One for the loons.

[Skepdick]

No, I wouldn't call either of them values.

You're lying to yourself then. If something which is necessary to you (like oxygen) wasn't of value to you (pursued by you), you'd be dead.

I'll help a bit, in normal language, "value" has two main meanings:

value
noun

1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"
synonyms: merit, worth, usefulness, use, utility, practicality, advantage, desirability, benefit, gain, profit, good, service, help, helpfulness, assistance, effectiveness, efficacy, avail, importance, significance, point, sense; informalmileage
"the value of adequate preparation cannot be understated"

2. principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms: principles, moral principles, ethics, moral code, morals, moral values, standards, moral standards, code of behaviour, rules of conduct, standards of behaviour
"society's values are passed on to us as children"

You only seem to be talking about the first one. "Of value" also refers to the first one.

However in philosophy, when we talk about objective and subjective values, we are of course referring to the second meaning.

As such, you haven't achieved something for the first time in history, you are merely conflating the two meanings and end up with something that doesn't make sense.

The fact that you are correcting his meaning, seems to suggest that you understood his meaning just fine.

Did you not like his original meaning? Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the normative/descriptive distinction and the is-ought gap?

[Atla]

The fact that you are correcting his meaning, seems to suggest that you understood his meaning just fine.

Did you not like his original meaning? Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the normative/descriptive distinction and the is-ought gap?

Yet another word salad showing you can't really process meaning.

[Skepdick]

Yet another word salad showing you can't really process meaning.

Word salad? You can't even define the terms you are using!

What is your definition of 'meaning'? The one in the dictionary is circular.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/meaning
meaning Noun. The meaning of something is what it expresses or represents.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[barbarianhorde]

No, I wouldn't call either of them values.

You're lying to yourself then. If something which is necessary to you (like oxygen) wasn't of value to you (pursued by you), you'd be dead.

I'll help a bit, in normal language, "value" has two main meanings:

value
noun

1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"
synonyms: merit, worth, usefulness, use, utility, practicality, advantage, desirability, benefit, gain, profit, good, service, help, helpfulness, assistance, effectiveness, efficacy, avail, importance, significance, point, sense; informalmileage
"the value of adequate preparation cannot be understated"

2. principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms: principles, moral principles, ethics, moral code, morals, moral values, standards, moral standards, code of behaviour, rules of conduct, standards of behaviour
"society's values are passed on to us as children"

You only seem to be talking about the first one. "Of value" also refers to the first one.

However in philosophy, when we talk about objective and subjective values, we are of course referring to the second meaning.

On the contrary my dear boy. Philosophers have been invertebrate wretches for not seeing that the former is far more important than and the grounding of the second.

Spend some more time on the matter. The objective for you would be to muster the courage to look at your own behaviour. (valuing) Philosophers, since the inane comedian Socrates claimed the field, have been castrates. No balls, you see.

For manly thought, value-based thought, study Fixed Cross and Value Ontology.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 ... e-ontology

[Walker]

On the contrary my dear boy. Philosophers have been invertebrate wretches for not seeing that the former is far more important than and the grounding of the second.

Spend some more time on the matter. The objective for you would be to muster the courage to look at your own behaviour. (valuing) Philosophers, since the inane comedian Socrates claimed the field, have been castrates. No balls, you see.

For manly thought, value-based thought, study Fixed Cross and Value Ontology.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 ... e-ontology

Unless you're speaking in metaphors, you probably mean inveterate and not invertebrate, unless you're one of those children who makes up their own definitions, little fella.

[Atla]

You're lying to yourself then. If something which is necessary to you (like oxygen) wasn't of value to you (pursued by you), you'd be dead.

I'll help a bit, in normal language, "value" has two main meanings:

value
noun

1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"
synonyms: merit, worth, usefulness, use, utility, practicality, advantage, desirability, benefit, gain, profit, good, service, help, helpfulness, assistance, effectiveness, efficacy, avail, importance, significance, point, sense; informalmileage
"the value of adequate preparation cannot be understated"

2. principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms: principles, moral principles, ethics, moral code, morals, moral values, standards, moral standards, code of behaviour, rules of conduct, standards of behaviour
"society's values are passed on to us as children"

You only seem to be talking about the first one. "Of value" also refers to the first one.

However in philosophy, when we talk about objective and subjective values, we are of course referring to the second meaning.

On the contrary my dear boy. Philosophers have been invertebrate wretches for not seeing that the former is far more important than and the grounding of the second.

Spend some more time on the matter. The objective for you would be to muster the courage to look at your own behaviour. (valuing) Philosophers, since the inane comedian Socrates claimed the field, have been castrates. No balls, you see.

For manly thought, value-based thought, study Fixed Cross and Value Ontology.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 ... e-ontology

You missed the point, this wasn't about what's more important, but simply about how English works.

Now if you want to build a good value system for everyday life then say so, in that case of course the focus will be on the first one, in that sense it's more "important".

Still there would be no 100% objective values. For example you could always find a lot of people who would agree that serial killer and rapist pedophiles should have no access to oxygen.

[Skepdick]

unless you're one of those children who makes up their own definitions

You seem to be implying that making up your own definitions/language is "childish".

I am curious. As a "grown up" whose definitions do you think we ought we be using?

[Atla]

For manly thought, value-based thought, study Fixed Cross and Value Ontology.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 ... e-ontology

I think I'll pass, after reading some of your ramblings about God's test, cosmic consciousness (which I happen to have) and QM, I thought your Value Ontology would also start with an error

Value ontology is the interpretation of "being"/"the world" as composed of beings, subjects.

and it did.

You see there are no beings/subjects, and so a karma-like mechanism for value isn't possible.

[Walker]

unless you're one of those children who makes up their own definitions

You seem to be implying that making up your own definitions/language is "childish".

I am curious. As a "grown up" whose definitions do you think we ought we be using?

You whiffed by missing the point of echoing the patronizing tone via reply, my dear boy.

[Skepdick]

unless you're one of those children who makes up their own definitions

You seem to be implying that making up your own definitions/language is "childish".

I am curious. As a "grown up" whose definitions do you think we ought we be using?

You whiffed by missing the point of echoing the patronizing tone via reply, my dear boy.

Patronizing or otherwise, my point stands.

I am sure you can focus on more than one thing at a time. My dear boy.