Freedomain Radio

Gerry:

I'm not sure I understand at bottom what this argument is about. I am not versed in philosophical niceities.

 

However Z3KO are you saying that fantasy can have as much value to someone as reality ? That it may be preferable to some, to you perhaps, to live in the Matrix rather than reality. But one would surely have to have 'seen' reality in order to make this choice, or not ?

The argument ( to me at least) is about whether objective truth has objective value. Perhaps I , or someone else might be misinterpreting what is meant by value. The point I am arguing is that the value of truth is subjective to the individual. Its doesn't have anything to do with calling objective truth itself subjective. ( sorry lots of adjectives) For example it is objective truth that gravity exist as its effects are demonstrable in reality. But while I may be rational and believe gravity is objective truth , the value of knowing gravity is true may not be all that important to me. I may not consider that truth as particularly central to my happiness.

I am saying that fantasy can have even more value to someone than reality. Indeed. Reality is detectable through the senses and interpreted and catagorized by the brain into concepts. To some , that may seem rather mundane and they find greater utility in fantasizing. They may even dedicate their lives to producing material centered on fantasy.

I love science fiction but only as an aesthetic preference. I personally find much more joy in learning about philosophy. I have FDR to thank for my hightened interest in philosophy. I believe I do show my gratitude by participating on the boards and donating. :)

Here's an analogy for what I think some are arguing here:

Let's say you're a boxer with a big fight coming up.  Your trainer discovers that your opponent has been out partying every night.  Your trainer is debating on whether or not to tell you about this.  He knows you've been training hard and maybe a day off to spend with your family wouldn't hurt.  On the other hand, he thinks you may start getting lazy and risk losing the fight.

The fact that your opponent has been out partying every night is an objective truth.  The value of this information, this truth, as it relates to you is subjective.  If you lose the fight because you started partying just as much as the other guy, you could argue that this truth had a negative value to you.  If your trainer lied to you and told you the other guy was training like a monster, and you started training harder and won a close fight, you could argue that the lie actually had value to you.  If you were to train equally as hard after finding out about this, then that information had no value to you. 

 And to answer your question more directly , yes you are correct. In order for fantasy and reality to have meaning they must be compared. Of course a 'consistent' nihilist wouldn't compare reality to fantasy since comparisson represents meaning in both. A nihilist would have to say everything is nihilistic in order for everything to be ultimately meaningless. To me it seems like a tautology. A is A. Great , Then why the hell would the nihilist debate nihilism? Seems pointless.

We cannot discuss truth without valuing truth. It's just not possible.

If someone asserts, "I don't give a shit about truth", is that true? What methodology did they use to determine they don't care about truth?

If 'value' is defined as 'that which helps us to achieve a goal', then in the assertion, 'Objective truth is not objectively valuable', what methodology did you value in helping you determine that assertion?

Do you see how your assertions are nonsensical?

David,

"If 'value' is defined as 'that which helps us to achieve a goal', then in the assertion, 'Objective truth is not objectively valuable', what methodology did you value in helping you determine that assertion?"

What dont you understand about subjective value vs objective value? Lets assume I have to value truth in order to make truth assertions. So in order to say "objective truth is not objectively valuable" I had to value truth. How does that in any way invalidate the statement? To prove that I value truth when I make that statement does not prove that truth is objectively valuable but rather that it is only valuable to me. What dont you understand about this?

Answer this: Would it be inconsistent to say that "Country music is not objectively valuable" if I was a fan of country music?

Not to mention the fact that you dont even have to value truth in order to achieve it. If I payed my neighbor to come to this forum and write "objective truth is not objectively valuable" would that imply that he values truth???

What dont you understand about subjective value vs objective value?

I think I understand the differences pretty well, thanks Leo. If there are any assertions I have made which are not objectively true, please feel free to correct them, and if you wouldn't mind stepping through the logic to better assist me, I'd appreciate it.

Lets assume I have to value truth in order to make truth assertions. So in order to say "objective truth is not objectively valuable" I had to value truth. How does that in any way invalidate the statement?

When I answer your question, would you prefer that I be truthful?

 Well if you believe in an objective value of truth then how do you reconcile that with the subjective theory of value in economics? Valuations are made by an individual, that includes, rice, dollar bills, potatoes, and even truth. Truth, like rice and potatoes, has objective properties/qualities, but also like rice and potatoes- has no objective value.

Someone could say "rice and potatoes have no objective value" with a mouth full of potatoes and a stomach full of rice and a reply like: "so you're saying rice and potatoes have no objective value while using them for subsistence," would not be a logically consistent argument against his assertions.

Eh, Leo explained it better than me... I think his logic is seamless and recommend rereading it if you really think truth has an objective value.

bockman:

We cannot discuss truth without valuing truth. It's just not possible.

If someone asserts, "I don't give a shit about truth", is that true? What methodology did they use to determine they don't care about truth?

If 'value' is defined as 'that which helps us to achieve a goal', then in the assertion, 'Objective truth is not objectively valuable', what methodology did you value in helping you determine that assertion?

Do you see how your assertions are nonsensical?

 This isn't invalidating that the value of truth is subject to individual preferences. If someone chooses to debate truth then obviously they are valuing truth but people who choose to simply discuss aesthetics arn't really valuing truth are they? As far as methodology, you can't coherently not value truth if you are discussing the value of truth, this is clear and you are totally correct. It doesn't make the value of truth itself objective.

I believe defining value is also subjective to the individual. Value could be that which brings the most pleasure, value could be that which brings happiness, value could be that which brings conformity, etc.

I don't see the nonsense in my proposition but perhaps you can further elaborate your critique?

te majev:

 Well if you believe in an objective value of truth then how do you reconcile that with the subjective theory of value in economics? Valuations are made by an individual, that includes, rice, dollar bills, potatoes, and even truth. Truth, like rice and potatoes, has objective properties/qualities, but also like rice and potatoes- has no objective value.

Someone could say "rice and potatoes have no objective value" with a mouth full of potatoes and a stomach full of rice and a reply like: "so you're saying rice and potatoes have no objective value while using them for subsistence," would not be a logically consistent argument against his assertions.

Eh, Leo explained it better than me... I think his logic is seamless and recommend rereading it if you really think truth has an objective value.

Actually, economics requires objective value, i.e. money.

 Money has a subjective value. In fact, all commodities have a subjective value. Money, being a commodity, is not an exception to this rule.

Subjective? So if you print more of it relative to the goods in production, it's value will not decrease?

Stefan Molyneux:

Subjective? So if you print more of it relative to the goods in production, it's value will not decrease?

 Money requires an objective standard of measurement for quantification. It says nothing of value since monopoly money can also be measured. The value of money is subjective just like any other commodity. I'll trade X dollars for a cheeseburger if I value the cheeseburger more than my X dollars.

I didn't mean to insult your intelligence Stef. You know this and thats why I was a little stunned by the post.

Stefan Molyneux:

Subjective? So if you print more of it relative to the goods in production, it's value will not decrease?

 If there was no government monopoly and force to use paper money you wouldn't have to keep on quantifying it, its value would eventually drop to paper and ink.

Actually, economics requires objective value

Boom!

The sound of your own argument blowing up in your face.

See the following podcasts:

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_193_Marx_and_Labor_Theory_of_Value.mp3

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_195_Economics_and_Subjective_Value.mp3