Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Adding Value Is What It's All About

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Adding Value Is What It's All About

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

ADDING VALUE IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT

It occurred to me - and of course I may be wrong - that a basic concept for ethics could be added value. The ethical objective is to add value to the situations in which one finds himself or herself.

To live smoothly within the various groups (with which we find ourselves involved) we behave civilly and show courtesy and manners. This is one of the ways we add value to social interactions.

Some writers here have argued that that is all there is to ethics - that all ethics is Social Ethics. One Forum view insisted that how we express respect in the groups to which we belong - the degree of closeness we have to our families and our other social circles - is the proper study for ethics.

Hue-man, among others, is aware that an individual's decision whether to take recreational drugs, or to mutilate himself, or to be a grumpy cynic, or to be a cheater and conniver; or - in contrast - whether to eat so as to stay healthy; are ethical concerns as well. This is the field of Individual Ethics. Shall I make self-improvement a goal? Shall I aim for (moral) goodness? Do I want to take on responsibility? Do I care if others endure needless suffering? And if so, can I, or will I, intervene in some way to help relieve that suffering? In other words, Do I aspire to add value?

This area of ethics - Individual Ethics - logically takes priority over Social Ethics because if one is a sadist, a psychopath with some violent tendencies, or if a person takes glee in cruelty, this will definitely affect how a person will behave in a group.

In the layman's mind, ethics has to do with conduct in one's profession or associations, and - many believe mistakenly - ethical standards are restrictive of a person's natural tendencies to cheat, steal, cut corners, bait-and-switch in his business dealings, and get away with as little output for as much return as he can. Some believe it is human nature to be manipulative, because they see it all around them every day. [The latter, however, is a narrow perspective: rural villagers in Africa, say, or in China, are communal-minded and live in a kind of loving, sharing harmony. Once they migrate to a city they acquire greed and insecurity.]

I propose that adding value be the one norm, or operating principle that we need to have to incentivize and to motivate us in the ethical direction.
{It already is an imperative in business among the enlightened. When applied to a subset of Ethics known as Business Ethics it implies that an owner, or a proprietor, or a CEO, would give equal attention to profits, to customers, to employees and staff, to the community where it does business, and to the environment. Consideration to "the bottom line", to profits, enables the firm to stay in business; consideration to the other factors enables it to be fully ethical. And yes, I know there are differences between business and the moral life of individuals: I am not conflating the two.}

With regard to motivation, self-definition plays a large role: If one defines himself as one who loves or enjoys x, then it will be so much easier to accomplish x than if one does not. "x" here may be, for example, exercise; or doing math; or complimenting others sincerely at every opportunity. All of these may be good ways of adding value. Your Self-development can add value by your becoming a role model for other members of society. The more you add value to yourself, the more you can contribute.

This has been just a glimpse at some of the applications of what may turn out to be a central principle for Ethics. The notion of adding value may be just what we have been searching for, as we seek to know the truth in this field of study known as Ethics.

@deepthot,

Value-adding theory, or Value Theory, is an outstanding work.

Well done.

@ValueRanger,

ValueRanger;76439 wrote:

Value-adding theory, or Value Theory, is an outstanding work.

Well done.

Thank you, ValueRanger for you views on my humble effort at making sense of, and attempting to synthesize the various known schools of ethics, and the contributions to this Forum which seek a central principle that unifies the field, such as, for example, the thread of Patriarch recommending win/win relationships and the mutual benefit that follows. To seek such relations is still another way of adding value. And I agree with you on the importance of differentiation, especially, when applied to ethics, of self-differentiation.

Ethics, as I define it, is a body of knowledge, just as is Physiology/Anatomy, or Psychology/Sociology. Ethics is a perspective on human beings, in which they are regarded in a certain specific way -- namely, as infinitely-valuable treasures, not to be defiled; as organisms with a wide range of conceptions, perceptions and experience, capable of deep feelings and deep thoughts; as creatures having a story to tell ...if one succeeds in getting them talking ..about their life, including their inner-life.

Dr. Jonathan Haidt, does resarch in Moral Psychology, and has a Moral Foundations page in which he describes universal human nature - whether it is based upon our evolutionary and tribal past, or whether we have brain modules for the way we behave is not the main topic here. But we do tend to behave in certain ways and to believe certain prevalent ideas. Science (especially psychotherapy) has shown this. Procrasination, perfectionism, perversions, fetishisms, over-generalizations are very common among us human beings.

There are ethical fallacies such as racism, sexism, rankism, speciesism, regarding persons as mere things -- and thus it's okay to abuse them, or discard them; or, even worse, treating them as numbers -- and thus it's okay to erase them.

For details, see pages 30-32 HERE: http://www.wadeharvey.com/Ethics_A_College_Course.pdf

If ethics has a purpose, I would say it is for an indiviidual to integrate his/her outer self with his inner Self; to eventually become aware that we are all one, in a sense. The purpose is to match up with the highest ideals for a human being; to become Cosmic Optimists, to become our humble self, our compassionate self, to gain in empathy, to become aware of where our true interests are: to have Enlightened Self-interest, viz., to know that what helps you, helps me ...if it really helps you ....and conversely.

To say it another way, our purpose is to create, and add, value. If we want to gain value in life we will pursue ethics and morality. The most valuable life is the most meaningful life. We will not want to just drift along, nor to vegetate; we will want to create a meaningful life. Finding out how - and doing it - will be the fulfilment of the purpose.

I'd like to hear your views on all this. Any questions, comments or critiques?

A moral philosopher to whom I sent a link to the first post in this thread, requesting a critique, wrote the following: "I agree with everything you have expressed in your latest writing effort.
However, the question that arose as I was reading was as follows:
How does one achieve this added value? One must be aware of him/herself and be detached from the negative thoughts, impulses, and negative conditioning from external sources.
Therefore, one needs to know how to work on him/herself.

Maybe the next step is to put together some ways in which people can practice working on their being so they can achieve what you have beautifully expressed."

He is advocating self-improvement as a way of adding value to the world. There are many sites on the internet which have something to say in this regard. They give free lessons on how it is done. I'd be glad to email to any reader who requests it a list of such links arranged by topic of interest.

A second reviewer remarked: "you have explored an aspect of ethics that many don't consider. You are correct that adding value is really what it should be about. To simply follow a social norm is not necessarily additive. Adding value makes an individual and society better."

That's what they said. What say you?

@deepthot,

deepthot;76584 wrote:

That's what they said. What say you?

As I've stated in other posts, the consistent mathematical progression of mutually value-adding exchange in our give-and-take reality, is the foundation of sustainability.

Person A does 5 or 6 six behaviors efficiently, in a modular scale, as does Person B, C, D, E, and F. Each person does the other's weaker set, stronger. So, therefore, a sliding scale of self-interest is the highest and best civilization.

It is when the Golden Ratio gets too expanded or contracted, that entropy accelerates. A too-free civilization invokes its opposite in skewed distribution of essential needs, and a too-constrictive civilization invokes too much of a vacillation in needed aesthetics.

Aside from studying Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, this is a good read.

@deepthot,

To complete this analysis of value-added ethics, it seems two questions suggest themselves.

First, how is the value-to-be-added determined?
Second, in the case of general values (say of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how and who determines which set of values wins?

@jgweed,

jgweed;77021 wrote:

To complete this analysis of value-added ethics, it seems two questions suggest themselves.

First, how is the value-to-be-added determined?
Second, in the case of general values (say of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how and who determines which set of values wins?

Individual needs hierarchies in constant, proximal negotiation.

If B lacks sequitur from A, then C.

@jgweed,

jgweed;77021 wrote:

To complete this analysis of value-added ethics, it seems two questions suggest themselves.

First, how is the value-to-be-added determined?
Second, in the case of general values (say of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how and who determines which set of values wins?

Greetings, jigweed

Thank you for the good questions.

The more people know about values and the existential hierarchy of values that is generated by Formal Axiology the easier it will be for them to determine which is the most appropriate value to add to the specific situation. That hierarchy is summed up by the formula: I > E >S. Intrinsic Value trumps Extrinsic Value which, in turn, trumps Systemic Value. We can't go wrong if we bring love into the situation, if we affirm life, or joy, or create a random act of beauty or kindness.

The hierarchy implies that all the theories and ideologies in the world aren't worth as much as one material thing; and all the things in the world aren't worth as much as one individual life. I will list some of the Intrinsic values in a new thread which I will name The Meaning of Life. They include integrity, liberty, fellowship, community, responsibility, involvement, empathy, etc.
For details, see the paper The Measurement of Value by R. S. Hartman. Here is a link to it: The Measurement of Value

You ask about the value to be added. If when you enter a room you radiate a healing blessing, and people there feel like a plant that has been watered, you are adding the right value.

You further inquire: "...in the case of general values (say of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how and who determines which set of values wins?"

Before I can answer that beyond what has been said above, it would help to know what specific conflict you have in mind. I need a specific case to analyzee. I believe I have already given you the guidline clues so that you can answer this yourself. There are though two books I could recommend:
R. M. Kidder, HOW GOOD PEOLE MAKE TOUGH CHOICES: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living (NY:Simon & Schuster Fireside Books, 1995). See especially pp. 220-221.
Wayne W. Dyer, THERE'S A SPIRITUAL SOLUTION TO EVERY PROBLEM (NY: HarperCollins, 2001)

@deepthot,

hi deepthot-
i read wayne dyer years ago, he's a good self-improvement and self knowledge source.
i had the thought that an act can be good and add value without being virtuous. would you say that moral, ethical and virtuous are the same? for instance, bill gates gives money to charity and gains goodwill (which he needs) from the buying public, tax deductions, and let us hypothetically suppose that these are his only motivations. has he done a virtuous deed? he has certainly done a good deed-and it is not unethical or immoral-or is it? if he is deceiving the world that is immoral-if he is deceiving himself that is immoral.
suppose he has the motivations i mention and he clearly states that so there is no deception. has he done anything moral or ethical with his contributions?
just wondered what would be your opinion on that...

and i personally feel that the most virtuous acts will benefit the doer much more than anyone else, because he is becoming more integrated internally and with the outside world as well, which is about the best thing i can imagine.
i know that is included in what you have been writing about, if not here in this thread then in other areas, if i understand you correctly.

@deepthot,

I was going to post this separately as a new thread, but in keeping with a suggestion I received from Jigweed I will post it here, as it does speak to the question of how to add value. I am well aware that there are nihilists among us who claim that (to them) life has no meaning. Perhaps one of the members here can suggest a better meaning of human life than the one I offer here. I'd be very happy to consider it. The question was raised: "Just how do we add value?" I would reply, It is by fulfilling your purpose:
THE MEANING OF LIFE

The meaning or purpose of life is to express love, truth, beauty, creativity, and individuality.

More exactly said, the meaning of human life -- which is the form of life most evolved toward pure meaning (value) -- is to express Goodness.

What is Goodness? It is the highest value; it is a synergistic package of qualities such as integrity, uniqueness, amity, fidelity, purity, loveability, radiance, empathy, spirituality, (or soul.) It is reality, morality, veracity, and fellowship. It is family-spirit and devotion to community.

It is diversity within unity. It is also responsibility and liberty. It is following one's conscience. It is autonomy. It is freedom and joy and bliss.

Let us not overlook that, in addition, Goodness is serenity combined harmoniously with authenticity. It is thanksgiving and celebration. In short, it is everything good.

To merge with Goodness, to serve it, to unite with it, to express it on this Earth, is the purpose of human life.

Think about it.

@deepthot,

Kate Douglas, Feature Editor of The New Scientist journal in Great Britain, has written this article which I am sure members of this Forum will find to be of deep interest. It appeared in the August 5, 2009 edition of the magazine, in issue #2720. I believe you will be impressed once you read this over:

"If you believe there is no such thing as altruism, you are in good company. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins writes that we must "try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish". Even if we are nice to members of our family, that doesn't count because there is a pay-off, at least in biological terms: they share some of our genes, so by helping them we indirectly further our own genetic immortality. Meanwhile, other acts of seeming altruism are often just reciprocity. If you scratch my back, then I scratch yours - no matter how much later - that's not selfless either.

This all makes good evolutionary sense, since spending time and energy helping someone without any return puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the survival stakes. The only trouble is that in recent years evidence has amassed that people do commit acts of genuine altruism. In experimental game-playing situations, for example, many people will share money with a stranger even when there is nothing in it for them. This has led biologists to conclude that altruism is a part of human nature. What they cannot decide is how or why it evolved.

People with a certain version of a gene called AVPR1 are more altruistic than the average

According to Robert Trivers of Rutgers University in New Jersey, pure altruism is a mistake. He argues that natural selection favoured humans who were altruistic because in the small, close-knit groups in which our ancestors lived, altruists could expect reciprocity. However, in our globalised world where many of our interactions are with people we do not know and may never meet again, our altruistic tendencies are misguided: they are unlikely to be reciprocated and are therefore maladaptive.

Others disagree. They accept that altruism cannot be a product of genetic evolution, but argue that ever since our ancestors began to shape their own environment through culture, we have evolved by a process of genetic and cultural co-evolution. As well as favouring traits that benefit individuals, this can also select traits that benefit one group over another - and that is how altruism evolved. Altruism is crucial for social cohesion. And groups that are more cohesive are more likely to survive in interactions with other groups.

At a mechanistic level, gene-culture co-evolution makes sense. There are clear social mechanisms that promote altruism: for example, fear of punishment, reputation building, ideas of fairness and inculcation by religious or authority figures. There are also indicators that altruism has biological roots. Brain imaging reveals that it stimulates the reward centres of our brains. What's more, it would appear that people with a certain version of a gene called AVPR1 are more altruistic than the average. Their brains are more susceptible to the effects vasopressin, a feel-good hormone implicated in social bonding (Genes, Brain and Behavior, vol 7, p 266). Of course some might argue that if random acts of kindness give us a mental buzz, then this is not pure altruism after all."
(emphasis added).

Let us know of your impressions of this, including of its revelations of the latest facts concerning the crucial topic of 'altruism' -- a topic central to Ethics.

@deepthot,

Responding to the ethics segment:

I believe that no one on earth knows or can know the meaning to our existence.

I think that everyone should have a chance to figure it out for themselves. Therefore, I think that everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect someone else's ability to do whatever they want and vice versa.

The phrase "do whatever they want" makes it sound like a free for all... but once you start to consider the amount of things that would affect someone else's freedom, you find out that's it's definitely not a free-for-all.

I think this applies to your post in many ways because it's essentially one overruling stipulation- all the rest (ie Business ethics, etc) are just subcategories.

And, it turns the whole thing upside down because it's not social ethics or anything like that that's a result of adding meaning, but one big rule that's a result of nobody knowing the meaning.

LT M

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 04:02 AM ----------

I want to add that my last post is still lacking some (read a lot) because what i'm really saying in that last sentence is "that's the only FAIR thing to do when nobody knows the meaning" or "the only CIVIL thing to do when nobody knows the meaning"

But what is FAIR or CIVIL??

LT

:perplexed:

@tcycles710,

Yes, it is one (over-riding) rule BUT it is a dangerous one, for people are bound to misinterpret it or fail to consider the - sometimes subtle - impact on others that their "doing anything they want" may have.

Everything you do has some impact on the delicate web-of-life.

When you write "everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect someone else's ability to do whatever they want" have you considered the possibility that you may be living in a dream-world?

I guess you aren't married yet.

p.s. This is not meant to be personal; no offense is intended. My critique is in regard to the difficulty of implementing your proposed principle. Acceptance of the self-image: "I am devoted to Goodness" is not necessary in order to add value to one's life, but it sure helps.

The thread proposes adding value in all the interactions in which you engage. What is wrong with that? Isn't it an adequate principle??

@deepthot,

deepthot;80486 wrote:

THE MEANING OF LIFE

The meaning or purpose of life is to express love, truth, beauty, creativity, and individuality.

More exactly said, the meaning of human life -- which is the form of life most evolved toward pure meaning (value) -- is to express Goodness.

What is Goodness? It is the highest value; it is a synergistic package of qualities such as integrity, uniqueness, amity, fidelity, purity, loveability, radiance, empathy, spirituality, (or soul.) It is reality, morality, veracity, and fellowship. It is family-spirit and devotion to community.

It is diversity within unity. It is also responsibility and liberty. It is following one's conscience. It is autonomy. It is freedom and joy and bliss.

Let us not overlook that, in addition, Goodness is serenity combined harmoniously with authenticity. It is thanksgiving and celebration. In short, it is everything good.

To merge with Goodness, to serve it, to unite with it, to express it on this Earth, is the purpose of human life.

Think about it.

I'm going to have to play the curmudgeon here (an easy role for me) and say:

I've thought about it, and it's really not that compelling.

This reads more like a corporate mission statement: lots of subjective ideas, vague language, and sprinkled with some New Age jargon for good measure.

But that's just me. I'm not in the best of moods today. It's all very pleasant to think about, but individual results and mileage may vary.

Honestly,
Tock

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;92847 wrote:

I'm going to have to play the curmudgeon here (an easy role for me) and say:

I've thought about it, and it's really not that compelling.

This reads more like a corporate mission statement: lots of subjective ideas, vague language, and sprinkled with some New Age jargon for good measure.

But that's just me. I'm not in the best of moods today. It's all very pleasant to think about, but individual results and mileage may vary.

Honestly,
Tock

Greeting, TickTockMan

You write "lots of....vague language..."
I did not write that post (on THE MEANING OF LIFE) in symbolic logic nor in mathematical language; so yes, the words are both vague and ambiguous. Isn't that the nature of most philosophy (which is written in a tongue, in ordinary language)? In this case, it is the English tongue.

Technical language and jargons are Systemic values.

Everyday, social-economic, conversation falls into the Extrinsic value dimension.

And metaphor, poetry, silence, private, personal 'whisperings of sweet nothings', intimate names (such as 'Honey-pie') -- all are Intrinsic values.

I wrote in Extrinsic terms about an Intrinsic subject, namely GOODNESS.
It is another name for the highest of high values.

If one devotes herself to that goal, s/he will be part of the answer rather than part of the problem. S/he will be living her ethics. She (or he) will "know which way is up."

@deepthot,

Hi Deepthot - can't differ with you on the sentiment, but where does the motivation come from? What is the energy source to power this from? I am trying not to sound evangelical but already am. Let's see. There is a principle in reality you can tune into which will provide an abundance of energy for this. This is the Great Principle, the Tao, the Way, whatever that is. The whole task is to find where the connection is for that energy source and connect to it. So- not disagreeing with you in the least. But it is clear that this is not an easy thing to understand, find, or articulate, so that maybe is the challenge.

Actually - this is going to sound pretty corny - there is an amazing 'energy wave' going through the human sphere at this very moment. Talk about the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. There is something absolutely amazing going on in the area of the transformation of consciousness. It is like this enormous wave of energy. That's all I can say. I have been doing some sitting practise again, and writing a lot on the forum, but there is something else happening that is just incredible at the moment. (Oh, and the U.N. passed a resolution today to rid the world of atomic weapons. Maybe they're on this wave, or maybe that is the wave I am on. But whatever it is, it is big.)

@deepthot,

deepthot;93465 wrote:

You write "lots of....vague language..."
I did not write that post (on THE MEANING OF LIFE) in symbolic logic nor in mathematical language; so yes, the words are both vague and ambiguous.

Then how am I supposed to decipher what you are talking about? My definitions are likely to be entirely different than yours.

deepthot;93465 wrote:

Isn't that the nature of most philosophy (which is written in a tongue, in ordinary language)? In this case, it is the English tongue.

I wouldn't think so. I think most philosophers would go to great lengths to make sure that
their thoughts are clearly and concisely stated, so as to avoid unnecessary confusion. Unless, of
course, they are trying to trick someone into believing something.
Propagandists, telemarketers and con men on the other hand, often use vague and ambiguous language to help achieve their goal.

deepthot;93465 wrote:

And metaphor, poetry, silence, private, personal 'whisperings of sweet nothings', intimate names (such as 'Honey-pie') -- all are Intrinsic values.

"Honey-pie" is not any sort of value at all. It is either a pie made from honey, or it is a term of endearment. Depending on accent, it can even be construed as sarcastic, as in, "nice work, honey-pie. Now we're covered in tar."

Ambiguous words are words that can have more than one meaning/interpretation.
Vague words are words whose meaning is unclear.
Some words, like "value" can be both vague and ambiguous.
It's very confusing.

deepthot;93465 wrote:

I wrote in Extrinsic terms about an Intrinsic subject, namely GOODNESS.
It is another name for the highest of high values.

But what does that mean?

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;93595 wrote:

Then how am I supposed to decipher what you are talking about? My definitions are likely to be entirely different than yours.

I would very much like to see your definitions of those terms, in order to compare them with mine; and also to enable the readers to decide which are better than which. I have, in my books - links to which are offered in my other threads and posts - most carefully defined "value", "good", and "better" (not to mention: "morality", "war", "peace", "ethical radius", "multiple selves", etc. ...all of which have been defined as bonuses. Some of the definitions given have employed symbolic logic and/or math.)

TickTockMan;93595 wrote:

... I think most philosophers would go to great lengths to make sure that their thoughts are clearly and concisely stated, so as to avoid unnecessary confusion....

I devoutly wish that it were true that - as you say - "most philosophers go to great lengths to make sure that their thoughts are clearly and concisely stated, so as to avoid unnecessary confusion." My experience in reading them is the opposite of what you claim. [There are some exceptions, such as William James; John Dewey; Robert S. Harman among others.]

What follows is a statement in Meta-Philosophy. The words in a natural tongue, such as English, or German (or French or Spanish) when defined in terms of other words in a spoken tongue just chase around the dictionary: that is to say the definitions are circular. One word is 'clarified' in terms of another, equally vague word.

TickTockMan;93595 wrote:

"Honey-pie" is not any sort of value at all. It is either a pie made from honey, or it is a term of endearment. Depending on accent, it can even be construed as sarcastic, as in, "nice work, honey-pie. Now we're covered in tar."

To my mind every usage you mention is a value: i.e., would be found to have some value by someone. When I spoke of Intrinsic Value (which when applied to words results in Metaphor) I thus did not mean the literal pie made from honey -- but meant instead anything but that. While I was thinking of it mainly as a term of endearment, I also include the sarcastic use, and any other connotations "depending on accent."

TickTockMan;93595 wrote:

Ambiguous words are words that can have more than one meaning/interpretation.
Vague words are words whose meaning is unclear.
Some words, like "value" can be both vague and ambiguous.
It's very confusing.

While I agree with your understanding of what the vague words and the ambiguous words are, I totally disagree as to how vague the term "value " is - considering the fact that R. S. Hartman defined it, in context, and distinguished it from "valuation." Yes, it has synonyms such as prizing,, grading, preferring, liking, etc., but "value", per se, is not that vague nor ambiguous in the Science of Value (a.k.a. Formal Axiology.)

It is defined - in terms of Transfinite Theory of Sets - as a one-to-one correspondence between a concept's intension and the properties possessed by a member of that concept's extension (a referent in its class of application.) To the degree that there is a matching between an item's (or in the case of ethics - between a person's) standard and its (his or her) properties there is value present. When something (or someone) lives up to its ideal (in the conception of the valuer, the judge, the appraiser) we see value there. Something has value when it exemplifies its concept. This is a simplified way to talk about Hartman's now-classic Axiom of Value. When the correspondence is one-one and onto, then goodness is present. The correspondence is between the set of attributes (property-names, descriptors) comprising the intension - its meaning, for the purposes of logic; and the set of properties - which the five (or more) senses can perceive .

Thanks for a good question. I trust my answer will lead you to further research and exploration, eventually enhancing the axiological frame of reference. {For example, Dr. James Weller, in Vol. 2, 2009, of the Journal of Formal Axiology: Theory and Practice has suggested that fractal geometry may be the ideal means to explicate value notions.}

@deepthot,

deepthot;93785 wrote:

I would very much like to see your definitions of those terms, in order to compare them with mine; and also to enable the readers to decide which are better than which.

Wouldn't this create the danger of even more subjectivity? Which, by the way and semantics aside, is the problem I had with your Purpose of Life Statement in the first place?

However, if you insist, I'd ask that you provide me with a list of the exact words you would like me to define, so I won't mistakenly define the wrong word and risk appearing foolish.

deepthot;93785 wrote:

I devoutly wish that it were true that - as you say - "most philosophers go to great lengths to make sure that their thoughts are clearly and concisely stated, so as to avoid unnecessary confusion." My experience in reading them is the opposite of what you claim. [There are some exceptions, such as William James; John Dewey; Robert S. Harman among others.]

I didn't necessarily say that their statements were clearly and concisely stated. Only that I would think that was their intention, in most cases (unless they were purposefully speaking in riddles, which has been known to be done to snap a student out of a particular paradigm they may be locked into).

I imagine that Descartes thought (no pun intended) that he was being very clear when he stated "cogito, ergo sum," and look at the furor that little three word remark has stirred up over the years.

I'm speculating also that (in no particular historical order) Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and so on and so on, thought they were being clear and concise as well, although some of their philosophies contradicted one another, and many others proved to be utterly incorrect.

deepthot;93785 wrote:

What follows is a statement in Meta-Philosophy. The words in a natural tongue, such as English, or German (or French or Spanish) when defined in terms of other words in a spoken tongue just chase around the dictionary: that is to say the definitions are circular. One word is 'clarified' in terms of another, equally vague word.

So where did you get your definitions? Are any of the definitions you reference immune from what you are saying here?

Are we just to give in to vagueness? What's your point here?

deepthot;93785 wrote:

To my mind every usage you mention is a value: i.e., would be found to have some value by someone. When I spoke of Intrinsic Value (which when applied to words results in Metaphor) I thus did not mean the literal pie made from honey -- but meant instead anything but that. While I was thinking of it mainly as a term of endearment, I also include the sarcastic use, and any other connotations "depending on accent."

To your mind, maybe. It would be a generalization if you assumed that it would be the same to my mind. Experience shapes interpretation, many times, and I would hazard a guess that my experiences with the world are different than yours, and vice-versa.

Which just makes my point, that if someone has to go back and explain what they meant, they are guilty of using vague, and or ambiguous language which leads to misinterpretation and confusion on behalf of the reader. In this case me, as I am not even sure what your explanation means.

deepthot;93785 wrote:

While I agree with your understanding of what the vague words and the ambiguous words are, I totally disagree as to how vague the term "value " is - considering the fact that R. S. Hartman defined it, in context, and distinguished it from "valuation." Yes, it has synonyms such as prizing,, grading, preferring, liking, etc., but "value", per se, is not that vague nor ambiguous in the Science of Value (a.k.a. Formal Axiology.)

It is defined - in terms of Transfinite Theory of Sets - as a one-to-one correspondence between a concept's intension and the properties possessed by a member of that concept's extension (a referent in its class of application.) To the degree that there is a matching between an item's (or in the case of ethics - between a person's) standard and its (his or her) properties there is value present. When something (or someone) lives up to its ideal (in the conception of the valuer, the judge, the appraiser) we see value there. Something has value when it exemplifies its concept. This is a simplified way to talk about Hartman's now-classic Axiom of Value. When the correspondence is one-one and onto, then goodness is present. The correspondence is between the set of attributes (property-names, descriptors) comprising the intension - its meaning, for the purposes of logic; and the set of properties - which the five (or more) senses can perceive .

Thanks for a good question. I trust my answer will lead you to further research and exploration, eventually enhancing the axiological frame of reference. {For example, Dr. James Weller, in Vol. 2, 2009, of the Journal of Formal Axiology: Theory and Practice has suggested that fractal geometry may be the ideal means to explicate value notions.}

But what if I'm not smart enough to understand all this science and formal axiology and stuff? What if I'm just some plain old ordinary guy who is trying to find some meaning in life? Am I doomed to take someone else's word for what my life should mean? Something I can write down on a little card and keep in my wallet to take out and read when I get confused? Like a scripture, or something?

I mean, all this math and fractals and axioms and referents . . . talk about sucking the life out of . . . well, life. It seems very cold, somehow.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your reply, but I'm still not buying it.

I still often consider that maybe there is no real meaning to life.

Tock

@deepthot,

there is, if you say there is. But you have to believe it.

@deepthot,

One of the things that I have noticed, there are certain writers who really do not know when they are not actually using complete sentences. Relative words, to be understood, must reside in a context where that which they are the difference between must be stated.

For example the most popular is true and false.

What is truth? The state of being true. What is true? Two or more things are said to be true to each other, when, by some means of measure, no difference exists between the two measures.

For example, since words are conventional, if we are indeed using language, a statement is true when predication is the inverse function of abstraction.

One thing cannot be true, it always takes two, and true is a statement of non-difference in accordance with some standard of measure.

Many mystics write whole discourses, like the one here, where none, or almost none, of the relative terms indicate any actual terms being related. They are popular with those who like to think, that they think.

What they do for the reader is simply allow full range of imagination, and not feel the discomfort of being guided into areas of thought unfamiliar to them.

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Adding Value Is What It's All About

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Adding Value Is What It's All About

Quick Links

My Account

able2know