Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pnx]

I think what TSTwizby said was that value is something that is assigned to something that is capable of doing something we want it to do, gasoline is valuable because it can power a car around.

In addition he seems to be saying that if there's nobody around who wants to use the gasoline then it doesn't lose value simply because we have no desire to use it.

[TSTwizby]

That's one way of looking at it. I guess the simplest way to put it would be that what I'm trying to do is suppose that there is a means of assigning value to actions which is objective.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But your supposition is baseless.

[Valid_Dark]

I came here to see a doodle, I see no doodle here.

[Zrk2]

I think the jist of this question boils down to what is value? Is it objective or subjective?

Personally I think value is subjective to what one wants. If you really want something it will be worth more to you. As such nothing has any value without a conscience to value it. Prior to that it merely is.

[TSTwizby]

I came here to see a doodle, I see no doodle here.

Here you go.

.

The koala is being philosophical. The object is a plunger.

I think the jist of this question boils down to what is value? Is it objective or subjective?

Personally I think value is subjective to what one wants. If you really want something it will be worth more to you. As such nothing has any value without a conscience to value it. Prior to that it merely is.

I'm not exactly questioning whether value is objective or subjective, more trying to create a definition of value which can be objective or subjective depending on how it is applied, and then considering the consequences of considering objective value.

[Pnx]

Well since value is assigned base on our wants and needs, and our wants and needs are very subjective, it seems like that's pretty difficult.

[Frumple]

You'd... be a bit better off using a different word, then. Or, even better, using separate words for the objective and subjective aspects. Physical property is probably the closest word we've got to that former bit, in concept. Though that doesn't particularly mean it's close in any meaningful way. I'd almost say axiom would be closer, really, if you were aiming for something more fundamental, but looking for objective axioms is a bit of a fool's quest.

Value requires an observer, something to evaluate it. Things that can be valued is either utterly subjective (completely conditional to the concept system it's being considered through -- even truth values, ferex, depend on the logic system they're being applied within*) or infinite (and thus effectively meaningless, as you can't differentiate it from anything else).

*Wait, no, no. I think that may be a terrible example. Though I'm not sure. My somewhat tired mind is trying to tell me that a "truth value" and a "value" are fully separate concepts.**
**Which may be part of the problem if there's two or more conceptually distinct sorts of value running around. Hrm. Tired, think later.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

even by your definition value would be subjective. you're just expecting the subject to be something transcendental, but you seem to be afraid of calling it a god. for something to have value for the universe or whatever, it would have to have a speciffic goal

[darkflagrance]

That's one way of looking at it. I guess the simplest way to put it would be that what I'm trying to do is suppose that there is a means of assigning value to actions which is objective.

There're can't possibly be one, at least one arrivable at by human beings. By definition anything we know and perceive is subjective, even the value of our actions. Any belief that the values we hold are objective is merely a form of propaganda used to motivate us by others yet beholden to other subjective values.

Any philosophical system you come up with that creates a register for objective value remains subjective because all I have to do is deny its axioms, and you cannot prove its objectivity.

[lordcooper]

This is just textual masturbation.

[TSTwizby]

Well since value is assigned base on our wants and needs, and our wants and needs are very subjective, it seems like that's pretty difficult.

I'm trying to provide a definition for which that does not have to be true.

You'd... be a bit better off using a different word, then. Or, even better, using separate words for the objective and subjective aspects. Physical property is probably the closest word we've got to that former bit, in concept. Though that doesn't particularly mean it's close in any meaningful way. I'd almost say axiom would be closer, really, if you were aiming for something more fundamental, but looking for objective axioms is a bit of a fool's quest.

Value requires an observer, something to evaluate it. Things that can be valued is either utterly subjective (completely conditional to the concept system it's being considered through -- even truth values, ferex, depend on the logic system they're being applied within*) or infinite (and thus effectively meaningless, as you can't differentiate it from anything else).

*Wait, no, no. I think that may be a terrible example. Though I'm not sure. My somewhat tired mind is trying to tell me that a "truth value" and a "value" are fully separate concepts.**
**Which may be part of the problem if there's two or more conceptually distinct sorts of value running around. Hrm. Tired, think later.

You may have a point about it being the wrong word, but you misunderstand what I am doing. I am not searching for a new axiom, I am adding a new axiom to the system. In any case, the word used is not important provided I get my meaning across, which doesn't seem to be possible at the moment.

even by your definition value would be subjective. you're just expecting the subject to be something transcendental, but you seem to be afraid of calling it a god. for something to have value for the universe or whatever, it would have to have a speciffic goal

What about my definition requires it be subjective?

That's one way of looking at it. I guess the simplest way to put it would be that what I'm trying to do is suppose that there is a means of assigning value to actions which is objective.

There're can't possibly be one, at least one arrivable at by human beings. By definition anything we know and perceive is subjective, even the value of our actions. Any belief that the values we hold are objective is merely a form of propaganda used to motivate us by others yet beholden to other subjective values.

Any philosophical system you come up with that creates a register for objective value remains subjective because all I have to do is deny its axioms, and you cannot prove its objectivity.

I have already acknowledged that, even in the case that such a thing existed, it would be empirically indeterminable, and indeed took that as an assumption in my original post. What I am talking about is whether or not I should act as though such a system existed, whether or not it actually does. And what you said about axioms is true of any axiomatic system. I can decide to not accept the parallel postulate. Does that make Euclidean geometry subjective? How about other axiomatic systems, like field theory, or for that matter all of mathematics? Or folding paper?

This is just textual masturbation.

There seem to be an awful lot of people involved though...

[Askot Bokbondeler]

the closest thing I can get to a definition to this kind of 'value' or 'mattering' is that it is the most generic addition to a logic system which assigns a quality to actions which any specific action may or may not have (or alternately, that different actions have to varying degrees) and adds to the system an axiom stating that the choice of actions which maximises said quality is preferable to one which does not. The quality itself is the 'value' or 'quality', and which actions are assigned that quality are the 'what' in 'what matters'.

it can only be preferable if there is a subject to prefer it.