The Ultimate Value and the signs of it in ourselves.

[henryp]

Oh snap, you were seriously criticizing me with the first comment?  I thought you were just joking.  Rereading it with this newfound context may be even funnier, because it's so goofy I assumed it was satirical.  Good times!  If he were still alive, I'm sure Hitler would have enjoyed this.  While you people are always obsessing about him being a genocidal maniac, us closest to him knew of his fondness for crazy mix 'em ups.

Good, good. Feel the impotent rage, the nonsensical ravings against your intellectual and moral supreiors. Well on the gibbering loon path of the Force you are.

Curse you!  I tried to compose several responses earlier in the day, but my fury was so great, I could only type by punching the keyboard leading to just a flat out mess of letters that only displayed the shameful spiral of agony fueled rage you have sent me on.  Now that I've taken a tranquilizer, I have calmed some, but know that I'm pushing down VERY hard on these keys and barely restraining myself from turning on the caps lock.

I know when I am defeated.  Your verbal jousting, the way you not only lasered in on my exact frame of mind, but did so with super sweet yoda talk, 'twas truly a thing of legend.  I can only imagine the smugness that you must have felt rereading your post hitting send, knowing that it would strike true, ending any hopes I may have of securing a win in this ever important contest.

And thanks to your internet diligence, history will likely view my very close friend and occasional lover, Adolph Q. Hitler, (who's favorite movie is 2011's smash hit Dolphin Tale, and I'll have you know he cried at the end every time.  I bet you didn't know that about him) as a 'bad' man.  And it looks like his pet project, Nazi Germany, thanks to your work here, will not in fact conquer the world, and may even in time be viewed in a negative light.

I apologize dear Adolph, I have failed you.  I equivocated with all my might, but alas, I did not know those such as Tazzycorn wandered these parts of this internet wasteland, and would smite down both me and my efforts to portray you as the kind, gentle man and lover I know you to be when you're not busy committing genocide.

[Mystic]

I thought about this for a few days. It may be true we need a universal perspective for it to be objective, I am not sure about this. However, then you say a true value from their personal perspective which seems like a contradiction. A brain is not a universal perspective.
Do you mean the value they believe themselves come from their brains? Because their true value and their objective value mean the same thing.

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

[bennyboy]

Why do you keep talking about value like it's a property of things? It isn't. And we don't need justification to value something.

Something is valued because we care about it. That's it.

[Mystic]

Why do you keep talking about value like it's a property of things?  It isn't.  And we don't need justification to value something.

Something is valued because we care about it.  That's it.

Or do we care/love it through faith in it's value?

[GrandizerII]

Why do you keep talking about value like it's a property of things?  It isn't.  And we don't need justification to value something.

Something is valued because we care about it.  That's it.

Or do we care/love it through faith in it's value?

If someone else values something, but I don't, it has no value to me. Only to the other person.

[bennyboy]

Why do you keep talking about value like it's a property of things?  It isn't.  And we don't need justification to value something.

Something is valued because we care about it.  That's it.

Or do we care/love it through faith in it's value?

Nope.  Not that.

I have the instinct for love, and that's a motivating feeling.  Therefore I value the ones I love.
I have the instinct for material comfort, and that's a motivating feeling.  Therefore I value money and the comforts it affords me.

There's no faith required-- human existence brings intrinsic value with it, and that value is based on our evolved instincts.

[Astreja]

Or do we care/love it through faith in it's value?

If someone else values something, but I don't, it has no value to me. Only to the other person.

Precisely.  It is our perception of something that gives it value.

Case in point:  I just acquired a used bass clarinet, probably at least 40 years old.  The carrying case has been repaired with tape, the plating on many of the keys has worn away, and I'll eventually have to get it repadded at a cost of $400-$500.  Because I'm a clarinet player, though, this dusty old instrument has value.

If you offered me something of higher "book" value, such as a $10,000 state-of-the-art home theatre setup, I'd look at you and say "What the fuck would I want that for?  I'm not even using the TV I already have, and I've got no room for it anyway."

[Mystic]

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

[Mister Agenda]

Our valuing something is what gives it value. Diamonds are worthless in themselves, it is only people valuing them that makes them worth anything. Value is not inherent, it comes from beings capable of valuing. There can be reasons inherent to the valuer to value something: beavers gotta value trees and streams and dams, we all gotta value not getting horribly tortured to death, we're capable of valuing abstract moral philosophies, but it's in the eye of the beholder, not in the object or idea valued in itself.

[Angrboda]

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

Seeing is valuation. There is no second step. We have emotional reactions to percepts. This is the basis of our valuing or not valuing things. If we didn't have emotions, things wouldn't have value. But because we have emotional reactions as a part of seeing, we have the illusion that things have value in and of themselves. The value exists in our wiring. If I have a sexual feeling as a consequence of looking at a naked man, it isn't because I've "assigned" the value to the naked man, nor does the man have value inherently.