Intrinsic Value

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wesmorris, Dec 7, 2007.

  1. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    I am getting a sense you are leery of certainty and absolute, independent of subject, truths.

    Wouldn't this also hold for assertions of possibility?

    If I look at the above you postulate that 'for all we know' and a scenario where 'this' is a simulation. You are stating that this is possible.

    I have often wondered if this isn't a leap. Isn't this an assertion of absoluteness.

    Perhaps it is not possible. How can you decide: it is possible: given your stance - note the physical metaphor - on certainty. Isn't a statement of what is possible also absolute and about the real world out there?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Yah, as all "truths" are only held to be so subjectively (since that's the only way to have an opinion), I'd say it's worthy of skepticism.

    From whose perspective?

    I'm saying that it seems to me that it's possible, yeah. If you disagree I'd probably disguss it, but it seems silly since it's mostly that way by definition I think. As you wish.

    It's not absolute because it's said tentatively. If something substantial can be said to contradict it, the model is invalidated and adjusted to correct. Absoluteness couldn't allow such flexibility.


    Tenatively. I'd be interested to know if you think I'm thirsty or not. If I say I am, would you say I'm not? On what might you base your assertion?

    No, because it might be wrong.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Sound like a nice idea for a thread. Please link.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Thank you !

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It's not just you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This is my view as well. Objectively, value does not exist.
    Super do you then agree that "meaning" is also completely subjective and cannot be in objective reality (referring to my "Nothing really matters" thread of course

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) ?
     
  8. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
  9. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Hmm not quite.
    That the entity has a point of view suggest there is an objective reality which is imperfectly perceived. This perception is what I call subjective reality.
    Subjective perspective is something like a pleonasm to me. 'Subjective', to me, means something like 'relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.'
    Perception, thus, always is subjective and distinct from the real thing (objective reality).
    In other words subjective reality is dependent on objective reality.

    Without objective reality there is no input to result in subjective reality.
    They way I see it: Perception(Objective reality) = Subjective reality.

    See above.

    Hmm, ok.. I see. Strictly seen, I agree. But I don't think time and space have any impact on the discussion however.

    LOL no..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I put 'designed' between quotes and said that I (unfortunately) had to anthropomorphize objective reality to make the point. (limits of language I guess)

    Hmm.. we as in "I" or "the Self" is subjective, yes. But I really meant our physical bodies (naturally including all the biochemical processes going on). Think of subjective reality as the image a tv produces. The image itself is nothing more than the result of physical processes.

    Ok, it seems like you are approaching this a bit 'theistically' ? lol
    I say that if subjective really exists then objective reality must exists, or else there wouldn't be any subjective reality. Oh well see all the above stuff

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yes, but doesn't that apply to every perception ? If you follow that view you can't be sure of anything at all.

    Again, I think you are approaching the concepts of meaning and value as if they are Gods. No offense though, I just see some strong parallels.

    That makes no sense to me.. isn't that kind of circular ?

    I take you are not a theist, so I don't see why you would say "put yourself in god's position" ? Most of these claim of me are attempts to explain how I see it. It's my conviction that objective reality cannot be described, therefor it's seems as if I'm "putting myself in God's shoes" as you put it.

    Disclaimer: Some of my words might seem 'sharp' None are meant in such a way though. I'm too tired to 'nicefy' my words right now lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You are missing the point though. Objectively we are the biochemical reactions, but at the same time "we" (the result of those reactions) are subjective creatures.
     
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It's because every time I want to say something about this I have to struggle to find the words, only to find they don't exist. So I have to make do with the ones that do exist.
     
  12. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    First, the part in bold has not be proven. In other words it has not been proven that we are limited to that, or that this is the best way of talking about us, or even what limitations such a truth would have on our potential meaning. (but I don't want to get into a sidetrack on that issue).
    More importantly, I don't think it really makes sense to say that objectively there is no meaning, especially when one, most of the time, acts as if, thinks as if and most importantly between you and me, here, relates as if this is not true.

    Another way to put this is:
    if you think that 'really' there is no meaning, it seems to me that your are then missing this point that you believe in.

    That's as far as I want to go with that issue for now.
     
  13. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Of course. I didn't mean you should have used better words or other words. I think I understood what you meant.
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You are still not getting it..
    I never said it makes sense to act on the idea that there is no meaning, we are subjective creatures. I am merely theorizing on objective reality.
    As for the chemical reactions thing, thus far this is the most sensible explanation (at least to me), there is really no good alternative.
     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Ok

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Objective reality, in my view, cannot be described. Herein lies the difficulty in discussion it.
     
  16. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Yours.



    To say something is possible tends to mean that given these conditions and resources and involved entities this or that might happen or be the truth. To posit possibility isn't one building on certainties of being? (and I'm not sure about this. I just know I have found the idea of possibility strange somehow)



    Someone stating things with certainty can also change later.




    Well, let me shift this one: I am thirsty. And there is nothing tentative about this assertion on my part. Have I made an epistemological error in not being tentative? (by necessity that is, not 'in this case')


    Well absolute statements might be wrong also. I think what you mean - forgive me - is 'I am putting it forward with the proviso that it might be wrong.' But what you are putting forward that might be wrong is the absolute version, not the one involving possibility.

    It is possible I can teleport into your room.
    Is it? What makes you think that is possible?

    Well, I just mean I no way of being sure it can't happen.
    So: there is no way you can determine this. Isn't that an absolute statement? Especially if you assume it also applies to me. If that 'I' is really a covert 'we'."

    Anyway, I am exploring here. I am not sure what I've got if anything. I just find that possibility stance somehow as absolute as others, though less likely to make me scared if a bunch of my neighbors adhere to it than some absolute stances.

    edit: just realized that I find the construction 'I don't know if....' must less troubling than 'It is possible that....'
    Or your original: 'or the whole thing could....' and 'there could be no way we would know, ever...' These coulds seem very much like 'is'es to me especially when you are talking about everyone. (I understand that the sentences would be different if the verb was is: what you are sure of would be, in that case, something else.)

    Maybe that cuts to the heart of my reaction...
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
  17. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    I did get it. Another way of stating my point is: Thinking that something is true and communicating to others that something is 'the truth' are both acts. With consequences.

    I broke my word and responded so the least I can do is drop this other issue. Maybe another thread?

    Anyway now I really will drop it, whatever chemicals act up in response to a new response of yours. (meant to be playful)
     
  18. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Absolutely - the irony of this word not intended but accepted on my part.
     
  19. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Wesmorris said in another thread:
    Are you subject to this and can 'what you know' come crashing down?

    If all of what you believe is tentative can this happen to you?

    Would certainty be disruptive for you and cause a kind of rapid traumatic construction? (I am being playful here, but since you said 'everyone' I assumed you included yourself. But it seems like your tentative believing might ward off the effects of contradiction. If not, why not? If so, does this mean your house actually had a rigid foundation?)

    And a last tangential question: is this some of the motivation for your (tentative) belief system? that is 'safer'? And could you have developed a defense - nonetheless potentially correct - for your position after the fact?
    (something I think many of us, including myself, have done)
     
  20. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Ok, but it wasn't my intention to state my views as facts. Maybe I have given the impression but I think I also made clear that my views were debatable.. that's after all why we're here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I assume this is addressed at Wes ?
     
  22. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Actually I completely agree.
     
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    that which endures.
    decent criteria for intrinsic value?
    of course....conservation of energy says all endures in one form or another

    ja?
    nein?
     

Share This Page