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

I don't know if you've read any of my posts on metaphysics, which are universally rarely acclaimed as brilliant. If you had, you would know that, as both R.G. Collingwood and I see it, both materialism and the understanding that humans create reality are metaphysical positions. As such, they aren't true or false, we just pick the one that works the best for us. Sometimes I'm a materialist, I think an engineer has to be. Now that I no longer have to do anything for a living, I'm more often whatever it is that I am. I guess that means I'm a pragmatist - I use what works. Pragmatism is also a metaphysical position.

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

As I see it, we are both part of the world and the world is human. One of the first threads I started here on the forum discussed whether the idea of an objective reality makes sense. My answer is the same as the one I gave earlier in this post - when I'm doing science, it does; when I'm examining our human relationship to reality, for me at least, it doesn't.

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.

To be clear, it is not my intention to take this discussion off on a tangent by making it about what metaphysics means and which metaphysics is correct. On the other hand, I couldn't explain my position without bringing it up.

Sometimes it's not always about food, water, shelter. The three requirements of human life. It's about wanting to keep said life, the desire to live it willingly and explore what avenues may or may not exist despite the possibility of death and misfortune, for the point of discovery and advancement of such, perhaps, if nothing else. The fourth factor, shared only by intelligent beings. All the money, resources, and armies of the world to protect the aforementioned become as valuable as a drop of spit if you have no desire of the future, or deem it as damned and futile. This is the parable of the gods. All men walk it, few will recognize it and avoid the detours that lead to destruction. Perhaps, this is what makes life worth living even? /shrugs

Well, I’m not sure how we ended up just exchanging worldviews rather than arguing about something substantial, but I did find that quite interesting, and I’m glad to see we are still entirely opposed on the big philosophical issues.

Saying it has value because we give it such sounds...well like lying. — Darkneos

Well, value is an inherently subjective thing, so is it an objective fact that something is valuable? No, but it is a fact that it is valuable to us, which is ultimately what we mean when we say something is "valuable". That doesn't mean that we are lying, it is just a subjective observation. There are many reasons why something is valuable to us, but frankly, that is irrelevant for this argument, simply because it is valuable to us. The reasons for value are based on our experience of reality and the subsequent desires/emotions we feel or logical conclusions we make. So, value doesn't exist because we say so, but because we genuinely feel and think so. And outside of that, absolutely nothing has value. But frankly, what more value do we need?

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

So far in this discussion, whether it is considered as more primordial than or secondary to objective aspects of the world, value has been treated independently of fact. Talk about the value of money or paintings is consideration of value in strictly quantitative terms, while ignoring or keeping constant the qualitative meaning of what it is that goes up or down in price. Banno distinguishes between the value of a shelter in terms of our attitudes toward it, our needs and desires , and the objective existence of the roof.
But what is a roof? Doesn’t it depend on our account or stance towards it? If we are photographing or drawing it for artistic purposes, what the roof is will be a function of what we are creating in the experience of it. Isnt the roof something else when we shift from an engineering to an aesthetic to a climbing stance? Aren’t all of those accounts and stances themselves values? And if so , is there any meaning , any perceptual experience of any aspect of the world which is not fundamentally valuative in the sense of representing a constructed , goal oriented point of view?

Well, I’m not sure how we ended up just exchanging worldviews rather than arguing about something substantial, — Jamal

For me, metaphysics, which is the study of worldviews, is, along with epistemology, the most substantial aspect of philosophy - the most central to the reasons I'm here.

You misunderstood. I did not say that worldviews or metaphysics or epistemology are not substantial. I said that we were not having a debate over anything substantial, but merely exchanging worldviews.

You can use the word "roof" any way you see fit, and may even use another word or no word at all. But when it rains, I'll keep a space for you under the roof.

It will be true that the shelter has a roof, even if you and I are not around to say so.

Direction of fit goes in two directions, it's an interaction. We find the things around us to be in such-and-such a way, and change them to be so-and-so.

We can change the words we use to set out how things are. And we can change how things are to match the words we use.

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

That's the answer to the OP.

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

Won't what we take as basic depend on what we are doing? What is important depends on what we want.

We can change the words we use to set out how things are. And we can change how things are to match the words we use. — Banno

Morality usually appears to be the former. Morality is about what our values should be. Slavery is immoral whether it's conventional or not (obviously).

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.

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

I value not working, but working brings sustenance materially, so it seems to me, we can value things that don't bring maintenance (not working) but also value maintenance that doesn't bring satisfaction (work).

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

Christianity is about a revolution in values. It's about redemption and forgiveness.

Christianity is... about redemption and forgiveness — frank

Boy scouts are about connecting with the outdoors; building new and existing friendships; learning new skills; and helping create a better world.

You misunderstood. I did not say that worldviews or metaphysics or epistemology are not substantial. I said that we were not having a debate over anything substantial, but merely exchanging worldviews. — Jamal

This looks like a good place to stop.

Boy scouts are about connecting with the outdoors; building new and existing friendships; learning new skills; and helping create a better world. — Banno

That's awesome.

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

Wrong.

Do you wanna.. I dunno, explain why? For the rest of us at least.

His premises/assertions (to my understanding):

A.) Biology is the study, field, or understanding (not sure which he subscribes to or would cast as most prominent) of all "things" (that breathe I'm assuming) and what is needed to placate needs or desires.

(Sure not quite as biology is more cataloguing the physical traits of a living thing. But you need to know what an organism eats, requires, what environment it is most suited for, what causes it distress aka inability to function at its "peak" or potential so.)

B.) Something one "needs" (which let's be honest people throw around the term subjectively so much it's essentially interchangeable with "wants" in this day and age) is required for life.

(This is a biological fact)

C.) Something one desires (or perhaps has been raised or made either organically or inorganically [aka you need to worship my god or ye will surely die]) is "life sustaining".

(The key phrase is "life sustaining" as in that which aids in (presumably human?) life either most prominently or in an ancillary way. Yes you could be sentenced to life in prison and have all your biological needs met but without your either ingrained or learned desires being met, perhaps one might wish to end one's life? Happens all the time.)

D.) Pleasure is the opposite of pain.

(This is debatable. Eustress is the opposite of stress. We go through both when say, we ride a roller coaster for the first time. Some people like pain, it gives pleasure. Sure a normal person wouldn't want to be punched in the face. Some would. Watching said action would give some pain, and would give some pleasure. It's very subjective.)

E.) Things of "value" (which granted has not been universally defined or of consensus in this discussion) "sustain life".

(Why not?)

it depends on what "value" we are talking about.
There is innate value of things: the energetic value of a donut (the ability of its energy to do work, the calories) . Physical values exist wether humans believe or apply value to them or not.

Socially constructed values - like fashion, art, money, authority etc only exist as actionable/behaviour influencing values because we all mutually agree that they do. The value is generated through collective desire.

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.

hence why he is wrong. Also I don’t think there are such things as learned desires.

There aren’t physical values, nothing has innate value.

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.

Come on, this is a philosophy site, WRONG is inadequate, point out the faulty reasoning, or don't comment at all.

Value is relative to biological needs and wants/desires.

No, this is simply not true. Something isn’t precious just because everyone wants it or needs it. — Darkneos

Tell that to someone dying of hunger or thirst.

We cannot escape our biological needs. So ultimately they are precious. Just because they may be currently in abundance, doesnt mean we wouldn't suffer and thus crave them in their absence.

Your health is your wealth. When you take your health for granted, other things become your wealth or lack thereof. But there isn't a single person alive that doesn't enjoy the reward of a cold glass of pure water when they need it.

What you're citing as "simply not true" about that, I cannot comprehend.

Value is relative to biological needs and wants/desires. — boagie

Fundamentally yes. I absolutely agree. However when those needs are secured, do we stop needing or wanting? I think not.

Maslows hierarchy of needs come into practice here.
When water, food and shelter and sex/intimacy are consistent and easily available, we begin to take them for granted and crave further needs and wants - like self actualisation, career prospects, luxuries, entertainment, travel, learning, philosophy etc.

The things we could not afford time for if we were preoccupied with ascertaining basic needs of survival.

It's all relative.

Value depends on what is available to you (taken for granted). If ipads are as common as muck we wouldn't value them as much as someone impoverished who has saved for months to afford it as a luxury (by their standards of living).