Concepts of Value

  1. In the contemplation of values we must distinguish between that
    which is
    value in our being and that which HAS value.


    I ask - what is the difference?
    ----------------------------------

    The difference by my theory is:

    Value can never be static; meaning that experience
    adds to value. It is the appreciative consciousness of value that
    is the difference.

    For instance, man may manufacture a machine which is of value, but
    its real value must be derived from its use in human culture and
    from personal appreciation.

    So, you have love as a value within your being. But that love is
    relatively valueless without growth through the potential of its
    expansion. That love HAS value through your contribution and
    mobilization of its power.

    Question:

    Is growth always unconscious, be it physical, intellectual, or
    spiritual ???


    thanks luvs, i~o
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Is value only that quality that we humans give a thing because it is useful or pleasing to us or can value of any kind of value such as beauty be intrinsic? It seem awfully audacious to think that only we humans can assign any value to anything and then only in relation to ourselves.
    I think all growth if not conscious will soon become conscious. We are after all self aware and as ourselves change we become aware, conscious of that change.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2003
  4. Uh, iron~orchid, this thread would probably be more comfortable in the "Value Theory" forum.

    In fact, it asks some of the central questions of value theory, and could be many threads, since there are many possible answers.
     
  5. My answer – there isn’t any.

    Value is strictly within the human mind. It is related directly to how we act within our environment. Each of us may think and act differently even when staring at the same moss covered rock and so it can be seen that value is relative, relative to the individual making the judgment, that is. There is no universal yardstick with which to measure a potato and claim; yes, this has a value of 37.2.
     
  6. I kind of agree with this and kind of disagree with this. While I do agree value is within the human mind, I think the environent or naturalistic concepts are made of color, so my theory would be that color is value. An extreme position would be that colors and values therefore are not in the world at all, they instead are mere projections that tell us more about the users of response-dependent concepts than about the world they inhabit. That's my theory. Even though setting aside such extreme views, a number of important philosophical and psychological questions would still remain open.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook