Nothing is worth the measure we give it, because worth doesn’t really exist. It is a figment of our judging minds, an imaginary yardstick to measure the imaginary value of imaginary distinctions, and one more way we withhold ourselves from the whole enchilada of life that lies before us.
something has value or meaning when it objectively does not — Darkneos
What do you mean? — Darkneos
Well, I'm supposed to be outside playing.
Take up ↪BC's point. Money only has value because we say so. Therefore money doesn't exist?
It's a stupid argument — Banno
We don't decide to give value to food and shelter, so in this case value is rooted in basic needs and desires which we don't control. — frank
But we do decide to give value (in fiat currency denominations) to even dire necessities. If you don't pay your water bill, the city will eventually cut off your supply. One could die if the happened. Tough, says the city, Tell your children to pay their bills. Ditto for heat. No money? Sorry, no food for you! Homeless? No money? The great outdoors awaits you. (Or, more likely the great — BC
It is interesting to examine the "'art' market". Jack puts paint on canvas in an organized way and takes it to a gallery. The gallery owner gives it a "value"; let's say $3,000 dollars. The factors the art dealer considers extend beyond the 'art' itself; there is the matter of income for the gallery, the future value of Jack's art work (since he is "an up and coming artist"), the 'art' market (where buyers seem to be interested in paintings of car wrecks, like Jack's), and so on. — BC
The counter argument would be that money doesn't have value, strictly speaking. — frank
Perhaps. Does it follow then that food and shelter have a value that is found in the world, as opposed to being given by us? It seems to me that the value of shelter is a consequence of our wants and needs, as opposed to being found in the brut fact of the shelter. That we "do not have control" of such wants and needs does not make them a thing found in the world.We don't decide to give value to food and shelter — frank
Perhaps. Does it follow then that food and shelter have a value that is found in the world, as opposed to being given by us? It seems to me that the value of shelter is a consequence of our wants and needs, as opposed to being found in the brut fact of the shelter. That we "do not have control" of such wants and needs does not make them a thing found in the world.
All this by way of saying that a desire for shelter is an attitude we adopt towards shelter, as opposed to a discovery we might make about shelter.
One cannot point to the value of a shelter in the way one can point to it's roof. — Banno
but I don't remember adopting an attitude towards a roof in the rain. That need has just always been there. — frank
We don't decide to give value to food and shelter, so in this case value is rooted in basic needs and desires which we don't control. — frank
Sure. My point was simply that it's an attitude - and suggesting that this is common to all values. I'm not suggesting that attitudes are always chosen. I'm not sure wha that would mean.
Direction of fit is not so much about choice. — Banno
And where do those basic values come from? Instinct? Learning? Experience? Physiological reaction? I guess all of those tossed together into the blender of our cognitive machinery. — T Clark
It could be that to the extent we value rightly, we're in tune with the Mind of God. — frank
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God. — Verse 4, Tao Te Ching - S. Mitchell translation
all the little parts of your body act like they're in a community and they work all day long to make the community endure — frank
We don't decide to give value to food and shelter, so in this case value is rooted in basic needs and desires which we don't control. — frank
This can be extended to cover all needs and wants, whether basic or not. All of this valuing, whether based purely on need or additionally on conventional observance (“deciding”), is real. Things really are valuable, in our hands or in the market. — Jamal
On the other hand, in a sense we do decide, through the market, to put prices on them, i.e., they do not have prices purely by virtue of their use to us, but also by virtue of their inclusion in a social practice of exchange on the basis of money, which is based on conventional behaviour—playing the game. After all, they can be provided without charge, if we decide not to put prices on them. — Jamal
So the question to the OP is: how much more real does value have to be to be really real? — Jamal
The point of this thought experiment is not to show that values don't exist, but rather that values depend on an image of an external, unchanging grounding. When I say "external" I mean external to the human community. — frank
This would explain the reaction of “wow, so money doesn’t exist!” when someone realizes it’s conventional — Jamal
But the point is that the existence of something “merely” as a social practice or as an intersubjective attribution does not entitle someone to say it’s just an illusion. — Jamal
And somewhat against your point, I don’t think this depends on its being rooted in something basic, unless we say that everything we do is rooted in something basic (which is a fair point but doesn’t say much). — Jamal
Yes, I agree, but in my time here on the forum, a feeling has grown that it doesn't make sense to talk about reality, or the world, or meaning without understanding that all of these things are human. You can't separate us from the world or the world from us. — T Clark
Although I'm sympathetic to the idea that our concepts are not ultimate reality, illusions, that doesn't work in our daily lives unless we are sages. The Tao Te Ching is clear that the multiplicity of the world is human. It's ours. It's real. It's where we live and work. — T Clark
I'm not talking about what we do, I'm talking about what we value — T Clark
And I do think that goes back to basic human nature, something built into us. Instinct I guess, as modified by personal and social experience and our mental capacities. For what it's worth, I've been reexamining these beliefs recently. apokrisis and many others don't see it that way. They see our values and behavior more as a reflection of our generalized conceptual capabilities processing our experiences. (Forgive me if I mischaracterized your position Apokrisis) — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.