Objective Value and seeing argument!

[F1fan]

The problem is always with the one presenting proofs, never with the one listening, right?

Irony. You don't seem to want to listen to the problems with your posts, as if you assume you are perfect, almost godlike.

You continue to blur your own judgments (beliefs) as being objective and ignore/dismiss that others have vastly different judgments about the same issue. As everyone else on this post has explained, your first premise ins't true, and has explained why it's not true, yet you refuse to understand that your value assignment, as a mere mortal, isn't absolute.

 

[Link]

yet you refuse to understand that your value assignment, as a mere mortal, isn't absolute.

Our assignment is not absolute, but it is done with a belief that is an accurate value assignment that we do our best to see and love and assign ourselves to us and others. The absolute assignment we can't do and rather only God can is part of my argument, how can I not understand it when I stated this as part of my argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

Our assignment is not absolute, but it is done with a belief that is an accurate value assignment that we do our best to see and love and assign ourselves to us and others.

Our assessment can only possibly be personal and subjective. We are comparing ourselves and others to our own personal (entirely subjective) value system (which may or may not heavily depend on that of the society we are a part of).

The absolute assignment we can't do...

But you're simply assuming that there is such a thing as an absolute or objective assignment. This is begging the question. There is nothing in your argument that establishes that such a thing exists. And before you repeat that "we would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are" - that is just another baseless assertion. The fact that art and musical appreciation are subjective doesn't stop people from striving to be (what they perceive as) good artists or musicians.

 

[Link]

Our assessment can only possibly be personal and subjective. We are comparing ourselves and others to our own personal (entirely subjective) value system (which may or may not heavily depend on that of the society we are a part of).



But you're simply assuming that there is such a thing as an absolute or objective assignment. This is begging the question. There is nothing in your argument that establishes that such a thing exists. And before you repeat that "we would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are" - that is just another baseless assertion. The fact that art and musical appreciation are subjective doesn't stop people from striving to be (what they perceive as) good artists or musicians.

I'm not assuming. I've elaborated why ""we would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are". If we assign value ourselves, it's not like taste in music or food where some of it is there and the other part is our subjective taste/enjoyment, when it comes to value of deeds and who we are, it doesn't work that way. It's rather that we try to get as close as possible to valuing people who they are.

Let me explain further. Love is assignment of value and it has emotion to it, but really it's a type of emotion when value people. Different type of relationships and valuing - is such that love has two components:

(1)Subjective assignment (who and what these people mean to me)
(2)Subjective but estimating assignment with respect to objective value

What I mean by 2, is that say you love your wife/husband/kid etc, the love for what they mean to you is also related with 2. That is you also try to estimate what value they have independent of what they mean to you. You also assess with that, their deeds in relationship to 1. You value them in belief there is an objective value.

In the situation of 1, if you going to love a wife for example, you say, you mean this much to me. But when asked, "Why do you mean this much to me?", it's just looks, it's shallow. So you should love them for characteristics they have and along with that can come similar hobbies, beliefs, viewpoints, humor. But the primary thing they want to see is that you see value in them independent of their looks and hobbies and similar viewpoints.

This doesn't mean you can actually objectively fully absolutely determine that value, but that value you know is there. You say, well I recognize this and this about you, so I like that. For all you know, that is what she shows you but she maybe the opposite, butt you do your best. If she deceived you, then you were wrong about that.

But you do so trusting her and also with belief there is an accurate value.

I hope I've made this a bit more clear.

The absolute accurate viewpoint to who we are, I argue, is only in God's vision. But how we act, we assume this, that there is an accurate reality to who we are, even if we don't know it fully.

 

[ratiocinator]

What I mean by 2, is that say you love your wife/husband/kid etc, the love for what they mean to you is also related with 2. That is you also try to estimate what value they have independent of what they mean to you. You also assess with that, their deeds in relationship to 1. You value them in belief there is an objective value.

No, you don't - at least I don't - and I don't think any rational person who's thought about it clearly would either. Even if you try to assess somebody regardless of what they mean to you personally, that is just as subjective. You have still only have your own ideas (and those of other people and wider society) of what is considered valuable and what traits are more or less important. The universe doesn't care. Value only exists as a subjective (individual or collective) judgement.

I hope I've made this a bit more clear.

It's crystal clear, and just as clearly illogical and wrong.

The absolute accurate viewpoint to who we are, I argue, is only in God's vision.

Which is adding another unwarranted assumption on to the first. Even if you'd established that there was such a thing as objective value (which you've come nowhere near doing) then the assumption that we need a god to know it is another non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow.

But how we act, we assume this, that there is an accurate reality to who we are, even if we don't know it fully.

No we don't (not in terms of value, anyway). You may do, but that would just be your own (as yet unjustified in this argument) belief and way of thinking.

 

[Polymath257]

We wouldn't try to estimate if there was no objective value. If it was our minds making it up, we would not even try but recognize it as an illusion and be done with it.

It isn't an illusion: it is whether we like or dislike something. And that is subjective.

Ultimately, we value things because we like them. We may like them because they meet some of our needs (like food for hunger), but that isn't a necessity.

Justice, for example, is a sense we have that a series of events was fair to those involved. It is a subjective judgement. And people do often differ about hose judgements.

And you contradicted yourself, you first said non-sequitur then stated our minds are objective in estimating, make up your mind, so we can discuss the right premise you doubt.

Most values are matters of opinion (i.e, subjective).

What you claimed, that we would not judge if there wasn't anything objective, is clearly false. People like or dislike for subjective reasons all the time.

 

[Link]

There gets to a point when I have to repeat the same points and there is really no purpose to that. If I'm repeating and you are repeating, it's best to stop. People can read the thread and asses.

 

[Polymath257]

You are making a claim, which you later said the opposite. But you haven't addressed my reasoning yet. You called it non-sequitur, but it's reasonable, if it was an illusion, we wouldn't try to recognize the value because we get to just make it up as we go.

And that is simply false. Clearly so.

People make arbitrary judgements based on their personal preferences all the time. Those are subjective values.

The fact we estimate, shows we believe there is objective value, and in fact, we never try estimate except maybe the end of a rainbow before people knew what it was, a non-existing thing.

But we make judgements about clearly subjective things all the time. For example, I think tomatoes are vile tasting. others like them. That is a value judgement that is subjective.

This happens in other areas. Whether we like someone or not is usually a subjective determination with little objective to back it up.

We exist, we have objective value, is the reason that motivates to understand who we are and recognize who others are, in value.

I disagree. We exist and make judgements based on our preferences. Those preferences are subjective. That others make different judgements based on their preferences is interesting and leads us to try to understand others.

 

[Polymath257]

There gets to a point when I have to repeat the same points and there is really no purpose to that. If I'm repeating and you are repeating, it's best to stop. People can read the thread and asses.

You keep repeating the points, but don't respond to the critiques of those points.

This thread is even a good example of the subjectiveness of values. People read what you wrote and judge it to be incomplete and illogical. You clearly think it is complete and logical.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is always with the one presenting proofs, never with the one listening, right?

People are listening to what you say. They just disagree and find your argument less than compelling.

You are also not listening to their criticisms. You fail to address their points, but instead simply make your same claims again.

 

[Link]

It looks like a long discussion but what's the point if we repeating? I think I made my points and you guys have said your "refutations". I'm out myself, you guys can discuss it though and continue to do so.

 

[Polymath257]

But have you ever said a Theist is right in anything they argue with Atheists. Just wondering. Maybe you have...

Sure. My physics advisor was a theist. He and I would frequently have discussions about physics or politics. And I frequently admitted he was correct about some point.

 

[Polymath257]

Alright victory to Atheists again. Well done. No arguments proving God, good job Atheists you won again.

No *bad* arguments either way, please.

If all you have are bad arguments for God, that isn't my fault.

 

[McBell]

It's not disservice, but shows God is the author of Quran. There is no cosmological argument, but rather God says people aren't sure who began the universe or what began it, Muslims argue for centuries by arguments Quran didn't argue by.

Yet this argument in Quran emphasized in many places, shows, indeed the author is God to me. This is because of how clear it is, how potent, and how he selected in one of the chapters as sufficient reminder with respect to himself. He chose the most potent argument, most clearest, and one no human can do without (in living).

If the OP is the best you got in presenting it, all you will be doing when you drag the Koran and Hadiths into this thread is drag them and all of Islam through the mud all in a vain effort to soothe your bruised ego.

 

[Clara Tea]

Salam

(1) Is Value of who we are objective or subjective.

We would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are. We don't subjectively decided we are good or bad, we try to rather see if we are good or bad.

Asking other humans feedback is not a problem, but we take account of what they say to help us recognize who we are. That is if we take their feedback without an objective value to who we are, they themselves would be just making it up and it would have no value.

The fact that we even take account of what others say, show, we are trying to recognize who we are and our value, some trying even to their best of their abilities.

We don't just assign ourselves value, we try to recognize what our value is, which means we have an objective value.

We can't allow the monsters of the world (killers, rapists, et al) to define their own greatness. Billionaire Ross Perot, for example, computerized General Motors, then extorted billions of dollars from them (thus making the bulk of his fortune and gaining the presidency of GM), by refusing to tell them how to operate the computers....thus freezing their accounting department, freezing their manufacturing plants, and not allowing them to transact business. While president of General Motors, Perot made every employee of the company listen to a movie about how wonderful he is. Many were actually brainwashed into believing that.



(2) We are a perception

Seeing compassion, love, justice, in ourselves and others, requires us to assess actions and believe there is personhood to the person, and states of being that are non-material. When I say non-material, I am not necessarily saying a soul yet, let's say, it's a program generated by the brain from an atheist point of view. Regardless of what viewpoint, we are an idea/non-material/perception type existence. Which brings the next point.

(3) Can our brains generate who we are accurately?

I say they cannot, because they don't have an objective measurement to who we are and way of assessing our actions, in short, we don't assign who we are accurately but rather estimate and somethings we are right about ourselves and other things wrong.

(4) If we have an objective value, where does it exist?

I say if we an objective value, the only place we really can exist is with God, in his vision, judging us exactly as we are. God sees us exactly as we are, and the only thing that can.


Putting the premises together:

(1) We are a perception.
(2) That value we perceive ourselves is not accurate to who we are.
(3) We have an accurate value to who we are.
(4) The accurate value to who we are, can only be seen and assigned by God (Perfect judge and assessor to who we are).

Therefore God exists.

Complementary opposites, yin and yang, exist individually and by contrast, measured by both an absolute and relative scale.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/0...piVo_QQVpSJnSGnvPXpWPm4-4sOK4552xauAbkCZOCFmm

Per the website, above, from Duke University, Megalomania (officially dubbed narcissistic personality disorder in 1980), a well known, and well studied psychological malady, includes tenuous grasp on reality and a persecution complex (which is probably caused by all those people who are plotting against one).

Project MUSE - <i>Freud's "Megalomania."</i> (review)

The website, above, from Johns Hopkins University, shows that not even Freud (father of psychology) was immune from psychoanalysis (and the finding of megalomania). It serves him right for training others to do it.

Few admit to wrongdoing. Hitler might have thought that he was doing the world a favor by torturing to death millions of Jews. President Bill Clinton might have thought that he was doing the world a favor by letting the Hutu slaughter about 6 million captive Tutsis without lifting a finger to stop them (a modern holocaust of African Blacks). President W. Bush might have thought that he was helping God by killing in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (if, of course, God was just kidding about that remark about "not killing)."

Instead of telling everyone around us how great we are (like the puff pieces that General Douglas MacArthur and General Wesley Clark wrote to the newspapers), we should be judged by others. Our greatness should not be penned by our own hand, and embellished.

On the other hand, some people have an excessively low opinion of themselves. I think that those who write in forums, fortunately, don't suffer from that malady, but feel themselves worthy of readers who actually pay attention to the things that they write.

The most important thing to realize is that we all can contribute to society by speaking up. Though often it is a negative contribution. Still, a tiny ripple is the first step to a wave of change.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Why not? Our value with respect to the collective values of the society we happen to live in may be important to us. Equally, an individual may have their own value system and reject that of society. Neither are ultimately objective.

in relation to your discussion with Link, my question would be:

is it possible that there is a source of “good” (an absolute goodness) which could be used to estimate our relative value and goodness?

 

[F1fan]

Our assignment is not absolute,

Correct, and your meaning assignment to the Quran is not absolute, either. Your meaning assignment of the character of God in the Quran is not absolute. These beliefs of yours are not certain or absolute, so you can't use any of it as a basis for an objective argument or claim.

but it is done with a belief that is an accurate value assignment that we do our best to see and love and assign ourselves to us and others.

Sure, it's what you believe, and you could be mistaken.

The absolute assignment we can't do and rather only God can is part of my argument, how can I not understand it when I stated this as part of my argument.

If you're not a god yourself, and just a fallible mortal who is prone to error, and thus far you're the only one offering this view, we cannot just take your word for it. If you have special knowledge or an extra sensory ability you need to show the rest of us feeble folks. First you need to demonstrate a god exists outside of human imagination, and second that it can set absolute meaning and value to anything.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Complementary opposites, yin and yang, exist individually and by contrast, measured by both an absolute and relative scale.

Per the website, above, from Duke University, Megalomania (officially dubbed narcissistic personality disorder in 1980), a well known, and well studied psychological malady, includes tenuous grasp on reality and a persecution complex (which is probably caused by all those people who are plotting against one).

Project MUSE - <i>Freud's "Megalomania."</i> (review)

The website, above, from Johns Hopkins University, shows that not even Freud (father of psychology) was immune from psychoanalysis (and the finding of megalomania). It serves him right for training others to do it.

Few admit to wrongdoing. Hitler might have thought that he was doing the world a favor by torturing to death millions of Jews. President Bill Clinton might have thought that he was doing the world a favor by letting the Hutu slaughter about 6 million captive Tutsis without lifting a finger to stop them (a modern holocaust of African Blacks). President W. Bush might have thought that he was helping God by killing in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (if, of course, God was just kidding about that remark about "not killing)."

Instead of telling everyone around us how great we are (like the puff pieces that General Douglas MacArthur and General Wesley Clark wrote to the newspapers), we should be judged by others. Our greatness should not be penned by our own hand, and embellished.

On the other hand, some people have an excessively low opinion of themselves. I think that those who write in forums, fortunately, don't suffer from that malady, but feel themselves worthy of readers who actually pay attention to the things that they write.

The most important thing to realize is that we all can contribute to society by speaking up. Though often it is a negative contribution. Still, a tiny ripple is the first step to a wave of change.

this seems to mean that over a long period of time (perhaps forever), each of us could arrive at absolute goodness OR absolute evil, based on our endless decisions?

i probably made a confusing statement there, but the things you said I agree with, and was trying to summarize

 

[Polymath257]

in relation to your discussion with Link, my question would be:

is it possible that there is a source of “good” (an absolute goodness) which could be used to estimate our relative value and goodness?

I'll answer with my own view.

I'm not sure in what sense 'goodness' has a source or even what it would mean for it to have one.

Having something to *compare* to is a different thing, in my opinion.

But, given that there are many incompatible things that are 'good', no, I do not think it possible that there is a single standard by which everything else is measured. I think that it *only* makes sense (at most) to say one thing is more good than another, not that there is an ultimate good.

An analogy: it makes sense to say that one number is larger than another, but there is no largest number.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I'll answer with my own view.

I'm not sure in what sense 'goodness' has a source or even what it would mean for it to have one.

Having something to *compare* to is a different thing, in my opinion.

But, given that there are many incompatible things that are 'good', no, I do not think it possible that there is a single standard by which everything else is measured. I think that it *only* makes sense (at most) to say one thing is more good than another, not that there is an ultimate good.

An analogy: it makes sense to say that one number is larger than another, but there is no largest number.

the idea of comparisons makes sense

we must see something that we consider good as compared to something we saw that was not so good

then we have a concept of relative goodness, but that concept will be skewed dramatically by our own desires , imo