Thursday, September 10, 2009

Regarding the Conversation of Value:

In my three years of study at Southeastern University, I have naturally come across the numerous discussions of humanity, religion, politics, and beyond. These passionate conversations, however they become, seem always to root down into our values. These values appear to become the determining factors of an individuals pre-suppositions and process of reasoning. The below is a conversation of value from a glance, which roots from my personal philosophy of effective understanding and communication, particularly in realms of heart and value. Such simple subjects, when processed in the right order appear naturally to find context and, therefore, community amongst its often diverse individuals of conversation.

Viewing the Marriam-Webster dictionary, value is widely defined, multi-purposed word:

1: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged. 2: the monetary worth of something: market price3 : relative worth, utility, or importance value at the price> value of base stealing in baseball> value to say>4 : a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement x take on positive values> value for the age of the earth>5 : the relative duration of a musical note6 a : relative lightness or darkness of a color : luminosity b : the relation of one part in a picture to another with respect to lightness and darkness7 : something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable values instead of human values — W. H. Jones>8 : denomination. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, (Merriam-Webster, 2009)

From messages of relative economical worth, especially concerning the argument of what is fair; to topics of monetary measurement; numerical quantity; concerning the duration of musical notes; shades of colors; desire; and even denomination, value is a delicate word to be received and used only in the protection of a well-constructed context. Once a sure context can become established, only now, naturally, can an effective exchange of common understanding initiate.

Regarding the further decoding of the discussion: value, it appears vital that, as two, or three, or multiple individuals converse on such topics, an establishment of one of two bases become confirmed: subjective or objective value. As written by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man:

“The doctrine of objective value [is] the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are. . . . The Abolition of Man (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975), 31-32’. (Williams, 2009)


“Subjective Value[:] …values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. (Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowland, 2001)

We can gather that as individuals begin to try to reason with one another to converse over the reason of what is truly valuable; we must recognized the diversity and contrast between the gathered value of that which is objective and that which is, therefore subjective.

With respect to the above, we can see that as we sit at the table of discussion to speak of the weight (or otherwise, weightlessness) of value, there are some who discuss a value that means nothing from what they can feel or taste or touch. In discussion, these advocates covey reason from a worldview that revolves completely around its object (hence, objective of reality) or source of truth. Some examples of such objectivity can be seen the value systems of world religions revolving around God or others made of gods or idols, various ethical systems, etc. On the contrasting end of this table of discussion sits the man to breaths and reason subjectively: from his own impulses and comfort he reasons. When discussing and weighing the meaning of these things which are ‘more valuable’ we must consider the object or subject from which each individual draws from for his discussion of such topics.

The theme of this document, as brief as it may appear, as stated simply is that the conversation of value as a general topic is incomplete. Value, generally speaking, and without a, first, deeply established framework would, therefore, fail and make itself out to pose a fallac. Furthermore, a fallacy in the world of words, ideas, and methods of clear communication-especially for the cause of reasoning.

If you would request further Citations/Sources of my research, feel free to message me :)

No comments:

Post a Comment