I agree that you can’t separate us from the world, because we’re part of it, but I don’t agree with what I take you to really mean, viz., that humans are in some way constitutive of reality. I’m a kind of materialist, despite Kantian sympathies. — Jamal
Again, you seem to be saying two different things: that we are part of the world, and that the world is human. I agree with the first part, and only agree with the second part to the extent that we are reciprocally bound to the rest of the world such that we see it, conceptualize it, and act in it necessarily in our own ways, owing to our cognitive endowments and social behaviour. But it’s not like there were no dinosaurs before humans existed. That’s a Schopenhauerian antinomy that I think we can avoid. — Jamal
Just as we don’t want to separate person and world, neither should we separate valuing from doing. — Jamal
Saying it has value because we give it such sounds...well like lying. — Darkneos
Just as we don’t want to separate person and world, neither should we separate valuing from doing.
— Jamal
I guess I just think that values come first. Values tell us what we need and want. Based on that, we go and do stuff. — T Clark
Well, I’m not sure how we ended up just exchanging worldviews rather than arguing about something substantial, — Jamal
That's the answer to the OP.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
Won't what we take as basic depend on what we are doing? What is important depends on what we want.The hard question here might be: what is basic? Is it essential, eternal, and universal? Is it the species lowest common denominator or would you also include values that are culturally relative? — Jamal
The satisfaction of need is life sustaining, that of desire is also life sustaining; in the sense of bringing the organism pleasure which is opposite of pain. So, things of value are life sustaining things. — boagie
Yep. I'd add that moral statements differ from mere preference in that they do not just say what I want, but what you ought to want as well. I might think I ought to give 10% of my income to charity; that's a preference. It becomes a moral statement when one says everyone ought give 10% to charity. Morality, and ethics, are about other people. — Banno
Biology is the measure and meaning of all things and what is valued is what is either needed or desired by said biology to satisfy needs or desires. The satisfaction of need is life sustaining, that of desire is also life sustaining; in the sense of bringing the organism pleasure which is opposite of pain. So, things of value are life sustaining things. — boagie
Something is precious or valuable when everyone needs it - water, oxygen, food (these are linked to innate physical values in science).
Something is also precious/valuable when everyone (or the majority at least) wants it - money, fame, authority, knowledge etc.
Something is worthless when it has no use to us, or nobody wants it, or both. — Benj96
No, this is simply not true. Something isn’t precious just because everyone wants it or needs it. — Darkneos
Value is relative to biological needs and wants/desires. — boagie
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.