Reply
Mon 16 Mar, 2009 04:46 pm
Objective reality exhibits purpose while our rational faculties project value onto these purposeful states.
Religion = value
Science = purpose
Empirical reality is only manifest through understanding, ie, the subjective experience of causality of matter (objective reality). Causality is intentional and exhibits purpose, but lacks value.
Every object found empirically exhibits at least one contextually functional property. That is, it has function with which it relates to its surroundings (context). It is objectively purposeful, in that it relates to objective reality as a part to the whole.
The value-concept is the threshold of human consciousness; it is what is lacking in the so-called "lower" animals who exhibit self-awareness but do not reach the complexity of human cognition.
It can be reasoned, then, that because value is meaningless in objective reality, the attribution of value to an object must take place at some point between experience and the formation of belief. As explained by Schopenhauer in his The World as Will and Representation, "with the exception of the basis of pure logic, all rational knowledge has its origin not in reason itself, but, having been otherwise gained as knowledge of perception, it is deposited in reason, since in this way it has passed into quite a different method of cognition, namely the abstract."
It is in the "depositing" of experience into the structures of reason that value is first attributed to an object. It is a function of our cognitive faculties to assign value to objects. As experience compounds and beliefs are acquired, a person creates a chain of value between objects, thereby "filling in" her a priori value-concepts with raw experience and creating in her mind a sense of the way things "ought" to be--ie, a conception of "right" vs. "wrong" ie, Morality.
The constructs of morality result in Ethics. The a priori moral function gives rise to the attribution of value to Being itself. Ethics is the extension of a subjective a priori value concept onto metaphysics, ie, the attribution of value onto Being. From this concept of life being valuable arises the perceived "duty" to acknowledge the value of life itself, and by extension the lives of others. Given that we have no access to observing the contextual purpose of Being itself, it becomes an anomaly and we can only stand in awe as to its value.
From this awe emerges a sensus divinitatis. God is identical to the reflection of the sensus divinitatis into the abstract realm of conception. Thus, God is identical to this perceived value of life, aka Ethics, and any conscious action intended to preserve or corrupt this value is spiritualized. Humans cannot contextualize their attribution of value to Being, therefore we appeal to a deity or deities even though the deity to which we appeal is simply a reflection of our mind's own projections on reality. Historically speaking, as social organization sophisticates, ethical codes emerge. Because morality emerges from the collision of a priori structures of value-attribution with subjective experience of empirical reality, and because God is cast in man's image as a reflection of this, deity-worshipping religions emerge around the ethical codes.
When enough resources are centrally amassed and coercion is introduced, ethical code becomes law. Therefore, government is emergent from ethics, though not identical to it, as various levels of social organization can be observed among "lower" animals who do not have the property of value-attribution.
@rhinogrey,
Why do we assign value to objects?
@nerdfiles,
What do you mean when you say that the deterministic and causal nature of reality has intention and purpose?
I agree that people utilize the concept of God as a way of attributing value and purpose to our circumstantial and situational universe, among their other uses for the concept.
I also agree that government and law is related to ethics, but some people believe that the first states or national governments arose out of the desire to dominant and authorize people of lower classes.
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:What do you mean when you say that the deterministic and causal nature of reality has intention and purpose?
I'm working on a paper that may make this much clearer, but I've basically extended the property of intentionality to all physical objects. That is to say, once an object X becomes physical it takes on a functional property *P such that X is "about" *P insofar as X is simultaneously not-about not-*P. Thus, the purpose of any given physical object X is defined by its functional property's contextual relation to surrounding objects.
For example, a rock is a rock insofar as it has a functional property *P that makes it a rock and not a wooden stick. That rock, in its objective context, becomes "about" that property *P which defines its function as a specific substance within an objective context.
Therefore, the purpose of objects is given in nature, while the value attributed to those purposes is a construct arising out of a priori human cognitive faculties.
Quote:I also agree that government and law is related to ethics, but some people believe that the first states or national governments arose out of the desire to dominant and authorize people of lower classes.
Only by assigning value to objects do social classes arise, due to the gap in resources that emerges.
@rhinogrey,
rhinogrey wrote:I'm working on a paper that may make this much clearer, but I've basically extended the property of intentionality to all physical objects. That is to say, once an object X becomes physical it takes on a functional property *P such that X is "about" *P insofar as X is simultaneously not-about not-*P. Thus, the purpose of any given physical object X is defined by its functional property's contextual relation to surrounding objects.
For example, a rock is a rock insofar as it has a functional property *P that makes it a rock and not a wooden stick. That rock, in its objective context, becomes "about" that property *P which defines its function as a specific substance within an objective context.
Therefore, the purpose of objects is given in nature, while the value attributed to those purposes is a construct arising out of a priori human cognitive faculties.
Only by assigning value to objects do social classes arise, due to the gap in resources that emerges.
I understand what you're saying about the function of an object, but what if the object has no function? A rock on the beach just sits there and has no real function.
The word purpose means "something set up as an objective or end to be attained". In order for an object to have a purpose it must have cognitive awareness of its self or a mind must assign purpose to the object. This is why humans have used the idea of God as a way to assign purpose to a universe without one. The events in the universe are due to the situational and circumstantial forces that determine them. The events in the universe are not intentional because like purpose, intent also requires the subjectivity of the mind and the awareness of the self. I do think that you're on the right track with the functional properties of an object, but I think that your usage of the words purpose and intent are corrupted. An objects function and an objects purpose are not synonymous, at least not in this context.
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles wrote:Why do we assign value to objects?
For the same reason we assign value to anything. For emotive and prescriptive reasons.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace