1. Jennifer Armstrong's answer to How do I understand what Nietzsche means by creating values? I am baffled and feel so stupid. - Quora

    Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong

    During the course of human history, values have been created, not discovered.

    The reason why it appears as if the way we think about things is “common sense” is that these values that were created have become so normalized and familiar, that we do not even realize that they are not part of the structure of the universe itself, but purely human creations.

    For instance, one of the big human creations is “morality”. Humans are taught that if they adhere to a set of laws then their safety in life is assured. It is most unlikely that a bad thing could happen to them, so long as they abide for the rules.

    Now, in fact, this idea has come about through trial and error, and there is some level of practical science to it: the less one takes a risk, and the more one abides by convention, the less likely it is also that one will come to harm.

    But the belief in morality as a system of values takes us way beyond what could otherwise be just a practical science. The values become enshrined as transcendental, and “necessary{, when there is nothing about them that indicates that they should be so.

    Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong

    I think it's fair to say that values are BOTH created AND discovered. Artificial values are created. OBJECTIVE values are discovered Objective values are things like family, achievement, respect for elders (especially parents), marriage, fidelity, kindness, honesty, fairness/equality in dealing, love,…
    Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong
    I did mention that there was a kind of practical science that made it more likely for certain values to prevail. This covers the area of what you erroneously call “objective values”. Basically what you are doing here, in your response, is labeling as “objective” the things you like, and labeling as “…
    I truly don't understand what you're saying. By “practical” do you mean “objective?” Something that works because it's practical may also work because it's objectively right/correct. It comports with reality, as it were. When things are in harmony with our true beings then they work and are “practic…
    Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong

    Ok. I go along with you with the last paragraph, that it could be just a figure of speech. But it borrows from the language of objectivity. — and this is what is currently under dispute here.

    So, when I say something about practical benefit, I mean that there are certain things that one could do which reduce danger (keep one safe). For instance, it is bad to go hiking in the mountains without adequate clothing and protection. It is wrong not to prepare for winter rain and cold on the mountain face. And indeed, “it is probably better not to climb that large mountain at all, when you could stay at home and eat warm meals and not have anything to worry about.”

    So, there are things that are “of practical benefit” to humans in general. And most people abide by them, must because they find them to be of practical benefit.

    But to take the step and say that these things constitute an “objective morality” is a bridge too far.

    It would be like saying, “mountain climbing is an artificial value. Staying at home is an objective value.”

    At least that’s how it sounds to me.

    0

    Add a comment

  2.  

    How do I understand what Nietzsche means by creating values? I am baffled and feel so stupid.
    Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong

    During the course of human history, values have been created, not discovered.

    The reason why it appears as if the way we think about things is “common sense” is that these values that were created have become so normalized and familiar, that we do not even realize that they are not part of the structure of the universe itself, but purely human creations.

    For instance, one of the big human creations is “morality”. Humans are taught that if they adhere to a set of laws then their safety in life is assured. It is most unlikely that a bad thing could happen to them, so long as they abide for the rules.

    Now, in fact, this idea has come about through trial and error, and there is some level of practical science to it: the less one takes a risk, and the more one abides by convention, the less likely it is also that one will come to harm.

    But the belief in morality as a system of values takes us way beyond what could otherwise be just a practical science. The values become enshrined as transcendental, and “necessary{, when there is nothing about them that indicates that they should be so.

    Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong

    I think it's fair to say that values are BOTH created AND discovered. Artificial values are created. OBJECTIVE values are discovered Objective values are things like family, achievement, respect for elders (especially parents), marriage, fidelity, kindness, honesty, fairness/equality in dealing, love,…
    Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong

    I did mention that there was a kind of practical science that made it more likely for certain values to prevail. This covers the area of what you erroneously call “objective values”.

    Basically what you are doing here, in your response, is labeling as “objective” the things you like, and labeling as “artificial” those things you may disapprove of.

    But your very language, from the first paragraph on, betrays that you have no real concept of what I am pointing out here. Your sentence starts “I think it’s fair to say…” But the reality is that the structure of the universe really is non-humanistic. So saying something “fair” about it misses the point.

    0

    Add a comment

  3. (3) Jennifer Armstrong's answer to What is a big misunderstanding that happened to you due to miscommunication? - Quora

    Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong

    I’m of the view that there really isn’t any “miscommunication” between people, or rather that miscommunication itself is very rare.

    In contrast with this view, I think the reason we believe that miscommunication is a problem is the false premise that most of us have, in a modern context, which is that there is a universal way of using language, and that this is rational and normative.

    Alas, because this was also my assumption, it took me a long time to realize that much of the time, a disagreement comes about as a result of both parties hearing each other loud and clear. This disagreement happens at an emotional level, and oftentimes at a pre-conscious level.

    What we hear another person saying is “The world (or “my world”) is like [such-and-such].” But we do not like the emotional or cognitive flavor that they give the world. That is to say, we feel some discomfort regarding the style of their subjectivity.

    In turn, this discomfort expresses itself in disagreement, which takes the form, “I just don’t understand you!”

    But this “blindness” or seeming “misunderstanding” is neither primarily blindness, nor is it misunderstanding. What is being expressed is a resistance to understanding someone else’s world view.

    Adding to this — resistance is what is normative. Resistance is even more logical, up to a point, and more quintessentially human, that expanding one’s understanding is. This is because humans are finite in their capacity to acquire emotional and cognitive knowledge. In addition, we are situated in unique ways, in relation to the world, in terms of culture, history — and indeed, in terms of language.

    0

    Add a comment

Popular Posts
Popular Posts
  •  Different domains. As long as the control of the domain is not interfered with, both can win at their own games. As an ENTP, I tend to take...
  •  I love it. But Twain was in a sense too optimistic as travel is not always the answer. Or rather nothing beats being a local yokel and expe...
  •   What is a good book by Nietzsche to read in order to understand how he thought that people have an innate nature? Basically arguing nature...
About Me
About Me
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
Labels
Loading
Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger. Report Abuse.