How do you value an idea?

[Trystan]

How do you value an idea or a judgement? Is it by the amount of truth in it? Or by how "life-affirming" it is?

"We do not object to a judgement just because it is false" says Nietzsche. "The question is rather to what extent the judgement furthers life . . ." (from Beyond Good and Evil). )Thus, Christianity is bad because it denied life.) He even goes on to say that: "we are in principle inclined to claim that judgements that are the most false . . . are the most indispensible to us."

So unless I'm mistaken, Nietzsche was a big sub/perspectivist. Before reading this book (BGE) I was a firm believer in some objective truth and that ideas should be judged by how true they are. I haven't finished it yet, but my views are changing and have certainly been strongly challenged.

[blazeofglory]

Ideas come from your environment, and of course it is stimuli to responses. And ideas differ, and what ideas fit in one circumstances do not fit necessarily in another and as such I do not value any set of ideas at all.

And what we call good and bad are not good and bad from all lens, and in one circumstances what we call good can turn out to be bad in another. Therefore ideas turn out to be flawed, and particularly when they are not weighed in scientific scales.

[billyjack]

Nietzsche will do that do ya. i've read in, maybe it was the gay science, not sure though, that science can at times be life negating in its quest for truth in that it disgards non-truths even though life itself thrives on untruths as much as truths. for instance, we know that time is relative and therefore clocks are meaningless in a sense, but we need them to make society tick

[blazeofglory]

Ideas spring anywhere. Ideas can originate in environments.

I do not value ideas. Ideas are not things we must value.

In fact ideas more often than not poison the mind. Indoctrination is also an idea, an idea of a terrorist, and also religiosity is also an idea.

Of course there are good ideas that can help us, and they will only if we can translate them into action.

Recitation of ideas alone cannot help unless we kind of rise and work something.

Save a few benefiting ideas, most ideas kind of create bad impulses.

[byquist]

By pursuing it to its origin.

[robertlc53]

How do you value an idea or a judgement? Is it by the amount of truth in it? Or by how "life-affirming" it is?

"We do not object to a judgement just because it is false" says Nietzsche. "The question is rather to what extent the judgement furthers life . . ." (from Beyond Good and Evil). )Thus, Christianity is bad because it denied life.) He even goes on to say that: "we are in principle inclined to claim that judgements that are the most false . . . are the most indispensible to us."

So unless I'm mistaken, Nietzsche was a big sub/perspectivist. Before reading this book (BGE) I was a firm believer in some objective truth and that ideas should be judged by how true they are. I haven't finished it yet, but my views are changing and have certainly been strongly challenged.

anything that would promote a person to a position esteemed more desirable (hence perception) then it is good. the opposite is also true. this is pretty much a survival mechanism if you ask me. in my opinion, life resembles a balance between desirable and undesirable. people just want the scales to tip in favor of the desirable, pretty reasonable. also a person's philosophy may change altering their defenition of desirability. but i believe this is merely a reaction to a change in their enviorment, controlled or otherwise. for example, a woman may be permiscuous but have a chaotic spirit. she feels unsatisfied going from man to man in a non commital fashion. her friend attends church regularly and has been married twenty years and seems relatively happy. the percieved peace that the church-goer has may be identified by the first woman as a catalyst to the fidelity and incidentally a pathway to fulfilling two objectives sexual satisfaction and commitment and hence, the permiscuous woman could then alter her perception of permiscuousness in light of wanting to be accepted by the church she now wants to join because as a requirement to join unmarried couples are to be chaste and now she values peace with sex (as opposed to sex without peace) and percieves the church-life as road to peace. hence, philosophy shift as a result of wanting something different via perceptions. take it a step further, she was an atheist who converted for argument sake.

ultimately, people have pain, and people have coping mechanisms. the question is which bears more weight in the heart.

[robertlc53]

would you recomend the book?

to answer the question... i believe the amount of truth something has is relative to how life affirming it is. this is because truth is relative to the person. it is subjective

[Uberzensch]

I absolutely recommend the book! Beyond Good & Evil is a fantastic introduction to Nietzsche and very relevant to this discussion.

Nietzsche's overall project is reevaluating all values. He feels that no one has really asked the question, "Why do I value such-and-such?" Furthermore, we've beens earching for "Truth" since Plato, but don't really know why.

I highly recommend this book.

Back to the topic, I agree with Nietzsche that a good measure of an idea is its life-affirming propoerties. However, that's not really saying a whole lot. But you must keep in mind that the search for "Truth" is very distracting. (Mind the capitalization of "Truth", that's important!) Very often, we are more concerned with an idea being true/right/ethical/etc. that we forget why we think about the idea in the first place. For example, President Obama has made many proposals to try and fix the American economy. However, critics are so obsessed with whether or not the policies are socialist they never actually consider the policy. (Think about this regardless of how you feel about Obama and his policies. It works for any ideological perspective.)

When something attains the status of "Truth", it becomes static or dead. We no longer think about it but blindly accept it. Another useful example would be democracy. In the Western world, we accept democracy as a universallly true idea representing the best possible political order. However, democracy can be pretty crappy sometimes and deserves as much scrutiny as any other political concept.

Who knows, maybe fascism is better!

[robertlc53]

very true about ideas becoming static. i suppose that what you have just stated is the importance of maintaining objective views of things and not trying to categorize them. hence remain neutral. this would be advantageous because only under these conditions can an idea truly be scrutinized.

[Uberzensch]

very true about ideas becoming static. i suppose that what you have just stated is the importance of maintaining objective views of things and not trying to categorize them. hence remain neutral. this would be advantageous because only under these conditions can an idea truly be scrutinized.

Yes, but I think, No, at the same time...

Beware objectivity!

First, it doesn't exist. There is always perspective.

Second, objectivity, like Truth, creates a false sense of calm. For example, when someone thinks they are being objective, they shut down some of their critical faculties. They forget their own perspective and limited knowledge that still clouds their judgment making it subjective.

It's really important not to focus on objectivity. It's one of those impossible ideal concepts that can never be attained. Like Truth, we spend endless energy trying to prove our objectivity while not dealing with the issue at hand. Instead, embrace your subjectivity. Touch it, smell it, taste it, etc. You cannot help but be subjective.

Now, that's no excuse for someone to say, "Hey, it's all subjective, so I'm right and your wrong and you can't prove otherwise becase your subjective, too!" Instead, we should recognize our limited, subjective position and use it as a basis for making judgments and dealing with people.

So, it's not remaining neutral, beacause I don't know if we can do that. Instead, it's keeping your subjective position in check, knowing that you are subjective to begin with.

Getting back to the OP, I value and idea a certain way based on the sum of the random experiences in my past. Though heavily influencing my thought, this does nothing to reduce its validity. What I need to do, as someone who recognizes the contingent nature of my perspective, is not put so much faith and power into my values and thoughts. I cannot claim them as truth and objective and should not push them on others. Instead, I can only recommend them and argue for why they make sense.

In other words, for me to claim some superior state of objectivity - which, in reality, is what people do when they claim objectivity - is the same as me claiming God said so.

(Sorry for the rambling post! Isn't this fun?)

[The Comedian]

I break down this question as follows:

Idea = objective. Sure it's a little Platonic, but numbers don't need a mind to be perceived. I need my mind to perceive them. So there's tons of ideas out there, some perceived, some not, all colored by perceiver, but real nonetheless.

Value = subjective. I'm a bit of a pragmatist, so I use this term practically. An idea has value, if I use it. Right now, writing is a valuable idea. The other day, when I was putting up bi-fold doors, ideas of geometry and measurement were quite valuable. When I'm parenting (I'll admit it), I use some ideas from Machiavelli and some from Mother Theresa.

In all of these instances, the value is subjective and transitory; value flashes in moments. But the idea (geometry, kindness, etc) were there all along, just sitting on my mental work bench, waiting to be called into action.

[billyjack]

So there's tons of ideas out there, some perceived, some not, all colored by perceiver, but real nonetheless.


i came across richard rorty today. here's a blurb:



ideas are created by the use of vocabulary rather than being adequately or inadequately expressed in vocabulary

ideas aren't "out there" to be found. they exist within language, making them real only if you deem linguistics and the rules of grammer as a reality

[The Comedian]

ideas aren't "out there" to be found. they exist within language, making them real only if you deem linguistics and the rules of grammer as a reality

Maybe. But this is a chicken/egg concept we're playing with. I'll grant that we use language to perceive ideas, and maybe language creates them. But we just don't know.

If no one had eyes, would color cease to exist or could we just not see it? If we didn't have language, would ideas cease to exist or would we just not be able to know them?

Does the Rorty passage (it's been a long time, since I've read him) suggest that language isn't symbolic? Because if language symbolizes, then I don't see how it could "be" an idea. I'm sure his argument more complicated than my question here, but I'm curious. The relationship between language and ideas is something that greatly interest me.

Anyway, interesting post billyjack.

[billyjack]

Maybe. But this is a chicken/egg concept we're playing with. I'll grant that we use language to perceive ideas, and maybe language creates them. But we just don't know.

If no one had eyes, would color cease to exist or could we just not see it? If we didn't have language, would ideas cease to exist or would we just not be able to know them?

Does the Rorty passage (it's been a long time, since I've read him) suggest that language isn't symbolic? Because if language symbolizes, then I don't see how it could "be" an idea. I'm sure his argument more complicated than my question here, but I'm curious. The relationship between language and ideas is something that greatly interest me.

Anyway, interesting post billyjack.

he thinks language is symbolic but he doesn't think its a good median for understanding the world itself. rather, he thinks of language as a flag for effectively dealing with critters and creatures. (paraphrasing him there)

what i took out of the above paraphrasing is that language isn't THE median between consciousness and the world. its just one of many tools we use to live. he seems to be trying to knock language down a notch or two from its old pedestal of "first there was the word" or whatever it is the bible says about creation

he is saying that ideas exist within language, not that language exist within ideas. (i guess???)

your probably right about this being a chicken egg thing

[Mr Endon]

I think it was Marx who said that language is as old as consciousness. He's right - you really can't have the one without the other, they must come at the same time. In that sense, then, I think it's not really like the chicken/egg issue. Does this make sense?

As for the OP, it is most disingenuous of me to talk about Nietzsche without having read more than 30 pages of him. From what I've been reading about him, however, I think that this was the loophole he found to crawl out of nihilism.

I don't think Truth should be valued above "life-affirmingness". If the Gestapo knocked on my door and I had a Jewish family in the cellar I wouldn't say the truth, no matter what Kant may say.

[Uberzensch]

Regardless of the chicken/egg thing, I think Rorty would say that we shouldn't be asking these types of questions. They are problems without answers that only serve to frustrate philosophers. (This, he gets from Wittgenstein.)

Rorty's point - and you see it in his book Philosphy and the Mirror of Nature - is that we shouldn't conern ourselves with the problem of truly knowing the world, but rather thinking about useful things that make life better.

[billyjack]

I think it was Marx who said that language is as old as consciousness. He's right - you really can't have the one without the other, they must come at the same time. In that sense, then, I think it's not really like the chicken/egg issue. Does this make sense?

it does make sense. agreed


I don't think Truth should be valued above "life-affirmingness". If the Gestapo knocked on my door and I had a Jewish family in the cellar I wouldn't say the truth, no matter what Kant may say.

i'd decapitalize "truth" then you'd be right on



Regardless of the chicken/egg thing, I think Rorty would say that we shouldn't be asking these types of questions. They are problems without answers that only serve to frustrate philosophers. (This, he gets from Wittgenstein.)

Rorty's point - and you see it in his book Philosphy and the Mirror of Nature - is that we shouldn't conern ourselves with the problem of truly knowing the world, but rather thinking about useful things that make life better.

yeah, i'm just getting into rorty after a year straight on nietzche.

i like that philosphy of mirror synopsis.