How can science prove that people have “Values”?
They can’t. Because Evaluation first requires, at least, a description of these supposed “values”. What are they? Where do they come from? What do they look like? What do they smell like? All of these questions are senseless, because, values have no Senses. Rather, values are self evident. If a value is even remotely known, or believed in by a person, then it is absolutely subjective for him or her. And the only method of proof, is through linguistic communication of these supposed, hypothetical values. A person can say he or she believes in some, or any type of, Principle. But the description is necessary. Otherwise all we would have are Actions. But actions are different from communicative evaluations. An action is “Non-Evaluative”. Because values indicate a thought process or Rationale. People think about things, about courses of actions, before committing those actions. Well, some people think and plan, while others just act reflexively and without any clear Rationale.
Rationale is a difficult concept. And people who do “crazy” things, and commit action that we are confused about, we ask them, “Why in the hell did you just slam your head against that wall?” And the young adolescent male explains, “Because I’m angry, graaaaaaaaw!!!” Even he has a Rationale for doing what he did: because I’m angry. So the essence of values, and evaluation, is proved only from evidence of the rationale, and that appears in Linguistics and Communication. The more advanced the language system of a group of organisms, the more advanced the communication, and therefore, we maybe able to posit, the more advanced the system of Rationale and Evaluation. The more advanced the language, the more advanced The Valuing, in terms of potential to describe or explain Actions.
Ontology becomes necessary insofar as Linguistics are necessary for Proof of Value. The underlying aspects of language, as Wittgenstein indicates, are based on Intuition. Sure I’m typing these words, and sure you’re reading them (well a few of you are actually reading it rather than skimming it), but that does not necessarily imply a Successful Communication. Ontology is the prospect that language is possible, and from language, communication is possible. Ontology is the presumption that you and I, or anybody together or in a group, physically can intuit that Unspoken Meaning inherent in what I’m saying. For example, Sarcasm and Seriousness are two aspects of this (linguistic) Ontology, that, you may or may not be able to ascertain whether I’m “telling the truth” or “just playing around”. You may read everything I write, but upon reacting to these words, become unable to differentiate my intention, and therefore, become unable to differentiate the core validity of my statements.
Because the core logical fallacy in this case (of Ontology), is whether I “Mean” the words I’m stating, as true or false. If I am “just joking around”, then this invalidates my arguments, according to the logicians these days. Because even a Truism said in jest or sarcasm, “Oh, yeah right, sure…the world is ‘round’, phuh!” maybe invalidated by its underlying Premises. And these premises indicate the “actual belief” of both the “Stater” of the proposition, as well as the “Statee” of the proposition. In other words, despite the unspoken intention of the writer/speaker, and the intention of the reader/listener, Beliefs still exist (we assume) and are Valued by either participant.
I will call this an error of judgment, and coin this phrase my “Ontological Fallacy”. Because to presume that either participant has a Belief or Value about the statement, is ontologically unproveable, except by the method of communication used by either participant, and the validity by which one can describe or explain any belief, value, statement, logic, or proposition in the first place. Rather, it becomes apparent that Beliefs exist “a priori”, and are validated through the Descriptions of them, themselves. If people actually “believe in things”, and some may not, then any proof of this is a matter of the Intuition of Language. The Fallacy most apparently comes to light, when, we believe it is even “possible to communicate” between two intelligent beings of a certain range of Likeness.
I will refer to this Likeness as my “Likeness Theory”. In other words, two who speak and listen to each other in English, at least indicate some Likeness in the order of understanding the shared language they speak and hear. Regardless, this cannot account for Communication or even proof of Valuing, because despite two people speaking the same language, one or neither of them may even know “what the hell?” the other person is talking about. Therefore, linguistic meaning represents a much more distinct problem than Wittgenstein can even indicate with his “Language Games”.
But all of this goes further back in time than Tractatus, to Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
Even two millenniums ago, the Empirical Aristotle recognized these types of logical fallacies or consistencies inherent within both language and reality. Regardless of people communicating…in fact, let’s now imagine a world where nobody can “communicate” with each other, verbally or in writing. In this world, all we see of communication are actions between entities. Let’s posit further that a lion is chasing a gazelle. What form of Communication does this take? The lion doesn’t need to “say” or “write” anything to demonstrate its Intent to the gazelle. Nor does the gazelle need “to know” anything more to react, instinctively, and run away. There is no apparent “Rationale”, or should I say, no need to Rationalize these things. The animals just “communicate” in actions. There is no validity, and no invalidity. There is no belief, or unbelief. There are no statements, logic, or prepositions, but rather, Just Action. No thought, just action.
If any “planning” exists, then how can anybody prove it? How can we “prove” that a group of predator animals, or their prey, are “planning” a hunt? Where do these “plans” come from, and how are they communicated? Here is the result, and “the secret” to this. If we presume that any group of animals communicates first from Intuition, then these problems of Metaphysics can begin to make sense. In other words, beliefs, statements, logic, and all of this (ontology) does not need a communication in order to understand, value, or enact. Therefore, Logic itself can be proved with or without “communication” of any kind. Rather, logic and intuition are intimately connected and entwined with each other. We may even say that “logic is intuitive” rather than “calculating” per se. And this is why Metaphysics is important.
Let’s say that a group of lions is pursuing a group of gazelles, and that, there exists evidence of “rationale, planning, and forethought”. How can this be, unless, the group of lions are communicating with each other, and the group of gazelles are communicating with each other? Yet, as I demonstrated earlier, linguistics (beyond communication), is the only means of proof when it comes to the self-evident nature of beliefs, value, logic, and rationale. So what proof can the group of lions or gazelles have, to demonstrate Tactics, Strategy, Planning, Thought, Forethought, and all of this? And because this is difficult, rather we must understand what constitutes Proof Itself.
Avoiding the Ontological Fallacy, people believe some logical prepositions are proved and unproved, or “Provable” and “Unprovable”. For example, and listen well to what I’m about to say, I mean write here…Atheists believe God is unprovable! And therefore, assuming this logical fallacy, God constitutes a philosophical impossibility for these types of “thinkers”. Metaphysically, God is “unknowable” to the atheist, based on the identification of his own belief and value-system. His metaphysics will demonstrate this fact through extensive argumentation. And it is not so much that, Objectively, such a thing (including God) is possible or not, but rather, what people originally had suspected (as possible or impossible) is itself, False!!!
And therefore we can conclude that Expectations and Ideals of the World, and how the world ought to exist, rest at the bottom of Metaphysics itself. And that this fact, when demonstrated by an assumption, can lead to the inevitable Proofs of some beliefs, values, and even logic itself.
This is my “raw thinking” here. I know it’s unorganized and “rough”. But just go through it very slowly, and recognize that my thoughts are very “uncut” and “jagged”. I’m not trying to be a fancy Nietzschean, but rather, need to put these thoughts out into the open first and foremost, so that I can remember them later, and Revise them, to recommunicate them to a wider audience. Since you’re philosophers, as you claim, then at least we all ought to recognize the underlying ideas here, and that is all that is important (to communicate).
Someday I’ll write with flowerly Nietzschean language to better seduce denser minds, and demonstrate these ideals to a wider audience, via a higher standard and realization Of Language.
