Discourse on Human Value Systems
- stoicHoneyBadger
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: March 26th, 2021, 10:46 am
Discourse on Human Value Systems
Since the dawn of time, when first protohumans climbed down from trees and started building a civilization, being unable to perceive the whole reality as it is, they started creating cognitive tools that would help them explore, simplify and interpret the surrounding world in a way necessary to at least survive and procreate.
And one of such tools, needed to orient oneself in the world, is a value system.
As David Hume pointed out, "you cannot derive an ought from an is", meaning you cannot come to a value judgement from a scientific observation.
Therefor any claims of "we do not need faith, as we have science!" are absurd. Science is a great tool for exploring the natural world, but it is completely unable to tell you how to use the results of this exploration. It can tell you how to split atoms, yet whether you should split them in a power plant or above an enemy city is a value judgment.
Usually, people are indoctrinated into those values systems by a religion, philosophy or culture in general. Sometimes people are able to construct their own systems. Afterwards confirmation bias kicks in and the adept starts seeing his value system as the one and only true, while competing systems are perceived as delusional.
Such bias clearly has its evolutionary advantages, as people sharing the same value system can act in unison and be victorious over those, who are unable to cooperate due to different value system.
So, while value systems are arbitrary, at times it might be beneficial to act as if they are not.
Usually, such value systems come down to answering the following three questions:
how did the universe come into being?
what is our relationship with the world? / what is our life goal? / how we should treat each other?
what happens after death?
It might be wise to evaluate those systems not from perspective of perceived truth (as none of them can be objectively proven to be true or false), but rather by their effect on the individual and the society in general.
For a value system to become viral, it usually needs to be at least loosely based in what is known as a "hero's journey" – hero feels a call to adventure, finds some supernatural guidance, fights the dragon, usually dies in some way, but then is reborn to guide his disciples to paradise.
It seems that whether this journey contains a supernatural being or not is just a "marketing gimmick". Therefor all those arguments between theists and atheists are futile, as instead of focusing on the values proposed by the given system, they focus whether the hero had his revelation after studying in a library or rather after inhaling a burning bush and supposedly communicating with a supernatural deity.
Author believes it is wise to pick a desired outcome on a dogmatic level (because I said so) and then pragmatically choose a value system that would most likely lead to the given outcome in a particular situation. In other words, pick the ends dogmatically, then choose the means pragmatically.
Any means are good, as long as they work in the current situation and are not counter-productive to the end goal. If one discovers that the given means do not work, he should reevaluate the situation and choose more appropriate means.
Unfortunately, most people do it vice versa – they link their self-worth with using some particular means, convince themselves that those means are the only true and will lead them to the best outcome possible, and then follow them blindly, without an exact end in mind. Even seeing that those means do are not working in the given situation, people often are unable to reconsider and keep pushing until the system crumbles on itself.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
Symbolism is how we look at the inner psychological self. Who fights the lion? He who does is armed by the God/Gods with the special weapons. Yet, some choose the lion as the symbol of what they represent. It is a very ancient theme. Lions are the gatekeepers. One Biblical example is Ezra when he returned from Babylon to the promised land with the Torah and the symbolic lion of Judah. As for modern countries it is lions guarding democracy and the Republic… for now. Some would rather identify with the Book of Ezra. In the Assyrian mural of the lion eating the bull there is room for the Pride and all others will be driven away and for sure vultures and Hyenas are not welcome. Maybe the little Jackal gets away with the scraps.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
That wasn't the dawn of time. Time was already 13 billion+/- years into its devolution before any proto-humans could be identified.stoicHoneyBadger wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 10:49 am Since the dawn of time, when first protohumans climbed down from trees
They didn't start building civilizations for another 100,000 +/- years. What they had was small roaming bands, living off the land as best they could.and started building a civilization,
No, they didn't create any cognitive tools. Their brains had been evolving for 3 billion +/- years, growing larger and more segmented, to be sure, but the surviving and procreating simply continued uninterrupted in the branching off from other hominid apes.being unable to perceive the whole reality as it is, they started creating cognitive tools that would help them explore, simplify and interpret the surrounding world in a way necessary to at least survive and procreate.
That comes as standard equipment with all sentience. It begins with an amoeba actively seeking the warm end of the puddle and grows increasingly complex with brain size, which grows in response to environmental complexity.And one of such tools, needed to orient oneself in the world, is a value system.
Finally, an accurate statement. Values are about preference of condition, not observation of fact.As David Hume pointed out, "you cannot derive an ought from an is", meaning you cannot come to a value judgement from a scientific observation.
Maybe so. Does "faith" have any more to do with values than science does? It seems to me, both are irrelevant to preference, or judgements of better and worse.Therefor any claims of "we do not need faith, as we have science!" are absurd.
Faith in the ancestors' judgment.Usually, people are indoctrinated into those values systems by a religion,
If the parents are diligent in their application of a particular school of thought to their daily life. In my experience, that's far less common than unthinking (if inconsistent) adherence to religious dogma.philosophy
All social animals are subject to the mores of their culture. Some degree of variance may be tolerated, but only minor matters.or culture in general.
In the same way that one might build a house from reclaimed building materials with borrowed tools on rented land. It's never an original system; it's a reconfiguration of learned components.Sometimes people are able to construct their own systems.
That usually happens in groups, where the authority, such as a shaman or chieftain, tells the all the other people that they have the only true belief - the one that keeps him in power. Where an individual devises his own value system, he generally begins with the recognition that his fellow citizens are following a wrong path.Afterwards confirmation bias kicks in and the adept starts seeing his value system as the one and only true, while competing systems are perceived as delusional.
If that's the case, I fear for the United States!Such bias clearly has its evolutionary advantages, as people sharing the same value system can act in unison and be victorious over those, who are unable to cooperate due to different value system.
In fact, no social organization can function at all without some shared values, beliefs and rules of conduct.
What makes you think that?? There is a reason, based in some present or past circumstance, for every aspect of every system. None of it happened by chance or randomly.So, while value systems are arbitrary,
I don't think so.Usually, such value systems come down to answering the following three questions:
While all primitive peoples have their own origin story, they're generally unconcerned with the universe at large. Mythology is about nature, human nature, group identity, the geography in which the people live and the nature and role of other species with which they interact.how did the universe come into being?
Those are three separate questions regarding ethics, rather than values. The life goal one is far from universal - may even be considered frivolous, but the other two are essential to the making of laws and economies.what is our relationship with the world? / what is our life goal? / how we should treat each other?
That's not a value question, either. Speculation to stave off the inevitability of our own annihilation. Both this and the origin of the universe question are more about imagination than evaluation.what happens after death?
Viral? Value systems evolve organically through the experience of a group, but they're not contagious. Ideas may be shared as different groups interact through commerce, social exchange or war; one group may influence or coerce another to accept some or all of its values.For a value system to become viral,
That's your basic prophet legend. It's concerned with values only insofar as the prophet/hero/martyr/demigod embodies the highest values of his society and his journey serves to reinforce or re-invigorate those values.it usually needs to be at least loosely based in what is known as a "hero's journey" – hero feels a call to adventure, finds some supernatural guidance, fights the dragon, usually dies in some way, but then is reborn to guide his disciples to paradise.
It very well can be. A story is only as powerful as the people investing in it. Some gimmicks pay off.It seems that whether this journey contains a supernatural being or not is just a "marketing gimmick".
The legitimacy of its source is one means of evaluating the veracity of a message.Therefor all those arguments between theists and atheists are futile, as instead of focusing on the values proposed by the given system, they focus whether the hero had his revelation after studying in a library or rather after inhaling a burning bush and supposedly communicating with a supernatural deity.
Who? What dogma?Author believes it is wise to pick a desired outcome on a dogmatic level (because I said so)
What? "Desired outcome" is pretty much the definition of "value".pragmatically choose a value system that would most likely lead to the given outcome in a particular situation.
If one had no ethical or legal framework to constrain one's actions. But then, one would have no value system, so what are you talking about?Any means are good, as long as they work in the current situation and are not counter-productive to the end goal. If one discovers that the given means do not work, he should reevaluate the situation and choose more appropriate means.
Examples?Unfortunately, most people do it vice versa – they link their self-worth with using some particular means, convince themselves that those means are the only true and will lead them to the best outcome possible, and then follow them blindly, without an exact end in mind. Even seeing that those means do are not working in the given situation, people often are unable to reconsider and keep pushing until the system crumbles on itself.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
Value system is not a tool. It is a behavior-governing framework.stoicHoneyBadger wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 10:49 am
And one of such tools, needed to orient oneself in the world, is a value system.
Usually, such value systems come down to answering the following three questions:
how did the universe come into being?
what is our relationship with the world? / what is our life goal? / how we should treat each other?
what happens after death?
Unfortunately, most people do it vice versa – they link their self-worth with using some particular means, convince themselves that those means are the only true and will lead them to the best outcome possible, and then follow them blindly, without an exact end in mind. Even seeing that those means do are not working in the given situation, people often are unable to reconsider and keep pushing until the system crumbles on itself.
Value system does not come down to answer questions, like life after death.
Most people are smart enough to link self-worth before using appropriate means as fomented in the value system.
To show you an example, in economics the consumer theory is a value system in which each consumer picks the bundle of goods to maximize his utility, in n-dimensions. In general, a value system serves to optimize or maximize your utility. A value system never crumbles.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
I'm not sure what is meant by "creating cognitive tools". It could be that our biological evolution included the development of cognitive traits that allows us innate, automatic responses to certain environmental circumstances, but then it's not like we "create" them in the strict sense of the word. And we could say those instincts correspond to values, but not necessarily a value system, which does seems to imply a creation, an a posteriori development of rational thought that expands in culture.stoicHoneyBadger wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 10:49 am Since the dawn of time, when first protohumans climbed down from trees and started building a civilization, being unable to perceive the whole reality as it is, they started creating cognitive tools that would help them explore, simplify and interpret the surrounding world in a way necessary to at least survive and procreate.
And one of such tools, needed to orient oneself in the world, is a value system.
So what? How is this related to the existence of values or the development of value systems? Anyway, just because science cannot take a normative stance, does not mean the only option left is faith. That's a false dichotomy.stoicHoneyBadger wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 10:49 am As David Hume pointed out, "you cannot derive an ought from an is", meaning you cannot come to a value judgement from a scientific observation.
Therefor any claims of "we do not need faith, as we have science!" are absurd. Science is a great tool for exploring the natural world, but it is completely unable to tell you how to use the results of this exploration. It can tell you how to split atoms, yet whether you should split them in a power plant or above an enemy city is a value judgment.
People is not a separate reality from religion, philosophy or culture, all those things are made by people. Then it is people who indoctrinate themselves, creating religions, philosophies and cultures.stoicHoneyBadger wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 10:49 am Usually, people are indoctrinated into those values systems by a religion, philosophy or culture in general. Sometimes people are able to construct their own systems. Afterwards confirmation bias kicks in and the adept starts seeing his value system as the one and only true, while competing systems are perceived as delusional.
You're conflating here innate, instinctive values, which could play a function in biological mechanisms of survival, and cultural values system, which very unlikely play a role in biological evolution. We come already adapted biologically to our social and cultural environment, and it is in that cultural environment where things like religion, philosophy or science develop and evolve.stoicHoneyBadger wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 10:49 am Such bias clearly has its evolutionary advantages, as people sharing the same value system can act in unison and be victorious over those, who are unable to cooperate due to different value system.
Value systems are social conventions, and as such they are arbitrary (that is, relative to a particular society and time), but how they're internalized by the subjects is not that much arbitrary.stoicHoneyBadger wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 10:49 am So, while value systems are arbitrary, at times it might be beneficial to act as if they are not.
I thought we were talking about "oughts". These questions are not related to such values. BTW, science is perfectly capable of trying to answer these questions.stoicHoneyBadger wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 10:49 am Usually, such value systems come down to answering the following three questions:
how did the universe come into being?
what is our relationship with the world? /
what happens after death?
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
But this raises the question if universal objective values exist and if they can be remembered as Plato described through objective conscience. This is very dangerous since the world is content with pragmatic values and doesn't want to rock the boat. The person who experiences objective consciousness and objective conscience can easily be killed for rocking the boat. The prison of Plato's cave is the norm.In other words, pick the ends dogmatically, then choose the means pragmatically.
This is how value systems devolve into subjective conceptions which become acceptable to the majority of the population.
The universal experience and acceptance of universal objective values which initiate with what Plato described as the GOOD, is a long way off. Pragmatic concerns will win out
From Plato's Cave allegory:
[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
While both arise from curiosity and imagination, they fill very different needs.
Science sets out to discover how things work and how to make them work for us; mythology is a narrative of our collective experience; to some extent, a record of each tribe's cultural journey.
Philosophy, particularly as regards ethics, political organization and jurisprudence, serves a third, separate purpose.
Religionists consider themselves the natural heirs to tribal lore, even though artists are more adept and honest in filling that role.
Religionists have, from the earliest urban civilization, consolidated and fortified the mythology into religious dogma, observance, superstition and ritual. They also try diligently to co-opt ethics, politics and jurisprudence, and are often successful.
If you make the mistake of conflating those concepts, the religionists win, take over control and oppress everyone else.
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488
"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
It cannot. That is not the purpose or function of science, and if science is co-opted to displace religion or social organization, it will not only fail, but in failing, vindicate the religionists who want to take over and give them even more power.popeye1945 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2021, 5:15 pm Alias, Science, and mythology/religion have not in the past dealt with the same things, but it is reasonable that science should endevour to do what has been done poorly by these entities.
It does rather more than that. It's not just "other men's religion": mythology can take new forms as new media become available. Mythology is story-telling of the most profound kind: through metaphor, symbolism, graphic imagery and archetypes, it translates the experience of individual humans into an understanding of the tribe and even the species. It creates a language and iconography of a culture, as well as summing up the character of a people in the history which has formed it. This is why the arts are better than religions at narrating a people's spiritual journey.Mythology, as the other man's religion is still functioning on the knowledge of the past,
No, that's religion. And even religion adapts to new circumstances - in particular, it tends to be very deft at fitting itself to any economic power-structure. Religion is based on a single myth, which thereby becomes static, as if turned to stone. Cultural mythology, on the other hand, is alive, fluid, continues to be written. Think, for example, of American mythology: Davy Crockett, Paul Bunyan and Babe, Jesse James and Wyatt Earp, Honest Abe and Robert E Lee; the Trail of Tears, the Oregon Trail, the Underground Railroad, the Pony Express; the Delaware, The Alamo, Pearl Harbor, the Twin Towers and Whatisname's walk on the big dusty rock.... Eevents, places and personalities are woven into a people's cultural character.and a societal blueprint two and a half thousand years old, in some cases more, is still claiming creadibility in this day and age.
has nothing to do with identity or how a group of people relates the rest of the world.The self-correcting element of the scientific method is what gives science the edge in the formations of new knowledge.
One is a self-correcting mechanism, the other is a responsive organism.All to these things have the same source, they arise out of the nature of our common biology, but only one is self-correcting.
The absurdities of religious claim, when it attempts to invade the territory of other disciplines, is quite irrelevant to the purpose and operation of the other disciplines.
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
Your disagreement is telling you something about me?popeye1945 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2021, 11:11 pm You are very fulent, there are many things we disagree about, but the fact that you find so many things to disagree about is telling.
I'm sorry you were offended. I was unaware that you had anything at stake.I read a previous post of yours of which I was much offended.
It may very well have been in this thread, since the OP contains a large number of erroneous statements.It may even be in this thread, you disagree with absolutely everything the chap/lady stated,
I had no such intention. I don't know the individual and have no animosity whatsoever toward them. I was addressing the subject matter, not the person.it appearred to be an attempt to destroy the individual,
Then I shall refrain from offending you any further.I have an ego too, but do not attempt to feed it to this extent. If you wish to dialogue with me take a more reasonable approach. You are intelligent, but the steamroller affect is not pleasing.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Discourse on Human Value Systems
Nick, That life on earth is part of something larger than itself is hopefully common knowledge. There are numerous possible spiritual experiences available to us, in any attempt to feel the rapture of being alive and in the world. Organized religion has nothing to do with spirituality, and reality as we know it, is not always pretty, but where it is not, it is often sublime. There are in these traditions you've listed, much wisdom to be glean, so much more so than the formal desert religion of west.
A big problem when discussing religion is that it is a word like art and love for example that has layers of meaning. Are you familiar with the book: "The Transcendent Unity of Religions"?
Frithjof Schuon' describes the basic three levels of religion as the exoteric, esoteric, and transcendent.
The exoteric level is filled with partial truths people believe and argue over. Some enter the esoteric level which is the inner search to experience truth rather than just blind belief. Even less enter the transcendent level of religious understanding in which the great traditions of the past initiating with a conscious source become one on the way to truth. The term religion then has several levels of meaning.As Huston Smith writes in the Introduction to Schuon’s book,
“the defect in other versions of this
[esoteric/exoteric] distinction is that they claim unity in
religions too soon, at levels where, being exoteric, true
Unity does not pertain and can be posited only on pain of
Procrusteanism or vapidity.” Once we identify any
particular thought system, no matter how comprehensive, as
the truth, then we have excluded other thought
systems and denied the Truth its unity and its infinite
possibilities for expression. The unity of Truth must
therefore be a Transcendent Unity. “The fact that it
is transcendent,” Smith writes, “means that it
can be univocally described by none.” Thus, while
there is one and only one Truth, there are many expressions
of it.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023