Intrinsic Value

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

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    relatively, yes
    actually most standards of happiness in the material world work like that - what is it that money can buy if not the (attempted) vantage point of being free from suffering?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    9,846
    well I think I agree with greenburg there. there is no value excepting in the things that do the valuing. that means that value exists objectively, but only in a particular circumstance.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    9,846
    Okay this is starting to drive me insane.

    You say that it exists, and then that it does not exist. You say is subjective, then say there is no such thing as subjective by saying that "objectively seen value doesn't exist". First, there is nothing to do the seeing objectively (which in my opinion invalidates it as a possible model) and second, you completely contradict your assertion that it exists subjectively by saying that objectively it doesn't. If something exists subjectively, that it does so would therefore be and objective reality. It's content, what it means to the invidual exists within their mind, so it does exist. That is not to say that what they are thinking about is an accurate represenation of anything objective whatsoever.

    Meaning exists or you wouldn't understand these words. It is part of reality, though only experienced and known of subjectively. This of course hinges closely on the assumption of selfhood. Do you reject the assumption "I am."?

    If so, then we can kindly drop the subject, as we aren't really speaking.

    But anyway, since I know I exist (logically, through assuming it so) I know meaning exists, as it the very process of recording this thought requires it. Therefore, objectively meaning exists - although it seems that it only does so subjectively. Therefore, nihilism is nullified (at least to me). If those therefores don't work I call on the the whole thing where there's nothing concievable to exist that can "do the seeing", as "seeing" is necessarily subjective. "as seen objectively" just doesn't work, and I reject the hypothesis on that basis.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    wes

    how can "i am" be an assumption?
    does that not imply we have a choice of assumptions?
    perhaps even a choice of assumption and non assumption?

    that particular axiom is the basis for all others, i think.
    one cannot negotiate around it

    now
    i mentioned this before without it been commented on

    objectivity requires a plurality
    since a subjective experience has nothing as a reference point in order validate its propositions. it has no choice but to accept it as true. logic can validate the formulations but the axioms would remain resistant to any logical
    analysis

    objectivity requires a shared reality. shared being the operative word while reality, by a simple concurrence

    ??
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007
  9. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Value is in the eye of the beholder
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    true
    furthermore, that particular application and inferred meaning is hardly the province of philosophy. the determinants appear to stem from a cultural standpoint

    fads and trends come to mind
    mundane and superficial i think
    a thought reinforced by the inclusion of emotion
    the province of sub-humans
     
  11. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    That's not what I'm saying, though.

    I would say that from a human perspective, the intrinsic value of phenomena is indeterminate, not that it doesn't exist.
     
  12. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    The emotion elevates the sub to human. The emotion adds or detracts value. If you were ever in doubt the sight of the robot 'playing' a violin might point in a certain direction.
     
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    this ascription of value has some philosophical utility?
     
  14. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Why yes I believe it does.

    Do you sit with a dictionary on your lap or are you just clever?
     
  15. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Oh yes, apparently so. Or we wouldn't engage in these discussions.
    The pursuit of truth - we ascribe it value, and we engage in it.

    A philosopher should know why he is doing what he is doing. Otherwise, his mind will carry him as it pleases.
     
  16. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    May I ask, if you please to indulge, what you think philosophy is? I'm asking here (dangerous, I know) on your opinions. It very easy to study these things, get a qualification and then set oneself up as an expert. But in a thing such as philosophy which amounts mostly to conjecture about what it is to be human Isn't everyone qualified to speak even if they don't have the inlingo?
     
  17. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Therefore taking things a little further. To a lion the intrinsic value of a gazelle is 'food!'.
    To a bird the intrinsic value of a nest is 'shelter'. To a human the intrinsic value of a coin is as a token of exchange or as in a previous example a gift from a loved one. Our emotions seperate us from the other animals so that we may ascribe value other than food/water/shelter.
     
  18. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    fuck you
     
  19. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Ok for you to imply that I'm stupid but not for me to imply that you're clever. Go figure! :shrug:
     
  20. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    that is simply not the case
     
  21. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Explain yourself then!
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    bah
    nevermind
    i really should refrain from redefining the tp
    apologies wes
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    defense against the dark arts. it has to be assumed because it can't be "absolutely proven" because you're you and stuff and can't be not you to validate.

    If you wanted to drive yourself insane and probably die soon you could probably convince yourself you didn't exist - even though it'd be stupid. but it's really only and assumption because it can't be logically proven. so since the evidence seems so overwhelmingly in support of it even though I can't prove it (logically), it's assumed such that a logical basis is formed. (logic requires some assumption upon which to build)

    A classic example of someone who rejects this assumption was nameless.

    assumptions are always choices (logically)? you may not have realized you chose but still.. I assume responsibility for my mind, even in the choices it makes without me consciously choosing.

    axiom, assumption, whatever. and yeah it can be circumnavigated, but to absolutely no end IMO.

    I tend to be think of it absolutely and bear in my logical fallacy, so I think plurality is argument from authority.

    well to make any sense at all I'd agree yeah, but frame it like I said as a logical necessity.

    to me axiom and assumption are effectively the same thing.

    Hmm... again I think logically, a simple concurrence just means that we both agree as to the authority of our perspectives. Nothing saying we aren't both completely morans.
     

Share This Page