I thought you were…
One word, many possibles… that’s the Asians for ya, always getting value out of their vocabulary. ; )
I am thinking that “mu” is represented in English as “moot” - an irrelevant or inapplicable point.
So perhaps whether there are true or false values is irrelevant because the true/false dichotomy doesn’t apply?
Taking the idea that “true” means “aligning or comporting with an accurate statement of reality” (from James) leads me to think that a value is not a statement so cannot comport with anything. It would be like asking, “Is yellow true or false?”
I think that a statement has to be asserted before the idea of true or false can be applicable and only to that statement.
“Gold has value” is a statement that is too general. Gold has value to some but not to others. So the statement might be true or false. Being too general, it is moot. And this reminds me of the infinity arguments I see so much. The concept “infinite” is too general to be applied to standard maths. Specificity must be installed in order to utilize maths with infinity (again from James’ extremely detailed explanations).
Perhaps I worded the second question the wrong way.
That’s one of the reasons I provided an alternative wording which is:
Are there objective values and perceived values?
Not sure if that’s clear enough.
If it is not, then the following post of mine (posted just a couple of posts ago) should definitely clear it up:
Here are my answers:
I define the word “value” as “the degree to which something can be of use to someone in attaining their goals”.
People perceive (most commonly by feeling) that something is of value i.e. that something can be of use to them in attaining their goals. Since this is a perception, and not reality itself, it is not necessarily true. In other words, it may be false.
Thus, what’s really valuable is separate from what someone thinks is valuable. You may think something is valuable when in fact it is not – that would be a false value. Conversely, you may not think that something is valuable when in fact it is – that would be a true value. Food is a real value because it helps you prolong your life for real. Poison, on the other hand, is not.
Note that I am NOT asking whether what’s valuable for one is also what’s valuable for everyone else.
There is a personality category called “Analytical Reductionist” - a person who analyzes a subject by reducing its understanding down to the most fundamental level. You seem to be in that category (as was James).
I think the problem here is with the use of the word “goal”. I don’t think that most people think of a pretty picture associated with a goal but an extreme reductionist does. A person might like a picture without having any intended utility in mind. They might not have any utilitarian use for it but they still admire it. They see value in merely its appearance but no value in trying to use it for anything.
I look at old Greek statues with admiration but I can’t imagine having any personal use for one. They represent value in that I would not want them destroyed but I wouldn’t want them cluttering up my bedroom nor would I endeavor to buy and sell them. They have no personal use or utility for me. Yet I still “value them”. The reductionist would say that my inner mind senses something hopeful in them and urges their conservation. That could be construed as a subtle goal. So if you are a reductionist, then I think that you are right in saying:
But if you are NOT a reductionist there is no goal association because you do not have any conscious goal in mind. You merely like the thing.
So I think this subject is not merely a matter of values being associated with goals but also a matter of how you intend the word “goal” - reductively or only consciously. Until that is made clear there is going to be persistent argument.
And in addition how you use the word “objective” seems to be contentious. For there to be value doesn’t there have to be a recipient to that value? It can be an objective fact (or actually a legal fact) that something has value to a specific recipient. But without a recipient being specified in at least general terms (such “to all humans”) the unspecific term “value” has no meaning for objectivity issues - back to that “moot” issue. It is like saying, “Is this object objectively big?”
Wow. I had to think about this one for a while. I was about to just say that is another question that I would like to have asked James but I think I might have just now realized the answer.
What you are asking concerns whether something is valuable for a specific perceived goal. The problem that I see is that every goal is merely a choice gained by the perception of some other goal. You might buy an app for your iPhone only to discover that the app doesn’t do what you thought. You traded money, a value, for a misperceived value. So when you purchased the app, you had an ongoing effort to achieve something that the app did not help you achieve other than to inform you that you had taken the wrong path. But what if then you discover that you didn’t really need what you were trying for in the first place - the over privileged millennial who goes up to discover that he has been fighting to his own disadvantage the entire time?
In the long run is it true that every goal is merely a temporal effort that will in actuality merely lead to your death? Isn’t every goal merely a mistaken effort to get somewhere that in the long run you are not going to get to? Aren’t goals merely goals for the moment and always leading to waste and death?
And here we get back to the first discussion I had with you concerning MIJOT. Before MIJOT all of the effort in any life seemed simply foolhardy. James’ MIJOT substantially founded the fact that actually all life’s efforts do indeed have a highest purpose that cannot be refuted by any living thing. And what that means is that each chosen goal either helps toward that unmistakable pentacle goal or it doesn’t. And that gets us out of the conundrum of having every goal merely a mistaken perception of value. Some goals are objectively valuable and many are objectively foolish - of negative value.
Due only to MIJOT the answer to your question is that each action you take is actually, objectively assisting you toward an objective highest purpose, MIJOT, or not. And that means that everything you assign value is of objective positive value to you or it isn’t.
So just as of today I believe that there really is “objective value” that can be misperceived as positive or negative even though it really does have definitive value.
I guess being on this board isn’t as totally worthless as I thought. This suddenly became fun so of value (but don’t let my wife find out). 
_
“Reductionism and holism are two different approaches in psychology that researchers use to create experiments and draw conclusions. Reductionism likes to divide explanations of behaviour into separate components, whilst holism likes to look at the picture as a whole.18 Jul 2019“
Are both not utilised, in thinking and outcomes, so i.e. in decision-making… constantly veering between the two, but more and more veering towards the latter, as an outcome or goal is approached, required, or needed?
Magnus Anderson wrote: “If you feel something is beautiful, you might be wrong.
Do you agree with that?".
Why would you be wrong? That’s what you felt at the time, so at that time you were right… feelings can obviously change over time, so it’s not that it becomes wrong, it’s just that you start feeling differently about the object.
Some things are intrinsically beautiful, and others are like marmite or denatonium benzoate, in that they cause feelings to fluctuate, because they are not intrinsically appealing to all of the senses all of the time, but only some of the time.
Not all connoisseurs are right, and not all lay-persons are wrong. I find Louis the XIVth furniture to be rather vulgar, but the connoisseur antique-dealer would beg to differ and so disagree.
That’s true.
I absolutely agree with the bolded. Few people know what they are striving for, and when they do, they are in most cases only aware of their intermediate goals – not their end goal. But does non-awareness mean non-existence? If you’re not aware of something taking place, does that mean it’s not taking place?
Someone looking at a picture they consider pretty might not be able to analyze their feelings, and figure out that what their feelings stand for is a perception of usefulness, but does that mean that their feelings have nothing to do with utility?
Things can be useful in many different ways. I make no claim as to the manner in which pretty paintings happen to be useful. I’m merely saying they are useful in some way. That way may be – and it probably is – completely subjective (in the same way that medicine is) but that’s beside the point.
That’s true. The distinction must be clarified as much as possible.
The reason I use the word “goal” in the reductive sense, as you say, is because I find little use in sticking to what people are aware of. I want to understand the mechanisms that guide people, not merely what they are aware of.
Of course, there must be a recipient. The definition of the word “value” that I provided states it.
Value only exists in relation to a being that has a goal. And “value is objective” merely means that what’s valuable to someone is independent from what anyone thinks (or feels) is valuable to that person.
It’s a mistake only insofar there was a better path you could have taken. Otherwise, it is not. The fact that we will all die in the end is not an argument against our efforts to live for as long as possible. The idea is that if you cannot reach a goal, you can at least choose a path that lets you reach the point that is at the smallest possible distance away from that goal. For example, if your goal is to be immortal, and you cannot be immortal, you can at least choose a path that will let you live for as long as possible. You can, for example, choose a path that will let you live for 80 years rather than choosing a path that will let you live for 30 years.
That’s pretty much my point (:
I’ll go along with Prof and his mentor Hartman on this;
I believe all human are “programmed” with the function to strive for continuous improvements over prior states.
However given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technologies, it is imperative humanity expedite its moral function and other relevant functions to deal with potential threats.
For these function [moral, etc.] to be expedited and effective, all variables [known and possible] must be quantified with values as far as possible with justifications, consensus and with critical awareness of whatever limitations there are.
The most critical factor in the consideration of value is ‘consensus’ which in many cases are inherent with all humans, being alive [till the inevitable] has value.
Note also the Fact - Value distinction that need to be addressed.
The difference between “statements of fact” and “statements of value” is pretty tenuous, don’t you think?
Even statements such as “I like it” that do nothing but express what one perceives to be of value (and not what’s truly valuable) are statements of fact. They are either true or false. I either like watermelons (i.e. perceive them as valuable) or I don’t.
Ultimately, it depends on how you define these terms. No doubt you can define them in a sensible way such that they represent different things. But in any case, statements that express what one perceives to be of value as well as statements that express what’s truly of value have truth value. And that’s the only thing important.
There are two different claims here:
-
What you felt at that time. (Did you feel that that something is beautiful or that it is ugly?)
(This is the claim you seem to be addressing) -
The extent to which what you felt at that time was correct/right. (Were you right in feeling that that something is beautiful/ugly? Perhaps you should have felt differently?)
(This is the claim that is of interest to me.)
I think you worded it fine. My response wasn’t that kind of critique, heck it might be more of a confession. I just think that in a sense it doesn’t matter. Or, it might matter, but how would we know. And then let’s say there were objective values. The objective value is pedophilia is OK. I won’t feel like I now share that value, even if it came from a deity. I don’t think objective values let’s me off the hook, should they exist. And then there is the epistemological problem of knowing what they are. Hence, Mu. Regardless of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ I find myself in the same situation.
I don’t think that’s wrong, but for me it puts values only as parts of some instrumental process. I value some things in the moment with no thought of what I might achieve. Now that doesn’t contradict what you wrote, per se. And one could find a way to argue that one of my goals is to enjoy those moments. But for me it skews what I mean by values, because while it is true in many cases, it is not at all how I would word it in others.
“What matters” is another term for “value”.
Thus, the question of whether value is objective or subjective is the question of whether what matters is objective or subjective.
The answer to this question underpins the process by which we assign value to things, so I’m inclined to believe that knowing the right answer to this question is rather important.
And I think that most people do, it’s just that they don’t consciously think about it (since in most cases there is no need to.)
The reason I bring it up here in this thread (and on this forum) is because there are people on this forum (and many more outside of it) who think that value is subjective.
A brain won’t endorse any view unless it is motivated to do so. You wouldn’t accept that WW2 never happened, even if it were true, unless you previously went through a process that convinced you of its truthfulness. The same goes for value statements such as “Having sex with children is good for you”.
It can be, but for the issue is: even if there are objective values, I still have my values AND the objectivity of the values cannot reach me. I am immersed in life.
So, let’s say you found out that values were objective. If you didn’t know what the objectively correct values were, what difference would it make. If you did learn what those values were, are you sure that would change your values. I don’t think it would change mine, though it might make me feel confused or guilty or afraid. My values come from me and my life experiences. I can’t see how finding a list of the correct values would make much difference. I suppose I might keep my eyes open more, to see if I could be convinced, now by life alone, to have those values. IOW not simply draw conclusion based on deduction or something, but actually CHANGE values I don’t think the knowledge would make a difference. Experiences might. But they might drive me even further way from whatever the objective values were.
And I respond mu to that assertion also.
[/quote]
Sure but facts while often entwined with values are a whole nother ball game. There is stuff in my DNA and you could come with proof on paper that God says this value is the right one. I do not necessarily at all bow down to a deity, if the value matters to me, which it would since it is a value.
And here’s another rub, an epistemological one. Let’s say you come with an argument that values are objective. I have to trust myself that your argument is correct and that trust will have subjective elements. I have to make gut estimations of my ability to recognize a flawless argument. I have to intuit that I have looked at the argument enough for wholes. IOW I have to trust myself. And I would also have to admit that I might have missed something.
Well, I trust myself around my values. Not that they are correct but that they are my values. I am not sure why one trusting myself should override the other. And it wouldn’t. You convince me more or less that there are objective values and in addition you then demonstrate that value X is one of these. If I hate that value, I am not going to switch over even if your argument SEEMS correct.
I highlight ‘seems’ because things that seem correct now may not seem like that later. I am not going to start accepting adults having sex with children because your argument seems solid on both counts. Where there is a clash between my values and what seems correct, I am going to go with my values. Otherwise I am betraying myself. Even if it turns out I was ‘wrong’ or wrong.
Descartes I think therefore I am I consider superficial. I would say I feel and value therefore I am. Those are much more intimate portions of myself. Now of course thoughts and feelings and values are not separate things. And also Descartes meant more than verbal thinking. But still we have this handed down English translation and it has always struck me as odd, because of what thoughts means in English.
That’s disturbing.
But it gives explanation for this response
Isn’t that the whole point in thinking? You seem to be saying that it is better to just be an animal and don’t try to understand and further guide your instincts with conscious reasoning as though to say, “don’t trust your mind, just do what you feel”.
Cavalier. You don’t care what makes rational sense and you don’t want to care about it. You feel no value in thinking and acting rationally. You enable your feelings to control your future even when they are blinded by their own fear of rational guidance. Why have a conscious mind at all?
Merely a lack of confidence in your ability to think. So you are saying that because you do not trust your ability to think, it is better not to try.
You are already betraying yourself. Your rationalizing the idea that your feelings have the ultimate authority over your conscious reasoning - “My emotional urges = good. My logical reasoning = bad. If it feels good, do it. Until I experience that it is poison, I’m going to eat it. A lion has never attack me before, so why should I be concerned?”
I am not saying that what you are displaying is right or wrong. I am merely expressing what I am observing.
Ahh, the freedom of choice.
One can decide to go against “objective value”. (The “objective value” could be determined by God or society.)
There are consequences but they may be judged to be acceptable. 
Reward and punishment to control people’s feelings. Society controlled by hormones and virtue signals. 2+2=5 if the media subtly makes it seem like that is what society accepts - “Of course Mr Trump colluded with the Russians. Everyone knows that. He is a bad person and we can see it. Let’s leave science, personal investigation, and critical thinking out of it. All of that stuff is just white supremacy anyway. Mathematics is racist. It feels so much better to just go along. My feelings tell me all that I need to know (even though I haven’t even looked into what might be controlling them).”
Did he say “mu” or “moooo”?
Right. I think most of us would draw a line in the sand on some things even if they seem objective.
Of course thinking is involved. Whether it is subjective or objective thinking is involved. But what I am saying is, if I have a certain value, gained over time through experience, intuition, and yes, thinking, sure it might be possible to convince me to change my value via some argument - but not core ones. I mean, talk about about pedophilia and it is not going to change my mind. Even if you happen to be right, and present me with the objective argument
two problems remain.
It might SEEM objective and even be objective, but it will still only seem objective to me. Seem. And then I will have my gut revulsion of pedophilia. Since as an embodied fallible human I can always wonder if an argument about values merely seems objective, but in fact isn’t, I will not override my value.
Of course I care about what makes rational sense. You could convince me that if my value is X, but my behavior Y leads to undermining X, I am all ears. But if you come and say God says pedophilia is good, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves pedophilia is good, I will not override my revulsion. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.
Are you different?
Give me an example of an objective value. Show me that I my rational mind must accept this value as objective. We can start with something specific.
Gosh, I sound like good old Iambiguous.
Nope. I gave the specific context. I made no generalization. We are talking about values.
Can I convince you with rational arguement to like Butterscotch icecream? Choose another ice cream if you like that one. A flavor you hate. And then tell me how someone could convince you that your value is objectively wrong, when it comes to ice cream. We can start there.
Or you could choose what you value as beauty or morals.
Show me how this is done. 1) to prove that your sense of what an objective moral is objective and then 2) what you do when the behavior called moral repulses you. Give an example where you changed yourself via logical argument and decided something was objectively good. Not in some minor application way, where you don’t actually change your core values, not just when someone pointed out that if X is your core value then doing Y will help.
Nope. I am both my feelings and thinking. Given that I see no possible way to prove that value X is objective, I will not be able to convince my feelings that pedophilia is good, regardless of how good your argument is on paper. But give it a shot. Or let me know about yourself.
The word ‘betray’ is pejorative, so in fact you did say what I was displaying was wrong. You are not just observing. You are in the muck with the rest of us. Your judgments run through the whole response. Which is not a problem. I don’t think you understood what I was saying, but here you are in situ with the rest of us judging people.
Indeed.
I doubt that life can be reduced to only feeling or only thinking.
Everyone uses some sort of mix.
Karpel,
Objective morals are always the same:
Nobody wants their consent violated. Consent is always violated in zero sum realities no matter how hard we try not to violate consent.
Objective morality: we all need to get out of a reality like this. (Good)
The objective reality is that we can’t get out of this objective reality.
Therefore, one needs to adapt to the reality.
He’s also confusiong universal with objective, and making a claim he can’t prove, much as I sympathize with his project and goals. And actually people do want their consent violated. I see this all the time. They can want this because they are not unified. They are not monads. Which is sad. They even violate their own consent which they often don’t notice because they are dissociated.