Philosophy Now Forum

For me, the question of philosophy has been a question
of values... what values should we be pursuing and why those
values and not other values? Of course this question of values
derives from Nietzsche... who I did follow in my youth as youth
are wont to do... Nietzsche of course, suggested following
the "hard" values of, the morality of the "aristocracy".. the so called
"masters" of Nietzsche...vs, the masses, the slave morality of the "common"
man....Nietzche wasn't interested in the "soft" values of Christianity...
but this is already known...

What I wonder about is the connection between values and the society...
What is the connection between a society/the state and its values?

As the society/state changes, the values that society/state must change
to adapt to the changes within the society/state...in other words, a modern
technological society cannot hold values of a traditional farming/rural society
and the reverse is true, a farming/rural community cannot hold to
the values of a modern technological society....

Thus Ancient Rome held different values than Ancient Greece...Rome values
were the values of a rural, agricultural society/state and Greek values
were more urban/city values...Roman values were, among other values,
were ''faithfulness'' and ''piety'' and other values come to mind, ''dignity'',
''humor'' ''mercy'' ''mildness'' ''gentleness'' again to name a few Roman values...

Whereas the Greeks valued beauty, art, intellect, truth...
the word for both history and philosophy stem from the word
inquiry.. which had little value for the Romans...for the most part
the Romans had no use for inquiry. and it is a historical point that for
the most part, traditional rural, agricultural societies have little
use for the value of inquiry...Of course it was a small segment of the population
that engaged in the value of inquiry....

Once it is understood that different societies hold different values,
we can view that society/state by its values. What values drive what a society/
state? And as always, why those values instead of other values?

Now that I have laid out the groundwork in values, we can take a closer look
at values and the society/state values...

Kropotkin

Now that I have laid out the "ground rules" for values,
I can work it out....

We have in America, what I call the "American problem"..
we have two America's.. but what is the dividing line between
these two America's? It does not lie in sex or creed or color or
where we live.... The dividing line in America lies in the two
different values each America holds...

One America holds to science, rationality, tolerance, otherwise known
as Liberal values and the other America holds to faith, religion, intolerance...
or we can think about it this way, one America holds to Urban/city values
and the other America holds to rural/agriculturally values...

Now one can live in the city and still hold the rural, agricultural values of
the so called "RED" States... and one can live in rural Mississippi and hold
to the values of the ''BLUE" states...It isn't where on lives that determines
one values systems, it helps to be sure, but it isn't the deciding factor...

As a liberal, I hold to the Urban/city values...rural, agricultural values, for me
at least, have no point...and I am sure that the people who hold to the
rural, agricultural values have no need for the liberal values of the city...

and herein lies the clash of the two America's...in this question of values...

but values don't exist separately or independently or apart from the
conditions of our life... Does it make sense to hold to traditional, rural
values if one leads an urban/city life? If I hold a modern high tech job,
does it make sense to hold rural/agricultural values... the short answer
is no...when America as a rural/agricultural country it made sense to hold
those values.. but America has been a modern, urban society since 1900...
(according to research, the frontier disappeared in 1893)

To my mind anyway, if we live in an urban/technical society, we should hold
those values...rural/agricultural values of god, country, guns, land makes
sense if you live in rural/Agricultual land, but that number is falling every single
day...and the values of god, guns, country and land make no sense in our modern
technical world...

and therein lies part of the American problem, conservatism is trying to
force Americans who live in the modern technical world/ urban, city values
to live under/with rural agricultural values...
Conservatives are trying to force Americans to live with values that made
sense when America was a rural/agricultural society....

and the failure of conservatives is pushing for values that not only fail
to make sense in our modern/technical world, but harms us by holding us to
values that are no longer appropriate given where we are right now...

We live in a modern world of traveling to the stars, of atomic bombs,
of a world post-holocaust, and our values must reflect those facts...

we cannot afford to hold to values that made sense a hundred
years ago, but make no sense today....

Kropotkin

It is 2022, so what values should we holding?

Kropotkin

Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were both agricultural societies.
https://www.thoughtco.com/comparisons-a ... ome-118635

I see different faiths - conservatives tending more toward religious faith and liberal tending toward technocrat solutions to everything. Both are problematic.

I am not sure we can call the current Left tolerant. The banner of tolerance is waved, but I don't see much tolerance. And that's as an old Lefty.

The left used to have a healthy distrust of government, big business and mainstream media. Somehow they lost that. I don't know what value that would be. Perhaps healthy skepticism about power. I mean The Manufacturing of Consent came out long before decades of consolidation of media companies, but in general liberals and lefties are not longer skeptical about media. The media that sold the wars and incursions from Vietnam to the Gulf Wars is even more consolidate on oligarchical. But no, you're a conspiracy theorist, in the pejorative sense if you think bs is promoted.

I think a little common sense about power would bridge some gaps with the right.

One start would be to give the most charitable description of both sides (though really there are more than 2). Of the values of both sides. Stacking the deck from the start will function like trolling.

if I may suggest: before you can get to the root of what it means to be human (though, from Peter's first post it seems he really wants to know what it means to be American) you'll have to put aside or disabuse yourself of all that Left-Right manure. All that is made up crap designed expressly to hi-jack your head. It's team-buildin' propaganda. It's a very successful sales program (and you're the product).

Put all that garbage away and then, mebbe, you can tackle what it means to be human (a person).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:56 pm if I may suggest: before you can get to the root of what it means to be human (though, from Peter's first post it seems he really wants to know what it means to be American) you'll have to put aside or disabuse yourself of all that Left-Right manure. All that is made up crap designed expressly to hi-jack your head. It's team-buildin' propaganda. It's a very successful sales program (and you're the product).

Put all that garbage away and then, mebbe, you can tackle what it means to be human (a person).

The underbrush should have been cleared out a long time ago.
Since it wasn't cleared out but in fact has been encouraged for generations with propaganda via media, education, politics, law ... pretty much all the institutions corrupted by the Progressive Left, now exists the situation where fires can continue to be fought with foam and firebreaks (can't we all just all get along?), or fire can be fought with fire!

whew.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:56 pm if I may suggest: before you can get to the root of what it means to be human (though, from Peter's first post it seems he really wants to know what it means to be American) you'll have to put aside or disabuse yourself of all that Left-Right manure. All that is made up crap designed expressly to hi-jack your head. It's team-buildin' propaganda. It's a very successful sales program (and you're the product).

Put all that garbage away and then, mebbe, you can tackle what it means to be human (a person).

What it 'means to be human' [a person], to some people, is:

I have a right to own a gun and shoot dead other people who try and take what I claim is mine, even if 'that', what I claim is mine, was stolen from other people.

In other words, to some people, what it 'means to be human', is to be so greedy, so selfish, and so self-centered that other people, or their rights, do not matter one iota in relation to what is classed as 'mine'.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:05 pm For me, the question of philosophy has been a question
of values... what values should we be pursuing and why those
values and not other values?

First you have to define what you meant by "value" for this OP.
Note the range of meanings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value

I presume your 'value' refer to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(et ... _sciences)

• In ethics and social sciences, value denotes the degree of importance of something or action, with the aim of determining which actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics in ethics), or to describe the significance of different actions.

In terms of degrees of importance, the most critical are values [as ranked] related to;
1. Survival of the human species
2. Survival of the group (tribalism)
3. Survival of the individual[s].

As such we need to establish a thorough list of all human acts that are positive and a threat to the above values.
Therefrom we should ranked them [to the best of our abilities] in terms of criticalness to the above 1, 2 or 3.

IMO, the most critical are the values held that are potentially negative to humanity and the individuals.
For example any human 'values' with acts or potentials that could exterminate the human species [note WMDs] should be rated with 99/100 criticalness of negativity.
As such, countries with values [net-positive to them] that warrant the building of WMDs to secure themselves should be condemned and steps [in terms of moral developments] need to be taken to get rid of all WMDs.

Any religion that has its own positive values but are a threat to the extermination of the human species should be rated as 99/100 evil. So far, Islam is the only religion that has such values that promise access to paradise with virgins even if the human species is exterminated with WMDs [which can be easily and cheaply obtained in the near future].
But the majority especially the left do not condemn such valued held by Islam instead protect the religion as a victim.

Using the most evil values of the above at 99/100, the rest of the negative values can be rated relatively and comparatively.

The antagonism between the conservatives and the democrats is driven by values of tribalism which was once net-positive in the olden days but not effective at present. Thus the extremists on both sides need to be educated and trained to loosen their inherent tribalism instincts.

As such, whatever the value to be discussed one must be aware of its degrees of importance and criticalness as a threat to humanity, the group and the individual[s].
It is a waste of time to sweat on the small less critical stuff but one should pay attention to the more critical matters.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:56 pm if I may suggest: before you can get to the root of what it means to be human (though, from Peter's first post it seems he really wants to know what it means to be American) you'll have to put aside or disabuse yourself of all that Left-Right manure. All that is made up crap designed expressly to hi-jack your head. It's team-buildin' propaganda. It's a very successful sales program (and you're the product).

Put all that garbage away and then, mebbe, you can tackle what it means to be human (a person).

Sure, it serves the purposes of certain people to have every position instantly labelled as left or right so that people can then join their team and hate the other team.

You are a creature for a day in a chain of beings. You are a lot of protoplasma with an urge to reproduce. You are a life form in a great family tree as you are related to every living thing on the planet. A multicellular organism that gains its identity from the experiences of its context. An organism of the same essence as all life forms different only in structure and form not in essence. On a non-conscious level the creator of your own reality relative to your particular biological nature. Human values tend to be what is supportive of its continued well-being and security in the human family an expanded concept of the self.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:01 pm It is 2022, so what values should we holding?

Kropotkin

The same value we held in 2022BC as we do in 2022AD - adaptation.

Personally, I believe if anyone had any measure of self-awareness, the first thing that they would notice is that they are a form of life.

The next thing which should happen is learn a little biology and come to the conclusion that every form of life is composed of a number of life support systems.

The next thing which should happen is one should learn which of those systems they are. Ever read Alcibiades I by Plato?

The next is to learn what makes them special as a life support system.

I.e. It is not possible for any life support system of any living organism to choose what its job is, or how it is done.

Maybe you can figure out the rest of it, but if one is the least self aware, it has nothing to do with floating about in the ozone layer, watching the birds fly by or watching the rising and setting of the sun.

All information is afforded by binary recursion, Plato called it dialectic. Every philosopher has told you, a fit mind is capable of standards of life supporting behavior, which is the definition of a thing, a binary construct.

So, the result of binary recursion, which maintains and promotes life, is not the product of a theory, a doctrine, nor a science, but by a grammar system, i.e., you are only as fit to live commensurate with your literacy. A mind can only read information via the body, process that information using binary recursion, writing the result back to the body as behavior. That is why the Bible was given as a puzzle, a Book which repeatedly tells the reader that mankind will not even be able to read it until mankind actually becomes literate.

we have to learn that literacy is reading with the whole body, processing with a functional mind, and writing back to the body whole. You do not even know what literacy is yet.

Some here noticed that I didn't spell out those ''values''
and some thought I should back to the beginning and note
the point of values, to survive for example..

So let think about values.. The person who is engaged in surviving,
the act of obtaining food, water, shelter, the bodily necessities of
surviving, has no need or desire to engage in a search for values,
if one is hungry what is the point of values? What does the value
of hope, to name one such value, mean if one is hungry or struggling
to find shelter for the night?

I have been homeless (decades ago, I admit but I was there) and trust
me, when I say, values were about the last thing I was thinking about...
such important values as love, hope, charity, kindness mean very little
if one is hungry.. or homeless....the struggle at that point is survival, not
a question of what values I should be holding...for values can't feed me and
values can't put a roof over my head... I survive being homeless and I live
a very comfortable life today... I am safe, secure, loved, just mildly esteemed ,
I have no worries about where my next meal is coming from.. I can
now be ready to engage in a search for values...
the search for values depends on our own individual circumstances..

now some have noticed I didn't list a set of values... no, I did not...
as noted in my opening op, that some people hold different sets of values...
as a liberal, I hold a certain set of values.. not necessarily the exact same set
of values other liberals might hold, but we have enough in common to be
able to identify each other as liberals... but the point lies in the fact that
certain groups do hold values in common.. but as I have already noted,
I ask, why those values and not other values?

For me, the question of values lies with actions... how do I know what
actions are appropriate in what situations without values?
so, I act in accordance to my values.. my values dictate my actions...
so, If I see a man raping a child, I will stop and intervene regardless of
the personal cost to myself... my values dictate that I intervene in that
action.. as I have stated before, silence is consent... to be silent, to
do nothing in this situation is to give consent to the man raping a child...
my values, refuse to give consent in this situation...

so, my values dictate my actions... so, I am engaged with values and actions,
of love, peace, hope... when I act, my values will dictate my actions...
thus I protested the foolish attack on Iran/Afghanistan in 2002.. the path to
peace isn't in violence and war and bloodshed..
peace is never found in violence, bloodshed, or warfare.. WW1 proves that..
or have you forgotten WW2?

for in my values, violence never leads to peace... violence only leads to
more violence.... thus I value peace over war/violence....

It is too bad we engage in violence long before we ever think about an engagement
with peace... or said another way, I wish we practice/worked for peace as much as we
practiced/worked for war and violence...
and others will say, I am naive or "woke", according to their values...

but I hold to the values that I believe will carry us into the future...
and you might disagree, ok, so how do we work out that fundamental
disagreement? How do we resolve that conflict? and this is where
we are today, not in survival mode, but in how do we resolve
conflicts? What mechanism do we use to resolve conflicts?

That is a modern question (one of them anyway)

Kropotkin

let us take a look at what "values" are....

I am a man... one of the primary questions of "man" are the
Kantian questions.. "What am I to do?" "What should I believe in?"
"What can I know?" and the values we hold, can offer us answers to
these vitally important questions...

"What am I to do?" When I woke up this morning, I wondered, "What am I to do"
today? Should I engage in actions that only benefit myself? or do I engage in
actions that benefit all or benefit some or benefit none and why these choices
and not others?

For me, at the end of every single sentence/statement/ question lies the
word, why? I believe, why? I think, why? I hold the value of love, why?

I believe that existence is not a question that is set, at every point
lies the question of values/why? Existence is a question.. not an answer...

I believe in the questions of love, peace, hope, charity, and in the millions
of positive values that exists... I don't believe in the negative values of
hate, anger, lust, greed, despair or fear....negative values can only
create more negative values.. hate can only bring about hate and
fear can only bring about fear.. and anger can only bring about anger...

but the positive values of love, peace, honor, charity, compassion,
to name just a few positive values, when put into action, they
bring about something more than just a repeat of values... for peace,
for example, can bring about something far more than just peace...
for in peace, we can seek out other values like love and hope....

the point of values is to create an understanding of what
actions we need to take at any given time...

When I think about actions I am to take, I ask myself,
what actions should I take if I hold to the value of love or peace?
as opposed to actions should I take if I hold to anger/hate/violence?

Different values will give us different course of actions..
and thus the entire point of values... "What am I to do?"
I will hold to the positive values of love, peace, hope in answering
that question, "What am I to do?" and of course, others who hold negative
values will attack me, but that is a given.. but can those who attack me,
offer me a justification as to why their values are better served for
actions than my values?

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:56 pm I believe in the questions of love, peace, hope, charity, and in the millions
of positive values that exists... I don't believe in the negative values of
hate, anger, lust, greed, despair or fear....negative values can only
create more negative values.. hate can only bring about hate and
fear can only bring about fear.. and anger can only bring about anger...

Fear can allow you to correctly read a situation and protect yourself or someone else.
Anger can give you the drive to push off a rapist, fight abuse, scare away an attacker.
But then what you are calling values seems to include emotions. Emotions need contexts.
And both fear and anger can be quite loving in certain contexts.
And love can be self-abuse in certain contexts.
Some of the positive values, seem also like emotions or cognitive states. Not that values and emotions are mutually exclusive, but in general, it sounds like a list of attitudes adn emotions.
I value the full range of my emotions, and while i recognize that one can have bad habits with emotions - which I think generally means expressing one emotion while denying one is actually feeling another - I see them all as having a good role in my life.
And while the examples I gave were short term situations, all emotions, I find can be part of effective and even loving long term processes/actions.