Value is always subject to a criterion or scale and is generally contextualized though personal experience or a community. Like anything human 'value' is an artifact or perspective we employ to makes sense of and manage our environment. If one harbors no preconceptions of 'ultimate reality' or 'absolute truth' (themselves value systems), I don't find any concerns.

If one harbors no preconceptions of 'ultimate reality' or 'absolute truth' (themselves value systems), I don't find any concerns — Tom Storm

What do you mean?

something has value or meaning when it objectively does not — Darkneos

Like money? Fiat currency (which is in your wallet right now) only has value because we say it has value. If we stopped subscribing to the value of fiat currency, we would suddenly be in very deep economic doo doo, which is objectively really, really bad.

What do you mean? — Darkneos

If you don't believe in capital T truth then by definition all value systems are perspectival human artifacts.

Which means that values comprise of individual and community agreements (and disagreements) and they are still of immense significance since they organize and delineate culture and society.

Objective value is an oxymoron. All value is subjective, in order for something to have value it has to be valuable to someone (or a value someone possesses, depending on how you use the word “value”).
This doesnt make value an illusion, nor a lie. What your OP does is expose that objective value is a non-sensical pursuit.

Value exists because we value things.

Yep. We give things a value.

Direction of fit.

And that's it? So the quote is wrong?

Well, I'm supposed to be outside playing.

Take up 's point. Money only has value because we say so. Therefore money doesn't exist?

It's a stupid argument.

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

The counter argument would be that money doesn't have value, strictly speaking. It represents value in a standardized way. Without a functional economy where a peice of currency can be traded for food, shelter, etc., the currency couldn't be given value by fiat (that's roughly true, anyway).

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.

If value can be given at whim, it can just as easily be removed at whim, and so is insubstantial. That's an approximation of a common intuition about it, anyway.

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.

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

I agree that fiat currency, in itself, has value because it can be exchange for objects that meet whims, desires, and dire necessities, like water.

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 urban sidewalk awaits you,)

You have a PhD in chemistry; you're 35, very well employed at Total Toxicity Chemical Corporation. One day you get run over by a bus. Your heirs sue. The court decides that your worth in future earnings is $2,000,000. The homeless wretch who had no money for housing was run over by the same killer bus (at the same time you were). The court decides his future earnings were not quite enough to cover the costs of a pauper's burial. His heirs get a bill.

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

You're saying we do have a choice in whether we value necessities because we choose to value our own lives. I'll buy that.

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

It's all psychological. At present, the world's banking system is threatened by a devaluation of "floating" profit and loss. It's virtual value. It's not real, but it really threatens people's well being.

This virtual value is basically what banks create. It's possible because of the fundamentally abstract nature of money.

The counter argument would be that money doesn't have value, strictly speaking. — frank

Good reply. Sure, there's heaps more to unpack here. Money is an institution, only possible because of our place in a linguistic community.

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.

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

You're saying that since the value of shelter isn't a part of the shelter, but rather an aspect of our relationship to it, value is dependent on us. That's true, but I don't remember adopting an attitude towards a roof in the rain. That need has just always been there.

The only way to be in a position to choose would be if I'm prepared to go without necessities and die. Then I could say I gave the shelter its value when I decided to live. But having decided to live, there I am, bound to my needs just as surely as I'm bound to the rules of this world.

but I don't remember adopting an attitude towards a roof in the rain. That need has just always been there. — 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.

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

I think this is the heart of the matter. We can argue about why I like Chinese food or why I vote Democratic, but there are a set of foundational values I think are much more basic. Security, safety, maintaining what we need to live. Family. I'm tempted to say that all the less basic values can be traced back to those more basic ones, but I'll have to think about that.

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.

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

I agree. I was reading the OP as having to do with choice. I may have misunderstood.

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. But coincidentally, 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. Each one gives freely to the others what it can, and takes back in turn. Maybe all this good will bubbles up into the realm of the psyche as value.

It could be that to the extent we value rightly, we're in tune with the Mind of God. — frank

I see values related to God as less basic, although I know a lot of people disagree with that. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

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

Sounds like comuhnism to me.

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

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.

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.

So the question to the OP is: how much more real does value have to be to be really real?

But the quotation in the OP is taken out of context, unattributed, and ambiguous, so it’s difficult to determine what it’s actually saying.

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

I think all the values we think of on a daily basis - the value of money, status, expensive toys, etc. have their source in those basic values. The manifestations may represent themselves in the market or our fantasies, but that's not where their root is.

I don’t have any great objection to that view, and it’s also consistent with my post. In fact, I used the word “additionally” specifically to imply it.

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. 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).

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?

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

Price reflects the relationship between supply and demand. Demand will be there whether we arrive at a price or give it away. I think demand is fundamentally rooted in biology.

So the question to the OP is: how much more real does value have to be to be really real? — Jamal

The statement I read into it could be thought of in terms of the private language argument.

In the argument, replace the individual who struggles to maintain meaning with a private language with a community that struggles to maintain the meaning of values which are all chosen by the community itself. Since the community can change its values on a whim, there's no way to take any particular set of values seriously.

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.

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. But I’m not convinced. Specifically, by the “external” part.

This would explain the reaction of “wow, so money doesn’t exist!” when someone realizes it’s conventional — Jamal

Money does require grounding in the form of a powerful state or a stable bank, both of which stand apart from the general population, much as a God stands apart from humanity, guaranteeing values.

I recently came across a young Chinese person on the internet who was excitedly exclaiming that the yuan should replace the US dollar as the primary currency of global trade. We can't just choose that, though. We've tried and it doesn't work. It will change when China overtakes the US as the heart of the global economy.

Yep, I’m interpreting “decide”, “choose”, and “because we say so” loosely, to refer to things that humans agree on whether consciously or implicitly by participation in society.

The idea that the state or the bank has the role of the “external” grounding is interesting.

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

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. 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.

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

I'm not talking about what we do, I'm talking about what we value. 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)

There's no doubt I am walking a bit on thin ice. My understanding of cognitive science and psychology is not technically extensive. A lot of what I believe is based on introspection and observing people.

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

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.

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

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.

That said, I’m totally ignorant of the Tao Te Ching.

I'm not talking about what we do, I'm talking about what we value — T Clark

Just as we don’t want to separate person and world, neither should we separate valuing from doing. What we do is about what we value and vice versa. That assumption underlay my post.

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

I’m not sure I see the difference to be honest. I can go along with both.

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.