions, how is this even possible that we inherit actions and increase our value? (8)

First of all, if we say our value is purely subjectively us giving ourselves value, then if someone values us less, and we value ourselves more, what is our true value? If we decide we are the most important person in the world, do we automatically become the most important person in the world?

Do we set our value so if I want to make myself so great in my eyes, then automatically I can do this?

Obviously, we have don't simply assign value to ourselves, but when we judge, we do so with some sort of guesstimate at our true value. We all believe there is a measurement to who we are.

Whether we set the value or other people set our value is not relevant to whether it is subjective.  The question is whether there is an objectively right answer.  There isn't.  Our worth to other members of society, and to ourselves varies not only with change in us (which would suggest an objective value) but with change in the valuer.  There is no objectively right answer.  There is nothing to which you can show error.  

And like prettiness, a person's worth is a subjective judgment.  Unlike size, there is not objective measurement, only opinions.  Your value changes from group to group, person to person, forum to forum, and like prettiness, and unlike measurable size, there appears to be no right answer to the question.  I value your respectfulness for others, your poetic sensibility, and a certain hapless charm.  But others might find all of those things valueless.  

In answer to your questions: Value is not really a well defined term.  Try to define it and see what I mean.  You end up with synonyms like worth.  We see it as something good in relation to ourselves.  But as what we need and want varies, it is subjective. We emphatically do not have an objective measure of value.  We measure it in relation to ourselves only.  It is maintained because we need, want, and love things, and people.  But what we want need and desire changes.

...and that they may know their Lord encompasses everything in number. (Quran)

Gotta show there is a lord before we start talking about what he/she/it is.

Our value whatever it is, is not maintained by our perceptions. But we know it requires perception. As it requires perception, there has to be an objective perception who maintains that value.

We can and do have subjective desires and wants regarding the objectively real. The moon is real.  It's prettiness is not.

How do we see it? We can see that we aren't made of some sort of unique value that is totally different then a value in another being, like one human is of totally different type x value and another human being is of y value, and x and y have nothing really in common. There is something binding us. There is something in all this. That something, in the words of Imam Ali, is expressed:

"He is in all things without being merged in them neither separate from them"

The different hues of value, the different forms, the different relationships established through it, are all manifestations of a greater value, a link to something greater, an absolute source and basis, an eternal reality.

No.  Really not.  Nonsensical in fact.  Things are.  People have perceptions of them.  That's all.

As objective value cannot be arbitrary, it follows it's eternal and not something God can create out of nothing. Rather he creates through the truth of vision of himself for witnesses all things in himself.

Why can't an objective value be arbitrary.  You would like it to have meaning.  But there is no reason why it should.

Naturally we can all see this. That for example, there is something extra special about love. When we value a person to the degree we love them, we are bonding with "value" and valuing in a special way, that transcends and points to something special.

Sweet, and very human, but not an indication of the divine.  Love exists among social animals, human and other, because it is expedient.  It leads to more social animals.

These signs of value, from honor, to courage, to compassion, to affection, are all signs of something greater. Something that these things are emerging from, but are depending to manifest.

That in thing lives inside of us "he is all things..."but he isn't merged into us neither is he separate from us.

The signs point in a way, in which they link to perfection, to one essence, that unites them all in a single absolute reality. They point to transcendence that doesn't lack a single possible existence or praise or beauty or glory or greatness or anything to be valued. The Ultimate Value by which all value emerges from.

This is one of the reflections of Quran "Or are they created from nothing...", contrary to what people might think, this verse is clearly not saying that anyone believes nothing existed and then creation emerged from that. Some humans believe that universe was eternal, however this verse is addressing the polytheists, do they think their essence is created from nothing, their souls are just created by God from nothing. Rather, he created it from water of his own light, his own value, and created through his name/face/light.

Now this explanation of the name of God/face of God the true reality of the human being, how can we know it to be true? This takes sincere reflection upon which we realize that value is not something we simply make up or biological brain assigns and maintains.

Now you've wondered into the land of assumption, and I must say assumption with no basis whatsoever.

Aside from this is how our positive or negative actions play a role in our value. As said before, we don't simply decide we are the best people on earth, and hence become the best person on earth. 

No we are limited by the perception of others.  But what is perceived by others to be good changes radically from culture to culture and person to person.  That how others perceive us is limited by how others perceive us is true, but no indication of an right perception.

There is a value to who we are. When do actions, we inherit it. Our value is actually increased or decreased. We don't decide the degree of that measurement. Sure we may think of ourselves at that moment and have our over all judgement of ourselves, but we all realize if Hitler thinks he is righteous it doesn't make him what he values of himself automatically the true value of himself. His actions degrade him, they put on the negative scale, in - side of zero, not on the positive. 

Except that many, many people did very much value Hitler, and that gave him great real, even awful power.  Others disagree and find him awful.  I find him awful.  But, my choice is not objective.  It is personal, and cultural, and naturally I think it's right.  But that doesn't make it inherently right in the sense that his weight at any given time is a correct number.

There is something making us inherit our actions, a judge that perceives who we are, because this qualitive type measurement can only be maintained by quality type perception.

Hitler believed in himself.  It's a position that never faltered.  He believed he was right and good. Next. . .

It's not like a rock, it has weight, but it doesn't matter if we measure it or not,  this is qualitive, in which it depends on perception of who we are and maintaining that and making us inherit our actions.

You just articulated the difference between objective and subjective.  If what is depends on perception, it is subjective. It if there is an answer independent of perception it is objective.

And so these type of reminders, that we do believe that there is some sort living record to who we are, that it forms the true nature of value of ourselves, even if we underestimate or overestimate ourselves, there is an objective value.

We know these to be true, and would not be able to subjectively value ourselves without belief there is an objective value.

We see these signs in ourselves and in the horizons, pointing to something Greater. Something in which is the source of all it and unites all possible levels of value.

The only way to measure it is to gain vision from the vision of the Creator, the closer it is to the vision of the absolute, the closer it is to making right judgement. 

However we all been given a degree of that judgement or would not be able to condemn the likes of Saddam or praise the likes of Mandela.

When we do good acts we are in a state, there is beauty to it if good, we inherit that beauty. The truth is there infinite beauties, but there is beauty that unites all beauty, and there is souls that are upon that united beauty. It's they who manifest God the most, reminding us of God's unity thereby. But we can never grasp their value in that way God values them, because only God can see himself.

Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq (as) said: "Surely, we have revealed it on the Night of value." (97:1) The night is Fatima al-Zahra, and the Value is God. Whoever recognizes Fatima in her rightful manner will have comprehended the Night of Value. She was named Fatima because the Creation has been prevented (fatamu) from recognizing her [fully]."

You may have defined the lens through which you have the world, but it is not an objective one.  And it depends on your belief in a being for whom there is no evidence.

[Mystic]

That's interesting.  I imagine that goes for most living stuff then?  Non-living as well possibly?

Yes I believe everything has spiritual existence like the Native Americans did.

[Mystic]

There is no objectively right answer.  There is nothing to which you can show error.  

And like prettiness, a person's worth is a subjective judgment.  

Ok so there is no right or wrong answer regarding value. Then you say:

Except that many, many people did very much value Hitler, and that gave him great real, even awful power.  Others disagree and find him awful.  I find him awful.  But, my choice is not objective.  It is personal, and cultural, and naturally I think it's right.  But that doesn't make it inherently right in the sense that his weight at any given time is a correct number. 

Why do you think it's right if there is nothing to which you can show error (per your words)? 
This is the crux of the issue. You value of Hitler is the negative scale, in the minuses, right? But you say has none what so ever, it's determined by what people assign to him. The issue is why do people assign to him a value in the first place? You said you think your opinion of him being awful is right. Now let's discuss this, why do you think your opinion is right? And why do you have that opinion? 
I'm trying to understand. To me, it seems he is awful only because he ought to not have been like that. There is more valuable ways he ought to have lived his life and there is ways we negatively condemn (opposite to valuing or negative value) by believing it's truly negative, condemned or evil.

[Jenny A]

There is no objectively right answer.  There is nothing to which you can show error.  

And like prettiness, a person's worth is a subjective judgment.  

Ok so there is no right or wrong answer regarding value. Then you say:

Except that many, many people did very much value Hitler, and that gave him great real, even awful power.  Others disagree and find him awful.  I find him awful.  But, my choice is not objective.  It is personal, and cultural, and naturally I think it's right.  But that doesn't make it inherently right in the sense that his weight at any given time is a correct number. 

Why do you think it's right if there is nothing to which you can show error (per your words)? 
This is the crux of the issue. You value of Hitler is the negative scale, in the minuses, right? But you say has none what so ever, it's determined by what people assign to him. The issue is why do people assign to him a value in the first place? You said you think your opinion of him being awful is right. Now let's discuss this, why do you think your opinion is right? And why do you have that opinion? 
I'm trying to understand. To me, it seems he is awful only because he ought to not have been like that. There is more valuable ways he ought to have lived his life and there is ways we negatively condemn (opposite to valuing or negative value) by believing it's truly negative, condemned or evil.

Because that is my subjective opinion.  At least I realize it's subjective.  That's important.  Can you tell the difference?

Hitler had a negative impact on the things I value.  Those include:  freedom of speech, freedom of religion, self determination, self autonomy, and a whole number of other things.  But those values are both human and cultural.  They are not universal. I might even be willing to die for them.  But doesn't make them universal.

[Mystic]

Ok so there is no right or wrong answer regarding value. Then you say:

Why do you think it's right if there is nothing to which you can show error (per your words)? 
This is the crux of the issue. You value of Hitler is the negative scale, in the minuses, right? But you say has none what so ever, it's determined by what people assign to him. The issue is why do people assign to him a value in the first place? You said you think your opinion of him being awful is right. Now let's discuss this, why do you think your opinion is right? And why do you have that opinion? 
I'm trying to understand. To me, it seems he is awful only because he ought to not have been like that. There is more valuable ways he ought to have lived his life and there is ways we negatively condemn (opposite to valuing or negative value) by believing it's truly negative, condemned or evil.

Because that is my subjective opinion.  At least I realize it's subjective.  That's important.  Can you tell the difference?

I know it's your subjective opinion. I'm ask why you hold that? You don't believe he is actually bad but just think he is bad and hold that opinion is right. Seems contradictory to me. So perhaps explain.