Nostr Web Client

It's very hard to entertain the statement: "There is no objective purpose in the world" as true, because the statement is self contradictory.

Which part of the statement is objectively true? The part which denies objective purpose, or the part which affirms it?

This is why earlier I mentioned that without objective value, nothing makes sense.

Descriptions of the world don't make sense.

Judgements don't make sense.

Actions don't make sense.

Statements of any kind don't make sense.

You're probably wondering which part of the statement I think "affirms" objective value, so here it is:

First off, the statement is an action, and therefore it is inherently an expression of value (even according to subjective value theory).

In order to generate that statement, (let's call it a description of the world), you had to value certain perceptions, concepts, thoughts, ideas, words, the English language itself, over others. These values are baked into the truth-value of the statement.

The truth-value of a statement depends partially on the context-dependant objective value of the means by which the statement was generated and conveyed.

Moreover, you're attempting to adhere to a logical framework that under subjective value theory only exists subjectively, not objectively. This is because logic itself is a framework of value.

I want to be able to assume the premise is true, then explain my reasoning from there, but because they premise is self contradictory, anything following will be incoherent.

6e70253f... 2y ago

There is no part of the statement "there is no objective purpose in the world" that afirms objective purpose or value.

This will become an impossible subject to talk about if everything I state will be taken as an example confirming that there is objective value, or purpose. You are begging the question here. Try not to assume the conclusion of your argument.

Let me say that I'm not going all Socretes on you here ala "The only thing I know is that I know nothing.". My statement is not an epistemological one, it's more of a comment on the human condition. We all have different purposes in the world and there is no way to sum these to some kind of objective purpose.

To highlight my point further: Science is generally seen as the fountain of objective truth, it deals in theories based on facts and logic. A scientist would say if you eat above a certain amount of ice-cream per day you would increase your risk of diabetes, but there is no way a scientist could ever say that you shouldn't eat that amount of ice-cream. The should's and should not's are in the realms of the clergy and politicians. As you can see I'm not saying we can't find objective facts in the world, I'm just saying when it comes to purpose, it's an individual thing.

Determining a purpose for society, or for some other individual, is different then determining a fact of the world.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Curtis 2y ago

First off, I don't think we necesarily need to determine a purpose for society or other individuals, I just think it's important that we accept that that objective purpose itself exists.

Secondly, it seems like there are two fundamental values you outlined in your message as being important:

1. The ability for us to progress in this discussion

2. The rules of logic itself

These are values. If they aren't objectively important, then you're right, we won't move forward in this discussion. There wouldn't even be a point to moving forward because "forward" wouldn't exist.

I value logic too, but I understand that logic serves a purpose. A purpose that is outside logic. Logic serves this purpose in it's proper context.

It sounds like you think value doesn't come into play in the sciences. How then, can you explain the fact that there's a functionally infinite amount of scientific data out there, but somehow we manage to only pay attention to the scientific data that matters? A scientist must select the data, they must design the correct experiments, and they must have the right orientation towards their work in order to arrive at the so called "objective truth."

Well, what makes that scientific truth objective?

(If you respond to nothing else in this message, please answer that last question)

6e70253f... 2y ago

Hahaha, you've assumed my values incorrectly. Maybe our values could just align and that's what brings us together here on Nostr.

We should be clear to draw a distinction between values and value; similar word, but two different meanings. Values: beliefs that motivates people to act one way or another; value: the importance of a good or service. Values can influence the way we value goods and services. I've tried to structure the definitions that don't assume either is objective/subjective.

Without you providing an examples of an objective purpose, I'm not sure I can argue the case properly for whether objective purpose exists or not, and even if I could I'm not sure I would be willing to convince you. I'm pretty sure the answers lay somewhere in existentialism and contexualism, a topic I don't think subjective value theorem (SVT) touches on.

In the field of behavioural sciences a lot of recent study has been focused on Relational Frame Theory (RFT), which has had major impacts on effectively treating a range of mental disorders in addition to being used for healthy individuals and sporting teams. Therapies that fall out of this science focus on identifying values unique to the individual, while discarding any attempt to find ones true purpose or aligning ones values to society. I only say this as some evidence of practical applications of a theory that denies objective purpose.

The philosophical background to RFT is contexualism, which our answer may lay within there. This would be where I would go to chase down a better understanding on objective purpose.

And you are right on values in science. I simplified it to highlight a distinction. A classic example is subatomic physics. Without politicians intervening, scientists would never had experimented with nuclear fission, and our knowledge of the sub atomic level would be non-existent. My point however wasn't that.

What makes scientific theories objective? This seems like a red herring, as we're talking about objective/subjective in two different contexts, but I will bite. There is a scientific method and a peer review system which is designed to catch most bias in the scientists observations and logic. Our cognition is known to have heaps of misperceptions and biases, which can lead to subjective 'discoveries'. So we get close enough. I could say more on this subject, but I can't see it's importance to any of you're points.

So in short, I don't think I can properly argue that "there is no objective purpose" (you would need to give me some examples to go forward). Hvaing said that I believe that statement is key to subjective value theorem. Maybe answers to the question: "is there objective purpose in the world?" lay somewhere in existentialism and contexualism, further reading if you're interested.

Curtis 2y ago

Perhaps I'm not 100% right on what you value, and perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "fundamental" there. However, I wasn't assuming anything. It was an interpretation of the things you wrote in your note.

I agree that "value" and "values" are distinct, and you do a pretty good job of distinguishing between them. However, your distinction is right in line with what I've been saying. Values are what we value, value itself is what we're approximating when we make evaluations.

I'm sorry but I can't provide a single, absolute objective purpose, because any attempt at such a thing is a mere approximation. If you like, you can interpret from what I'm saying what I value, and therefore believe to be objectively valuable relative to this context, but that's not the point of my argument. My argument is not to claim one thing or another has objective value, it's merely to show how all of us implicitly believe in objective value whether we like it or not.

I agree that contextualism seems like a good thing to read up on, since my belief is in "context-dependant objective value," not absolute value. From what I've read so far, contextualism is quite compatible with what I've been arguing for.

With respect to the science bit, I think it's pretty relevant. A misperception as you put it, is none other than a failure to perceive correctly. The word itself is value-laden. There's a "correctness" to be achieved and it's possible to fall short of this. To perceive correctly is to value the right things at the right time.

It's entirely possible that in the context of economics, it may be prudent or useful to assume that all actions are rational. However, to expand that to the point of claiming that all value is subjective, or that there cannot be such a thing as a bad deal seems counterproductive to the very values on which Austrian economics stands.

Context-dependent objective value has become an axiom of my thinking because without it, literally nothing else makes a lick of sense. For another take on this same topic, check out John Vervaeke's work. His concept of "relevance realization" is somewhat in line with what I've been arguing but I think he takes a more relativistic approach than I. Still a really interesting guy though.