There Is No Value Higher Than Your Own Life

[RCSaunders]

That "highest" value would help. Can you give us that?

You don't know what the title of this thread is?

But you have to do more than say that you think it is the "highest" value. You need to say why it really is the highest value, and say it in such an argument that a reasonable person can believe.

I like you, RC...but not enough to just believe what you say because you say it. I still want to know what your metric for "high" is. What makes something "higher" than another thing, as a value?

Why? I don't have to justify what I know to anyone. I know I'm alive, too, and I don't, "need to say why," I know it. And I'm sure I don't have to explain to any, "reasonable person," how they can know it. It is almost embarrassing to think I have to explain to adults, "if you do not value your own life enough to live as well as you can you will not be able to value anything because you will be dead."

It's not a metric, it's a hierarchy. Just for you I'll say it this way, "before you can achieve anything else (pursue any other value) you must first achieve the sustaining of our own life (which is therefore your highest value). If you don't like, "higher," call it the, "primary value," the "fundamental value," the, "first value," or "the basic value."

I'm not trying to convince you that you have to view your own life as your highest value. I don't think it's possible to convince someone who has already surrendered their own life to some belief or ideology. I'm really only interested in those who know their own life is worth living and want to know how to live and be all they can be as a human being. I want them to know their own life is theirs to live as they choose to live it and that there is no higher or more noble thing to aspire to, and that they never have to apologize for being the best they can be in all things and enjoying it.

[Immanuel Can]

But you have to do more than say that you think it is the highest value
You need to say why it really is the highest value and say it in such an argument that a reasonable person can believe

Not unless you are trying to demonstrate your own values are the highest ones possible

I didn't say that. I said anybody's values.

The term "higher" is an honorific. Therefore, it should be possible to say what justifies calling one particular value "higher," and thereby according it that honour.

Whatever they be they are personal to you so you dont have to justify them to anyone

Then they're not "higher" than anything. Nothing makes them "high" values. They're just idiosyncratic values. But none deserves to be called "high."

[Immanuel Can]

I like you, RC...but not enough to just believe what you say because you say it. I still want to know what your metric for "high" is. What makes something "higher" than another thing, as a value?

Why? I don't have to justify what I know to anyone.

Because this is philosophy, of course, and this is what philosophers do. They don't just claim things, they justify their claims, giving reasons and evidence as to why we ought to believe the claims.

You have said that "your own life" is the "highest" value; are you then thinking that we should just say, "Sounds good to me"?

In fact, if you didn't want that questioned, why did you even present the idea here?

It's not a metric, it's a hierarchy.

Of course, it's both. But I'll defer to your claim.

Please give me a couple of the lower values, just below "your own life." Let's see what you think makes that "highest" in the hierarchy.

[Age]

Well. it looks like we both make a mistake. I thought you were asking serious philosophical questions. You wanted to turn the discussion into some kind of personal thing.

Since it was only a mistake on both our parts, no harm done.

If you choose to be less than you can be, if you choose to suffer and die, while I cannot be pleased by anyone else's suffering, I would never interfere in how you choose to live your life.

I have absolutely NO idea WHY you said this, NOR, WHAT you are saying this for.

I just asked you some very simple, clarifying questions, which you said you were going to answer. But, maybe you found answering them Honestly just far to hard and/or difficult so you chose NOT to, and thus wrote this instead? Or, maybe you have some other legitimate reason/s for writing this?

You did not ask, "clarifying questions," you asked personal questions about how I have lived, my personal success and personal failures, which are all totally irrelevant to any philosophical point.

I asked my questions, to you, for clarification. Therefore, they are, obviously, 'clarifying questions'.

If you take them as being 'personal or not', then that is another matter.

Also, if you, your own 'self', can NOT do or have NOT done in relation to your own, so called, "philosophical point", then just maybe it is NOT an actual, so called, "philosophical point" at all.

You do not have to agree that, "There Is No Value Higher Than Your Own Life," but you might have to answer the question for yourself of how you could value anything if you weren't living.

Is this a, so called, "personal question", and therefore, according to your "logic", this would mean that it is totally irrelevant to ANY philosophical point? Or, was this some other kind of question?

If yes, then what kind exactly?

Also, questioning how I could value anything if I were not living does NOT lead me to discovering nor learning what is the, so called, "highest value". That question just leads me to the obvious inquiry about how one could value some thing if they were not even living.

If you don't value your life and successfully achieve it, how can you possibly value anything else, since you would not be alive?

This question does NOT logically flow.

Also, as has ALREADY been pointed out to you. Some people would replace their own life for some one else. Therefore, this would imply that one's own life is NOT necessarily the highest value. Obviously, if, and WHEN, some values "another's" life over their own, then, to them, their own life is NOT what is valued as the highest.


Lots of parents place their children's lives as having more value than their own life, which makes perfect sense as one's own life does NOT last very long at all. In fact, relatively speaking, ones' own life is minute and really NOTHING at all compared to one's own species. So, valuing the life of the species can be SEEN as having far more value than one's own life. This might be WHY their is an instinctual sense to keep breeding, producing, and pro-creating, and WHY some parents will sake their own lives for the life of their younger off-spring so that they can then keep producing more off-spring in order to keep the species alive, (and well?).

[RCSaunders]

You do not have to agree that, "There Is No Value Higher Than Your Own Life," but you might have to answer the question for yourself of how you could value anything if you weren't living.

Is this a, so called, "personal question" ...?

Not at all. I don't want to know what your answer might be, I'm only pointing out what anyone who want's to be sure about their values needs to think about. I'm not trying to convince you, just telling you what I believe is true. It's what you wanted to know, isn't it?

... So, valuing the life of the species can be SEEN as having far more value than one's own life.

Of value to whom for what?

Values Are Relationships

Before there can be a value there must be an objective (purpose, end, or goal) relative to which a thing has some value; a positive value like, "good," or, "right," if it achieves or advances the objective, or negative value like, "bad," or, "wrong," if it prevents or hinders the objective.

[Age]

You do not have to agree that, "There Is No Value Higher Than Your Own Life," but you might have to answer the question for yourself of how you could value anything if you weren't living.

Is this a, so called, "personal question" ...?

Not at all. I don't want to know what your answer might be, I'm only pointing out what anyone who want's to be sure about their values needs to think about. I'm not trying to convince you, just telling you what I believe is true. It's what you wanted to know, isn't it?

Not really. What you ALREADY believe is true is ALREADY OBVIOUS.

... So, valuing the life of the species can be SEEN as having far more value than one's own life.

Of value to whom for what?

To the one and ONLY One.

What REAL value is there to one human beings life? What value can be REALLY put on one's own life? When obviously that one is going to "die". If one is going to "die" anyway, then their own life does NOT have that much value, especially considering for how much longer the species of that one could live for. Obviously, the value of the life of a species far outweighs the life of just one of the species. \

When this concept can be grasped and FULLY understood, then we can move on up to who and what this 'whom' REALLY IS, which KNOWS the 'value' and for 'what'. But, if you are STUCK in just looking at things, from your own life and perspective, then you will NOT YET understand who and what this 'whom' ACTUALLY IS.

Values Are Relationships

ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative, to the observer. So, 'values' being relationships is NO different ALSO.

Before there can be a value there must be an objective (purpose, end, or goal) relative to which a thing has some value; a positive value like, "good," or, "right," if it achieves or advances the objective, or negative value like, "bad," or, "wrong," if it prevents or hinders the objective.

Okay. But when 'you' can SEE and UNDERSTAND the difference between one's own life from One's own Life, then things will become much CLEARER for 'you'.

'You' are right that there is NO value higher than 'your' own life. However, 'you' are confusing this True FACT with a 'human being'. As, considering the miserable life span of a 'human being', the value of 'your', human being's, own life is relatively zero. The value of just one human being in perspective of ALL-THERE-IS, as One, which is actually infinite and eternal, then the value of that one human being's own life in relationship to thee One's Life is, again, zero or next to nothing. But, unfortunately, some of human beings are NOT able to SEE things this way. As some of 'you', human beings, actually BELIEVE you, personally, have and hold some importance in Life.

[RCSaunders]

Please give me a couple of the lower values, just below "your own life." Let's see what you think makes that "highest" in the hierarchy.

Only because you said, "please," there are three things which are necessary to human life and therefore values to be pursued: knowledge, reason, and productive work. They make the objective of human life possible and human life is not possible without them. (Ignorance, irrationality, and indolence would therefore be negative values.)

[Immanuel Can]

Please give me a couple of the lower values, just below "your own life." Let's see what you think makes that "highest" in the hierarchy.

Only because you said, "please,"

C'mon, RC...you know I like you, and we agreed to be thick-skinned in our speaking to each other, right?

...there are three things which are necessary to human life and therefore values to be pursued: knowledge, reason, and productive work. They make the objective of human life possible and human life is not possible without them. (Ignorance, irrationality, and indolence would therefore be negative values.)

I would ordinarily have questions about adjectives like "productive," (i.e. productive of what?) but I don't want to be too fractious here.

So let's accept that. Let's work with it.

I see how "your own life" is a prerequisite for, or necessary for, all three higher values. I don't see that "life" is sufficient for them.

After all, there are all kinds who "live" but are "ignorant, irrational and indolent." But it can be the case that valuing your own life can come into conflict with any of these higher values, too. The intrepid explorer, who seeks knowledge of dangerous lands, puts "knowledge" ahead of "life," for example, since he may well die in the attempt. In such cases, is "life" really the primary value at all? Maybe in the case of the former, but not in the case of the latter. So it's certainly not globally true that "there is no value higher than your own life."

So perhaps you'll say, "Only a life with knowledge is valuable; knowledge is a condition of the higher life." Fair enough, so far as that goes. But is the value then "knowledge" or "life"? It seems that then, the "knowledge" is the thing imparting the value to the "life," and that "life" without such "knowledge" would be less...or not...valuable.

So, then, "life," as a criterion, is not adding any value at all. In which case, "knowledge" is much more valuable than "life." Infinitely so, as a matter of fact.

[Gary Childress]

There is absolutely nothing heroic or noble about sacrifice. Sacrifice always mean giving up or throwing away what is of a higher value for the sake of that which is a lesser value, or of no value at all.

This is Ayn Rand's thinking and exactly what I'm challenging, the notion that people who sacrifice their lives for things they deem to be higher goals or values than their own lives aren't heroic or noble. She didn't have much in the way of good things to say about altruism. I find it difficult to believe that altruistic people aren't heroic or noble.

There are people who sacrifice their lives for things they seem to consider being of greater value. It doesn't seem to be universal that there is no value higher than one's own life. Some people seem to hold things dearer than life itself, that's my whole point. When you say, "there is no value higher than your own life" it sounds to me like you are making a universal claim, that it applies to everyone. But it doesn't seem to. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not saying that those who don't sacrifice their lives can't be heroes. I'm saying that those who have sacrificed their lives for good causes are heroes also. Wouldn't you agree?

[RCSaunders]

I see how "your own life" is a prerequisite for, or necessary for, all three higher values. I don't see that "life" is sufficient for them.

I really do not understand this statement, IC, so I cannot comment.

... The intrepid explorer, who seeks knowledge of dangerous lands, puts "knowledge" ahead of "life," ...

This is the difference between seeing life as something that happens to you and something you do. Seeking knowledge of any kind is part of the action which is living, a most enjoyable and satisfying part, especially when it is difficult and challenging and worth accomplishing. The explorer doesn't put his adventure above his life, it is his life and his enjoyment of it.

So perhaps you'll say, "Only a life with knowledge is valuable; knowledge is a condition of the higher life." Fair enough, so far as that goes. But is the value then "knowledge" or "life"? It seems that then, the "knowledge" is the thing imparting the value to the "life," and that "life" without such "knowledge" would be less...or not...valuable.

Human life is absolutely impossible without knowledge and the limit of any individual's life is determined by the limit of his knowledge. How much (or little) anyone can think, choose, or do is directly related to how much (or little) he knows. But knowledge is not the primary objective, not an end in itself. Knowledge is a means to a fulfilled life, and part of it, but it is one's whole life which is the primary objective.

[NOTE: Little knowledge necessary means little life because life consists of what you do and knowledge determines how much one can do (think, choose, and act). But great knowledge does not necessarily mean great life, because knowledge is only a tool. One must choose to use knowledge as the means to living.]

[Immanuel Can]

I see how "your own life" is a prerequisite for, or necessary for, all three higher values. I don't see that "life" is sufficient for them.

I really do not understand this statement, IC, so I cannot comment.

It's very simple, RC.

You have to be alive in order to have any values at all; but it does not follow that "life" is the basic good for which life exists.

And you recognize this, when you say that the real "higher values" are knowledge, reason, and "productive work" (whatever that means, because it doesn't tell us what's being "produced"). That means that the very reason that life exists is to serve the purposes of, or be instrumental to, "knowledge, reason and productive work."

And that means that life is not the "highest value," and the OP is not true. "Knowledge, reason and productive work" are your highest values. So presumably, a "life" without these three would not be "high" in your estimation at all, right? So "life" really doesn't matter, if these three are not also present.

Right?

Seeking knowledge of any kind is part of the action which is living, a most enjoyable and satisfying part, especially when it is difficult and challenging and worth accomplishing.

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." So now "knowledge" isn't even among the highest values: it's merely instrumental to the purpose of getting "enjoyment and satisfaction," which have now become your "highest values."

And "life" is now in third place, merely instrumental to the attainment of "knowledge," which is merely the way to get "enjoyment and satisfaction."

Knowledge is a means to a fulfilled life, and part of it, but it is one's whole life which is the primary objective.

Then I think you misspoke, or at least were very unclear when you wrote, "There is no value higher than your own life." It wasn't the FACT of being alive that you meant to affirm, but rather some special view of 'the good life' that you meant...a life that had in it knowledge (and reason, or "productive work," perhaps) fulfillment, enjoyment, satisfaction -- all these values together.

But you didn't say that. You just said "your own life." So how were we to know that you meant what you just said? Now you're implying that a person's "own life" could actually be worth very little, if it fails to incorporate all these other features from which it derives its true value, right?

One must choose to use knowledge as the means to living.

Actually, ignorant people can notoriously live very happily, with much "enjoyment and satisfaction," so it is reported. They can seem very happy, and wise people can even envy their cluelessness.

More even than that, knowledge itself famously often increases frustration, sorrow and anxiety. Look at Solomon, purported to be the wisest of all men, saying at the end of his life, "...do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself?" Or how about Camus, saying that facing the essential absurdity of existence was a prerequisite to existential awakening, or Bertrand Russell saying that his knowledge was premised on "a firm foundation of unyielding despair."

There is manifestly no easy connection from "knowledge" to "living," and especially not to "living with enjoyment and satisfaction."

[RCSaunders]

Seeking knowledge of any kind is part of the action which is living, a most enjoyable and satisfying part, especially when it is difficult and challenging and worth accomplishing.

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.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[commonsense]

Seeking knowledge of any kind is part of the action which is living, a most enjoyable and satisfying part, especially when it is difficult and challenging and worth accomplishing.

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.

[surreptitious57]

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