Does value exist just because we say so?
Like saying that meaning exists because we make it just sounds like trying to convince other people of a lie that you're telling yourself, that something has value or meaning when it objectively does not. Saying it has value because we give it such sounds...well like lying.
I even found something that shares this sentiment:
I even found something that shares this sentiment:
Nothing is worth the measure we give it, because worth doesnt really exist. It is a figment of our judging minds, an imaginary yardstick to measure the imaginary value of imaginary distinctions, and one more way we withhold ourselves from the whole enchilada of life that lies before us.
Comments (55)
What do you mean?
Like money? Fiat currency (which is in your wallet right now) only has value because we say it has value. If we stopped subscribing to the value of fiat currency, we would suddenly be in very deep economic doo doo, which is objectively really, really bad.
If you don't believe in capital T truth then by definition all value systems are perspectival human artifacts.
Which means that values comprise of individual and community agreements (and disagreements) and they are still of immense significance since they organize and delineate culture and society.
Objective value is an oxymoron. All value is subjective, in order for something to have value it has to be valuable to someone (or a value someone possesses, depending on how you use the word value).
This doesnt make value an illusion, nor a lie. What your OP does is expose that objective value is a non-sensical pursuit.
Direction of fit.
Take up 's point. Money only has value because we say so. Therefore money doesn't exist?
It's a stupid argument.
The counter argument would be that money doesn't have value, strictly speaking. It represents value in a standardized way. Without a functional economy where a peice of currency can be traded for food, shelter, etc., the currency couldn't be given value by fiat (that's roughly true, anyway).
We don't decide to give value to food and shelter, so in this case value is rooted in basic needs and desires which we don't control.
If value can be given at whim, it can just as easily be removed at whim, and so is insubstantial. That's an approximation of a common intuition about it, anyway.
I agree that fiat currency, in itself, has value because it can be exchange for objects that meet whims, desires, and dire necessities, like water.
But we do decide to give value (in fiat currency denominations) to even dire necessities. If you don't pay your water bill, the city will eventually cut off your supply. One could die if the happened. Tough, says the city, Tell your children to pay their bills. Ditto for heat. No money? Sorry, no food for you! Homeless? No money? The great outdoors awaits you. (Or, more likely the great urban sidewalk awaits you,)
You have a PhD in chemistry; you're 35, very well employed at Total Toxicity Chemical Corporation. One day you get run over by a bus. Your heirs sue. The court decides that your worth in future earnings is $2,000,000. The homeless wretch who had no money for housing was run over by the same killer bus (at the same time you were). The court decides his future earnings were not quite enough to cover the costs of a pauper's burial. His heirs get a bill.
You're saying we do have a choice in whether we value necessities because we choose to value our own lives. I'll buy that.
Quoting BC
It's all psychological. At present, the world's banking system is threatened by a devaluation of "floating" profit and loss. It's virtual value. It's not real, but it really threatens people's well being.
This virtual value is basically what banks create. It's possible because of the fundamentally abstract nature of money.
Good reply. Sure, there's heaps more to unpack here. Money is an institution, only possible because of our place in a linguistic community.
Quoting frank
Perhaps. Does it follow then that food and shelter have a value that is found in the world, as opposed to being given by us? It seems to me that the value of shelter is a consequence of our wants and needs, as opposed to being found in the brut fact of the shelter. That we "do not have control" of such wants and needs does not make them a thing found in the world.
All this by way of saying that a desire for shelter is an attitude we adopt towards shelter, as opposed to a discovery we might make about shelter.
One cannot point to the value of a shelter in the way one can point to it's roof.
You're saying that since the value of shelter isn't a part of the shelter, but rather an aspect of our relationship to it, value is dependent on us. That's true, but I don't remember adopting an attitude towards a roof in the rain. That need has just always been there.
The only way to be in a position to choose would be if I'm prepared to go without necessities and die. Then I could say I gave the shelter its value when I decided to live. But having decided to live, there I am, bound to my needs just as surely as I'm bound to the rules of this world.
Sure. My point was simply that it's an attitude - and suggesting that this is common to all values. I'm not suggesting that attitudes are always chosen. I'm not sure wha that would mean.
Direction of fit is not so much about choice.
I think this is the heart of the matter. We can argue about why I like Chinese food or why I vote Democratic, but there are a set of foundational values I think are much more basic. Security, safety, maintaining what we need to live. Family. I'm tempted to say that all the less basic values can be traced back to those more basic ones, but I'll have to think about that.
And where do those basic values come from? Instinct? Learning? Experience? Physiological reaction? I guess all of those tossed together into the blender of our cognitive machinery.
I agree. I was reading the OP as having to do with choice. I may have misunderstood.
It could be that to the extent we value rightly, we're in tune with the Mind of God. But coincidentally, all the little parts of your body act like they're in a community and they work all day long to make the community endure. Each one gives freely to the others what it can, and takes back in turn. Maybe all this good will bubbles up into the realm of the psyche as value.
I see values related to God as less basic, although I know a lot of people disagree with that. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
Quoting Verse 4, Tao Te Ching - S. Mitchell translation
Quoting frank
Sounds like comuhnism to me.
On the other hand, in a sense we do decide, through the market, to put prices on them, i.e., they do not have prices purely by virtue of their use to us, but also by virtue of their inclusion in a social practice of exchange on the basis of money, which is based on conventional behaviourplaying the game. After all, they can be provided without charge, if we decide not to put prices on them.
This can be extended to cover all needs and wants, whether basic or not. All of this valuing, whether based purely on need or additionally on conventional observance (deciding), is real. Things really are valuable, in our hands or in the market.
So the question to the OP is: how much more real does value have to be to be really real?
But the quotation in the OP is taken out of context, unattributed, and ambiguous, so its difficult to determine what its actually saying.
I think all the values we think of on a daily basis - the value of money, status, expensive toys, etc. have their source in those basic values. The manifestations may represent themselves in the market or our fantasies, but that's not where their root is.
But the point is that the existence of something merely as a social practice or as an intersubjective attribution does not entitle someone to say its just an illusion. And somewhat against your point, I dont think this depends on its being rooted in something basic, unless we say that everything we do is rooted in something basic (which is a fair point but doesnt say much).
The hard question here might be: what is basic? Is it essential, eternal, and universal? Is it the species lowest common denominator or would you also include values that are culturally relative?
Price reflects the relationship between supply and demand. Demand will be there whether we arrive at a price or give it away. I think demand is fundamentally rooted in biology.
Quoting Jamal
The statement I read into it could be thought of in terms of the private language argument.
In the argument, replace the individual who struggles to maintain meaning with a private language with a community that struggles to maintain the meaning of values which are all chosen by the community itself. Since the community can change its values on a whim, there's no way to take any particular set of values seriously.
The point of this thought experiment is not to show that values don't exist, but rather that values depend on an image of an external, unchanging grounding. When I say "external" I mean external to the human community.
This would explain the reaction of wow, so money doesnt exist! when someone realizes its conventional. But Im not convinced. Specifically, by the external part.
Money does require grounding in the form of a powerful state or a stable bank, both of which stand apart from the general population, much as a God stands apart from humanity, guaranteeing values.
I recently came across a young Chinese person on the internet who was excitedly exclaiming that the yuan should replace the US dollar as the primary currency of global trade. We can't just choose that, though. We've tried and it doesn't work. It will change when China overtakes the US as the heart of the global economy.
The idea that the state or the bank has the role of the external grounding is interesting.
Yes, I agree, but in my time here on the forum, a feeling has grown that it doesn't make sense to talk about reality, or the world, or meaning without understanding that all of these things are human. You can't separate us from the world or the world from us. Although I'm sympathetic to the idea that our concepts are not ultimate reality, illusions, that doesn't work in our daily lives unless we are sages. The Tao Te Ching is clear that the multiplicity of the world is human. It's ours. It's real. It's where we live and work.
Quoting Jamal
I'm not talking about what we do, I'm talking about what we value. And I do think that goes back to basic human nature, something built into us. Instinct I guess, as modified by personal and social experience and our mental capacities. For what it's worth, I've been reexamining these beliefs recently. @apokrisis and many others don't see it that way. They see our values and behavior more as a reflection of our generalized conceptual capabilities processing our experiences. (Forgive me if I mischaracterized your position Apokrisis)
There's no doubt I am walking a bit on thin ice. My understanding of cognitive science and psychology is not technically extensive. A lot of what I believe is based on introspection and observing people.
I agree that you cant separate us from the world, because were part of it, but I dont agree with what I take you to really mean, viz., that humans are in some way constitutive of reality. Im a kind of materialist, despite Kantian sympathies.
Quoting T Clark
Again, you seem to be saying two different things: that we are part of the world, and that the world is human. I agree with the first part, and only agree with the second part to the extent that we are reciprocally bound to the rest of the world such that we see it, conceptualize it, and act in it necessarily in our own ways, owing to our cognitive endowments and social behaviour. But its not like there were no dinosaurs before humans existed. Thats a Schopenhauerian antinomy that I think we can avoid.
That said, Im totally ignorant of the Tao Te Ching.
Quoting T Clark
Just as we dont want to separate person and world, neither should we separate valuing from doing. What we do is about what we value and vice versa. That assumption underlay my post.
Quoting T Clark
Im not sure I see the difference to be honest. I can go along with both.
Biology is the measure and meaning of all things and what is valued is what is either needed or desired by said biology to satisfy needs or desires. The satisfaction of need is life sustaining, that of desire is also life sustaining; in the sense of bringing the organism pleasure which is opposite of pain. So, things of value are life sustaining things.
I don't know if you've read any of my posts on metaphysics, which are [s]universally[/s] rarely acclaimed as brilliant. If you had, you would know that, as both R.G. Collingwood and I see it, both materialism and the understanding that humans create reality are metaphysical positions. As such, they aren't true or false, we just pick the one that works the best for us. Sometimes I'm a materialist, I think an engineer has to be. Now that I no longer have to do anything for a living, I'm more often whatever it is that I am. I guess that means I'm a pragmatist - I use what works. Pragmatism is also a metaphysical position.
Quoting Jamal
As I see it, we are both part of the world and the world is human. One of the first threads I started here on the forum discussed whether the idea of an objective reality makes sense. My answer is the same as the one I gave earlier in this post - when I'm doing science, it does; when I'm examining our human relationship to reality, for me at least, it doesn't.
Quoting Jamal
I guess I just think that values come first. Values tell us what we need and want. Based on that, we go and do stuff.
To be clear, it is not my intention to take this discussion off on a tangent by making it about what metaphysics means and which metaphysics is correct. On the other hand, I couldn't explain my position without bringing it up.
Well, value is an inherently subjective thing, so is it an objective fact that something is valuable? No, but it is a fact that it is valuable to us, which is ultimately what we mean when we say something is "valuable". That doesn't mean that we are lying, it is just a subjective observation. There are many reasons why something is valuable to us, but frankly, that is irrelevant for this argument, simply because it is valuable to us. The reasons for value are based on our experience of reality and the subsequent desires/emotions we feel or logical conclusions we make. So, value doesn't exist because we say so, but because we genuinely feel and think so. And outside of that, absolutely nothing has value. But frankly, what more value do we need?
So far in this discussion, whether it is considered as more primordial than or secondary to objective aspects of the world, value has been treated independently of fact. Talk about the value of money or paintings is consideration of value in strictly quantitative terms, while ignoring or keeping constant the qualitative meaning of what it is that goes up or down in price. Banno distinguishes between the value of a shelter in terms of our attitudes toward it, our needs and desires , and the objective existence of the roof.
But what is a roof? Doesnt it depend on our account or stance towards it? If we are photographing or drawing it for artistic purposes, what the roof is will be a function of what we are creating in the experience of it. Isnt the roof something else when we shift from an engineering to an aesthetic to a climbing stance? Arent all of those accounts and stances themselves values? And if so , is there any meaning , any perceptual experience of any aspect of the world which is not fundamentally valuative in the sense of representing a constructed , goal oriented point of view?
For me, metaphysics, which is the study of worldviews, is, along with epistemology, the most substantial aspect of philosophy - the most central to the reasons I'm here.
It will be true that the shelter has a roof, even if you and I are not around to say so.
We can change the words we use to set out how things are. And we can change how things are to match the words we use.
Quoting Jamal
That's the answer to the OP.
Quoting Jamal
Won't what we take as basic depend on what we are doing? What is important depends on what we want.
Morality usually appears to be the former. Morality is about what our values should be. Slavery is immoral whether it's conventional or not (obviously).
I value not working, but working brings sustenance materially, so it seems to me, we can value things that don't bring maintenance (not working) but also value maintenance that doesn't bring satisfaction (work).
Christianity is about a revolution in values. It's about redemption and forgiveness.
Boy scouts are about connecting with the outdoors; building new and existing friendships; learning new skills; and helping create a better world.
This looks like a good place to stop.
That's awesome.
Wrong.
Do you wanna.. I dunno, explain why? For the rest of us at least.
His premises/assertions (to my understanding):
A.) Biology is the study, field, or understanding (not sure which he subscribes to or would cast as most prominent) of all "things" (that breathe I'm assuming) and what is needed to placate needs or desires.
(Sure not quite as biology is more cataloguing the physical traits of a living thing. But you need to know what an organism eats, requires, what environment it is most suited for, what causes it distress aka inability to function at its "peak" or potential so.)
B.) Something one "needs" (which let's be honest people throw around the term subjectively so much it's essentially interchangeable with "wants" in this day and age) is required for life.
(This is a biological fact)
C.) Something one desires (or perhaps has been raised or made either organically or inorganically [aka you need to worship my god or ye will surely die]) is "life sustaining".
(The key phrase is "life sustaining" as in that which aids in (presumably human?) life either most prominently or in an ancillary way. Yes you could be sentenced to life in prison and have all your biological needs met but without your either ingrained or learned desires being met, perhaps one might wish to end one's life? Happens all the time.)
D.) Pleasure is the opposite of pain.
(This is debatable. Eustress is the opposite of stress. We go through both when say, we ride a roller coaster for the first time. Some people like pain, it gives pleasure. Sure a normal person wouldn't want to be punched in the face. Some would. Watching said action would give some pain, and would give some pleasure. It's very subjective.)
E.) Things of "value" (which granted has not been universally defined or of consensus in this discussion) "sustain life".
(Why not?)
There is innate value of things: the energetic value of a donut (the ability of its energy to do work, the calories) . Physical values exist wether humans believe or apply value to them or not.
Socially constructed values - like fashion, art, money, authority etc only exist as actionable/behaviour influencing values because we all mutually agree that they do. The value is generated through collective desire.
Something is precious or valuable when everyone needs it - water, oxygen, food (these are linked to innate physical values in science).
Something is also precious/valuable when everyone (or the majority at least) wants it - money, fame, authority, knowledge etc.
Something is worthless when it has no use to us, or nobody wants it, or both.
Quoting Benj96
No, this is simply not true. Something isnt precious just because everyone wants it or needs it.
Come on, this is a philosophy site, WRONG is inadequate, point out the faulty reasoning, or don't comment at all.
Tell that to someone dying of hunger or thirst.
We cannot escape our biological needs. So ultimately they are precious. Just because they may be currently in abundance, doesnt mean we wouldn't suffer and thus crave them in their absence.
Your health is your wealth. When you take your health for granted, other things become your wealth or lack thereof. But there isn't a single person alive that doesn't enjoy the reward of a cold glass of pure water when they need it.
What you're citing as "simply not true" about that, I cannot comprehend.
Fundamentally yes. I absolutely agree. However when those needs are secured, do we stop needing or wanting? I think not.
Maslows hierarchy of needs come into practice here.
When water, food and shelter and sex/intimacy are consistent and easily available, we begin to take them for granted and crave further needs and wants - like self actualisation, career prospects, luxuries, entertainment, travel, learning, philosophy etc.
The things we could not afford time for if we were preoccupied with ascertaining basic needs of survival.
It's all relative.
Value depends on what is available to you (taken for granted). If ipads are as common as muck we wouldn't value them as much as someone impoverished who has saved for months to afford it as a luxury (by their standards of living).