Apparent Value

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there an plausibly reliable procedure to distinguish apparent from real value? For instance animal sacrifice may have apparent value, and a good meal real value. I suppose secular goods are more readily defended. In a philosophy encyclopedia i have read of intrinsic, instrumental, contributory and inherent value. But never apparent value. What makes someone value something, and what makes something truly valuable? Are we in a vale of illusion, a valley of death whereby we pursue dead ends much of the time. In a feedback cycle where we contribute to our own downfall unwittingly mistaking fools gold for the true AU?

Maybe there is something like a Maslowian heirarchy of needs. A triangle stands on its point. At the bottom are low width (low uncertainty) needs like food, clothing and shelter. At the top are high width (high uncertainty) needs like philosophy and religion. One can be more sure that a meal will do one good than animal sacrifice will. but as man reaches for the stars, their light shines on his basic needs. Thus a vale of confusion emerges whereby elementary needs are "infected" by the influence of the wider domain above.

 

[Received]

Crudely, what makes something valuable is the happiness it contributes to us. And I agree that there can be apparent value. This is often value handed down from authorities, something that is valuable to another person or group of people we've mistakenly attributed to ourselves as well. If so, finding value is by definition an individualistic, existentialist sort of thing; what's valuable for you might not be valuable for me.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

No. Value is inherently subjective, and it is completely dependent on someone wanting something, somewhere. In other words, the distinction you're looking for doesn't really exist.

 

[Elioenai26]

Is there an plausibly reliable procedure to distinguish apparent from real value? For instance animal sacrifice may have apparent value, and a good meal real value. I suppose secular goods are more readily defended. In a philosophy encyclopedia i have read of intrinsic, instrumental, contributory and inherent value. But never apparent value. What makes someone value something, and what makes something truly valuable? Are we in a vale of illusion, a valley of death whereby we pursue dead ends much of the time. In a feedback cycle where we contribute to our own downfall unwittingly mistaking fools gold for the true AU?

Maybe there is something like a Maslowian heirarchy of needs. A triangle stands on its point. At the bottom are low width (low uncertainty) needs like food, clothing and shelter. At the top are high width (high uncertainty) needs like philosophy and religion. One can be more sure that a meal will do one good than animal sacrifice will. but as man reaches for the stars, their light shines on his basic needs. Thus a vale of confusion emerges whereby elementary needs are "infected" by the influence of the wider domain above.

I hold to the view that something's value is determined ultimately by its degree of correspondence to the will of God revealed to the individual person.

For example, being a Muslim and following the teachings of the Quran and the five pillars of Islam is no doubt seen as being of value to those who follow said teachings. But if those teachings are based on a lie, can we honestly say that those things which Muslim's hold as valuble are actually valuble? I am specifically talking about the central tenets of the Islamic religion, i.e that Muhammed was the last and greatest prophet, and so on and so forth.

Something to think about.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No. Value is inherently subjective, and it is completely dependent on someone wanting something, somewhere. In other words, the distinction you're looking for doesn't really exist.

so i want health and happiness but sing up to a nigerian scam. apparently my luck is in. I get a wife and 1 million usd!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think what needs to be asked about religion is does it generate psychological health? I think in a lot of cases it can. Even it the metaphysics is questionable. The brain can still grow and develop in a psychologically benign fashion. In fact in the science forum a buddhist just got crowned happiest person in the world. So there might be epistemological error but mental health of impressive quality. The illusion of one does not nullify the other. In fact it may help cause it. It would be pragmatism therefore justify the belief. But it night be reckless to imagine we can do as well without it in any and every case. In fact we might learn from illusion, just because it has practical benefit. And sort the wheat from the chaff in the winds of science. And thus preserve what is useful of the axiological maps and behavioral procedures handed down to us. A past that shimmers with light.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

so i want health and happiness but sing up to a nigerian scam. apparently my luck is in. I get a wife and 1 million usd!

Eh?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorry for being indirect.. Obviously a Nigerian scam might appear to be valuable, in that I might be promised a nice wife and loads of money (I have been offered these before online through emain scams). But the stuff offered was not real, it was the work of fraudsters. So the value of the transaction was apparent and not real.

Also wasnt there the case of miners who dug up loads of fools gold?


What about snake oil products in "health food" shops?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sorry for being indirect.. Obviously a Nigerian scam might appear to be valuable, in that I might be promised a nice wife and loads of money (I have been offered these before online through emain scams). But the stuff offered was not real, it was the work of fraudsters. So the value of the transaction was apparent and not real.

Also wasnt there the case of miners who dug up loads of fools gold?


What about snake oil products in "health food" shops?

That's not really relevant to anything. You still value the nice wife and lots of money, it's just that nobody's giving them to you.