If nothing has inherent value,How do you know what has value

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

If nothing in this world has any inherent value/importance, how do you decide what is valuable? Everything that I think has value, seems to be of value to me because the rest of society says it should have value (I say this because most people that belong to a culture have a very similar set of values as everyone else in that culture), or some other thing makes me erroneously think it does. But if I want to erase all ideas of value I have, and create new values, placing value to things that I think should be important to me, it seems like I have no way to place value on something without assuming some other things actually have value. Every time I place value on something, it’s because I assume that some other thing is valuable.

I’ll give a loose, not very strong example to show you what I mean. Say I come to decide that it’s important that Miley Cyrus dresses more conservative and less promiscuous. I would think that because I assume it’s important that young girls that look up to Miley shouldn’t dress promiscuously. I would think that because I assume it’s important that young girls should respect themselves, because I assume self-respect is important, because I assume self-respect involves not being a slut, because I assume being a slut is bad, because I assume it’s important for girls to be with only one man in their life, because society/the bible/whatever has made me conform to the idea that it’s wrong to be with more than one man in their life.

If everything that I think has value is based on assumptions that are based on other assumptions that are based on other assumptions, the only way I could decide what should have value would be to start from square one (like Descartes’ radical doubt). This means I would have to stop thinking that everything that has value to me, has any value at all. But when you start from square one, you don’t really have much, if anything, to base your thoughts on. I guess you could start by assuming it’s important to go toward pleasure and avoid pain. This seems like a safe thing to say, because everything in the world seeks pleasure and avoids pain, it’s what we naturally want to do. From that you can say it’s important to get the most basic human pleasures (to eat, get drunk, and have sex).

But from that point, wanting to get those three pleasures (or any other self-evident base of value for that matter), I don’t see how you could arrive at the conclusion that it’s important that Miley Cryus doesn’t dress like a slut, or most of the other conclusions that the things we think have value actually do have value. I feel like everybody (including me) unjustly assumes that everything they think has value actually does. All this nonsense bullsh** we care about really has nothing of value. I don’t really believe in any extreme form of nihilism (like nothing can have any value, or have more importance than something else), but I feel like if I started from square one to establish all of my values, most of the things I think have value would just wash away. And I don’t see how anybody could really go through that much of a change in their life and belief system. I can’t think of any possible process where anybody could start from scratch, form new values, and change themselves in a way where they can justify every value that they hold.

What are your thoughts on this?

2

My thought is that you were thinking loud.

3

Okay I have an answer, it involves comprehending a couple of concepts from Heidegger though; follow close.

Let me just say firstly that you can certainly be a nihilist whilst still adhering to an ordinary life, and placing value in things. It’s not an oxymoron. Here’s why:

Heigger’s phenomenology (which is astounding, by the way) speaks of individuals of ‘Being-In-The-World’. To get a very basic conceptual understanding of this, it is the idea that we go about the world placing value on things, and acknowledge everything through a human capacity; everything is categorized through our human features. So we see a ‘tree’ and everything attached to that, its potential, the fact that it probabl has roots undergroudn, the fact that it makes oxygen, the fact we can get paper from it. And we see things for their uses - Heidegger gave the example of a hammer - we use it for hammering. As soon as we see it that is what value we place on it.

When we (very rarely) realise that things are just ‘things’ - matter, not ‘hammers’, we strip it of value. I think Heidegger called this type of though ‘falling’.

So, when we are thinking normally, we place value on things because it helps us navigate the world - it is a code of conduct to make our lives comfortable. but we rarely thin like this.

Thus, you can believe that fundamentally and metaphysically nothing has any value, which would be right, but you are still going to adhere to the values of the world because that is the way you are buit.

4

The academic, like Descartes, is a strange type. They mistake the active “removal of values” as resulting in no values.
In fact they have just overridden values in the wake of the value they placed upon “removing value”.

Their value here is in simplicity, a mental reconstruction of successfully capturing and containing. The pleasure they take from this expresses itself through the narcissistic labelling of such a process as “being objective”. They have declared their success to be universal - as wide as the universe, encompassing everything, simplifying everything on a simple whim. Everything is reduced to their mental control.

…and then they unintentionally reveal themselves as fumbling buffoons when they find themselves to be suddenly confused by the fact that they continue to value as normal as they continue their lives. The lights are still on but they fear they are really reduced to fumbling around in the dark. Of course, they stay disconnected - in the mental realm of their greatest victory, allowing this self-imposed illusion to remain very believable. All of this to the amusement of the bystander who has just continued to value as normal.

The academic’s confusion continues, and their fear deepens as they deduce that if they can remove values completely there really is nothing underneath, inherently valuable - in anything! What if they ceased to value literally everything? What if there is no connection between the soul-like state they believe themselves to have achieved - and the physical world of bodies? Have they transcended reality? Is there no longer any valid outside influence to confirm their former fearful value placements? The academic is typically one who has been absorbed in introversion and the world of things - others who are more social minded had always dominated the people around them, taking the initiative in that respect - the academic fell behind in this respect with their main area of interest being in other things. Their default submissive social role makes them used to having values imposed upon them by others - creating their own values is something they only hesitantly dare do for fear of these socially dominant types. But this, their timidity, eventually becomes what they finally, bravely dare to name their greatest virtue. And Descartes is praised by his own kind by reducing everything to doubt!!

All this from the simple mistake of overlooking their value in “removing values”.

So taking this mistake into account, you no longer need to worry about what really has value, because you were valuing all along. The “nihilist” realises his folly and adjusts his definition of what was really annihilated in this process, and what wasn’t. They rename themselves existentialists, or change the definition of nihilist to equate to existentialist so they can keep their name and dignity.

The actual problem here was rooted in the former lack of realisation that one is in fact able to break out of the social consensus and dominance of imposing individuals and social consensuses. There never was an inherent need to submit to the values that other people had imposed on things. Nothing had inherent value all along - you do not have to inherit values.

You always knew what you valued by default. The existentialist victory is the academic breaking free of the age-old rationalist mentality of the academic, and finally daring to attribute their own values with confidence.

5

Some people place a lot of value on money. In fact, for many, the worth of a person is judged by financial success. Then there is the problem of how much money is enough in order to feel worthy or successful? Would you then fall into the trap of creating a system where more and more people are dismonetized in order for you to feel better about yourself?

6

It seems more like the guy is more on about the existential state of value to me.

Feel free to correct me though, ‘person’ (Good screen name btw).

7

All very fine except that existential abstractions have no meaning in the real world – at least, not the way money does.

8

Values are relative and subjective. Everything has some sort of value, it’s just for people to evaluate, thus value it.

Inherently people are different, thus will produce different values.

9

Probably you are mixing different kinds of ideas, just like most people.
I mean, most humans have that silly tendency to presume (and desire) unconditional, permanent, general, and/or absolute nature of values (or existence, god, whatever).
But any result of measurement depends on and limited by the measurement method/precision/etc and it’s not general/absolute.
It means lack of “inherent” value. But it also means you can apply any valuing method as you like, if you prefer.

Most humans have lots of preferences and desires and stupid beliefs. and they mold mixed bunch of chaotic values, as well as confused idiotic thoughts.
And we tend to see (or hope) that these inherently limited and conditional values as if they were permanent and absolute, and even get depressed upon understanding (a bit) the silliness/madness of all these (so called “nihilists”).

But there is nothing to get depressed once we understand and become aware of conditional/relative/limited nature of any measurement/value/thought/distinction.
It can be actually liberating (at least for some, I guess).

Fortunately (or sadly, depending of your preference) most people stick to the hope/desire of absolute/unconditional/general value (or truth, certainty, whatever) and remain in the delusion. Thus mixed up thoughts and questions will continue to swing, spin and twist like any other materials in the universe, for long long time to come that may seem “eternity” to us. :slight_smile:

10

water is of value when you are thirsty, but not when you are drowning

cash has value at the grocery store, but not if you are lost in the woods

a thing’s value is relative to the purposes of the one doing the evaluating, it’s actually pretty simple

11

I’m not sure how true this is. I kind of like UPF’s way of putting it. Can you really choose not to value water when you’re thirsty? Though I agree that there is no “inherent” value, I still think that lasting values can be “discovered”. The “I can value whatever I want” thing may be true on one level, but some walls are invisible, and we run into them all the time.

12

When you want something (I’m not talking about the value attached to fulfilling those wants) you have no recourse but to use thought to get what you want in this world. So thought has value. It has brought you to where you are now. But it’s the very thing that can ruin you.

In one way of seeing it, nature is going about creating unique individuals. That’s a noticeable fact and is rather extraordinary in itself. But due to the system of values that society imposes, you are in some way spoiled if you do not function within its status quo. So, there is the tendency to use the ‘reality’ of the societal state of affairs for reasons of sane and intelligent coexistence and, at the same time, realize that there is no way of experiencing the reality of anything. Then, value is placed in accordance with its usefulness in the avoidance of chaos and insanity.

There is no value per se in being yourself however. There is a uniqueness there where there’s no need for the placement of value because the expression of that uniqueness has a qualities of its own: unrepeatable, unprecedented and unparalleled. By what standard will you place value on those?

13

Hmmm, that’s like saying, if nothing in the world is a tree, how do you decide what’s a tree? The answer is simple… you can’t, it’s logically impossible. You could only arbitrarily and irrationally say, this rock is a tree, or monkeys are trees.

What I think you may be getting at is this, If you eliminate all your prior conceptions/notions of what has value, how will you go about determining what has value? The answer for some, could be reason, for others, intuition, for other others, redetermining what causes people pleasure and pain.

Yes, some people place a high value on adopting other peoples values. I, for one, do not.

True, usually, when we talk about reevaluating things, we’re talking about reevaluating things that have extrinsic value, that is, things that we value for the sake of some other value, not things that we value for their own sake.

Not necessarily. I think for some, being with one partner for the rest of their life, could have intrinsic value.

Human beings aren’t reptiles, there are other pleasures besides the aforementioned. Some consider material and monetary acquisition to be very pleasurable, others, love and romance, for me, satisfying my curiosity is very pleasurable. There are higher pleasures in addition to lower ones. See Epicurus and John Stuart Mill.

I think you could. You could say, I don’t think Miley should be a slut because she’ll get std’s, and std’s are painful, or she’ll get pregnant, and giving birth is painful, and she’s not ready to be a mom, and having to deal with something you don’t know how to deal with is frustrating, and you have to deal with it because you would feel responsible, and i think it’s natural for most mothers to feel repsonsible for raising their children.

In some cases, I would agree with you. It requires a great deal of mental effort to reevaluate everything, most people are too stupid and lazy, they would rather go on assuming their extrinsic values are intrinsically valuable, or that their extrinsic values will help them acquire things of intrinsic value. I think it’s the job of those who are intellectually capable to reevaluate societies values for them. Most people are too busy pursuing their values to bother. I spend a great deal of time and energy questioning things, in the hopes that I will someday discover new and better values. In the future, I may present my new values and my reasons for valuing them to society, in the hopes of radically altering our culture. Bentham, Mill, Schopenhauer, Nietzshce and many other philosophers attempted to accomplish this daunting task, with varying degrees of success.

14

I’d be willing to bet that person12321 never visits this forum again and thus makes our posts redundant.

15

Why not? Abstractions are, as the word suggests, abstractions from reality, and thus, be it indirectly or not, they still depict a certain aspect of the “real world”, as you call it.

16

Yeah, with a name like person123, it won’t be back.

17

It’s not a question of knowing…or if it is, it’s a question of knowing what you feel.

18

because you’re uncomfortable with it.

That’s not going to happen. The thing to understand, that takes time to understand, is that all value judgments are objectively unjustifiable, by any measure of objective justification. How you deal with that, in my view, is what determines the type of person you are.

Values are subjective. They don’t depend on objective justification. However, human beings are objectively similar, and so it stands to reason that our subjective preferences will be similar. Values are most certainly not nonsense bullshit. For instance, your misplaced determination as such is a value judgment and is of more than a little consequence.

To start from square one about values is impossible, as you may have already realized. What you would be doing is denying what you already value. You likely would feel a washing away of sorts, but of your power and motivation, not your values. Impotence and the feeling of helplessness can lead to apathy.

19

It seems to me that many of you are saying it’s not possible to remove all your values completely and give yourself new ones. I’m not sure whether or not I agree though. I can’t think of any easy way to do so, but I’m not ready to totally dismiss the idea.

To what extent should we question our values? How deep should we look for false assumptions? Every new value we create is based on old assumptions, changing old ones, or forming new ones. If we have false assumptions that are fundamental to the way we currently place value on things, is it best to go about questioning each one of your basic beliefs that you base the rest our your beliefs on, in order to form new beliefs that you could consider more true than your previous beliefs? Or should you go about life, only questioning your fundamental principles when they seem to come in conflict with other truths?

I want to know if I have the correct understanding when you say the value in removing values. I only want to remove values in order to form values that I could be certain are true from my subjective view. If by the “value” in removing values you mean that I value truth, or perhaps that I value “value”, therefore I’m not removing the value that truth or value is important, therefore I’m not completely removing all my values, I can see how that makes sense.

It seems like even if I come to the realization you speak of, my values have already by set before me. I don’t see how you can come to your own true values with any real confidence, when everything you already use to form values has been to this point imposed by social consensuses. Unless by “attribute their own values with confidence” you mean they aren’t scared to break away from the social norm.

I’m also unclear what you mean by “the academic breaking free of the age-old rationalist mentality of the academic”. Why couldn’t you attribute your own values with confidence while in the age-old rationalist mentality of the academic? Why do you think that typically the academic is submissive and is used to having values imposed upon them? In what way did they name timidity their greatest virtue? I think my confusion starts with your definition of the academic and the fact that I don’t see the difference between Descartes’ view of doubting everything, starting from square one to find ideas that are undeniably true, and the existentialist’s view of attributing their own values with confidence.

20

It might become clearer if you understand how we evaluate thing.
It’s based on criteria/pattern-matching.

Probably because it sounds simple.
But UPF version is skipping (intentionally or not) the underlying mechanism we use to value.
Still, we can see that UPF has much better understanding of basic relativity than many of us.

Connection between the sensation of thirst and the desire for water isn’t permanent/absolute.
You can simply remain feeling thirst without thinking/desiring water, at all, depending on your awareness and focus of it.

What you see as “walls” aren’t permanent/absolute, either, although I’d imagine that some people would not get over certain walls for long long time.