LoopHooligan

Are values part of reality?

My question, on which I would be very interested to hear your comments, comes in two parts.

1. If the beauty of a sunset is in the eye of the beholder, not in the object perceived then are theses projected value judgements merely our imagination or are they part of reality?

2. If they are part of reality then what distinguishes them from other flights of the imagination, namely religion?

Thanks

Jamie_L

Value judgements are entirely in the minds of the person(s) making the judgements.

However, these minds are a part of reality. The processes in them are a part of reality.

Religion and religious beliefs are likewise a part of reality. The difference with religion is that the religious believer claims that what he believes in has a separate existence outside his mind. It is only the separate existence that a skeptic would take issue with.

No one (that I know of) denies that religious beliefs exist.

Jamie

Skepticos

I think your question pertains to whether or not something is valuable objectively, i.e., independent of the being who values.

The short answer to this question is no. An object is merely an object; and has inherent value only to those for whom it is valuable.

- Skepticos

LoopHooligan

Nope, I still don't get it...

So value judgements are part of reality? This seems to be what you are saying. Correct me if I’m wrong.

If so, then are not value judgments such as explosions are frightening and sunsets are beautiful as equally valid and truthful as say ‘god is good’ (not a good example I know but I can’t think of another).

As we seem to agree (maybe), that value judgements are part of reality, then is my personal definition of reality, which includes what goes on outside my head, wrong?
Otherwise religion is a reality… just not in my head.

LoopHooligan

But Skepticos this is not the way I perceive the world, to paraphrase Heidegger.
A hammer does not exist for me first as an object in the world, which I only subsequently utilise as an instrument. On the contrary, it exists first and foremost as the means by which I engage in building a shelf.

Does not reality then include my value of the object and not just its constituent parts?
Please explain further because I cannot understand how are perception of reality cannot be part of reality.

K

Those value judgements aren't valid or truthful if they are meant objectively. If they are meant "I find explosions to be frightening," "I think sunsets are beautiful," and "I think that my internal picture of God is good," then they would be perfectly valid. But if they are meant objectively, then I don't see how you could assign those statements a value of true or false. They are meaningless outside of their subjective context.

Skepticos

Loop writes:

"But Skepticos this is not the way I perceive the world, to paraphrase Heidegger. A hammer does not exist for me first as an object in the world, which I only subsequently utilise as an instrument. On the contrary, it exists first and foremost as the means by which I engage in building a shelf."

My Heidegger is a little rusty, but I remember that he wrote that our conception of the existence, or nature, of the hammer alters when the hammer breaks. When this happens, it no longer functions as a tool, but is simply a swirl of atoms lacking assignment by DASEIN. I think Heidegger's point was to show that the nature of reality is determined by the individual (oh boy, my Heidegger is really rusty).

"Does not reality then include my value of the object and not just its constituent parts?
Please explain further because I cannot understand how are perception of reality cannot be part of reality."

I think that we are talking about two different things here. Objectively, i.e., independent of the being who values, value does not inhere as a property of the object. It's just a swirl of atoms.

I would say that your values are a part of reality, just as your dreams and thoughts are. If you value X, then such a valuing is real, and thus constitutes an element of reality. But X cannot be a value independent of any being who values it. That's why I say that value is subjective (or inter-subjective), not objective.

- Skepticos

DeanWCasa

"Are 'values' part of reality?" This is a ridiculous way to ask this question. First you have to identify and define 'reality' and 'values.' The only way you can do that is as a human being, and by virtue of that assumption you must also accept existence, and as a corollary consciousness or identity, which are actually one and the same, i.e. identity is consciousness, consiouness is identity. These are basic axioms you have to accept or further dialogue is pointless (at least in today's philosophical atmosphere).

So as a human being you are asking if value-judgements are in the facts of reality. Well I certainly do not think the environment jumps out at us and says, 'Mine this mountain for ore deposits, melt them, create steel to such specifications and span this daunting gap!' We obviously bring a strict process of reasoning to the facts of reality and work to obey them in order to make our values apart of reality.

I think you are trying to confuse different levels of cogitating or not cogitating for that matter. On the perceptual level, things exist to us like they exist to an animal, on this level we can only distinguish what is readily apparent and automatic, i.e. we cannot bring in abstract knowledge or reduce the perception to sensations or whatever other classifications that count as knowledge. So the sun on this level would be an object that exists, nothing else, we would not have even grasped that it exists or ourselves for that matter. Now if you have spent a good deal of time, oh maybe centuries, in the face of this object, humans might begin to differentiate and integrate the object from other objects, noting differences and similarities to come up with an implicit, not a named idea, but a sense of something you cannot name but you dearly wish to in order to know. One day someone refers to it as 'sun.' This is a 'concept' which subsumes a great deal of knowledge all derived from sensation. It is the same thing with 'beautiful,' which is an abstract concept derived from a multitude of experiences, other knowledge, ect. On the 'conceptual' level, we begin with knowledge, and your question is on this level. This question was manufactured say through a chain that extends from the animal-like perceptual level. So this concept of 'the sun as beautiful' or 'value' as you wish to call it, is not inherent in perception and obviously not in the facts of reality, but in the conceptual understanding of the human mind.

The truth or non-truth or arbitrariness of your conceptual knowledge depends on its adherence to the perceptual level of existence. However concepts that are built on concepts like most theoretical knowledge tend to obscure the true source of their origination. This is not a problem for people with modest analytical skills since they need only to identify antecedent concepts and follow the path all the way back to the perceptual object, phenomena, ect. As for religion, or 'flights of the imagination' these are concepts vaguely based on concepts that usually are less dependent on existence and more dependent on irrational feelings. It is also called the 'primacy of consciousness,' when someone validates what they 'feel' over what they 'observe,' making arbitray concepts possible.

I hope this helps you, and puts your question in the correct light.

DeanWCasa
Out

Jamie_L

From LoopHooligan:
Yes.

All those judgements are equally valid. However, the judgements have no bearing on the reality of the object being valued. I can say 'Santa Claus is good' (to use an over-used analogy). That's a valid value judgement. It has no bearing on whether Santa Claus is a real magical elf who actually delivers presents to children on Christmas Eve.

I'll use the term "incorrect" instead of "wrong" for clarity.

Your personal definition of reality may be incorrect, or it may not be. A jealous boyfriend's definition of reality may include the fact that his girlfriend is cheating on him with every guy she smiles at. Although that personal definition is in his head, and it is a part of reality, it may or may not match what is really going on outside the boyfriend's head. It is quite possible that the girlfriend is not cheating on him at all. In that case, the boyfriend's person definition of reality would be incorrect.

Religion is part of reality. The claims of a religion may or may not be true.

Jamie

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Value-judgments are real.

They are aspects of consciousness, and consciousness is certainly part of reality.

Keith.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>