What are "values"?

[NigelW]

I'd like to share my perception on what values are and, if possible, be corrected.

 

Values are measured by your actions.

 

So if you change your actions, you can change your values.

 

I value language because I use it every day to survive.

 

I value truth because I'm asking for help in my understanding.

 

I value other people's perspective because I am asking for it.

 

 

It may a view that is too simple, but I would like feedback.

 

Thank you,

Nigel

[Kevin Beal]

No, I think that's a good description.

 

I think that technically though, a value describes the estimated worth of something as compared to another thing. I value your pen more than I value my five dollars, for example. I value spending time watching TV and rubbing my bloated hairy belly, but I value making a living more, so I get up and wash myself and drive myself to work.

 

The "because" in each of your examples either reference how you measure that estimated worth (language enables me to survive), or pointing to the evidence that you do in fact value it (value other people's perspectives because I'm ask for it). Both can lead to the other.

 

I can notice that I value something because I do it and only then later discover how I make that judgment of it's worth, or I can reason my way toward understanding it's worth and then act consistently with it.

 

I don't know if that helps at all. Just some thoughts I had.

[NigelW]

Yes, I think the comparison is important, for sure compared to not.

 

If I compare an action in the past to the effect today, I can see how worth can be determined. (Insert farming metaphor)

 

I can also see how reasoning my way toward understanding somethings worth and acting consistently can show that I value something. It would be the reverse of the above. Like a neighbour explaining to me how awesome his crop was this year and how to get the same results. Amirite?

 

Hmm, not sure why I'm so curious about this topic. I feel like a kid when I talk about simple topics like this. Hah! It's nice to get some feedback. Most people I ask about values either start talking about nonsense or look at me wide eyed and change the topic.

 

Thank you for your thoughts Kevin!

[Kevin Beal]

I think it's an interesting topic

 

I think that when people talk about having good values, they are talking about a rational and healthy estimation of the worth of a thing. Like, because I have a decent understanding of cause and effect across larger segments of time, I can forgo something instantly gratifying in exchange for something that will be ultimately much more gratifying (like farming!). Similarly, I have a decent understanding of ethics and a capacity for empathy so I value actions which are virtuous over actions which are more comfortable / familiar.

 

I suspect that if we were able to take all of the things a person values relative to each other and were able to judge it healthy or not, we could see whether or not the person really values themselves. And I think that is a big part of where depression and low self esteem comes from.

 

I really like Nathaniel Branden's sentence completion exercises because they are all about getting you to think about what your values are, and it has done a lot for my own self esteem to think about what my values are and act toward them.

 

So, I think it's an important area of discussion. Definitely worthy of exploration.

[NigelW]

And by good values you mean actions/ habits that produce a healthy result? Ofcourse! That makes perfect sense.

 

I've honestly never understood what postponed gratification was. When I was a child, I remember thinking of it as a form of torture! (kidding)

 

Is virtue always uncomfortable? Can you think of a metaphor for this one?

 

Well if I wasn't taught how to clean my room or persuaded to, but was bullied into doing it and the events were random, then it would make sense that I wouldn't clean my room.

 

I will save that link and try that exercise in the morning.

 

I agree that it's important and thank you again!

[cynicist]

Simple truths are the best kind. I think you are correct: action reflects values. It has to, since we need a way to determine a specific one from the almost unlimited number we can perform. What other way do we have than by our preference?

[Kevin Beal]

Is virtue always uncomfortable? Can you think of a metaphor for this one?

Well, I think so. There's probably something I'm not considering, but there is this quote of Stef's that I really like "virtue, like a muscle, grows in resistance". Which I think is true.

 

A definition of virtue that I like starts at a bare minimum that you don't do any evil. And then I think from there rationality and honesty constitute virtuous behavior.

 

I really hate things like racism, but if I were to speak out against racism around where I live, I would meet no resistance. Everybody pretty much agrees that racism is a shitty thing. But if I were in 1920's america saying things against the racism that was around then, I could very well get myself beat up or worse.

 

I think it's fair to say that the second is more virtuous than the first precisely because it's more risky for me socially.

 

Standing up for a woman accused of being a witch during the inquisition could've got me killed, and so I don't think that you've always gotta stand up for what is right and true, but I think that the risk involved is integral for virtue, generally.

 

I think that Stef talking about a lack of culpability for women, or that spanking is immoral and the other unpopular things in a public format is very virtuous. And that virtue breeds the respect and admiration that myself and lots of other people feel in response.

 

I think to a lesser extent, simply being true to yourself in the face of people who aren't very healthy is virtuous. Like not saying returning an "i love you" to a person who is saying it just to manipulate you. There is everyday virtuous behavior too, that doesn't involve becoming a public figure or getting beat up, haha.

[cynicist]

Is virtue always uncomfortable? Can you think of a metaphor for this one?

 

It is in an immoral society. The slavery example Kevin gave was good. Nowadays you can freely say you are against slavery but it doesn't take much courage to do it. In a world where the ideas discussed here were the norm, it would be much easier to be virtuous.

[Pepin]

I've been working on a definition of values in conjunction with a theory of freewill I've been devising. Though I won't go deep into the connection, a value is a conscious decision to act in the future in relation to a high level concept.

 

Values are constrained by reality. What cannot be achieved cannot be a valued because it can have no relation to reality. One cannot value being in two places. Contradictory value systems have no ability of being achieved and destroy the meaning of value. If one says they value health and sickness, then they really value neither, as there can be no way logically for both values to be sought after at the same time, their will to be both healthy and sick cannot relate to reality.

 

Values are the primary measurement of your ability to manifest your will into reality. It is the relation of your will to reality. Your consciousness is not very good at decisions in the short term, which is not to say it is impossible to make on the fly decisions with use of the will, but it is far more likely to fall into previous thought patterns and reflexes. There are many studies done showing that people tend to attribute unconscious decisions to their own will, which makes it very difficult to accurately identify what is the result of your will and what is the result of conditioned processes. Values do not fall prey to these problems as their conceptual and long term nature allows for the will to be the prime determinant of the future action.

 

Lastly, values are based on high level abstractions. They are not specific action plans. I would not say I value going to the gym, rather I would say I value physical health. As a result, it can be said that my working out is a consequence of my value, and exercise is an action which manifests my value.

 

There are many reasons for the above claim, but I want to make it clear that there may be certain values that have direct correlation with an action, in which case you can say "I value [action]". Technically, it is valid to assume that if a set of actions fall under a particular value, then all of the actions are a value, but I would suggest that this isn't the best terms to think in.

 

A large reason why values ought to be high level concepts is to gain an ability to integrate a large set of potential actions under a general category. The cognitive power needed as assess many different actions would be difficult, so instead the desired properties of the will are abstracted to allow for a large set of actions to be put under a single concept.

 

For instance, you could say "I value clean teeth", "I value functional muscles", "I value being disease free", "I value..." and so on, but it is much easier to say "I value health". With the value established on a higher conceptual level, it is far easier to apply the concept across all potential actions, as opposed to considering all potential actions and determining a non-contradictory action.

 

A tremendous function this plays is the ability to identify contradictions across thousands of actions through a few words. For instance, if you have five primary values, then all that needs to be done is to ensure that these are logically compatible. It is not needed to check each action contained within a value against an action in the same or other value category, rather you only need to ensure that the primary values are consistent with each other, and that the set of actions are consistent with the value.

 

I hope this was helpful and easy to understand. Mostly, I hope it was convincing. The argument would be better if expanded, but I think that this enough.

[WasatchMan]

I always thought this was a good summary of value:

 

"“Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep, “virtue” is the action by which one gains and keeps it. “Value” presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? “Value” presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible." - Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

[NigelW]

@ Kevin

I’d like to incorporate the sentence completion program into my routine, starting Monday. I trust your judgement, although I am not 100% sure I see the value in it.

 

@ Cynicist

 

Simple truths are awesome! I find myself trying to streamline my thoughts and I see the value in complex thought but if it’s explainable in a simple form it provides immense value to me. The time spent simplifying a thought gives me more time to think about it and apply it.

 

@ Kevin

 

I can see confronting racist slave owners as uncomfortable, for sure. So the resistance that Stef is talking about is speaking the truth despite immorality? I think this is where I get confused on what courage is. Anyone can be a fool, but I am not sure I fully understand what is meant by acting with courage despite immorality. I think standing up to abusive parents is amazing, but how would a fool go about it?

 

 

 

Values are constrained by reality.

 

Hi Pepin, thanks for joining. I like your approach.

 

I think that’s true, because human action is constrained by reality. (Note: even muscle builders on roids) Nothing against bodybuilders!

 

 

What cannot be achieved cannot be a valued because it can have no relation to reality.

 

Most people are of different capabilites. I suppose that withing the limits of growth, a lot can change. To say that it is always the case that which did not exist cannot exist needs to be proven so. Stef didn't just say the state was immoral, he wrote a several books on why that is the case. He speaks and talks to people who want hope.

 

I watch Stef's recent video on disproving immoral people without any examination. If you say that something does not exist without knowledge of what existance is, isn't that as bad as claiming that something exists without proof?

 

 

One cannot value being in two places.

 

I think this is true. If values are a reflection of action, you cannot be simultaneously eating healthy and destroying your body. Haha! Makes perfect sense.

 

 

Values are the primary measurement of your ability to manifest your will into reality.

 

Actions determine your values, so what you do is an appropriate way to measure your ability to act and manifest your will. Makes sense!

 

 

It is the relation of your will to reality. Your consciousness is not very good at decisions in the short term, which is not to say it is impossible to make on the fly decisions with use of the will, but it is far more likely to fall into previous thought patterns and reflexes. There are many studies done showing that people tend to attribute unconscious decisions to their own will, which makes it very difficult to accurately identify what is the result of your will and what is the result of conditioned processes. Values do not fall prey to these problems as their conceptual and long term nature allows for the will to be the prime determinant of the future action.

 

I think it’s true. I think this is in line with assigning appropriate levels of responsibility. If someone is acting out emotionally, they are responsible for that as an adult. How do you know if a decision is unconscious or conscious (assuming this is what you mean by ‘will’). I get stuck at the idea that the Will will be the prime determinant of the future action. You mean like a train roaring down the train tracks with momentum?

 

 

Lastly, values are based on high level abstractions. They are not specific action plans. I would not say I value going to the gym, rather I would say I value physical health. As a result, it can be said that my working out is a consequence of my value, and exercise is an action which manifests my value.

 

I don't know what a high level abstraction is or how they are formed. Is that the building of confidence? Is it to do with reaffirming values or repeating actions and seeing the positive results? At what point can you say that what you value is true and build on that? (Recovering perfectionist)

 

So if I value high level abstractions, then I value positive results. If I value health, then I value eating healthy etc. (I feel scared typing this, not sure whyyyyy)

 

 

There are many reasons for the above claim, but I want to make it clear that there may be certain values that have direct correlation with an action, in which case you can say "I value [action]". Technically, it is valid to assume that if a set of actions fall under a particular value, then all of the actions are a value, but I would suggest that this isn't the best terms to think in.

 

If I value a can of pop and I pay for it, then that dollar (or so) goes to paying for shipping etc. I don’t just value the pop but the system that has brought the delicious beverage to my fingertips. I may have missed the point, but why is that not a productive way of thinking about value? You can say that you value communication. That would encompass your computer, internet, and whatever else is responsible for making it possible. So you could work to maintain that system.

 

 

A large reason why values ought to be high level concepts is to gain an ability to integrate a large set of potential actions under a general category. The cognitive power needed as assess many different actions would be difficult, so instead the desired properties of the will are abstracted to allow for a large set of actions to be put under a single concept.

 

I had to read through your post a couple of times to understand (Heavy stuff). You said that high level concepts are abstractions of the will?

 

 

For instance, you could say "I value clean teeth", "I value functional muscles", "I value being disease free", "I value..." and so on, but it is much easier to say "I value health". With the value established on a higher conceptual level, it is far easier to apply the concept across all potential actions, as opposed to considering all potential actions and determining a non-contradictory action.

 

I think I understand. How are potential actions chosen if not by conscious will? How can you know that?

 

 

 

Lastly, values are based on high level abstractions. They are not specific action plans. I would not say I value going to the gym, rather I would say I value physical health. As a result, it

A tremendous function this plays is the ability to identify contradictions across thousands of actions through a few words. For instance, if you have five primary values, then all that needs to be done is to ensure that these are logically compatible. It is not needed to check each action contained within a value against an action in the same or other value category, rather you only need to ensure that the primary values are consistent with each other, and that the set of actions are consistent with the value.

 

Oh you mean like trying to bike by pedalling backwards? It works when you’re going downhill! Haha

 

So, are you saying that will is result of high level abstraction?

 

The choice to do something comes after the abstraction?

 

I may be scewing your meaning, I apologize. Let me know if I'm incorrect

 

Did light have to exist before the eye evolved?

 

@WasatchMan 

I could be talking out of my hat here, but what I am getting from this is that choice is required to have values and without choice virtue can not exist.

I just had a thought, not sure if it’s particularly helpful, but see where it goes. If I am acting in self defense and I value my life, then I will act to defend myself. If I value choice and someone aims to take that choice away from my through force and not reason and evidence then I can respond in kind.

 

I wonder if the need to have highly abstract concepts is a response to a threat or force? If I am thinking of how to avoid a threat, it seems natural to think carefully.

 

[cynicist]

@ Kevin

I’d like to incorporate the sentence completion program into my routine, starting Monday. I trust your judgement, although I am not 100% sure I see the value in it.

 

I just wanted to add my thoughts on this. I tried sentence completion after reading Nathaniel Branden because it seems brilliant but I could never get it to work for myself. I ended up just feeling silly and saying things that seemed fairly random. I'm sure it works brilliantly for some people, I just didn't have success with it like I do with journaling or just taking time to think/meditate alone.

[Kevin Beal]

I tried 3 times to start doing sentence completions before I actually worked it into my routine. I thought it was just a little too much like homework, and the concepts a little impersonal, like I was just going through the motions.

 

If you try it out and don't find much value in it, then I think that's reason enough to stop. I wouldn't do it simply because it works for somebody else.

 

I think that the point is in encouraging you to be conscious of your values so that you may be more effective in living it, and in so doing, increase your healthy self esteem (for want of a better term).

 

I have a morning routine every week day that involves stretching, eating 2 hard boiled eggs, having some bulletproof coffee and doing that morning's sentence completions. Simply doing anything at all toward living my values (like doing sentence completions) does help me, the way that a simple physical exercises do. It helps flex those muscles, and the day itself feels more valuable.

 

Everything is an opportunity cost. It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at something, and there are things that I, without thinking, have become a master at, such as distracting myself, rationalizing anything, and other things that I don't really want to be as good at as something like programming computers for example.

 

Most of the sentence completions are general enough that they can apply either very abstractly or to specific events in my life. And I try and make them work for me. I push my completions further by eliminating qualifiers, being specific and thinking about how it relates to my life and the day ahead of me.

 

I don't have the patience to plan out very much, and if I lose sight of why I'm doing something, I'm probably just going to drop it. By doing sentence completions and reminding myself of my values, I start with that and the actions I take come more from that, and less from habit. So that I stay out more ahead of things and guide my life a little more, rather than be passively tugged around by life.

 

I save journaling and dream work for the end of the day, usually, when I have less of a time constraint.

[cynicist]

By doing sentence completions and reminding myself of my values, I start with that and the actions I take come more from that, and less from habit. So that I stay out more ahead of things and guide my life a little more, rather than be passively tugged around by life.

 

I save journaling and dream work for the end of the day, usually, when I have less of a time constraint.

 

Hmm, I hadn't thought of it that way. So it's a quick routine in the morning that acts like an affirmation of your values and sets the tone for the day. Like a reminder that you are actively pursuing self-improvement. I see how that would be useful in staying on a track. I only tried it once, and since I've been meaning to read Nathaniel Branden again, I think I'll also give this exercise another shot with this perspective in mind. 

[tiepolo]

A value, a value you might hold, is not the same thing as value as in the value or price of an object. Personal values are moral principles, the things you hold as ideals. They are not defined by actions. If your actions match your values then you are a person of integrity, but it is possible to fail to live up to your own values. One feels shame for an action that goes against one's core values. 

[cynicist]

A value, a value you might hold, is not the same thing as value as in the value or price of an object. Personal values are moral principles, the things you hold as ideals. They are not defined by actions. If your actions match your values then you are a person of integrity, but it is possible to fail to live up to your own values. One feels shame for an action that goes against one's core values. 

 

Everyone can go against their values from time to time, but without action, values have no meaning. If I say that I value integrity and consistently cheat on women, then what is the significance of my statement? The consistency of behavior is the only way to really know what your values are, since we can claim anything as a value in our minds.

[tiepolo]

Everyone can go against their values from time to time, but without action, values have no meaning. If I say that I value integrity and consistently cheat on women, then what is the significance of my statement? The consistency of behavior is the only way to really know what your values are, since we can claim anything as a value in our minds.

Well, theoretically it might be possible for a sex addict with poor self control to still be someone who values fidelity. This would cause said hypothetical person mental disturbance - shame, regret and all that, as said person would constantly be failing to live up to their own values. 

 

Persons from whom free agency has been removed might also be compelled to do things that go against their values. So the abstract value is distinct from action. In material terms the value may indeed be meaningless.

[NigelW]

Im jumping over a vew responses here but I am curious. Is the purpose of a value to correct behavior?

[Pepin]

I watch Stef's recent video on disproving immoral people without any examination. If you say that something does not exist without knowledge of what existance is, isn't that as bad as claiming that something exists without proof?

 

It is a little worse as what is meant by "existence" can not be comprehended. This is why philosophy requires strict and precise definitions. If I use the word "exists" in a manner which is inconsistent with the way it is defined, use the word without definition, or supply a definition through examples and then later use the word in a context that would not apply to the examples, then how can anyone actually understand my argument.

 

I define existence as all that exists, and an existent as something that exists in some relation to existence. If something has no affect on reality, then it is does not exist. The establishment of an existent is essentially physics.

 

There are a class of existent that do not exist in reality, but do exist, an example being concepts. Mathematics does not exist in reality, there is no number two found in physical processes, but mathematics does exist as a concept. A forest does not exist, it is just a concept to describe a large amount of trees and vegetation, but this does not mean that the constituents of the forest do not exist. Though concepts do not exist in a physical sense, they do have an affect on reality in our interaction with it.

 

I can go deeper into this as I've written quite a lot on it.

 

 

How do you know if a decision is unconscious or conscious (assuming this is what you mean by ‘will’). I get stuck at the idea that the Will will be the prime determinant of the future action. You mean like a train roaring down the train tracks with momentum?

 

Through identification of the self. If you introspect, you can separate "you" from "the rest of you". The will are the desires and values that are associated with you, not the unconscious.

 

To put another way, the self is a part in a large ecosystem of other parts which up the larger whole. The self is the part that you associate most with being you, as it is you, granted that it is what you are in control of. You can gain an understanding of the self through testing what you are in control of, and what you are not.

 

For instance, I can consciously control my breathing. This is an act of the will. But control breathing can also be unconscious. I can determine what determines the action of breathing through measuring the action: breathing, and through relating the action or inaction to my will. If I consciously decide to take a breath, and I take a breath, then this is an affect of my will. If I breath automatically, then this is not an affect of my will.

 

The self is a part which is best at thinking and long term planning. There are various metaphors to describe the role of the self, one I like is that it is like being the CEO of a large firm. The CEO does not control everything, most of the work is carried out behind the scenes, and the CEO does not concern itself with the repetitive day to day actions, but the CEO has a large role in the firm's actions and policies.

 

I hope this doesn't sound too complex. The primary argument is that you exist, that you play a part in a larger system, and that you are able to identify the self through self-knowledge work. Most of this is what I've learned from psychology podcasts and lectures.

 

 

I don't know what a high level abstraction is or how they are formed. Is that the building of confidence? Is it to do with reaffirming values or repeating actions and seeing the positive results? At what point can you say that what you value is true and build on that? (Recovering perfectionist)

 

Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology would be a great source to check out. To give a brief explanation, a high level abstraction are abstractions of abstractions. So say we have the concept of chair, which is an abstraction. Then say we have the concept of table.. Then of couch. And so and so forth. If we take the common properties of all of these concepts, then we can form a higher level abstraction called furniture, which is defined as:

 

"large movable equipment, such as tables and chairs, used to make a house, office, or other space suitable for living or working".

 

Another example of a high level abstraction is the concept of health. Health refers to many other lower level concepts such as: physical fitness, dental hygiene, disease, mental functioning, and so on. The concept of health is created through taking the properties which are the same across these concepts, and combining them into a new concept.

 

As another example, imagine a bunch of two dimensional line segments. We can look at a number of these line segments with similar properties, such as having closed bounds and three sides, and conceptualize these features with the term "triangle". If we classify more and more line segments, if different classes have a similarity in their definition, such as "line segments with no open bound and with no cross sections", then we can then create a high level concept called "shape" which would include triangles, rectangles, rhombuses, circles, but not an hour glass figure or the letter 's'. We can then make even higher level abstractions, say we take a particle class of rectangles that have line segments of all equal length, and define this as a square.

 

A result of this is that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. A triangle is a shape, a square is a shape, but a square is not a triangle. Exercise is healthy, getting sleep is healthy, but exercising is not getting sleep. The concept of health contains properties which are found in the concept of exercise and adequate sleep, just as a shape contains properties of squares and triangles. As said previously, higher level concepts are abstractions of abstractions.

 

I am being loose with the language, but I feel as though it conveys the idea accurately enough.

 

 

So if I value high level abstractions, then I value positive results. If I value health, then I value eating healthy etc. (I feel scared typing this, not sure whyyyyy)

 

Depends on what the high level abstraction is. If you value health, then you value the subsets of health such as exercising, dental hygiene, sleep, not eating unhealthy foods in excess, and so on. There is ambiguity in it, but I think as long as in general you live up to the standard you can say you value health.

 

If you say you value your health, and smoke a pack a day, regardless of your other activities which support your health, I would claim to say to say that you don't value your health since the impact of smoking is large enough.

 

I don't know why you feel scared, but I might suggest thinking about your values and if there are contradictions in your actions. It may be something like the above example. Or it might be something like "I value life", while putting yourself in risky situations that could end it. Again, I do not know, but that is a thought.

 

 

 

I may have missed the point, but why is that not a productive way of thinking about value? You can say that you value communication. That would encompass your computer, internet, and whatever else is responsible for making it possible. So you could work to maintain that system.

 

I think you have the right idea in your example. It would make more sense to say you value communication than to say "I value making forum posts", "I value face to face interactions", "I value chatting with friends over facebook". It is similar to saying "I value health" in that it isolates the desired outcome. If you are to describe just a lower level concept of health such as "I enjoy exercising", it can't be assumed that you exercise for health, or for looks, or because you like the way it feels, or because there is nothing better to do.

 

Also, the higher level concept is much easier to apply to other actions because it is rather impossible to compare different actions without abstraction. Let's say that you feel the benefits of sleep and say to a friend "I want something like sleep". He is likely to suggest actions which are literally similar to sleep. If you abstract the benefits of sleep, such as feeling more energized and good, then your friend will make the conceptualize connection that you want to be healthy and then would suggest something like exercise.

 

Sleep is a large theme in this post because I am lacking it at the moment.

 

 

I had to read through your post a couple of times to understand (Heavy stuff). You said that high level concepts are abstractions of the will?

 

I think this should be clear now, but just in-case, I argue that values are high-level concepts that relate to the self. This is to say that if you want to be healthy, this is the conscious part of you wanting to healthy, and not some unconscious process. It is far easier to say "I want to be healthy" as the high level concept of "health" is far easier to integrate into your life than the overwhelming subsets of health. It allows for you to make connections of all of your various actions and habits through their similarities and differences.

 

 

So, are you saying that will is result of high level abstraction?

 

The choice to do something comes after the abstraction?

 

Did light have to exist before the eye evolved?

 

No, I am saying that values pertain to the will and not to unconscious processes, and that values are in general high level abstractions.

 

Yes, the existence of the eye is dependent on the existence of light. I actually have a section on this in the book I am writing.

 

I hope this clarifies my argument. Again, I am a little sleep deprived, so I hope not to look back at a muddled mess.

[NigelW]

@Kevin

 

I bought a white board and write my issue out along with the feeling. I detach the event from my feeling and write out questions continually.

I’d like to incorporate another habit into my day! I will aim to try again tomorrow sometime because I didn’t make it a huge priority today, not sure why.

 

@tiepolo

I thought about this on the way to work, or whatever passes for thinking in my noggin! Values can be infinite and their worth is determined over time. I can value McDonald’s, but over time that may lead to health problems.

So if I value truth but I am constantly using an empty can with a piece of string to contact a friend on the other side of the country, then I would not have integrity? Ok, makes sense.

What I really want to know or would get a lot of value from is a way to organize my values, I’ve been goin bonkers trying to find out what I value, truthfully.

 

@Pepin

 

I appreciate the correction regarding existence!

 

Oh man. Nihilism is so tempting, but at the same time, not so much! One thing I still struggle with is knowing when I am making sense in a conversation and when I’m spewing nonsense. I’ve adopted ‘center-point’ breathing to help with my anxiety, but it still takes hold some times.

 

I don’t know how many times I’ve listened to podcasts regarding the self. I have to apply my knowledge, I’m just not sure how. I’ve set a goal to get into 1 conversation a day and it’s going well. How do you get less dissociated? It’s one of those things that I can’t seem to grasp.

 

I think I understand the idea of arranging concepts into broader concepts for organization. A house contains furniture, walls, ceilings, hardwood, etc. that makes the house. If I was raised to think that a square was a circle and you a square a square, I’d risk social consequences for sure. I suppose one thing for being a social gadfly is that after a certain time ya just stop caring at all.

 

I’m definitely not perfect and I think you nailed it. I’ve noticed that when I say things that are true I feel calmer for sure. I used to lie, a lot.

 

Oh! I am lacking Zzz’s as well but I wanna make sure I respond, as I’ve lacked consistency on this forum in the past. If I say I value being ‘good’, I am implying moral behavior, not stealing, not killing, etc. If someone is raised to think that ‘good’ is to meet the expectations of others there would be a conflict, for sure. I should know, I’ve been there.

 

So if I understand you correctly. If I say I value riding a bike and eating food that is low in saturated fats it would be a lot easier to say that I value health. That makes sense!

 

I don’t know enough about the mind to know if that’s true or not, but it seems consistent.

 

Thanks for staying up to post Pepin!

 

I may be over complicating this!

 

Is the purpose of a value or ideal to correct behavior?

 

If that value does not change behavior is it useful?

 

Is the worth of a value is determined by whether it gets you to where you wanna go?

 

I’m tempted to say that values are based on what you’re focusing on. Or like you said Pepin, an act of the conscious will.

 

If my goal was to focus on finding God (stay with me) then I would be focusing on something that does not exist. Or something that is not true.

 

I would really like to know what the effects are of believing in God.

 

Anyways, I think that’s good for a post.

 

I look forward to your responses, have a great night! (Bad grammer, I know.)

[WasatchMan]

@WasatchMan

 

I could be talking out of my hat here, but what I am getting from this is that choice is required to have values and without choice virtue can not exist.

I just had a thought, not sure if it’s particularly helpful, but see where it goes. If I am acting in self defense and I value my life, then I will act to defend myself. If I value choice and someone aims to take that choice away from my through force and not reason and evidence then I can respond in kind.

 

I wonder if the need to have highly abstract concepts is a response to a threat or force? If I am thinking of how to avoid a threat, it seems natural to think carefully.

Since it was an Any Rand quote, my thoughts on how her ethical system would address this question would be to look at the hierarchy of how these concepts were logically derived.  She describes the standard of morality "is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man."  From this concept she derives the need for men to make choices "Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality."  So man's standard of morality is himself, and must make choices in order to maintain that value. So if someone is making the choice to kill/attack you, the value of "choice" is conflicting with the higher value of "man's life" and therefore your choice to defend yourself is completely consistent with the morality of man's life being an end in itself.  In other words, since choice is derived from the standard man's life being the highest value, if your choice is conflicting with this standard then it is no longer a valid derivative of value.

 

I believe UPB would come at this similarly, but since the ethical framework is different from the Randian system and does not accept the "man qua man" rational, it may not even get to this question because attacking someone clearly fails the two man in room test, and therefore cannot be universally preferable.  I am still working on understanding UPB better, so someone else probably has a better explanation to how it would analyze this situation.

[Pepin]

Is the purpose of a value or ideal to correct behavior?

 

Thank you for your interest and willingness to understand my posts.

 

I would not say that the purpose of a value is to correct behavior, but to commit to a particular behavior in the future. A value might come about as a response to previous behavior, like someone who partied too hard might decide "I'm never drinking again", but the purpose of a value is unrelated to the past and instead related to your conscious will in the present. For instance, you may choose a value which has nothing to do with correcting behavior, and it is still considered a value.

 

If that value does not change behavior is it useful?

 

No. It would be like saying "I want to be healthy", and then doing to achieve the state of health. The purpose of a value is to act in a particular behavior in the future, and if one chooses a value and does not act on it, then it cannot be said that they value what they say the value.

 

If I say I love my girlfriend, yet when I see her I ignore her and treat her badly, it cannot be said that I love my girlfriend.

 

Is the worth of a value is determined by whether it gets you to where you wanna go?

 

In a sense, yes. The more technical way to put it is that a value has more worth if it allows you to manifest your will in reality to a higher degree.

 

I’m tempted to say that values are based on what you’re focusing on. Or like you said Pepin, an act of the conscious will.

 

If my goal was to focus on finding God (stay with me) then I would be focusing on something that does not exist. Or something that is not true.

 

I would really like to know what the effects are of believing in God.

 

Focus might be a way to describe the creation the fulfillment of values. It is like if you were to say "take some time and focus to figure out your future", you will identify what the ways you want to act in the future. I'm a little uncomfortable with the term, mostly because I'm a little overly technical with the terminology, but feel free to think of it in that way.

 

Yeah, putting mental effort and time into god would be focusing on something that can't exist. You are incapable of interacting or discovering anything about something that doesn't exist. Saying you value your religion, with god at the top of that conceptual pyramid scheme, is to in-effect: value nothing.

 

As far as the impact of belief in a deity on future behavior, it depends on what the belief entails. If it is a religion, it may have a large impact. Jews for instance don't eat bacon and other food on pass over, and won't work on a particular day. These actions are the result of the valuing of god's word, though this is a simplification of the topic. The result I would claim is a whole lot of irrational behavior.

 

Someone who is a deist, who believes god created the universe and has no interaction with you, will not create a value system around god. It will have as much influence on their actions as the concept of god has on an atheist.

[NigelW]

You know I was thinking about something Stef had said. People who pretend to think don’t want to face the fact that they can’t think. I think that has been my tendency for sure and I want to improve. The last thing I want to do is become someone who destroys virtue because the effects are terrifying.

 

It is scary thinking about the idea that you maybe another zombie, but it’s more liberating. Because then I can actually learn to think for myself and not become a sophist. I loath glib and self righteous acolytes. I will steer the conversation to avoid the World of Warcraft references!

 

@WasatchMan

 

Thank you for your response!

 

A lot of that went over my head, but I’ll do my best. So if someone does not value man’s life then they do not value choice which would, correct me if I am wrong, not be UPB compliant because the evil person is simultaneously valuing his life and choice, while denying it to others. He is stealin!

 

So, for this person to correct themselves they would have to either devalue their life or value other people’s lives. And also, not value his choices or value other people’s choices.

 

If the value is choice and he values it for himself and devalues it for others, then that is no UPB compliant, amirite?

 

@Pepin

 

Wow, I appreciate the clarification. I thought that the purpose of a value was to correct behavior instantaneously, but committing to a particular behavior in the future makes a lot more sense and I feel relieved.

 

Ah, so values only have to do with the future, not the present? The change in behavior is acted out between the present and the stated future value. If I say that I value something, then it is a prediction about the future. Eg, I value equal trade. If I take actions to exchange value for value then I can hold that as a value and verbalize it. If I don’t take the actions necessary, then I don’t hold that as a value and cannot verbalize it without being a counterfeiter. Correct?

 

Ok, so the goal is to manifest your will. If I want to love someone, love being the value, then I will take actions between now and stated future value(sometime before I become 400 years old). If I do not take action then I cannot claim to have the value of love because I have not taken action. Is that correct?

 

So when looking at people and their stated values, if they have values that they cannot take action towards or physically manifest, then they’re nuts? What a relief.

 

If someone was to say that they love McDonalds so much, while never going would it be true that they devalue McDonalds? I guess if someone is a sophist, they could sell McDonalds quite well.

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain, Pepin!

[NigelW]

Stef's videos lately have really pissed me off. He's right... damnit. lol