The Purpose of Marriage

[tonyrey]

All values presuppose the value of existence - without which values would be figments of the imagination. “Nothing shall come from nothing.” - King Lear
Without knowing which meaning of “value” is being invoked here this isn’t something on which I can comment.

Thomas Nagel pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities. I would add that there is no obvious reason why they should be limited to the human species because animals can develop and enjoy life but persons can also seek truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love - which are certainly not subjective figments of the imagination.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Information referenced from the other thread in navy.

Thomas Nagel pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities.

Déjà vu

I would add that there is no obvious reason why they should be limited to the human species because animals can develop and enjoy life but persons can also seek truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love - which are certainly not subjective figments of the imagination.

That’s fine. I haven’t been anthropocentric. Rather I’ve been explicit in including non-humans (#805, #253) in discussing the relationship between the valuer and the object assigned a value*.

Let’s jump ahead into this conversation that we’ve had before since we’ve spoken about this already. The last time I answered this question you replied:

Whether they found value is irrelevant. Did their lives have any value at all - regardless of your opinion?

To which I replied making clear what I meant by the word value along with an answer. Your reply, which invoked the above sense of Déjà vu:

It was an atheist, Thomas Nagel, who pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities - regardless of whether they are recognised or not.

After which I asked for you to provide a definition for what you mean by “value” so that I could make sure we were on the same page.

At which our interaction was terminated.

Wanted to get all that out there to avoid repeating all the same things. While I do enjoy conversation with you I’m sure you can understand why I’d not take a ride down the same path before. Let’s find some new scenery for our ride.

Quotes from previous threads are partial. I’ve linked to the previous message to make the full content available. Feel free to introduce further text surrounding the quote if you’ve feel the way that I’ve presented them here to misrepresent them in any way.

• • n, rating of desirability/worth/utility/importance to some one or group #244,

 

[tonyrey]

Information referenced from the other thread in navy.

Déjà vu

That’s fine. I haven’t been anthropocentric. Rather I’ve been explicit in including non-humans (#805, #253) in discussing the relationship between the valuer and the object assigned a value*.

Let’s jump ahead into this conversation that we’ve had before since we’ve spoken about this already. The last time I answered this question you replied:

To which I replied making clear what I meant by the word value along with an answer. Your reply, which invoked the above sense of Déjà vu:

After which I asked for you to provide a definition for what you mean by “value” so that I could make sure we were on the same page.

At which our interaction was terminated.

Wanted to get all that out there to avoid repeating all the same things. While I do enjoy conversation with you I’m sure you can understand why I’d not take a ride down the same path before. Let’s find some new scenery for our ride.

Quotes from previous threads are partial. I’ve linked to the previous message to make the full content available. Feel free to introduce further text surrounding the quote if you’ve feel the way that I’ve presented them here to misrepresent them in any way.

• • n, rating of desirability/worth/utility/importance to some one or group #244,

Your responses don’t explain your views. They simply question mine!

 

[tonyrey]

In your opinion, is that one purpose procreation, unity or something else?

Fulfilment!

Do you believe life is purposeless?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Your responses don’t explain your views. They simply question mine!

On the contrary. My question for you is on word usage. I guess this is a circular ride as I can quote myself from earlier and say

I’ve made an attempt at choosing an interpretation but I’m not quite sure that my interpretation aligns with your intended meaning.

Since it was addressed in the 2011 or 2013 thread despite request I believe that’s something you’d rather not attempt to define. So that’s fine.

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary. My question for you is on word usage. I guess this is a circular ride as I can quote myself from earlier and say Since it was addressed in the 2011 or 2013 thread despite request I believe that’s something you’d rather not attempt to define. So that’s fine.

What exactly do you want me to define?

I have stated that animals can develop and enjoy life but persons can also seek truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

 

[1AugustSon7]

provide a definition for what you mean by “value” so that I could make sure we were on the same page.

A simple program of asking What is value? and seeking what we say is valuable and why, would render the result you want.

What is it about those things that we say “this is valuable” that causes us to call it ‘valuable’? Undoubtedly it will boil down to some certain goodness they all share, then we will next inquire why we call all these things good: i.e., what the cause of their goodness is. We will also note what it is they all share in common. Personally, I imagine it will boil down to being a fulfillment or realization of our nature in accordance with it. Thus, for instance, medicine is perhaps called valuable because it repairs or produces health. And again virtue might be called valuable because it fulfills our nature: i.e., it allows us to realize our potential in accordance with nature (whereas vice does just the opposite). The objectivity would then rest more or less on what our nature is and what is good for us.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What exactly do you want me to define?

define “value” as you’ve used it in this thread.

I have stated that animals can develop and enjoy life but persons can also seek truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

It doesn’t seem that you are offering that as a definition. Correct me if I am wrong.

I did decide to do some searching on my own though to try to decipher your word usage. I found that I am not the first person with which you’ve had this conversation, I’m not the first to ask for your usage of the word, not the first to not receive a usage. It appears that historically the responses have either been in rejection or criticism of the definition that the other person have offered or forms of tergiversation.

More interestingly when looking at the various forms of the conversation I found they seem to be describable by a script such as that which could be modeled by a flow chart or a dialog that a help desk person executes. I wasn’t anropocentric in one of my questions. It looked that had I been there’s prepared responses like “…]if values were created in human minds which are not eternal they would be neither objective nor eternal nor significant…]” In many cases it seems to be a derailment to the conversation without contributing much to the topic.

I’m still curious as to what you mean by the word “value.” But I must say that I look at it differently now that the script is laid out before me.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A simple program of asking What is value? and seeking what we say is valuable and why, would render the result you want.

Thanks for the suggestion August, but I’m afraid that hasn’t been the result. This is an interaction that is distributed over more than one thread. I don’t want to rehash it out again, but links to some of the other threads are in previous messages if you’d like to take a look.

 

[tonyrey]

A simple program of asking What is value? and seeking what we say is valuable and why, would render the result you want.

What is it about those things that we say “this is valuable” that causes us to call it ‘valuable’? Undoubtedly it will boil down to some certain goodness they all share, then we will next inquire why we call all these things good: i.e., what the cause of their goodness is. We will also note what it is they all share in common. Personally, I imagine it will boil down to being a fulfillment or realization of our nature in accordance with it. Thus, for instance, medicine is perhaps called valuable because it repairs or produces health. And again virtue might be called valuable because it fulfills our nature: i.e., it allows us to realize our potential in accordance with nature (whereas vice does just the opposite). The objectivity would then rest more or less on what our nature is and what is good for us.

It is refreshing to read a post which is positive rather than negative and furthers the discussion rather than evades it…

 

[tonyrey]

define “value” as you’ve used it in this thread.

It doesn’t seem that you are offering that as a definition. Correct me if I am wrong.

I did decide to do some searching on my own though to try to decipher your word usage. I found that I am not the first person with which you’ve had this conversation, I’m not the first to ask for your usage of the word, not the first to not receive a usage. It appears that historically the responses have either been in rejection or criticism of the definition that the other person have offered or forms of tergiversation.

More interestingly when looking at the various forms of the conversation I found they seem to be describable by a script such as that which could be modeled by a flow chart or a dialog that a help desk person executes. I wasn’t anropocentric in one of my questions. It looked that had I been there’s prepared responses like “…]if values were created in human minds which are not eternal they would be neither objective nor eternal nor significant…]” In many cases it seems to be a derailment to the conversation without contributing much to the topic.

I’m still curious as to what you mean by the word “value.” But I must say that I look at it differently now that the script is laid out before me.

1. Do you believe the truth is valuable? If you continue to prevaricate rather than answer that question there is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with you.

 

[tonyrey]

It looked that had I been there’s prepared responses like “…]if values were created in human minds which are not eternal they would be neither objective nor eternal nor significant…]”

" prepared responses" = ad hominem.

Since you obviously believe values are entirely subjective you do not believe they are objective, eternal or significant. In other words you are a moral relativist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. Do you believe the truth is valuable?

Depends on what you mean be “valuable” here. We don’t seem to mean the same thing and thus far your meaning remains a secret. The same thing has already occurred with our previous interactions and the words “purpose” and “truth.” Would you like for us to have the “truth” conversation again while never offering any information on how you are using the words?

My expectations were met.After about 20 messages collectively in which I’ve offered the definition of “value” that I’m using without reciprocation I expected the trend to continue.

If you continue to prevaricate rather than answer that question there is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with you.

Ditto. See above.

" prepared responses" = ad hominem.

It’s not an ad hominem. That you’ve used the responses many times before is an observation and fact that neither elevates nor diminishes the content of those repeated responses. Why do you interpret the stating of this observation as a personal attack?

Since you obviously believe values are entirely subjective you do not believe they are objective, eternal or significant. In other words you are a moral relativist.

I’m fine with you classifying me as you see fit. I’ll provide neither acceptance nor objection there.This is the equivalent of the earlier “If you say so ”

 

[tonyrey]

Depends on what you mean be “valuable” here. We don’t seem to mean the same thing and thus far your meaning remains a secret. The same thing has already occurred with our previous interactions and the words “purpose” and “truth.” Would you like for us to have the “truth” conversation again while never offering any information on how you are using the words?

My expectations were met.After about 20 messages collectively in which I’ve offered the definition of “value” that I’m using without reciprocation I expected the trend to continue.

Ditto. See above.

It’s not an ad hominem. That you’ve used the responses many times before is an observation and fact that neither elevates nor diminishes the content of those repeated responses. Why do you interpret the stating of this observation as a personal attack?

I’m fine with you classifying me as you see fit. I’ll provide neither acceptance nor objection there.This is the equivalent of the earlier “If you say so ”

“Since you obviously believe values are entirely subjective you do not believe they are objective, eternal or significant.”

As usual you ignore that fact which is supported by your repeated rejection of objective values. It is significant that in addition to evading my questions by questioning the meaning of every single word I use you offer no definitions or views of your own. I leave you to your invulnerable obscurantism…

 

[mek42]

Fulfilment!

Do you believe life is purposeless?

What, exactly, do you mean by fulfillment?

Regarding your question, I really haven’t given the idea very much thought. Certainly not enough to answer your question. The only thing that comes to mind is that someone who does not believe in a purpose of life, yet who acts on concern for his fellow people, this persons acts must be more selfless than the same acts by one who is acting in accord with their belief of life’s purpose.

 

[inocente]

Since you obviously believe values are entirely subjective you do not believe they are objective, eternal or significant. In other words you are a moral relativist.

Logically any attempt to judge the value of something must be relative to the value system against which it is judged, it cannot be otherwise.

*A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a comparison or other relativity.

…] Most commonly the term value judgment refers to an individual’s opinion. Of course, the individual’s opinion is formed to a degree by their belief system, and the culture to which they belong. So a natural extension of the term value judgment is to include declarations seen one way from one value system, but which may be seen differently from another. Conceptually this extension of definition is related both to the anthropological axiom “cultural relativism” (that is, that cultural meaning derives from a context) and to the term “moral relativism” (that is, that moral and ethical propositions are not universal truths, but stem from cultural context). A value judgment formed within a specific value system may be parochial, and may be subject to dispute in a wider audience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgment*

 

[tonyrey]

Logically any attempt to judge the value of something must be relative to the value system against which it is judged, it cannot be otherwise.

Is the value system relative?

 

[inocente]

Is the value system relative?

Which one? For instance google “american values” and you get choices, google “catholic values” and you get choices, google “baptist values” and you get choices, etc.

 

[tonyrey]

What, exactly, do you mean by fulfillment?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

A value judgment formed within a specific value system may be parochial, and may be subject to dispute in a wider audience.

It certainly may be subject to dispute anywhere, parochial or otherwise. Does the fact that any or every value is disputed mean there is no absolute value attached to anything?

For example, under what value system would it be right to say that children should be sexually exploited?

So far as I know, only NAMBLA’s (North American Man Boy Love Association) value system would advance that position. But would you agree that NAMBLA is absolutely and objectively wrong to advance such a value as sexual exploitation of a child?