My definition is unconditional values; inherent value, in logic: "self-evident" or axiomatic.
Well, from a Randian point of view there is no such thing as an “inherent value” since a value implies a valuer. What you value may not be what I value. Some people don’t even value life, which is why they commit suicide. An unconditional value is not an absolute one, this is just your definition, fine as far as it goes.
An absolute value is one that cannot be denied without negating itself. One cannot deny existence without denying ones own existence as an agent to deny existence. One cannot deny life without denying oneself as an alive being that makes that denial, (rocks cannot deny anything.) Thus I disagree with your self serving definition. Second, we'd have to define what we mean by "know." If you define it as conceptual knowledge, then, by definition, no other exists.
I do. I, obviously, define it elsewise. We know things we cannot conceptualize. Ever had an experience you couldn't put into words? Did you still "know" it?
Because you are born into a sea of concepts you cannot formulate such ideas without relying upon concepts to define them. If you had no concepts then an experience would only be an experience but it would not be knowledge. (Like the guy they found recently in Fiji who was raised in a chicken coop, roosting and clucking away. I can guarantee you he didn’t know when he was cold, he only experienced the sensation.) I have never had an experience that I couldn’t eventually conceptualize. I maintain concepts are abstractions, less than the experience itself.
This is inaccurate. The concept of tree is not an abstraction, it is a concrete. An abstraction is a collection of concrete concepts subsumed under a concept that is not a concrete, (or a group of abstractions represented by yet another abstraction.) My favorite example is, “Hand me a furniture.” It sounds absurd because furniture is an abstraction. Chairs, tables, lamps, rugs and couches are concretes. A faulty understanding of concepts. "Hot" could communicate something to someone who never experienced it. However if they burned themself, they'd know "hot" much more fully.
Actually this is not correct either. One experience does not make a concept or knowledge. It takes a minimum of two exposures to similar experiences to define a concept and therefore knowledge. The comparison of multiple exposures is a absolute requirement for knowledge and conceptual development. A little reflection will prove this true.
(you quote me quoting you) If it is proved by logic and reason - it is conditional and not absolute. Exactly, logic cannot be used to prove an absolute, only conditional truths can be proved.
You misunderstood me, (sorry for not being clearer.) Using this statement I was restating your position and then made the point the you are making an absolute statement based upon logic, which you hold cannot be done: Thus you contradict yourself. By saying that - if it is proved by logic then it is not absolute, is in itself an absolute statement based upon logic. You refute your own premise.
I don’t care for your example: "It is better to be kind than cruel." since this is a value judgment. A better one would be, “All human beings are mortal.” Or, “All masses are subject to gravity.” It's key that logic cannot be used to "prove" this statement without making it conditional, i.e. no longer an absolute value.
Another absolute statement that must be subject to its own limitation. If it is key that logic cannot be used to prove a statement without making it conditional, then the statement that logic cannot be used to prove a statement without making it conditional applies to this categorically absolute statement as well. Meaning it isn’t valid and logic can be used to prove a statement without making it conditional, i.e., it is absolute. It's not logical to leap from "logic cannot be used to see it" to "therefore it does not exist."
True, Fallacy of Proving the Negative. Or, as the old saying goes, “Lack of proof isn’t proof of lack.” It is a statement that absolutes are beyond the tool of logic.
This is an absolute statement based upon logic, (faulty though the premise is.) If true it contradicts itself.
(you quote me) All things are relative. Including this statement. Therefore, if this we agree with this, the truth of this statement is relative - dependent upon conditions. So, logically, under some conditions it would be also true that: All things are not relative (i.e. absolute)
You just refuted your own point again. All things are not relative, therefore some things are absolute. This is a logical proof of absolutes. Therefore, we end up with another performative contradiction:
Only for you, I disagree. Depending on the conditions, "All things are relative" is a true statement; and, "All things are not relative" is a true statement.
If some things are absolute, as you admit “, logically, under some conditions it would be also true that: All things are not relative (i.e. absolute) ” then the statement "All things are relative" is logically invalid. It is false. It is untrue. It is self contradictory and THEREFORE, logically invalid. Or as Hugh Akston said, “Contradictions do not exist, check your premises.” Since both cannot be true - and since logic can only be used for conditional (relative) proofs - we see logic illustrating its own limitation.
You Beg the Question that “logic can only be used for conditional (relative) proofs ” which your own arguments refute. By your own reasoning “All things are not relative” means that logic is not limited to only non absolute proofs. P>
We don’t see here a limitation of logic, but an understanding of logic.
First, we were trying to agree on a definition of an absolute value. We're still pretty far apart:
An absolute value is one that cannot be denied without negating itself.
Ignoring the syntax, I believe your definition would be evidence of a logical contradiction, yes, but, there's no "value" in this definition. If we're going to define a value as absolute it would have to be as an attribute of a value. Unless your definition is "a value that cannot be denied without negating itself [sic]," and, even then, I don't know how this performs using a value. Is "kindness" a value that cannot be denied without negating itself?
Likewise, in your example of an absolute value:
One cannot deny existence…
Existence is not a value. Not in the sense of having worth or being better than non-existence. And not even in the other other sense of value as having simple location, color, mass, size, quantity, etc. I don't see how "existence" could be used as a proper example in a definition of any kind of value.
I think you're getting at some other "absolute" perhaps.
If my use of the word "absolute" in absolute value is the problem, it's not important. Let's call them unconditional, inherent, self-evident or axiomatic if you wish.
And my point was logic cannot be used to prove (know) them. My second point was that they are required for the logical development of values/ethics, and that everyone either "knows" them, assumes them or acts as though they exist.
By saying that - if it is proved by logic then it is not absolute, is in itself an absolute statement based upon logic.
An absolute statement? Oh, I think I see the problem. Absolute as in "absolutely certain." No, that's not what I mean. I'm certainly not saying that logic cannot produce conclusions that we can be certain of. My apologies.
Again, my argument on the limits of logic is about absolute values, I'm again talking about unconditional value statements - this is where I'm pointing to the limits of logic.
If we use absolute statement to mean stated with certainty, then yes, logic can produce this, and that's what my statement about logic was - but you have to stick value after my shorthand use of "absolute" in the discussion. Better yet, I'm dropping it.
So, I'm talking about unconditional value statements, self-evident truths as used in logic
Logic can not prove unconditional value statements . It assumes them to be true, self-evident, and the conclusions reached thereafter are dependent upon the truth of this premise.
I think we can agree that values - and our knowledge of values - is extremely important. In life and in our philosophy. And this is where I'm saying Rand falls very short and those who claim logic as the limit of knowledge do as well because (again):
Logic cannot be used to prove unconditional values, only conditional ones. Any value proved by logic is conditional upon the truth of its ASSUMED premise (self-evident, etc..) which is not and cannot be proved without making it conditional upon yet another self-evident value.
Knowledge gained from this method only is conditional, relative not absolute (sorry).
Yet logic must, and we must, know some unconditional values, assume them to be true, or act as though they are true in order to function as human beings. But, about things in this key are area of knowledge, rationalism claims: they cannot be known. And, even, "they do not exist."
I think I'm being accurate here in Rand's view. Inherent is another word I used to describe unconditional values. About which you said the Randian view is "there is no such thing as an “inherent value”,"
Another word for conditional is relative. Or - if whether it's true depends upon each individual - subjective. As you put it: "a value implies a valuer. What you value may not be what I value." Here we have defined pure relative values. All values are then based upon the foundational premises of the individual.
What kind of ethics can be built upon this: Only subjective situational ethics. Randian.
If all you can know, you can know through reason, then this is where you arrive in your philosophy.
But philosophers should seek what is true not what they wish to be true. Is it true that the only values that exist are subjective and relative?
Perhaps, but again we come back to the fact that everyone - including you - either "knows" unconditional values, assumes them to be true or acts as though they are true.
This could lead us back to your definition of an absolute that "cannot be denied without negating itself."
Perhaps we are approaching a Randian proof that contradicts Rand.
{^_^}
I appreciate your reply and the discussion.
This does NOT mean that A is better than not-A in all conditions. We can imagine circumstances where A would not be better.
We can see how logic cannot prove such a statement, it must have a "because," a premise. "A is better than not-A because..."
Values could be: life is better than death, love is better than hate, kindness is better than cruelty, compassion is better than indifference.
If we take "kindness is better than cruelty" as an example. As an unconditional value statement it says: All other conditions being equal, kindness is better than cruelty.
Logic would require a premise, a condition, a "because" to arrive at this conclusion. Without it, logic is mute - there is no reason to conclude it. A logical argument could take it as a premise - and often does - and then develop other arguments and conclusions.
I emphasize it does not mean "kindness is better than cruelty" under all conditions. We can imagine conditions where it would not be better. Say a terrorist demands, "be cruel to that cat or I'll blow us up and a hundred people with us." But in this instance, all conditions would not be equal.
However, say the cat has a highly contagious disease, or for some reason it is assumed that the cat must be put down. No one is watching you, you have a variety of methods possible of equal effectiveness and speed; the only difference is some cause a great deal of suffering, some cause none. You have a choice of kindness or cruelty without any other conditions impinging on your decision.
Purely logically, it's a coin toss - there's no reason not to pick cruel, no reason not to pick kind. If you do pick one or the other based on knowledge, it can only be knowledge gained from some other means than logic.
I know this is a unusual circumstance I've drawn. It's only to illustrate clearly what I mean by unconditional value, and perhaps you can see why it's also called inherent value. If we pick kindness just because it's kind, we can say it has inherent value.
Now, of course we don't come across such choices very often, so why does this matter? The importance of unconditional values is that our other choices are derived from them. They are the basis upon which we make our value choices.
If we could only act solely on the basis of logic-proved values, we would be forever stuck in an un-ending string of logic re-iterations - with no end possible. Each time we arrive at "A is better than not-A because X is better than not-X," we must - to act solely on logic - then ask "why is X better than not-X?" Because, Y is better than not-Y… and so on.
Without an unconditional value, logical knowledge of values has nothing upon which to build, no firm ground on which to stand, no beginning and no end. If we act solely based on values known by logic, we'd never make it out of our front yard.