T
The_Exodus
Guest
Not at all. See my posts 28 and 29 (which may have been overlooked) for more. In short, it is only because my epistemology is subject/object based that I can consistently reject Anselms proofs.
- Status
T
The_Exodus
Guest
Then you need to read them again until you understand them.
If someone told me they were a Christian but thought that Jesus was a product of historical fabrication, I’d go on to tell him that he wasn’t really a Christian, regardless of what he thought.
You can have whatever world view you want, sure, but if you want to be consistent, you need to understand your position a bit better.
Ah, so they are preferences, since they reflect personal tendencies and what not. In which case, what you find meaningul is entirely personal, and what I find meaningful is entirely personal.
I hope our meanings don’t conflict!
B
Betterave
Guest
In a different context, imagine telling your neighbor:
That negro is a human being, with real value, just like you! Why would you suppose you can own another human being? The real value and the intrinsic meaning of being a human being precludes your owning him.
He’d look at you like you are crazy:
Meaning and value are social constructs. Value is as valuation does, like I always say. I own this slave. There’s value for you, mate!
Then imagine you reply:
But what about game theory? Don’t you know you’re being dumb? This is really a sub-optimal social arrangement.
He’d again look at you like you are crazy:
Didn’t you hear me the first time? Not too bright, are you, mate?
Then, waxing philosophical, he might continue:
“The currency of our lives is what we want it to be, and what we make it, individually, and collectively. Life is meaningful in God’s absence (and especially so in that case!) because we have resources like time and energy to invest, and life is the means of investing it. We have ambitions, emotions, goals and instincts we are born with, and which we develop as part of our nature. We are social species, and together, these produce all the real, practical meaning that is to be had.”
First, I don’t think it’s true that money is not backed by anything ultimate (you talk rather naively, as if you have never heard of the relation of intermediate to final ends as it is explained, for example, in the Nicomachen Ethics), but if it were not, it would be valueless.
T
tonyrey
Guest
So the value of human beings is based on a fact, not an opinion! Our value as individuals is not a matter of taste but based to a large extent on our interdependence. A fakir’s values are mot a matter of taste but based on his purpose of advancing spiritually without being distracted by material possessions.
[/QUOTE]
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Let’s just stick to the important part. The fakir’s value system is based upon what he considers important - which is a matter of taste. But even a fakir depends on other people, if for nothing else than the small handouts which enable him to keep on living. They do not starve themselves to death, they need some very minimal sustenance. Of course it is a biological fact that one needs some material to maintain one’s life.
The central question was, (and we keep on deviating into irrelevancies due to your questions) whether one can value another humanly bag of chemicals, if one does not believe in some supreme being. It is obvious that the answer is: yes.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
Touchstone
Guest
OK, I’ve imagined your scenarios there, and can’t but think the historical resonance of, say, slavery supports my thesis here. Valuation is valuation does, and while I value my life and also value the benefits of social reciprocity (I treat others as I want to be treated), that’s my valuation. Every human has value because, in my view, they are all me, and have the same resources I value – reason, time to invest, energy, emotions, aspirations, creative talents, etc.
But the crucial point is that is my model of valuation. A slave owner who doesn’t value those things and values economic advantages (or maybe just the ability to dominate and control other human beings) won’t endorse my model.
There’s no “intrinsic” value to point to as some cosmic or religious currency. It’s not even a coherent concept; what would really be meant by this is "God values human dignity, and God is my authority so therefore I value human dignity, which is a subjective position on both God’s parts and mine, which, again, proves my point – valuation is subjective, and valuation is as valuation does.
So the fact that slave owners are a part of history is empirical evidence for the idea in this thread. It’s not a value assignment I endorse or would tolerate, but that’s the whole point – it’s not my valuation, but his, his assignment of priorities in value. And when we look at what changes the situation, we see a realignment of values in the people; some slave owners I guess are/were persuaded to a more humane and enlightened set of values, but others simply had to be forcibly overruled and constrained in their practices by law and social arrangements. These forces coalesce around the minds in the community that collectively value human dignity and liberty.
Humans are now what they were 2,000 years ago, but our valuation has changed a bit, and the currency has been changed, in at least a good many places in the world where humans are valued as the basic anchors of liberty and dignity and self-determination.
“Intrinsic” value doesn’t get off the ground, for just the reasons contained in your scenario; the slave owner says “Get lost, I know nothing of this ‘intrinsic’ worth, and behold the power of my whips and chains”. It’s only by convincing him to embrace a different set of values, or by convincing the powers that be to adopt values that will prevent his continued ownership and abuse of slaves that the slave is actually, practically valued, unchained, unowned.
If you don’t think that, then what is the ultimate backing for the value of money?
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
You’re not even being definitionally consistent, here. If one values some thing, even it was otherwise unvalued, it becomes valued as soon as one chooses to value it, by definition!
-TS
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your criticism is based on your assumption that values are entirely subjective. My point is that some things - like life - are valuable even if their value is not recognised.
There are four basic possibilities:
- A thing is objectively valuable (OV) but its value is not recognised = ignorance
- A thing is objectively valuable (OV) and its value is recognised (SV) = appreciation.
- A thing is objectively valueless but value is conferred on it arbitrarily (SV) = fantasy
- A thing is objectively valueless and value is not conferred on it = insight
T
Touchstone
Guest
This is a good example of “not even wrong”. 3 and 4 are as incoherent as 1 and 2, because “objectively valueless” is just as incoherent ans “objectively valuable”. Value is necessarily subjective – it’s an activity of subjects! Even on Catholicism, the value of human life is perfectly subjective; any value assigned to human life by God is just that – assigned. It doesn’t obtain independent of will or mind, which is the necessary condition for any “objective value”. It is assigned, subjectively by God.
It’s as incoherent on your views as it is on mine, you are just (and this is common so take heart) bewitched by the lazy language and thinking of Catholic apologetics. You use “objective” where you actually, demonstrably mean “subjective”.
Here’s another try to get through, using a nearby word. Do you believe in something being an “objective favorite”? If that seems problematic, and it should, then I think can grab a handle-hold on the idea that will show the folly of your usage above. “Favorite” by definition is subjective, it’s the allocation of favor by a subject, an activity of the self. It can’t obtain objectively, it’s an incoherent term. Where “favorites” are chosen, you necessarily have subjectivity.
Even if I don’t recognized it, and human life is valued by God, it’s still just as subjective as can be, it’s just the will/mind of God doing the choosing, God’s autonomy/sovereignty at work rather than mine. It’s perfectly non-objective.If you don’t value your power of reason you are certainly ignorant! To value reason is to be realistic because without it you cannot even know what value is. It is valuable whether we recognise the fact or not.
The basic problem running through your arguments here is that you are confused, thoroughly, on the subjective/objective distinction. Where you have value, you necessarily have a subject allocating priority or importance. “Objective value” has no meaning or coherence at all. Value is only meaningful in relation to a subject.
This is why the money analogy works so well, here. You can understand, easily, I think, the subjective nature of valuation of money. And there you have all you need conceptually to see the errors in what you said above. Forget whether God exists or what’s real or not and all that for now, just consider that your thoughts are not coherent, not internally consistent. They aren’t sufficiently well formed to be right or wrong.
-TS
B
Betterave
Guest
So imagine TS telling his neighbor:
That negro is a human being, with real value, just like you! Why would you suppose you can own another human being? The real value and the intrinsic meaning of being a human being precludes your owning him.
He’d look at TS like he was crazy:
Meaning and value are social constructs. Value is as valuation does, like I always say. I own this slave. There’s value for you, mate!
TS replies:
Of yeah, I forgot. My model of valuation is mine and yours is yours and both are completely arational. So I’d like to convince you to lay down your whips and chains…
Then, waxing philosophical, TS might continue:
“The currency of our lives is what we want it to be, and what we make it, individually, and collectively. Life is meaningful in God’s absence (and especially so in that case!) because we have resources like time and energy to invest, and life is the means of investing it. We have ambitions, emotions, goals and instincts we are born with, and which we develop as part of our nature. We are social species, and together, these produce all the real, practical meaning that is to be had.”
To which the slave owner might reply:
*Uh… right. The only thing I’m convinced of is that you have nothing rational to say that could convince me that **my *model of valuation is to be rejected in favor of yours. So have a nice day, mate!
That negro is a human being, with real value, just like you! Why would you suppose you can own another human being? The real value and the intrinsic meaning of being a human being precludes your owning him.
He’d look at TS like he was crazy:
Meaning and value are social constructs. Value is as valuation does, like I always say. I own this slave. There’s value for you, mate!
TS replies:
Of yeah, I forgot. My model of valuation is mine and yours is yours and both are completely arational. So I’d like to convince you to lay down your whips and chains…
Then, waxing philosophical, TS might continue:
“The currency of our lives is what we want it to be, and what we make it, individually, and collectively. Life is meaningful in God’s absence (and especially so in that case!) because we have resources like time and energy to invest, and life is the means of investing it. We have ambitions, emotions, goals and instincts we are born with, and which we develop as part of our nature. We are social species, and together, these produce all the real, practical meaning that is to be had.”
To which the slave owner might reply:
*Uh… right. The only thing I’m convinced of is that you have nothing rational to say that could convince me that **my *model of valuation is to be rejected in favor of yours. So have a nice day, mate!
B
Betterave
Guest
This is an embarrassingly naive view. Do you really think that you have proven that a valuation is merely subjective by pointing out that it is subjectively apprehended? “If an object is apprehended by a subject, then that object is merely subjective” is the nonsense non sequitur you ground your thinking in here, isn’t it? And what do you think ‘objective’ means? Not apprehended by any subject? That’s nonsense, bud.
Think something like eudaimonia. Maybe you should read some Nicomachean Ethics, then you would at least have a clue about the argument that you actually need to defeat, rather than proceeding in your current mode of ignoratio elenchi.
B
Betterave
Guest
And then they might have a brutal civil war in order to resolve their arational dispute in a manner consistent with their claim that they are purely arationally opposed to each other (although they of course have not even begun to rule out the obvious other possibility, namely that they are both being irrational).
T
Touchstone
Guest
Apprehension or observation don’t matter. If something obtains objectively, it obtains independently of mind or will. The reality exists without any dependency on a subject, on the will, choice or mind of anything.
When a subject observes an object, and supposes it obtains objectively (i.e. reality is real), it’s not the observation of the object that gives it reality. The subject is incidental, irrelevant. It is what it is whether a mind wills it, wishes it, wants it, observes it, understands it, likes it, hates it or wants to date it or not. All of that has perfectly no bearing on the object if, the object is objectively real.
I’ve not said anywhere that the object itself is subjective. If reality is reality, and it is a real object, the subject doesn’t matter to the reality of the object. The choices a mind or will makes ABOUT an object are necessarily subjective, though. Valuation is an volitional activity of the subject. The valuation of the object is subjective, then, even as the reality of object is objective. The valuation is dependent on the mind/will of the subject (even if its God), and the reality of the object does NOT depend on any mind or will if its reality is objective.
See, it’s good to have read all that, but embracing that in a way where you would recommend that here is precisely how one gets so thoroughly confused about subject-object relationships. It’s not that I’m not aware of the concept of, say “human flourishing” as something intrinsic or fundamental from Aristotle; the whole point of this thread is to demonstrate that the concept is itself incoherent, and at odds, demonstrably with the way humans actually assign and process meaning and value.
-TS
T
The_Exodus
Guest
Since God’s nature is existence, he necessarily grounds all being whatsoever. Thus what he wills, and what he knows, obtains objectively, since they depend on his very essence to exist. If God wills human life to be meaningful, then, human life is meaningful. Now, this is “subjective” in the sense of being known by a knower and willed by a willer, but it is not “subjective” in the sense of being determined by what is known, or being determined *by *what is willed.
This is “assigned” by God, but it is not “just assigned.” The “just” only comes in when you try to claim the same relating to humans. This is because humans are subjects which do not determine their objects by their knowledge. The human will and mind are rather determined by these things, instead of determining them, as is the case with God.
But anyway, this is all beside the point, i.e. a red herring. What is at question is how it is possible for atheism to ground meaning objectively. All other worldviews could be terribly wrong (Catholicism worst of all), and that wouldn’t mean atheism was therefore right.
So you admit your view is incoherent? Again, it makes no difference how incoherent the other view is (or how incoherent you think it is). Two incoherent views don’t make them both true, and if one incoherent view is false, it does not follow that another is therefore true. Thus this point is irrelevant; i.e. another red herring.
This is sophist nonsense. It is only on the assumption that language is meaningful and that it can definitely grasp some element of common reality which constitutes certainknowledge that communication is even possible.
If you don’t think this is so then nothing you say can possibly be meaningful, since you would be talking about something which you have no knowledge of. If nothing can be certainly defined, then we will go on ad infinitum defining our terms, since each term must rely on another term for its meaning. Further, if you don’t mean something definite when you speak, then what can you mean? At some point in your own language you must admit that you are actually expressing a truth.
To state positively that “we are bewitched by language” amounts to the same irrationality as the positive statement “we are all liars.” If it is true, it therefore must be false.
Perhaps we should all just wait until Touchstone gives us a sentence he thinks is actually true? (Further, am I the only one who finds it odd that the person espousing such views has the avatar “Touchstone” in the first place? One cannot ground certainty or language by destroying certainty or language.)
Your examples are so vague (e.g. the “telic impulses”) that they hardly warrant consideration, and they certainly don’t justify a rebuttal (although they are put forward as such). What do you mean by “favorites”? Do you mean something desired by the natural senses (e.g. food, sex, etc)? Do you mean something desired by the intellect (e.g. happiness, truth, beauty as such)?
God is what gives objectivity to things, since his essence is existence. Nothing could obtain, were God not to will it so, since “to obtain” is convertible with “to exist,” and God gives existence to all that is.
Since there is no “subject” indepedent of the necessary, ever present and infinitely exhaustive being of God, there is no dichotomy between subject and object that can be appealed to. There is no state of existence one can set up against what God wills to exist, which would be the “subjective side,” since such a thing cannot exist.
But again, this is a red herring on your part.
You’ve yet to clarify your position on this distinction, which I put forward to you in posts 28 and 29 I believe.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Do you suppose pointing to “intrinsic value” or “objective value”, meaningless, incoherent concepts, literally as self-contradictory as “circular squares” is the “rational” choice?
Really?
I don’t support the notion that such a conflict, or the values driving it, more precisely, are arational in some essential sense. A disposition for, or against slavery is a value commitment, and hence a subjective one, but the reasoning that informs and commends those value choices can be more or less rational, depending on the thinker. One can come to different value judgments (or the same ones) based on different levels of rigour and discipline in reasoning. That doesn’t mean the value judgment itself is rational (it may be, subjective does not negate rational!), but we can’t class value judgments up front as “arational”, if we are considering what contributed to those judgments.
-TS
T
The_Exodus
Guest
This was at root in his misconception in the “sweetness” thread, and is at root here. For what it’s worth, I think this “heartbeat” of a thought underlies a great deal of atheistic thinking. It’s comforting that I’m not the only one to recognize this misapprehension on Touchstone (as well as others’) part.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
This is one of those conversations that use big words and quickly drifts off into a philosophy I don’t understand.
I have no idea what points either of you are making
I have no idea what points either of you are making
T
Touchstone
Guest
That is the pinnacle of subjectivity. It couldn’t be more purely subjective than God’s relationship to reality, on Catholicism. You’ve just admitted as much, right here. Reality is what it is by the will of God. All of it, every little last nuance of it, exist as the result of God’s will. It’s the theoretical maximum subjectivity you are describing.
Objectivity doesn’t obtain by the basis of knowing. That’s the fundamental thing it rejects – any dependency on a subject (knower or willer) at all.
[qutoe]
This is “assigned” by God, but it is not “just assigned.” The “just” only comes in when you try to claim the same relating to humans. This is because humans are subjects which do not determine their objects by their knowledge. The human will and mind are rather determined by these things, instead of determining them, as is the case with God.
There’s nothing necessary about just. It works perfectly well without it. “Assigned by God” establishes the subjectivity of that relationship as perfectly as can be. Being human or God, or alien or duck makes no difference whatsoever. If X is objectively real, it is not dependent on any mind or will or knower whatsoever. Full stop.
Well the import of my thread here was to show the incoherence of the theist notion of “objective value” or “intrinsic meaning”. That is really the worthwhile insight available here, made available by means of the money analogy, which I think is quite pedagogically useful in showing this. People understand that money does not have “intrinsic worth”. It has value by convention, agreement, subjective choices and priorities, individually and collectively.
No, I meant that “objective value” is incoherent, no matter if you are talking from a Catholic perspective or an atheist perspective. It’s the same as supposing that “square circles” obtain, and is as broken from a Catholic or atheist perspective as “square circle” is.
I’m not aware of any charges here that subjective valuation as a concept is incoherent. Is that your claim? That’s why I invoked the example of the way we value money and trasact with it. It’s both demonstrably subjective and demonstrably practical, effectual as “object of valuation”. We transact with it!
You must be thinking I though my own views were incoherent. I don’t. I was saying that “objective value” is a “square circle” for the Catholic and atheist alike.
Sure. “Bewitched by language” does not mean language is not meaningful, nor self-defeating, nor impractical. It is useful, effective, and practical. But it’s power in those respects are seductive, and tempt us to ascribe meaning and coherence and utility where none obtain. It’s very effectiveness is the reason it’s so easy to BS oneself and others, by falling for the “appearance of meaning and coherence”.
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
The Exodus:
That’s why it’s such a kick to hear William Lane Craig argue for the “objective morality” on his theism. It’s “right” because God said so, or willed it thus, or however you want to express his adoption, his personal nature.
-TS
OK, you’re jumping the gun, again, here. Bewitched by language doesn’t mean from me, nor Wittgenstein, what you are going for here. Language is effective, meaningful, practical. It’s also problematic for just those reasons – it’s easy to get confused in thinking language being used is effective when it’s not. Being disciplined in examining the language provides help and remedies from this. But it’s a risk. And theology revels in this kind of lazy, casual and incoherent language.
Ugh. See above.
Double Ugh. You launched into the wrong sermon, here. You are arguing against ideas I haven’t offered and that I do not endorse.
It’s not vague – we humans have a psychological disposition toward intentionality – see a simple search, here, for more specifics. We have survived and thrived evolutionarily because we are acutely oriented toward designs, plans, goals. This is the cognitively lens through which we view the world around us.
I think either work. As long as the mind or will is effective in making the choice, it holds.
This would only hold if God was not a will, a mind, a personality. If we stipulate, arguendo, that some Stephen Hawking like “metaphysic physics” obtains, and just is, as a brute fact, the way it is, and gives to universes as it does, or whatever, then that works as an objective context. But insofar as God can choose, assign, will, do or not do, in relation to the nature of reality, our reality (on that view) is maximally subjective.
That’s why it’s such a kick to hear William Lane Craig argue for the “objective morality” on his theism. It’s “right” because God said so, or willed it thus, or however you want to express his adoption, his personal nature.
Sure there is. If atheism obtains, and reality is a brute fact of impersonal physics, wholly independent of any mind or will in being what it is, our universe is objectively real. QED. On materialism, the universe is objectively real. On theism, or Catholicism, at least, it can’t be.
Red herring? This is a fundamental distinction that is systematically overlooked/ignored/denied by theists, and which undercuts all of its apologetics toward “intrinsic value” and “objective meaning”. It’s like you are telling me that your reliance on the reality of “square circles” is a distraction for me to point out.
OK, I’ll get back there and respond to those. I don’t recall them, but I expect my response will be very much the ideas in this post.
-TS
- Status