Good only for me?

[TheGMan]

It is often said that we are free to define our own sense of what is valuable in the universe - at least since Nietzsche. Many Christians, on the other hand, insist that 'true' value can only be derived from something beyond man. I wish to test a more general hypothesis.

If value has a transcendent source then it must be shared. What is good for me must be good for another. Such a system of value is shared. The reverse does not necessarily apply.

This idea of shared value seems that it might have more weight to it than transcendent value. So here is the question.. can a human person - as Nietzsche had it - create his own values within himself. Or is there something in the essence of values that implies they must be shared with others. Can something be good only for me?

I accept in advance this might be more a psychological question than a philosophical one.

 

[The Nihilist]

Your reasoning is faulty. If everyone has the same values, it means that the same things appeal to anyone; transcendency is unnecessary. Everyone likes sex, eating, sleeping, etc. This only indicates that we have the same needs.

 

[tapero]

It is often said that we are free to define our own sense of what is valuable in the universe - at least since Nietzsche. Many Christians, on the other hand, insist that 'true' value can only be derived from something beyond man. I wish to test a more general hypothesis.

If value has a transcendent source then it must be shared. What is good for me must be good for another. Such a system of value is shared. The reverse does not necessarily apply.

This idea of shared value seems that it might have more weight to it than transcendent value. So here is the question.. can a human person - as Nietzsche had it - create his own values within himself. Or is there something in the essence of values that implies they must be shared with others. Can something be good only for me?

I accept in advance this might be more a psychological question than a philosophical one.

Hi, don't know what transcendent means, but can tell you that yes, you can find someting to be good only for you, however there will/may be others who feel similarly, though you might not meet them or know them.

We can treasure things in our hearts and minds that no one else might treasure.

One example from the bible if that's alright, when Mary heard all things spoken of Jesus, she treasured it in her heart. So this was a good thing to her, and I believe could only be felt by her and as the verse said she treasured it in her heart, has always implied to me she kept this personal to herself (might not have), but if she did, then only she knew this goodness.

In re to the essence of values; am not totally clear on the question, but if the values are good and helpful, I would think one would want to share them with others.

Is that what you were asking?

Blessings,
tapero

 

[TheGMan]

Your reasoning is faulty. If everyone has the same values, it means that the same things appeal to anyone; transcendency is unnecessary. Everyone likes sex, eating, sleeping, etc. This only indicates that we have the same needs.

Sorry? Did you read this bit?

If value has a transcendent source then it must be shared... The reverse does not necessarily apply.

My reasoning may well be faulty but as it's exactly the same as yours I wouldn't have been inclined to point it out!

 

[TheGMan]

One example from the bible if that's alright, when Mary heard all things spoken of Jesus, she treasured it in her heart. So this was a good thing to her, and I believe could only be felt by her and as the verse said she treasured it in her heart, has always implied to me she kept this personal to herself (might not have), but if she did, then only she knew this goodness.

...

Is that what you were asking?

Not quite!

Mary could have told someone else the things spoken of Jesus. My question is - if she did would they have recognised the same good in those things?

Let's take something else - a dead and becoming-rather-smelly squirrel. I think you and I would agree that it isn't a good idea to 'treasure it in our hearts'. But could I decide that no the DABRSS is a good and beautiful thing... even if nobody agrees with me. Or am I just wrong because someone cannot decide what is good or beautiful on their own?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This idea of shared value seems that it might have more weight to it than transcendent value. So here is the question.. can a human person - as Nietzsche had it - create his own values within himself. Or is there something in the essence of values that implies they must be shared with others. Can something be good only for me?

The way I look at it is this:

Values are chosen, however, they achieve their worth (their "goodness", or the degree to which they really "matter" to one) given the contribution the pursuit of the value makes towards personal well-being. A value really is only "good for you", at least directly.

But if you are wondering if a value might be uniquely good only for you, I suppose this is possible given that human individuals may have unique qualities about themselves that would create this sort of situation.

Or if you are wondering if a value can have a goodness that is similar to the values of other human beings, then, yes, this is possible, because of similarities we have with other people in virtue of shared humanity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TheGMan]

Values are chosen, however, they achieve their worth (their "goodness", or the degree to which they really "matter" to one) given the contribution the pursuit of the value makes towards personal well-being. A value really is only "good for you", at least directly.

I am sure that one could value personal well-being. However a lot of people and cultures seem to value qualities like charity, selflessness and self-sacrifice. These seem pretty much antithetical to personal well-being. I don't think then that we can define value as what contributes to personal well-being.

 

[The Nihilist]

Sorry? Did you read this bit?

If value has a transcendent source then it must be shared... The reverse does not necessarily apply.

My reasoning may well be faulty but as it's exactly the same as yours I wouldn't have been inclined to point it out!

Ha! I did not read that bit! I stand corrected

 

[RavenPoe]

I think a person can create their own values without an outside source. What they cannot do is force others to share it, nor can they fault others for not sharing it, excepting when the actions of others are harmful to the original party or a third party.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am sure that one could value personal well-being. However a lot of people and cultures seem to value qualities like charity, selflessness and self-sacrifice. These seem pretty much antithetical to personal well-being. I don't think then that we can define value as what contributes to personal well-being.

Yes, they are free to choose whatever values they want. I did say that values are chosen. And I am not defining a value as "what contributes to personal well-being". A value is a goal that one chooses and acts to achieve. I'm saying that values are good or bad for you based upon the contribution (or harm) they incur to your well-being. Values are, in a certain sense, subjective, but the "goodness" a value has for you is objective.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

It is often said that we are free to define our own sense of what is valuable in the universe - at least since Nietzsche. Many Christians, on the other hand, insist that 'true' value can only be derived from something beyond man. I wish to test a more general hypothesis.

If value has a transcendent source then it must be shared.

I´m not sure I understand what you mean exactly by "must be shared".
Do you mean we can discern a value as being transcendent by virtue of the fact that it is being shared universally?
Or do you mean that once we have discerned a value as being transcendental (whatever that might mean, and whatever method of discerning a value as being transcendental you are thinking of) asks us to accept this value?
Or are you asking something completely different?

What is good for me must be good for another. Such a system of value is shared. The reverse does not necessarily apply.

I´m afraid I do not really understand. Could you clarify?

This idea of shared value seems that it might have more weight to it than transcendent value. So here is the question.. can a human person - as Nietzsche had it - create his own values within himself.

Yes, he can. We observe this all the time.

Or is there something in the essence of values that implies they must be shared with others.

I´d rather say that there is something in the essence of the desires of humans that usually keep them from insisting on values that aren´t shared by their environment. That´s exactly why we are discussing values: We would like them to be shared - it would make everything easier.

Can something be good only for me?

I must admit, that I have problems understanding your questions, GMan.
Are you asking "Can I benefit from something without anyone else benefitting from it?"
or
"Can I hold a value that nobody else holds?" (I think I can, but if I hold an entire value system that is completely different from everybody else´s, I will run into major problems. That´s why people seek agreement on at least basic values. For selfish reasons, if you will.)
or something completely different?

I accept in advance this might be more a psychological question than a philosophical one.

I think that the values held in their environment play a major role as a criterium as to which values a person adopts. Holding an isolated set of values makes you, uum, very lonely. Loneliness is undesired by most humans.

We are usually happy to find our values shared by others.
Values are shared - except when they aren´t.