There Is No Value Higher Than Your Own Life

[RCSaunders]

Well, I can see this conversation is hopeless. If that is what you think I said means, (it is definitely not) I'll just have let you live with your misunderstanding.

I don't think it's hopeless, RC. But I do think nobody but you can glean the words "knowledge, reason, profitable work, satisfaction and enjoyment" from the expression "your own life," without going well beyond anything you actually said.

And you wouldn't want them to do that, would you?

The rest is not for you but for anyone following the conversation who might be sincerely interested in why knowledge is the first necessity of human life.

Ah. Well, then, we must change the OP to read, "There is no value higher than knowledge."

But you're now saying "life" is not enough? And clearly "satisfaction" and "enjoyment" are out...so are "reason" and "profitable work," because knowledge does not necessarily or automatically entail any of these.

Make value have any meaning you like and choose anything you like as your highest value and start a thread advocating your view, if you like. You don't have to agree that your life is your highest value, but that's the subject of this thread which you are free to disagree with.

For those who do not accept your mystical view of values as something intrinsic [that something can just be good without being good for something to some human being] they know that for anything to be a value, there must be some objective, purpose, end, or goal relative to which things have a value: a positive value it advances or achieves the goal, a negative value if it inhibits or prevents the goal. The ultimate goal for those who agree with the premise of this thread is one's own life.

The value of all other thing will be in relationship to the ultimate goal. Since knowledge is necessary to human life, it is a value because it is necessary to achieve the goal of living one's life as a human being successfully.

[RCSaunders]

Whoa. Now you've changed your tune completely (without realizing it, perhaps). Now you're saying that "knowledge" gets its value from generating "enjoyment and satisfaction."

Well, I can see this conversation is hopeless. If that is what you think I said means, (it is definitely not) I'll just have let you live with your misunderstanding.

The rest is not for you but for anyone following the conversation who might be sincerely interested in why knowledge is the first necessity of human life.

Human Nature

For all organisms except human beings, the distinguishing characteristics that define their natures are physiological. The distinguishing characteristic that defines a human being's nature is psychological. Since it is an organism's nature that determines how it must behave to succeed as the kind of organism it is, for all organisms except human beings, those requirements are primarily physiological. For human beings those requirements are primarily psychological.

Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully, often within a few hours or days of their birth. They are able to walk, run, fly or swim, perform their biological functions, find and acquire the kind of food they must eat, prepare whatever shelter they need, mate and raise their young. Human beings are born unable to do anything their nature requires them to do to live as human beings.

Human Nature Requires Knowledge

All the things a human being must do to live require knowledge which must be discovered or learned. The human requirement for knowledge is what distinguishes human beings from all other forms of life. A human being must learn, or be taught, how to do everything it must do to live.

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

Without knowledge no choice would be possible. A human being must consciously choose everything, but without knowledge of what there is to choose, what the possible consequences of any choice might be, or why one choice is preferred to another, choice is impossible. Knowledge is the means to every choice and the only means to making right ones.

There is not a single thing a human chooses to do that can be done without knowledge. From the simplest daily routines of life to the most difficult tasks of one's occupation, every action requires knowledge. By the time we are able to dress ourselves and prepare our own meals the enormous amount of knowledge required to perform such tasks is taken for granted, but none of them could be performed if one did not know left from right or front from back, or how to use a can opener, or what a refrigerator is. Everybody takes for granted how a faucet, a light switch, and a stove work, how to boil water, hammer a nail, or use a knife. No animal knows any of these things or needs to, but a human being could not live without knowing them.

For human beings knowledge is the first and most important necessity of life. Things like water, food, clothing, and shelter are sometimes called the necessities of life, but for human beings, without knowledge none of those necessities would be known or possible to obtain. For human beings, knowledge comes before all other things. Whatever else a human being does, the first must be to learn because, for human beings, it is learn or die.

The quote is from an article about life and some basic principles of human life I'll post soon.

Your citation is inadequate and the article, claiming that knowledge is necessary to do all the things that are necessary to life, is bullshit. All normal newborn human beings can breathe without any knowledge about breathing.

You must have missed this:

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

Why do so many people hate knowledge and the necessity of it?

[RCSaunders]

anyone following the conversation who might be sincerely interested in why knowledge is the first necessity of human life

When a baby is born it needs oxygen and water and food and shelter and sleep in order to survive
But it does not need knowledge as its brain is not sufficiently developed to even know what this is

You missed it too?

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

I never said an infant has to have knowledge, but if no one had knowledge, no one would live. No reflex will feed, clothe, or provide an infant anything else.

I do not understand this foot-stomping resistance to the idea of the necessity and virtue of knowledge.

[commonsense]

Well, I can see this conversation is hopeless. If that is what you think I said means, (it is definitely not) I'll just have let you live with your misunderstanding.

The rest is not for you but for anyone following the conversation who might be sincerely interested in why knowledge is the first necessity of human life.



The quote is from an article about life and some basic principles of human life I'll post soon.

Your citation is inadequate and the article, claiming that knowledge is necessary to do all the things that are necessary to life, is bullshit. All normal newborn human beings can breathe without any knowledge about breathing.

You must have missed this:

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

Why do so many people hate knowledge and the necessity of it?

The caregiver’s knowledge of the human respiratory system has no bearing on the newborn’s ability to breathe. Likewise even a person with the intelligence of a moron or idiot can breathe without knowledge of breathing held by themselves or anyone else.

[Immanuel Can]

Make value have any meaning you like...

Hey, it's your OP, not mine.

But if you float an idea out there, why so touchy if anyone questions you on it, RC? Don't you think conversation could help you refine your ideas?

For those who do not accept your mystical view...

Now, now, RC...there's nothing "mystical" about it. We just have different ontologies, that's all.

...there must be some objective, purpose, end, or goal relative to which things have a value..,

Of course. But it cannot be a merely human value, since humans are transient, contingent, mortal, limited beings. While they are capable of "valuing" things (so long as they remain alive to value anything) they are utterly insufficient as a grounds for establishing the actual "objective, purpose, end or goal" of things intrinsically. The next human being to come along will value things differently; and then all the valuing done previously by the departed will be worth precisely zero.

The value of all other thing will be in relationship to the ultimate goal. Since knowledge is necessary to human life, it is a value because it is necessary to achieve the goal of living one's life as a human being successfully.

Yeah, I got that. But you've got no "ultimate goal" legitimized at the moment. Also, knowledge is not necessary to human life, as others have pointed out. Then, why is it "necessary to achieve the goal of living one's life as a human being," as you put it? Who says the universe owes us to give us what we decide is "necessary"? Who made us worthy to decide "the goal" of why we're here -- we certainly didn't create ourselves. And what does "successful" entail?

None of that is clear. So you can't blame people for asking about it. And if you feel upset about them doing that,RC, then I have to ask why did you start this whole topic?

[RCSaunders]

Your citation is inadequate and the article, claiming that knowledge is necessary to do all the things that are necessary to life, is bullshit. All normal newborn human beings can breathe without any knowledge about breathing.

You must have missed this:

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

Why do so many people hate knowledge and the necessity of it?

The caregiver’s knowledge of the human respiratory system has no bearing on the newborn’s ability to breathe.

How long will the infant breath if the caregiver doesn't feed it?

Why do you resent the fact that human beings require knowledge to live? It makes it sound like you think knowledge is some kind of evil thing. I know you don't, but just don't undestand attitude.

[commonsense]

You must have missed this:



Why do so many people hate knowledge and the necessity of it?

The caregiver’s knowledge of the human respiratory system has no bearing on the newborn’s ability to breathe.

How long will the infant breath if the caregiver doesn't feed it?

Why do you resent the fact that human beings require knowledge to live? It makes it sound like you think knowledge is some kind of evil thing. I know you don't, but just don't undestand attitude.

I am exasperated by your blindness.

[Immanuel Can]

The caregiver’s knowledge of the human respiratory system has no bearing on the newborn’s ability to breathe.

How long will the infant breath if the caregiver doesn't feed it?

Why do you resent the fact that human beings require knowledge to live? It makes it sound like you think knowledge is some kind of evil thing. I know you don't, but just don't undestand attitude.

I am exasperated by your blindness.

Did I miss something?

Did commonsense say, or imply, that he "resented" anything? So far as I can see, he just said it wasn't a fact. And you can't resent something that just isn't a fact...there would be no reason to.

RC, give the poor guy a break. He's trying to make a simple point: that babies do, in fact, live without having even basic knowledge enough to feed themselves. So "life" and "knowledge" are clearly not coextensive -- present for the same period of time, in the same individual -- even if you want to argue that the parents' knowledge is involved.

And that's seems quite right. I would raise the same kind of objection, actually.

[RCSaunders]

How long will the infant breath if the caregiver doesn't feed it?

Why do you resent the fact that human beings require knowledge to live? It makes it sound like you think knowledge is some kind of evil thing. I know you don't, but just don't undestand attitude.

I am exasperated by your blindness.

Did I miss something?

Did commonsense say, or imply, that he "resented" anything? So far as I can see, he just said it wasn't a fact. And you can't resent something that just isn't a fact...there would be no reason to.

RC, give the poor guy a break. He's trying to make a simple point: that babies do, in fact, live without having even basic knowledge enough to feed themselves. So "life" and "knowledge" are clearly not coextensive -- present for the same period of time, in the same individual -- even if you want to argue that the parents' knowledge is involved.

And that's seems quite right. I would raise the same kind of objection, actually.

Well, I already knew you hate knowledge. It was not necessary for you to offer further proof.

Like it or not, "coextensive," or not, no infant would survive if no human being had knowledge, in particular, the infant's caretakers. That is all I said, and it is all it means and everything else you and commensense (talk about misnomers) are blathering is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate the obvious. I can think of no reason why anyone would intentionally minimize or denigrate the necessity and importance of knowledge unless they held some kind of resentment or hatred of knowledge itself or in some way felt threatened by it.

[Immanuel Can]

I am exasperated by your blindness.

Did I miss something?

Did commonsense say, or imply, that he "resented" anything? So far as I can see, he just said it wasn't a fact. And you can't resent something that just isn't a fact...there would be no reason to.

RC, give the poor guy a break. He's trying to make a simple point: that babies do, in fact, live without having even basic knowledge enough to feed themselves. So "life" and "knowledge" are clearly not coextensive -- present for the same period of time, in the same individual -- even if you want to argue that the parents' knowledge is involved.

And that's seems quite right. I would raise the same kind of objection, actually.

Well, I already knew you hate knowledge. It was not necessary for you to offer further proof.

Whooosh.

That's the sound of the point going over your head, RC.

It's not about whether or not knowledge is good. It's about whether or not a living being can live without knowing anything...rather like every baby ever does, at least for some time.

Like it or not, "coextensive," or not, no infant would survive if no human being had knowledge, in particular, the infant's caretakers.

Yeah, I knew you'd dodge it that way...just as I said, above. Not relevant to the question of what the baby knows. Heck, a person in a vegetative state can live by the "knowledge" of others, and he may well know nothing at all again, ever.

Personally, I don't feel "threatened" by anything you've said. I just think it's not right. And that's quite a different proposition.

Funny that a guy who claimed to want to talk straight and pull no punches has such a glass jaw. You could toughen up, RC, and defend your view, instead of insulting everybody who raises a question.

Or don't. Whatever.

[RCSaunders]

You could toughen up, RC, and defend your view, instead of insulting everybody who raises a question.

Defend it against what. It's in no danger. But even if I decided to defend my view, I would have to know what you meant by, "my view." So far all your arguments have been against something I never believed or said. Just what do you think my view is?

All human life depends on knowledge. Whether that knowledge is one's own, or the knowledge of others that contribute to one's own welfare, without knowledge human life is impossible. That is exactly what I said and meant when I wrote:

When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible.

When you write: "It's not about whether or not knowledge is good. It's about whether or not a living being can live without knowing anything...rather like every baby ever does, at least for some time," implying what I said means and individual cannot live without his own knowledge, you are either lying or have totally misunderstood what I wrote, because I never implied anything like that.

And just to evade another possible obfuscation, it is not a, "living being," that must have knowledge, but a, "human being," the only organism that has or needs knowledge to live.

There are many human beings who are totally dependent on the knowledge of others for their life, but without the knowledge of those others, they would die. But those who cannot live on their own like infants, the retarded, and demented, are exceptions, which is why they depend on other's knowledge. An individual that is supporting their own life, however, cannot do it without their own knowledge.

Now what do I need to defend?

[Immanuel Can]

Just what do you think my view is?

That "There is no value higher than your own life." If it's something other than that, the mistake's not on my part.

All human life depends on knowledge.

Babies know nothing. And unless you mean, "All human life depends on OTHERS' knowledge," the knowledge-level of their parents is simply irrelevant to the question.

Is that what you meant? It seems it was, for you continue...

When you write: "It's not about whether or not knowledge is good. It's about whether or not a living being can live without knowing anything...rather like every baby ever does, at least for some time," implying what I said means and individual cannot live without his own knowledge, you are either lying or have totally misunderstood what I wrote, because I never implied anything like that.

But even this isn't really true. It's clear that animals have life, and instinct, not knowledge is sufficient for them to continue. How then could we think that without knowledge human beings could not even continue in an animal-level state?

You conclude:

An individual that is supporting their own life, however, cannot do it without their own knowledge.

"Their own"? Then we're back to the babies. They don't have knowledge of "their own," and they are alive.

Whose "knowledge" are you talking about, RC? You say both that "implying what I said means and individual cannot live without his own knowledge" means "you are either lying or have totally misunderstood," and yet you now say humans need "their own" knowledge?

Which is it?

[RCSaunders]

Just what do you think my view is?

That "There is no value higher than your own life." If it's something other than that, the mistake's not on my part.

Just drop the context, IC, when reason is not on your side. The discussion is about the necessity of knowledge to human life, and my question is, what do you think my view about that is.

All human life depends on knowledge.

Babies know nothing. And unless you mean, "All human life depends on OTHERS' knowledge," the knowledge-level of their parents is simply irrelevant to the question.

It means exactly the same thing as, "all human beings depend on food." It doesn't matter whether its food they provide themselves (their own food) or food provided by someone else (like children or those institutionalized). Without food, human beings die, and without knowledge, human beings die.

That's why I asked you if you knew what I meant--which you obviously do not.

When you write: "It's not about whether or not knowledge is good. It's about whether or not a living being can live without knowing anything...rather like every baby ever does, at least for some time," implying what I said means and individual cannot live without his own knowledge, you are either lying or have totally misunderstood what I wrote, because I never implied anything like that.

But even this isn't really true. It's clear that animals have life, and instinct, not knowledge is sufficient for them to continue. How then could we think that without knowledge human beings could not even continue in an animal-level state?

Well I tried to help you evade making that foolish mistake, because I suspected you would. If you had read what I wrote carefully you could have avoided this nonsense. Why do you think I wrote:

And just to evade another possible obfuscation, it is not a, "living being," that must have knowledge, but a, "human being," the only organism that has or needs knowledge to live.

And as if anyone over ten years old would have to ask, "How then could we think that without knowledge human beings could not even continue in an animal-level state," an animal does not have to choose its behavior because its instinct determines it. A human must choose its behavior because he does not have instinct, and cannot choose without knowledge. Duh!

You conclude:

An individual that is supporting their own life, however, cannot do it without their own knowledge.

"Their own"? Then we're back to the babies. They don't have knowledge of "their own," and they are alive.

Well if you see no difference between, "alive," and, "supporting their own life," there is no possible explanation that can save your sanity.

Whose "knowledge" are you talking about, RC? You say both that "implying what I said means and individual cannot live without his own knowledge" means "you are either lying or have totally misunderstood," and yet you now say humans need "their own" knowledge?

Which is it?

No human being can live without knowledge, just as no human being can live without water. For those who are unable, for any reason, to provide themselves with the requirements of their life, it is the knowledge of those who do supply their needs their life depends on. For those able to perform whatever functions are required to provide themselves with the requirements of their life, like most healthy adults, it is their own knowledge their life depends on.

No human being can live without water. For those who are unable, for any reason, to provide themselves with water, if they are to live it is someone else's water that will be required to sustain them. If they are able to provide themselves with water and they do, it is their own water that sustains them.

You almost have me convinced, however. I am certain human beings cannot live without knowledge, but you have gone out of your way to demonstrate the opposite.

[Immanuel Can]

The discussion is about the necessity of knowledge to human life, and my question is, what do you think my view about that is.

I think, quite honestly, you're a bit confused.

You say "knowledge is necessary for life," but manifestly, it isn't. So you say, "Well, I didn't mean the individual's knowledge, I meant others'." But that isn't true either, as animals live without knowledge.

So I suspect you'll say, "Well, I meant human life." But to the extent that human beings are biologically 'animal,' that won't be true either.

So what's next?

Well if you see no difference between, "alive," and, "supporting their own life," there is no possible explanation that can save your sanity.

Heh. Dear old RC...so quick to the hyperbole and the insult.

And yet, neither makes the argument any good. So maybe you'll explain it to me. Please.

Whose "knowledge" are you talking about, RC? You say both that "implying what I said means and individual cannot live without his own knowledge" means "you are either lying or have totally misunderstood," and yet you now say humans need "their own" knowledge?

Which is it?

No human being can live without knowledge,...

Say again -- WHOSE "knowledge" was that? Which was it?

You can't live without your own knowledge, or you can't live without somebody else's? 'Cuz they're definitely not the same thing. And you say nobody can "live" without that...?

But I suspect you'll have to make a special definition out of "live" now, because it's definitely not true of life functions like respiration, excretion, reproduction, circulation, motion, and so on...and even animals have cognition without knowledge...so exactly how is knowledge the sine qua non of "living"?

[RCSaunders]

The discussion is about the necessity of knowledge to human life, and my question is, what do you think my view about that is.

I think, quite honestly, you're a bit confused.

You say "knowledge is necessary for life," but manifestly, it isn't. So you say, "Well, I didn't mean the individual's knowledge, I meant others'." But that isn't true either, as animals live without knowledge.

So I suspect you'll say, "Well, I meant human life." But to the extent that human beings are biologically 'animal,' that won't be true either.

So what's next?

Well if you see no difference between, "alive," and, "supporting their own life," there is no possible explanation that can save your sanity.

Heh. Dear old RC...so quick to the hyperbole and the insult.

And yet, neither makes the argument any good. So maybe you'll explain it to me. Please.

Whose "knowledge" are you talking about, RC? You say both that "implying what I said means and individual cannot live without his own knowledge" means "you are either lying or have totally misunderstood," and yet you now say humans need "their own" knowledge?

Which is it?

No human being can live without knowledge,...

Say again -- WHOSE "knowledge" was that? Which was it?

You can't live without your own knowledge, or you can't live without somebody else's? 'Cuz they're definitely not the same thing. And you say nobody can "live" without that...?

But I suspect you'll have to make a special definition out of "live" now, because it's definitely not true of life functions like respiration, excretion, reproduction, circulation, motion, and so on...and even animals have cognition without knowledge...so exactly how is knowledge the sine qua non of "living"?

OK. You win. You have proved me wrong.

It is impossible to explain why knowledge is necessary to someone who has decided it isn't.