What Is Value?

[barbarianhorde]

Im new here and I have one main question. What is value? How can value be defined?

[Nick_A]

Im new here and I have one main question. What is value? How can value be defined?

I see I may fall victim to a barbarian horde. Well better that than a democrat.

As I see it there are two sources of values: objective and subjective. Subjective values are created by Man while objective values are part of the universal structure which sustains the function of interacting relative consciousness within our universe.

Which one most interests you?

[surreptitious57]

The value of something is a subjective measurement of a particular property
The value can be social - cultural - aesthetic - artistic - philosophical - moral
The property can be a type of art - an idea - a structure - an object - a belief system

Value is exclusively subjective because it is not at all dependent on either consensus or reason
It is something beyond price or function - something that cannot be defined by such limitations

[barbarianhorde]

Im new here and I have one main question. What is value? How can value be defined?

I see I may fall victim to a barbarian horde. Well better that than a democrat.

Aint that the truth.

As I see it there are two sources of values: objective and subjective. Subjective values are created by Man while objective values are part of the universal structure which sustains the function of interacting relative consciousness within our universe

Which one most interests you?

Well sir Nick what interests me is actually the fact that you dare to make such a distinction. Because in all my time on other forums Ive not encountered a single specimen of human who dared to suggest that there are objective values. Well, maybe one or two, but they were not exactly forthcoming with their logic.

So yeah, actually Im vey interested in discussing these. We all know about human values.

What is your understanding of objective values, how can they be known and how can we know they are objective (please dont say "its in the Bible" because Ill be asleep the next moment) and more urgently, what are they?

I for one happen to be very religious, and I believe that some values for me, if I wish to continue to exist with my soul intact, are objective. But thats just to make it known that Im no postmodernist or other type of solipsist.

[barbarianhorde]

The value of something is a subjective measurement of a particular property
The value can be social - cultural - aesthetic - artistic - philosophical - moral
The property can be a type of art - an idea - a structure - an object - a belief system

What about physical?
Oxygen is of great value to me.

Value is exclusively subjective because it is not at all dependent on either consensus or reason

It rather seems to me that value which is dependent on consensus is subjective, because it can be discussed. Whereas to debate the value of oxygen to any of us would be fruitless.

Another angle here might be to say that the manifest subjective (the subject, the metaphysical monad, i.e. the pure perspective) is the only absolute.
Which would be a statement underwritten by Relativity.

It is something beyond price or function - something that cannot be defined by such limitation

I think value can be very well understood at the hand of its function.
But we need to look at function all the way down the rabbit-hole.

What is the most crucial function of the subject?

[Nick_A]

Im new here and I have one main question. What is value? How can value be defined?

I see I may fall victim to a barbarian horde. Well better that than a democrat.

Aint that the truth.

As I see it there are two sources of values: objective and subjective. Subjective values are created by Man while objective values are part of the universal structure which sustains the function of interacting relative consciousness within our universe

Which one most interests you?

Well sir Nick what interests me is actually the fact that you dare to make such a distinction. Because in all my time on other forums Ive not encountered a single specimen of human who dared to suggest that there are objective values. Well, maybe one or two, but they were not exactly forthcoming with their logic.

So yeah, actually Im vey interested in discussing these. We all know about human values.

What is your understanding of objective values, how can they be known and how can we know they are objective (please dont say "its in the Bible" because Ill be asleep the next moment) and more urgently, what are they?

I for one happen to be very religious, and I believe that some values for me, if I wish to continue to exist with my soul intact, are objective. But thats just to make it known that Im no postmodernist or other type of solipsist.

I will explain the concept of objective value superficially to start. No sense in going into depth if the concept is absurd for you. If it makes sense to me doesn't require it making sense to you. No harm no foul. I'm weird and I admit it. Heck I'm a Simone Weil admirer. What could be worse for many?

Anyhow, as I understand it, the concept of objective value begins with the question of "being." Objective value is defined as the measure of relative being so at some point a person has to have an idea of what being is and how it is distinct from non-being. For now lets define being as existence. For being to be what defines objective value there must be a scale of relative being. People know it as the Great Chain of Being.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God............................

The universe is structured on levels of reality. The objective value of a given level of being is determined by its vertical distance from the Source of Being. The being of a dog has a higher objective value than a tree because the qualities of trees exist within animals. Dogs and trees exist on the same level of reality but differ in their quality of being which defines their level of reality. Objective value is defined as the middle between the quality of being directly above and below it.

Once a person becomes open to the concept of being and the hierarchy of values within the Great Chain of Being, it answers a lot of questions impossible without it.

Objective value is a measure of relative being while subjective values are interpretations of the experience of being or existence.

[jayjacobus]

The value of 27 geese and 4 goats cannot be specified unless there is a frame of reference for value. The usual frame of reference for value is money but it could be something else. It could be colors if different colors had an abstract meaning relative to themselves. If red is two blue and 1/2 green (etc.) then colors can be used to relate value of geese and goats.

[bahman]

Im new here and I have one main question. What is value? How can value be defined?

Value is a property that allows us to order things accordingly.

[barbarianhorde]

I will explain the concept of objective value superficially to start. No sense in going into depth if the concept is absurd for you. If it makes sense to me doesn't require it making sense to you. No harm no foul. I'm weird and I admit it. Heck I'm a Simone Weil admirer. What could be worse for many?

I like this Simone Weil from what I see.

Anyhow, as I understand it, the concept of objective value begins with the question of "being." Objective value is defined as the measure of relative being so at some point a person has to have an idea of what being is and how it is distinct from non-being.

This is definitely the case.
Already way ahead of the herd here; knowing (how) to formulate the problem is rare.

For now lets define being as existence. For being to be what defines objective value there must be a scale of relative being. People know it as the Great Chain of Being.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual.

Yes -- everything that is possible by virtue of the nature of the already actual.

The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute.

Yes - good; it shares at least one value.
By which I mean one thing that is crucial to it.
Except, this value might be the exact reverse; like two adjacent things might and, if they are cosmologically adjacent, likely do require each other.

According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God............................

Could you elaborate on the nature of the bares type of existence? Do you mean a hydrogen atom? Or a photon?

The universe is structured on levels of reality. The objective value of a given level of being is determined by its vertical distance from the Source of Being. The being of a dog has a higher objective value than a tree because the qualities of trees exist within animals.

Ah here I find disagreement.
A dog doesn't possess the same mechanisms of photosynthesis, doesn't possess the same sap, doesn't harbour the same power of pressures that exist in a tree - I am not a believer of such linear ranking of beings.

In the episteme of cognition the only standard for a hierarchy is ones own place in it.

Dogs and trees exist on the same level of reality but differ in their quality of being which defines their level of reality. Objective value is defined as the middle between the quality of being directly above and below it.

Hmm, so here we differ. I do not believe the part can have a view of the whole. So one can only establish value at ones own junction.

Once a person becomes open to the concept of being and the hierarchy of values within the Great Chain of Being, it answers a lot of questions impossible without it.

Could you indicate a question which has been answered in this way? I do not want to outright reject your model as a lot of sound thought has apparently gone into it.

Objective value is a measure of relative being while subjective values are interpretations of the experience of being or existence.

I can agree to this definition as being at least pertinent to the question I asked - you define value in terms of a hierarchy of reality. So the most objectively valuable being is the being which is most real by any standards.

[Nick_A]

Bbh

For what it is worth, I appreciate that these observations haven’t provoked the negativity that they often do so we can discuss ideas.

According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God............................

Could you elaborate on the nature of the bares type of existence? Do you mean a hydrogen atom? Or a photon?

From another link on the chain of being: This chart describes the hierarchy. It could be taken further for example to describe atoms within atoms but the chart is sufficient to describe the visible world

http://faculty.grandview.edu/ssnyder/12 ... 0chain.htm

Indeed, each link in the Great Chain of Being represented a distinct category of living creature or form of matter. Those creatures or things higher on the Chain possessed greater intellect, movement, and ability than those placed below. Thus each being in the Chain possessed all of the attributes of what was below plus an additional, superior attribute:

God: existence + life + will + reason + immortality + omniscient, omnipotent
Angels: existence + life + will + reason + immortality
Humanity: existence + life + will + reason
Animals: existence + life + will
Plants: existence + life
Matter: existence
Nothingness

As an aside it is normal for people to believe we are alone in the universe which is just silly. How can something so enormous and intricate only exhibit one quality of life? The angelic realms and the demiurge are just common sense.

The universe is structured on levels of reality. The objective value of a given level of being is determined by its vertical distance from the Source of Being. The being of a dog has a higher objective value than a tree because the qualities of trees exist within animals.

Ah here I find disagreement.
A dog doesn't possess the same mechanisms of photosynthesis, doesn't possess the same sap, doesn't harbour the same power of pressures that exist in a tree - I am not a believer of such linear ranking of beings.

But from the point of view of the above chart the dog is capable of will the tree lacks. It is what defines value to universal existence

In the episteme of cognition the only standard for a hierarchy is ones own place in it.

Yes, but suppose this place can change by evolving from one quality of being into a higher? If it can it would explain the purpose of the essence of religion

Once a person becomes open to the concept of being and the hierarchy of values within the Great Chain of Being, it answers a lot of questions impossible without it.

Could you indicate a question which has been answered in this way? I do not want to outright reject your model as a lot of sound thought has apparently gone into it.

Here are two examples. How do we explain miracles? Levels of reality provide a realistic explanation of a miracle. From this perspective a miracle is a phenomenon normal for a higher level of reality taking place at a lower..

Another more controversial example is the idea of Man’s conscious evolution. Most agree that mechanical evolution has taken place on earth. People can debate that the great living machine called organic life on earth was an intentional action but the point is that once the great machine begins to function it doesn’t require consciousness.

The hypothesis of conscious evolution asserts that Man is unique to life on earth in that it can make the transition from mechanical life serving a mechanical “necessity” and conscious life serving a conscious purpose. Simone Weil describes what I mean:

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”
Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

How elegant! She describes animal life including animal Man as a cosmic necessity – a creature of reaction. She wrote of a higher conscious quality normal for conscious Man. This is our potential for the evolution of human being. Conscious Man has higher objective value than animal Man. Conscious Man is closer to the source of our being and also capable of consciousness animal Man as a creature of reaction has in potential. This difference describes objective value.

[Dontaskme]

Im new here and I have one main question. What is value? How can value be defined?

Value can be defined as nothing.

.

[Eodnhoj7]

Im new here and I have one main question. What is value? How can value be defined?

Basic assumptions that imprint our ability to assume, or the connection of one assumption to another with that connection of assumptions forming our identity as a "form".

For example I assume killing is bad (or good).

That assumption forms the perspective when I come across a life or death experience which I must further assume.

[Eodnhoj7]

Im new here and I have one main question. What is value? How can value be defined?

Value can be defined as nothing.

.

As a context in itself...yes.

However as the cycling of assumptions, considering all values are the repition of assumptions that form our awareness, in itself it is a form that give structure to our identity and how we assume.

Even then it is an empty context, like the circle, but this cycling of assumptions is the voiding of void or the assumption of assumption, thus inherently natural.

The assumption of assumptions can be called meditation, reflection or prayer. This circular identity, as empty, directs how we assume reality given certain presented contexts.

For example I'd I meditate on "no killing" it becomes the empty context in which I allow reality to be imprinted on me so when a situation of life or death occurs that "form" of reasoning effectively determines how I will be imprinted under that situation.

To not assume killing the person is to effectively never to perceive that degree of reality thereby it cannot be imprinted as a pattern or "sin" in perception.

[barbarianhorde]

Bbh

For what it is worth, I appreciate that these observations haven’t provoked the negativity that they often do so we can discuss ideas.

According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God............................

Could you elaborate on the nature of the bares type of existence? Do you mean a hydrogen atom? Or a photon?

From another link on the chain of being: This chart describes the hierarchy. It could be taken further for example to describe atoms within atoms but the chart is sufficient to describe the visible world

http://faculty.grandview.edu/ssnyder/12 ... 0chain.htm

Indeed, each link in the Great Chain of Being represented a distinct category of living creature or form of matter. Those creatures or things higher on the Chain possessed greater intellect, movement, and ability than those placed below. Thus each being in the Chain possessed all of the attributes of what was below plus an additional, superior attribute:

God: existence + life + will + reason + immortality + omniscient, omnipotent
Angels: existence + life + will + reason + immortality
Humanity: existence + life + will + reason
Animals: existence + life + will
Plants: existence + life
Matter: existence
Nothingness

As an aside it is normal for people to believe we are alone in the universe which is just silly. How can something so enormous and intricate only exhibit one quality of life? The angelic realms and the demiurge are just common sense.

The universe is structured on levels of reality. The objective value of a given level of being is determined by its vertical distance from the Source of Being. The being of a dog has a higher objective value than a tree because the qualities of trees exist within animals.

Ah here I find disagreement.
A dog doesn't possess the same mechanisms of photosynthesis, doesn't possess the same sap, doesn't harbour the same power of pressures that exist in a tree - I am not a believer of such linear ranking of beings.

But from the point of view of the above chart the dog is capable of will the tree lacks. It is what defines value to universal existence

In the episteme of cognition the only standard for a hierarchy is ones own place in it.

Yes, but suppose this place can change by evolving from one quality of being into a higher? If it can it would explain the purpose of the essence of religion

Once a person becomes open to the concept of being and the hierarchy of values within the Great Chain of Being, it answers a lot of questions impossible without it.

Could you indicate a question which has been answered in this way? I do not want to outright reject your model as a lot of sound thought has apparently gone into it.

Here are two examples. How do we explain miracles? Levels of reality provide a realistic explanation of a miracle. From this perspective a miracle is a phenomenon normal for a higher level of reality taking place at a lower..

Another more controversial example is the idea of Man’s conscious evolution. Most agree that mechanical evolution has taken place on earth. People can debate that the great living machine called organic life on earth was an intentional action but the point is that once the great machine begins to function it doesn’t require consciousness.

The hypothesis of conscious evolution asserts that Man is unique to life on earth in that it can make the transition from mechanical life serving a mechanical “necessity” and conscious life serving a conscious purpose. Simone Weil describes what I mean:

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”
Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

How elegant! She describes animal life including animal Man as a cosmic necessity – a creature of reaction. She wrote of a higher conscious quality normal for conscious Man. This is our potential for the evolution of human being. Conscious Man has higher objective value than animal Man. Conscious Man is closer to the source of our being and also capable of consciousness animal Man as a creature of reaction has in potential. This difference describes objective value.

Hey Nick

I might not agree with the absoluteness of your hierarchy, but I agree with the type of criteria. And I also know there is much truth in the "obedience" bit - though again I wouldn't be too comfortable with making such absolutist proclamations myself, I can certainly say Ive experienced my share of the supernatural and it is most definitely a form of obedience that seems to be the only compass for navigating it. Though such obedience (to God), strangely, is in my case always a complete and utter rebellion against ruling human orders, as well as against any obedience I might have that relates in any way to meekness.
God detests the meek, or at least he detests meekness in me. Yet again this makes sense as of course a dog is meeker than a human and a plant is relatively even meeker.

All in all a great set of replies, thank you.

[Nick_A]

bbh

All in all a great set of replies, thank you.

Thank you to you to. Since I'm on a roll I may as leave you with one more observation.

I've tried to show intellectually the basis for the premise of objective value. But the experience of objective value is beyond the limits of associative thought. The experience of objective value for a human being takes place in a person's conscience which has become atrophied in many of our species so must be awakened. Unfortunately most cannot differentiate between subjective morality and objective conscience. To them they are the same.

1954
“We will be destroyed unless we create a cosmic conscience. And we have to begin to do that on an individual level, with the youth that are the politicians of tomorrow…. But no one, and certainly no state, can take over the responsibility that the individual has to his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 141. Conversation in Summer of 1954)

Since we have become closed to the experience of objective value society has become limited to arguing subjective morality. Einstein was right but my experiences with what happens in society as a whole convinces me that objective conscience will only be experienced by a small minority insufficient to alter the course of what must happen without it.