Has Anyone Heard from W_oo_t lately?

[soloferro]

But if nothing HAS subjective value.

You're getting this wrong. Nothing has objective value because "value" is a subjective term. It's like saying something is "hot" if it is or not depends on your point of view. saying that something is 100 degrees celsius is an objective measurement of temperature.

thats all existance is isn't it?
The value of the world to you?
If you don't value anything in the world then why do you go on?
your disagreement sounds like an argument for why self esteem is pointless, the kind of argument I'd expect out of a goth trying to make me feel bad for likeing myself :P

What? I don't know what leap you made to get to this, but that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course I value things. I value lots of things. But i do so from a subjective standpoint. None of the things I value has any self-generated "value" or "worth." The only value they have depends on the person doing the valuing. And self esteem IS pointless, since you're going to die alone anyway.

[Soty]

So, you're saying value doesn't exist because it's unknowable?

[soloferro]

-_-"

No, It exists, but as a subjective measurement of the world. "Value" as a measurement, doesn't exist outside of the observers viewpoint.

[Soty]

Originally Posted by soloferro

-_-"

No, It exists, but as a subjective measurement of the world. "Value" as a measurement, doesn't exist outside of the observers viewpoint.

Of course it does. It just varies. Sort of how an elephant on the horizon might look tiny, even if it looks huge to the person standing right next to it. And those two people can, if cooperative, come up with an arbitrary but exact system for directly measuring, or even triangulating it's height.

In the same way, people can always take a show of hands and decide on a universal but arbitrary value for anything. We actually do that a lot.

Or, if you wanna get philosophical, what can you even prove exists outside of your observations? Besides yourself, I mean.

[soloferro]

Okay, listen, we're talking about whether or not all life inherently has value.

My argument is that "value" is a subjective term that only exists in the observers viewpoint. if you remove the observer, you remove the value, thus life has no inherent value.

Or, if you wanna get philosophical, what can you even prove exists outside of your observations? Besides yourself, I mean.

This is irrelevant, but to address it, you can't prove that anything INSIDE your observations exist either.

[Soty]

Of course I can. I can prove it to myself. You're aware of Descartes, I assume.

And maybe that's the argument that you were having with BM. The argument I was having with you is that value exists and cannot be discounted (no pun intend) simply because it's arbitrary.

But if you want to go back to BM's argument, one could easily say that all life has some value because it has some potential. Hence the terms "human resources" and "human capital."

One can even say this and be pro-choice or (more cynically) pro-abortion. On the count of a life with experience has MORE value, even if it has less shelf-life.

[soloferro]

All subjective. Take away the observer and it evaporates. Value is in your head.

And, no, you can't. you can convince yourself that you believe that reality exists, but you can't prove that reality exists. Philosophy for dummies is a rather good book.

[B-mage]

What? I don't know what leap you made to get to this, but that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course I value things. I value lots of things. But i do so from a subjective standpoint. None of the things I value has any self-generated "value" or "worth." The only value they have depends on the person doing the valuing. And self esteem IS pointless, since you're going to die alone anyway.

Ok I see what you mean, I apologize I should have read your post more indepth. I took the meaning to be "subjective is worthless"

Well I see what you're driving towards. But why?
I understand when you take away opinions then nothing means anything. They are just a collection of equal actions and reactions with measurable values and nothing beyond that.

To that I say:
Who cares?
You want to live in a world where all we see if the base value of things and give no deeper meaning to it? Part of life is two people taking away different veiw points from the same event and then either accpeting and learning from one another or just disagreeing over it. I'm glad we have subjective values to the world because it makes it that subjective thing called fun.

So long as you still include the facts in your opinions I have no problem with the world being subjective. True there are many times when we need to ignore opinions and work solely on facts and I should hope at least some of us are capable of that.

Now I understand you may only be making the argument that we can't say all life has meaning. And in your reasoning that is true. But thats just it, your reasoning. Most of the people on here have the reasoning that since we value life in itself, then everyone has value just for being alive.

I reason this by seeing that life is presious because one it's gone there is nothingness. I have religious beliefs too but for the sake of argument we'll say after you die there is nothing. Compaired to nothingness, life is definitly something and it takes a lot of balls to play god and send someone to that nothingness. Life has meaning to me becuase it has potential too. You can say Lincon's life had value because of his actions as president. But he wasn't born president and he didn't do these things till late in his life. If someone with the notion that life without action is meaningless had been given the choice to take his life before this may have ended his life before he became "valueble" and thus a great man would never have been.

So to me, the "somethingness" of life and the potential of life give it base meaning.

[Taruby]

It would be of some amusement if the poster called w_oo_t saw this thread and replied to it. Especially if that post were in the mistaken belief that all of the posts besides the OP's were about him.

@B-mage: Why did you randomly assign the bold tag to certain words in your last post?

many your something...

I'm a little hesitant to write a proper post due to my perceived inability to send my point across with total clarity. I tried something with koi and computer circuits, but they quickly turned into non sequiturs.

[B-mage]

Originally Posted by Taruby

@B-mage: Why did you randomly assign the bold tag to certain words in your last post?

I have a nasty habit of typing in a style that mimics the way I speak, a problem because it never carries over well and I often come off as over reacting or the manner in which it is ment is totally lost because without the way I would say it, it has less meaning.

The words I bolded are ones I'd be over emphasizing and probably leaning my head forward with wide eyes O.o

[Taruby]

Okay, I feel a little better now.

Originally Posted by B-mage

I reason this by seeing that life is presious because one it's gone there is nothingness.

That's not true. When you are dead, you do not become nothing. All of the physical remnants of your body will continue to exist. Here's an interesting article about scientists on the verge of turning non-living matter into living matter:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...ists-on-t.html

Originally Posted by B-mage

Life has meaning to me becuase it has potential too.

There are also things like a virus. They don't satisfy the biological conditions for being a living-thing, yet they have potential.

[Soty]

Originally Posted by soloferro

All subjective. Take away the observer and it evaporates. Value is in your head.

How convenient. Without the observer, there is no observation. It's clever, but it also negates "non-value." So you've created a magical realm wherein nothing "is." Conveniently for me, an observer, nothing in this logical construct of yours "isn't" either.

So, I think that when we talk about perceptions of value (interestingly, the emphasis there can be on "perception" OR "value"), we would hope to include an observer.

And, no, you can't. you can convince yourself that you believe that reality exists, but you can't prove that reality exists. Philosophy for dummies is a rather good book.

OHMYGOD, am I dreaming? Where is my head? There can be no 4th dimension, 3 is as far as I can see! Am I what I do? Am I at all? Other sophomoric things like that?

Heh, no. Perhaps if you read the unabridged versions, you wouldn't see philosophy as an enforcer nor an arbiter of limitations, but rather a way to see past them.

But it's convenient to go about peckering at other people's understandings of life and existence when you've no understanding of your own. Congratulations, Socrates. You are truely wise because you know nothing.

Of course, having said that, tell us everything you know, and don't stop until you've said anything.