Freedomain Radio

Well, I can see that you don't believe that I have anything intelligent or valuable to add to this discussion - and also that you do not have any curiosity about what I mean by the above statement, so I shan't continue, since I find this sort of 'scoring points' confrontation very unpleasant.

I do apologize for any confusion that I have caused, and I can see that I should have spent more time defining what I mean by "objective" in this situation. I am sorry for any upset that I have caused.

Well, I can see that you don't believe that I have anything intelligent or valuable to add to this discussion

Maybe they just do not see any OBJECTIVE VALUE in your arguement...

I know what you're trying to say. Some Austrians occassionally say things like "people buy gold because of its intrinsic value," if you corner them on it they will acknowledge that gold has a subjective value. What they are trying to communicate is: "people value gold (subjectively) regardless of government fiat," or more precisely, "people value gold (subjectively) because of its objective qualities."

Truth is the same, people value it subjectively because of its objective qualities. You might also say that people value it because of its relationship with objective reality, whereas falsehoods are valued because of their relationship to subjective feelings (though I'm not as sure of this).

I think it is more than a trivial semantic issue. When you start muddling concepts this way, things get messy. Austrians shouldn't use the shorthand and neither should philosophers.

It seems some of you feel like you would be taking a great blow to your sense of self if you believed truth had no objective value. I don't get it; what's wrong with truth having a subjective and extremely high value to you as an individual?

Well I suppose I'm just a little bit confused by the definitions that are being used in this context. I fully accept that the truth has no value to the universe -- the moon does not care if I say that 2+2 is five. The truth does not exist objectively, in reality, as a thing or an object, I am perfectly comfortable with that, and have affirmed that fact from the very beginning.

David,

I just want to mention that your method of argument is extremely tiresome and aggrivating. Instead of making your point, you ask questions hopeing or expecting that in my answers to the questions I will somehow prove your point for you. Yet, I think I know where you are going with your argument, I know what you will eventually try to point out, and I know I have arguments which would *attempt* to invalidate your points. But I cant make them because you haven't made your points yet... Even worse, apparently you are waiting for me to answer your questions in some very specific way that you think will be detrimental to my case and so you constantly try to maneuver me into a very specific answer by asking the same question over and over until I give you the answer you want. My only recourse is to make what I believe your arguments are going to be myself, and then argue against that... Otherwise I am stuck answering the same questions over and over again. So would you mind just making your point upfront instead of hopeing that I will make it for you? Pretty please?

"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."

You made the assertion "'Objective truth is not objectively valuable' is a nonsensical assertion." This is incorrect. Here is the logic: If we assume that one cannot discuss truth without valueing truth, this does not logically neccessitate the conclusion that truth is objectively valuable. The fact that one individual must admit to valueing truth when making an argument about truth does not logically lead to the conclusion that truth is objectively valuable, as per the defenition of "objective". The following argument, which you appear to be making:

1. If someone discusses truth, then they must value truth

2. Person A discusses truth

3. Person A values truth

4. If Person A values truth, then truth is objectively valuable

5. Thus truth is objectively valuable.

is not sound because the premise in line four is false according to my understanding of "objective." It makes no sense to say that one person valueing truth makes truth objectively valuable.

Now, you may try to argue that ALL healthy, normal, people value truth, but EVEN THIS wouldnt make truth objectively valuable. Here is an argument from analogy:

All healthy people value sex, as per our genetics. Does this make sex objectively valuable? No, because in fact, if you understand evolution, our sex drive, along with every aspect of our nature, is one big random accident. It makes no sense to argue that sex is objectively valuable because our sex drive is such a prominent feature of human nature.

You may be able to say that sex is universally valued across the human species, in that all humans may value sex. And the same might be said about valueing truth. But universallity is NOT objectivity. Lets discuss objectivity.

I suggest maybe you should define "objective value" because I sense you are confused on what it means, or rather, I should say you and I may have different ideas about what it means.

I define "objective" as "not being a function of subjective interpretation." And "subjective" is defined as "a function of an interpretive mechanism whose interpretations are subject to influence from random factors."

So a truth that is objective is one that is not a function of somebodys randomly generated interpretive mechanisms. We would say that a tree is cylindrical regardless of whether or not someone seeing the tree interprets it as cylindrical or not.

A value that is objective is the same thing. To say that truth is objectively valuable is to say that it is valuable regardless of how someone would interpret it. Now, we all understand that value is inherently a function of the human mind and so is inevitably influenced by whatever can influence the human mind. Yet those who believe in an objective value would say that logic can be the arbiter of objective value. If logic, which most people assume to be the objective standard of truth, can yield a sound argument whose conclusion is that there can be objective value, then it must be true.

But so far, logic cant. And this is what we have been arguing about since the begining. You guys are trying to provide a logical argument for why there is objective value while I and others are trying to dismantle those arguments. It all comes back to the point that there is nothing logically inconsistent about saying: "objective truth is not objectively valuable." If you guys can prove that it is inconsistent, than you win. But you have yet to prove it in light of mine and others' arguments, such as the one I wrote out in this post above.

And if you look at what ive written and agree with my defenitions, you will see very clearly why your position is so inconsistent. "Objective value" is a complete contradiction. Since value is a function of the human mind which is inevitably influenced by random factors, and objective is that which IS NOT influenced by random factors, how in the hell can there be "objective value"?

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

Yes I do prefer that you be truthful. I also prefer that my neighbor paints his house blue instead of red. Does this make blue objectively better or more valuable then red? Again, what dont you understand about the distinction between subjective and objective preferances?

Edit: I changed the first line of the 2nd paragraph to "You made the assertion 'Objective truth is not objectively valuable' is a nonsensical assertion." I accidently had it as something else before which didnt make sense.

I just realized it may also be important to define Value.

My defenition of "valueable" is that which one is driven to pursue. Value is a psychological mechanism humans have evolved in order to initiate rational action. Once a person's values have been established, they start thinking about and enacting courses of action in order to attain those things they value.

You mentioned that what is valuable is that which helps us to achieve some goal. This is only partly correct, according to my defenition. The actual end goal is what is valuable. All the methods, techniques, things that help us achieve the goal are only valuable in so far as they help achieve that goal. Their value is a kind of run off from the actual thing we value, which is the acomplishment of the goal. This is all assuming we do indeed value the acomplishment of the goal.

Stefan Molyneux:

Well, I can see that you don't believe that I have anything intelligent or valuable to add to this discussion - and also that you do not have any curiosity about what I mean by the above statement, so I shan't continue, since I find this sort of 'scoring points' confrontation very unpleasant.

I do apologize for any confusion that I have caused, and I can see that I should have spent more time defining what I mean by "objective" in this situation. I am sorry for any upset that I have caused.

I don't have curiousity about your position? What the hell? I asked , very respectfully, are you sure we are defining value the same way? Read back on the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread. It seemed to me that we were defining it the same way as soon as you used the government money example and even countered the argument that money value is subjective only because the government can print more of it. ( I.e. the state defines 'objective value' of commodities....)

I feel that Leo and I were extremely clear about what we meant by subjective and objective value. In fact, when you replied to me first, you didn't seem very curious about what I meant,  it appears that you assumed that I was denying truth ( i.e. saying truth itself was subjective). Either you didn't read completely through our arguments ( we were very very clear) or you honestly thought that the value of truth was objective and saw the holes in that argument just now and don't want to admit you were actually wrong.

I get things wrong too. If philosophy taught me anything , its to acknowledge I am capable of error no matter how well I think I understand something.

Stefan Molyneux:

Well I suppose I'm just a little bit confused by the definitions that are being used in this context. I fully accept that the truth has no value to the universe -- the moon does not care if I say that 2+2 is five. The truth does not exist objectively, in reality, as a thing or an object, I am perfectly comfortable with that, and have affirmed that fact from the very beginning.

From the very beginning? Then what on earth did you mean by 'objective value?' You can't just change what you mean post to post. Based on your defense of objective value it sure seems that you meant exactly what we thought you meant.  Even when we brought up the example of economics you made that shocking argument about money and its objective value. Whats going on Stef? Why did you feel you had to hold on to the objective value argument for so long?

I'm thinking maybe a podcast based on this converstation on exactly what you mean by 'objective value' would be helpful. I would certainly look foward to listening to it.

Do you believe that your approach to this thread, and your interactions with Stef in it, are of a quality that would inspire or motivate him to do a podcast on the meaning of value and/or subjectivity?

I think the concerns weve raised should motivate Stef to elaborate on his position and address the concerns, regardless of how they were presented, assuming Stef is interested in truth more so than polite conversation.

Thanks, but after having these sorts of conversations for about 25 years, I am fully aware that in the absence of mutual respect and curiosity, truth cannot be achieved.

Stefan Molyneux:

Thanks, but after having these sorts of conversations for about 25 years, I am fully aware that in the absence of mutual respect and curiosity, truth cannot be achieved.

That is an absolute cop out. You talk about mutual respect, yet you are outright dodging the question at hand. You claimed The_Nilhilst was dodging your question (although it seemed like you just didn't like his answer) and you called him a coward. What would that make you?

Defend your standpoint. What is the difference between the OBJECTIVE value and SUBJECTIVE value of truth?

GregG:

Do you believe that your approach to this thread, and your interactions with Stef in it, are of a quality that would inspire or motivate him to do a podcast on the meaning of value and/or subjectivity?

 

What was the problem with my approach? I asked very respectfully if we were talking about the same definition of value. Stef then went ahead and assumed I was denying truth which shows lack of curiosity on his part.

I had no intention to insult or belittle anyone. When someone persists in assuming things that you are clearly not stating then more assertiveness is justified in my opinion.

On a practical note , I wasn't the only one confused on his definition of objective value. I don't know if I could've stated what I meant of in terms of value any better. Perhaps you can point something out specifically I can do better?

Yes, I think it would be great if he did a podcast. I have a couple reasons for thinking this. Firstly, this thread has inspired a lively debate in which people are in disagreement over objective value.  I think those of us debating against objective value are being logical, assertive, curious ( yes, we're asking questions), and reasonable. In my opinion such a debate begs attention up to the point of maybe a podcast instead of basically ' I don't wanna talk about it anymore.'

Secondly, as a diamond contributer ( and a happy one at that since I do value FDR highly), I think I might have some valid input in suggesting a podcast since a part of my hard earned money contributes to the future financial success of FDR.

Stefan Molyneux:

Thanks, but after having these sorts of conversations for about 25 years, I am fully aware that in the absence of mutual respect and curiosity, truth cannot be achieved.

So what? I'm not on your intellectual level to discuss these sorts of things? I may have less experience in the realm of philosophy , but I am curious and I feel like this comment is belittling.

And to even suggest I may be disrespectful to you is just insulting and you need proof to substantiate it.