Philosophy Now Forum

Yesterday, I had what I will call an 'Elisabeth of Bohemia' moment.

A friend who is a lecturer in philosophy, all but told me I had to accept the concept of intrinsic value. And he was rather vehement about it. Now, I am a firm believer in value given only via the mind; that a rock, of its own accord, has none.

And now I can appreciate what Elizabeth of Bohemia was up against in her discourses with Descartes. She too was asked to accept things that she did not believe and found counterintuitive, all because Descartes said she must; the tyranny of the professional philosopher over the layperson.

PS. Hit the publish before l could fix the title. [Fixed—iMod]

Dalek Prime wrote: A friend who is a lecturer in philosophy, all but told me I had to accept the concept of intrinsic value.

Did he give a reason or provide an argument as to why you should accept the concept of intrinsic value?

Harbal wrote:

Did he give a reason or provide an argument as to why you should accept the concept of intrinsic value?

He said: "Yo momma sucks!"

Harbal wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: A friend who is a lecturer in philosophy, all but told me I had to accept the concept of intrinsic value.

Did he give a reason or provide an argument as to why you should accept the concept of intrinsic value?

None whatsoever, at least that I could grasp. That's why I liken it to Elisabeth's experience with Descartes. He told her to accept, and not argue the point, I think regarding the existence of the soul, but I'd have to look at their correspondence again to be sure what he was asking her to accept.

I asked him to define what value even is, and he wouldn't or couldn't do it. For myself, I cannot envision value without mind projecting it onto that to be valued. Am I blind to it?

Dalek Prime wrote: I asked him to define what value even is, and he wouldn't or couldn't do it. For myself, I cannot envision value without mind projecting it onto that to be valued. Am I blind to it?

I agree with you. I don't think your friend is entitled to expect you to accept his assertion without justifying it.

Harbal wrote:

I agree with you. I don't think your friend is entitled to expect you to accept his assertion without justifying it.

Yo momma sucks!

Harbal wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: I asked him to define what value even is, and he wouldn't or couldn't do it. For myself, I cannot envision value without mind projecting it onto that to be valued. Am I blind to it?

I agree with you. I don't think your friend is entitled to expect you to accept his assertion without justifying it.

And yet, as a working philosopher, he's doing just that. And he's the pro. Which is why I term it tyranny. Because by reason of his being a philosopher, shouldn't he know better than I?

What's the point of me carrying on at all with philosophy, if the pro's say I'm wrong?

Nick_A wrote:Harbal wrote:

I agree with you. I don't think your friend is entitled to expect you to accept his assertion without justifying it.

Yo momma sucks!

I've agreed with your point Nick. Why then do you persist in derailing a thread of import to me?

What embues something with value? What is value without mindful appraisal?

Dalek Prime wrote: What's the point of me carrying on at all with philosophy, if the pro's say I'm wrong?

Unless he gives you the reason for his opinion I think you should ignore what he says. It could well be the case that he's using a different definition of value to the one you are.

Harbal wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: What's the point of me carrying on at all with philosophy, if the pro's say I'm wrong?

Unless he gives you the reason for his opinion I think you should ignore what he says. It could well be the case that he's using a different definition of value to the one you are.

I figured he was, and said as much. But he seemed unwilling to define it, or come to a consensus on what it is. I specified my thinking, by saying I believed mind embues with something with value, and he seemed to reject that, without specification. Like I was being closed minded for not accepting intrinsic value

Harbal, if this was anyone else, it wouldn't bother me so much. But this is a guy who should know better, as a lecturing philosopher.

Dalek Prime wrote: Harbal, if this was anyone else, it wouldn't bother me so much. But this is a guy who should know better, as a lecturing philosopher.

No one is infallible.

D P wrote:

I've agreed with your point Nick. Why then do you persist in derailing a thread of import to me?

If you agree with me then you will join me on that thread in the demand to have the thread on beauty deleted.

Nick_A wrote:D P wrote:

I've agreed with your point Nick. Why then do you persist in derailing a thread of import to me?

If you agree with me then you will join me on that thread in the demand to have the thread on beauty deleted.

I agreed in principle. I've already stated my opinion that this is a gratis forum, and we freeloaders are owed nothing. You being a dick about it on my thread is gaining you nothing in sympathy. And the only reason I font have your posts deleted is, that I want it seen how unreasonable you are.

Dalek Prime wrote:I can't accept that value isn't given by mind. That value in itself is nothing but a thing bestowed by mind.

I agree. Humankind makes up stuff and assigns wide ranges of value to it. There is no built-in, universal value to anything. All value is made-up... including supposed "intrinsic" value. If someone insists that there is intrinsic value, that would seem to indicate that they have an idea of what THAT is, and they think others should think along the same lines. Very human.

However, atop what simply "is", we continually assign and layer all sorts of things as we see fit BECAUSE WE CAN. And then some of us might become especially intoxicated with it, and say, "BEHOLD, look at what I have created! It is GOOD! It is ultimate TRUTH!"