[phil_20686]

 PassedOut, on 2011-November-15, 12:30, said:

It is if you need to calculate a sum.

But we don't need to know the value of the sum, only to agree that such a sum exists. If a thing has objective value is not the same as question as what that question is. This is akin to the concept of the "non-constructive proof".

 PassedOut, on 2011-November-15, 12:30, said:

Only if one considers subjective statements to be content free. I do not.

This isnt an objective/subjective distinction. All comparative statements imply the existence of a ranking. Once you have a ranking you have a method of valuation.

 PassedOut, on 2011-November-15, 12:30, said:

Here you are shifting to a second order. In context, your statement applies to measurements of people's reactions to the thing, not to measurements of the thing itself.

No - merely pointing out the foundations of epistemology - how do you know the information of your sense is objective: you dont, and you cant prove it, you can only assume it.

[gwnn]

I still don't understand why you're so sure about this.

"Because surely a better definition of the worth of a thing is the sum of all the use/pleasure etc that one gets from it over its entire existence, which is fixed"

In your words, an assertion is not an argument. The only argument I think I read was about comparing the worth of an old man with the worth of a young man. I don't know what it means that one person is worth more than another and I don't want to know, honestly. I don't think there's a good way to measure people's worth.

Anyway, even if I agree to your idea of taking past use as well as future use, there's a huge problem with your idea that this cumulative value is constant in time. If you were a quantum physicist, you would known that the world is not deterministic so it is impossible to predict (even in principle, not just practical) the future. And the best guess for the future changes as we go along in time. I suppose you could say that you can only tell something's worth once it has ceased to exist, but surely you agree that nobody in the world feels like that (except sighing "absence makes the heart go fonder").

[PassedOut]

 phil_20686, on 2011-November-15, 12:54, said:

But we don't need to know the value of the sum, only to agree that such a sum exists.

And we can agree that without numbers, no sum can be determined.

 phil_20686, on 2011-November-15, 12:54, said:

This isnt an objective/subjective distinction. All comparative statements imply the existence of a ranking.

But not an objective ranking.

 phil_20686, on 2011-November-15, 12:54, said:

No - merely pointing out the foundations of epistemology - how do you know the information of your sense is objective: you dont, and you can't prove it, you can only assume it.

That does not address my objection. When you are measuring appreciation of beauty, you are measuring the reactions of people, not the thing that people are appreciating. Of course you are using your senses to do the measuring; that is not the issue. The issue is that you are measuring the wrong thing.

If something has beauty, it has it independent of the number of people who happen to become aware of it. So you can't determine "objective" beauty by measuring reactions (although you can learn something about people).

[hotShot]

Don't we see the same kind of confusion about value and price at the stock market?

[helene_t]

I don't see anything wrong with defining "value"/"worth" as "market value", as long as the one I am talking to is aware that that is the definition, and as long as "market value" is relevant to the issue we are discussing. More generally, I can't be that exited about semantic issues. I appreciate accurate communication, but accuracy in communication is an entirely subjective thing. If Alice says something to Bob, what matters is that Bob interprets the message the way Alice meant it. Whether the words Alice uses would mean something else to a third party (or mean something else according to some canonical dictionary) doesn't matter.

As for the OP, the amount that was quoted might technically be the amount the painting was insured for, rather than an unbiased estimate of the market value. Maybe no better estimate of the market value was available, and insurance price may then be seen as a reasonably proxy. I have no idea how accurate it is in this case but in general I woulad expect insurance companies to refuse to insure items for much more than the market price.

Anyway, I think it should be obvious that the text meant to address the market value, as opposed to some subjective measure of "utility" or whatever.

FWIW I would say that most "value" concepts are subjective. I can't understand what "objective beauty" might mean - to me, beauty is inherently subjective. But I suppose it could depend on how you use the word "subjective" in this particular context.

As for the value of stock market assets, I would say that they are subjective in the sense that if one investor thinks that a particular asset is a good buy while another investor thinks it isn't, then it is not necessarily so that one of them must be wrong because the asset has an objective value which they would both agree on if they had full information. It is entirely plausible that an asset can have different value to different people. Of course this is more obvious when it comes to non-financial assets like chocolate icecream (which some people like and others don't) and even more obvious when it comes to immaterial things like friendship. But even for stock market assets there is some subjectivity at play.

As for persistence of value, I have to agree with Csaba. While "value" or "worth" can have many meanings dependent on context, I don't think I can imagine a single such concept which would necessarily be constant in time. It is not just trivial examples like fresh fruit and vegetables being worth more when the weather is warm, or commodities being worth more when substitutes are scarce. It is also that my appreciation of things change over time as I grow. Sex wasn't valuable before puberty. Good food wasn't valuable when I had anorexia. The relative importance of personal safety, intelectual challenges, professional pride, the feeling of important to dear ones, the feeling of being useful to sosciety etc. have changed during my life.

[luke warm]

 phil_20686, on 2011-November-15, 12:54, said:

No - merely pointing out the foundations of epistemology - how do you know the information of your sense is objective: you dont, and you cant prove it, you can only assume it.

does objectivity even enter into epistemology?

[phil_20686]

 luke warm, on 2011-November-15, 16:37, said:

does objectivity even enter into epistemology?

This is a classic question. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, oddly, the question of whether you can have objective knowledge about a thing falls under the purview of epistemology.

[phil_20686]

 gwnn, on 2011-November-15, 13:08, said:

I still don't understand why you're so sure about this.

"Because surely a better definition of the worth of a thing is the sum of all the use/pleasure etc that one gets from it over its entire existence, which is fixed"

In your words, an assertion is not an argument. The only argument I think I read was about comparing the worth of an old man with the worth of a young man. I don't know what it means that one person is worth more than another and I don't want to know, honestly. I don't think there's a good way to measure people's worth.

Anyway, even if I agree to your idea of taking past use as well as future use, there's a huge problem with your idea that this cumulative value is constant in time. If you were a quantum physicist, you would known that the world is not deterministic so it is impossible to predict (even in principle, not just practical) the future. And the best guess for the future changes as we go along in time. I suppose you could say that you can only tell something's worth once it has ceased to exist, but surely you agree that nobody in the world feels like that (except sighing "absence makes the heart go fonder").

Amusingly, I am a quantum physicist, at least some of the time.

I thought I addressed this point with the share price example. "Fair value" for a share is a well established concept when applied historically. Basically it amounts to spreading the capital around so that return on investment is equal in every share. When applied to current prices it amounts to making bets about the future. It is still, in some sense, an objective measure, as I have an algorithm that computes it from the data, however there is uncertainty because I do not have any data about the future. For it to be a useful concept I do not have to have the ability to compute it now, if I can compute it for historical objects I can see that I can apply it to the future, only now I would have an expectation of some confidence. As the future becomes the past I know if my expectation was right or wrong. Thus we can only determine its objective value historically, but we can agree that there is an objective valuation, we just don't know what it is for the future.

The question of how to value things is very important. I would argue for a balanced approach, that the worth of something is based on its history, its current situation, and its future. The fact that we cannot measure the future should not mean that we treat it as less important than a things history.

[phil_20686]

 PassedOut, on 2011-November-15, 13:54, said:

And we can agree that without numbers, no sum can be determined.


But not an objective ranking.


That does not address my objection. When you are measuring appreciation of beauty, you are measuring the reactions of people, not the thing that people are appreciating. Of course you are using your senses to do the measuring; that is not the issue. The issue is that you are measuring the wrong thing.

If something has beauty, it has it independent of the number of people who happen to become aware of it. So you can't determine "objective" beauty by measuring reactions (although you can learn something about people).

But beauty is basically, "does object A conform to abstract standard B" - which is a process only humans can do. The argument about whether beauty is "objective" is the argument about whether the abstract standard is similar for all humans, whether it is a pure cultural construction, or whether it is some mixture of the above. Its exactly the argument about objective morality in essence, so we are argument about the standard against which to measure the object, beauty is never, properly understood, a property of the object itself. Of course, this is a fine distinction that is not particularly useful in essence.

[gwnn]

No, it doesn't mean that we treat it as less important, it's just that our best guess for future will change as we go forward in time. Just a simple example, my umbrella will have more or less worth as the weather forecast changes. Today is Wednesday, but the forecast for next week will be different today than it is tomorrow. So my umbrella's worth will change from today to tomorrow (its total use or expected total use change from day to day). The only time we could even in principle know its worth is once I disposed of it.

edit: by the way, I was a condensed matter physicist in my masters, nice catch

[y66]

fwiw from OED

Quote

worth, n.1

Pronunciation: /wɜːθ/
Forms: OE weorþ, weorð (OE–ME weord), wurð (ME wurhðe), wyrþ, OE, ME wurþ, ME wurth (ME wurthe, wyrtht); OE, ME worþ, ME– worth (15 wortht), ME–16 worthe, 15 woorth, wourth(e.
Etymology: Old English weorþ (wurþ , worþ ) neuter, = Old Frisian werth , Old Saxon werđ , Old High German werd (Middle High German wert , German werth , wert ), Old Norse verð (Norwegian verd , Danish værd ), Gothic wairþ . Compare worth adj.
1.

a. Pecuniary value; †price; †money.

c825 Vesp. Psalter xliii. 13 Ðu bibohtes folc ðin butan weorðe.
c893 tr. Orosius Hist. iv. x. 198 Þeh þe he hie sume wið feo gesealde,‥he þæt weorð nolde agan.
971 Blickling Hom. 89 Hire innoþ þu gefyldest nigon monaþ mid ealles middangeardes weorþe.
c1000 West Saxon Gospels: Matt. (Corpus Cambr.) xxvi. 9 Þys mihte beon geseald to miclum weorþe, and þearfum gedæled.
c1175 Lamb. Hom. 31 Þet he nime þa ilke ehte oðer his wurð.
?c1225 (1200) Ancrene Riwle (Cleo. C.vi) (1972) 120 Nis ha Vnseli þe wið þe wurð of heouene buð hire helle.
1297 R. Gloucester's Chron. (Rolls) 7674 Þe King Willam uorto wite þe wurþ of is londe Let enqueri streitliche [etc.].
1390 J. Gower Confessio Amantis II. 46 That al the gold of Cresus halle The leste coronal of alle Ne mihte have boght after the worth.
a1400 (1325) Cursor Mundi (Vesp.) l. 12390 Treen beddes for to make, Was he wont for worth to take.
c1450 Godstow Reg. 539 He sholde yeve to them eschaunge to the worthe of the same acris.
1581 A. Hall tr. Homer Iliad i. 1 Chryses‥with things of price,‥His daughter captiue helde by Greekes by worth hir home to buy.
1642 D. Rogers Naaman 133 A pearle‥makes all base, & to come under the worth thereof.
1695 J. Locke Further Consid. Value Money 27 Rising and falling of Commodities is always between several Commodities of distinct worths.
1781 W. Cowper Charity 133 The bark‥Charg'd with a freight transcending in its worth The gems of India.
1836 Dickens Sketches by Boz 2nd Ser. 189 Some poverty-stricken legatee,‥selling his chance‥for a twelfth-part of its worth.
1870 W. Morris Earthly Paradise iv. 41 Of little worth Was all the gear that hall did hold.

b. The equivalent of a specified sum or amount.
For Old English examples see pennyworth n., and cf. halfpennyworth n., pounds worth n., shillingsworth n.

1508 Reg. Privy Seal Scot. I. 258/1 The malis‥ of the vi merkis worth of land of the Redecastell.
1583 T. Stocker tr. Tragicall Hist. Ciuile Warres Lowe Countries iv. 55 b, This victualler had about him in Gold to the Worth of 20. Florins.
a1616 Shakespeare Timon of Athens (1623) iii. iii. 22 I'de rather then the worth of thrice the summe, Had sent to me first.
1627 Treasurer's Almanacke (ed. 2) B 6, The Operation of the worth of 30 li. Annuitie for 6 yeares.
a1687 W. Petty Polit. Arithm. (1691) viii. 108 If the Tradesmen‥could do one Million worth of Work extra~ordinary.
1781 W. Cowper Table Talk 85 The worth of his three kingdoms I defy, To lure me to the baseness of a lie.
1859 Tennyson Enid in Idylls 67 ‘Take Five horses and their armours;’‥‘My lord, I scarce have spent the worth of one!’
1890 ‘R. Boldrewood’ Colonial Reformer xxiii, He always gets the worth of his money.

†c. In allusive phr.: The amount or value of something small or insignificant. Obs.

c1330 (1300) Guy of Warwick (Auch.) l. 141 Þe[r] nas man‥Þat bireft him worþ of a slo.
1377 Langland Piers Plowman B. iv. 170 Ȝit ȝeue ȝe me neuere þe worthe of a russhe.
1546 J. Heywood Prov. (1867) i. x. 24 Beggyng of hir booteth not the woorth of a beane.

†d. Money (in contrast to goods). Obs. rare.

a1400 (1325) Cursor Mundi (Vesp.) l. 5393 Þai had noþer worth ne ware þat þai moght for þair mete spare.
2.

a. The relative value of a thing in respect of its qualities or of the estimation in which it is held.
Freq. with implication of high value: cf. 1b.

1340 Ayenbite (1866) 82 Hit sseweþ þet þe wordle is ydel, ine byinge vyl, in worþ biter.
1390 J. Gower Confessio Amantis I. 25 Of Selver that was overforth Schal ben a world of lasse worth.
1570 P. Levens Manipulus Vocabulorum sig. Oiiiv/1, Ye Worth of a thing, precium, dignitas.
1599 T. Storer Life & Death Wolsey sig. C3, A man made old to teach the worth of age.
1605 W. Camden Remaines ii. 42 This bad inscription, which I insert more for the honor of the name, then the worth of the verse.
1616 T. Draxe Bibliotheca Scholastica 2 A man knoweth not the worth of a thing before that he wanteth it.
1663 S. Butler Hudibras i. i. 67 Nor do the bold'st attempts bring forth Events still equal to their worth.
1746 P. Francis tr. Horace Art of Poetry 526 Let them not come forth, 'Till the ninth ripening Year mature their Worth.
1782 F. Burney Cecilia V. ix. iii. 47, I knew not‥the full worth of steadiness and prudence till I knew this young man.
1857 F. D. Maurice Epist. St. John i. 4 He made me see the worth of habits, the worth of acts, the worth of moral purposes.
1877 J. C. Geikie Life of Christ (1879) xxxi. 370 The worth of man's homage to God does not depend on the place where it is paid.

b. High or outstanding value, excellence. Obs. or arch.

1617 J. Taylor Three Weekes Obseruations D 2 b, A paire of such Organs, which for worth and workemanship are vnparalelld in Christendome.
1659 Gentleman's Calling vi. xvii. 435 Any thing that carries the stamp of ancient worth and nobility.
1678 N. Wanley Wonders Little World v. ii. §16. 469/2 A covetous Pelagian, and one that had nothing of worth in him.
3.

a. The character or standing of a person in respect of moral and intellectual qualities; esp. high personal merit or attainments.
In early use also comprising rank or dignity.

1597 Shakespeare Richard II iii. iii. 109 By the worth and honor of himselfe,‥His comming hither hath no further scope, Then for his lineall roialties.
1615 G. Sandys Relation of Journey 19 He was a iust Prince, full of worth and magnanimitie.
a1616 Shakespeare Two Gentlemen of Verona (1623) ii. iv. 100 His worth is warrant for his welcome hether.
1621 R. Brathwait Natures Embassie Ded. sig. A 2, The accomplished mirror of true worth, Sr. T. H. the elder.
1655 S. Ashe Funeral Serm. Gataker 46 To favour the Son very highly for his own worth and work in the Ministry.
1728 E. Young Love of Fame iii. 265 How hard for real worth to gain its price?
1753–4 S. Richardson Hist. Sir Charles Grandison I. xvi. 103, I regard him‥for his own worth's sake, and for his uncle's.
1788 J. Hurdis Village Curate (1797) 14 The down-cast eye of modest worth, Which shrinks at its own praise.
1827 R. Southey Funeral Song Princess Charlotte 21 Henry, thou of saintly worth.
1872 J. Morley Voltaire i. 3 Each did much to raise the measure of worth‥of mankind.

b. In pl., †sometimes of one person.

a1586 Sir P. Sidney Arcadia (1590) ii. ii. sig. P1v, How can you him vnworthy then decree, In whose chiefe parte your worthes implanted be?
1594 Marlowe & T. Nashe Dido iii. iv. 1037 If that you maiestie can looke so lowe, As my despised worths.
1616 T. Scot 2nd Pt. Philomythie sig. C3, If either of you, thinke you can, Out of your owne worths, proue more fit.
1631 J. Weever Anc. Funerall Monuments 116 Honourably preferred, and prouided for according to their worthes.
4.

a. In the phrases of great, little, no, etc., worth .

1590 Spenser Faerie Queene ii. iii. sig. Pv, A goodly Ladie‥That seemd to be a woman of great worth.
1597 R. Hooker Of Lawes Eccl. Politie v. lxii. 146 As the sacrament it selfe is a gift of no meane woorth.
a1616 Shakespeare As you like It (1623) v. iv. 153 Euerie day Men of great worth resorted to this forrest.
1634 T. Herbert Relation Trav. 70 Seeing resistance of no worth, [they] fled.
1785 W. Cowper Task vi. 952 Forgive him, then, thou bustler in concerns Of little worth.
a1822 Shelley Homer's Hymn to Mercury xxx, in Posthumous Poems (1824) 305 Caldrons and tripods of great worth.
1843 W. S. Landor Imaginary Conversat. in Heath's Bk. Beauty 194 A man of highest worth.
1847 Tennyson Princess ii. 397 And two dear things are one of double worth.

b. of worth: of high merit or excellence.

c1595 Countess of Pembroke Psalme xlv. 1 in Coll. Wks. (1998) II. 38 My harte endites an argument of worth.
a1616 Shakespeare Two Gentlemen of Verona (1623) iii. i. 107 She‥is promis'd by her friends Vnto a youthfull Gentleman of worth.
1634 T. Herbert Relation Trav. 38 Rings and Iewels of Gold inammeld and set with stones of worth and lustre.
1686 tr. J. Chardin Coronation Solyman 84 in Trav. Persia, All the Kaanas or Governments of Persia were likewise bestow'd upon persons of worth.
1766 J. Fordyce Serm. Young Women (1767) I. Pref. p. vii, Women of worth and sense are to be found every~where.
1816 L. Hunt Story Rimini iv. 391 Her thin white hand, that wore a ring of worth.
1825 Scott Betrothed xi, in Tales Crusaders II. 208 The sordid wretches‥conceive those temptations too powerful for men of worth.

5. The position or standing of a person in respect of property; hence concr., possessions, property, means. Obs. or arch.

1598 J. Manwood Lawes Forest xvi. (1615) 109 Euery Gentleman, Husbandman, Farmer and householder of any worth.
1599 Shakespeare Romeo & Juliet ii. v. 32 They are but beggers that can count their worth.
1634 T. Herbert Relation Trav. 206 They‥generally loue play: so that‥they will hazard all their worth, themselues, wiues, children and other substance.
1753–4 S. Richardson Hist. Sir Charles Grandison (1781) II. 227 She gave in an estimate of her worth, to what amount the Ladies knew not.
1812 G. Crabbe Tales xvii. 314 To legal claims he yielded all his worth.

†6. to take at, of, or to worth ; to take (accept, bear, have) in worth, or in good worth ; to take (or bear) well in worth : to take (something) at its true or proper value; to take in good part, to be content with. (See also aworth adv.) Obs.

(a)
1377 Langland Piers Plowman B. xii. 125 Take we her wordes at worthe, for here witnesse be trewe.
1483 Vulgaria abs Terencio (T. Rood & T. Hunte) sig. nij, I thanke the that thou tokist it to worthe.
1483 Vulgaria abs Terencio (T. Rood & T. Hunte) sig. qijv, Thi mynde or hert that shulde take it at worthe.
c1528 Everyman (1961) 903 This morall men may haue in mynde‥Ye herers, take it of worth.
(b)
?c1481 E. Paston in Paston Lett. & Papers (2004) I. 640 Yf she be eny better þan I wryght fore, take it in worthe I shew the leeste.
c1490 Caxton Rule St. Benet (1902) 134 He that it was sent vnto shall take it in worthe & cherefully.
a1529 J. Skelton Magnyfycence (?1530) sig. Ei, And so as ye se it wyll be no better Take it in worthe suche as ye fynde.
1576 G. Gascoigne Princely Pleasures Kenelworth in Wks. (1910) II. 100 That you take in worth my will, which can but well deserve.
1636 R. Baker tr. Cato Variegatus 16 When a poore friend, a small gift gives to thee: Take it in worth: and let it praysed be.
©
c1500 Young Children's Bk. (Ashm. 61) in Babees Bk. (2002) i. 23 Be it gode or be it badde, Yn gud worth it muste be had.
1534 W. Turner tr. J. von Watt Of Olde God & Newe sig. Oj, Yf greate abbottes wolde take my salutation in good worthe: it sholde be redy for theym.
1549 H. Latimer 2nd Serm. before Kynges Maiestie 3rd Serm. sig. Fvv, It becommeth me to take it in good worthe, I am not better then he was.
1576 R. Peterson tr. G. della Casa Galateo 26 Some‥neuer take in good worthe the honour and courtesie that men doe vnto them.
1609 P. Holland tr. A. Marcellinus Rom. Hist. A ij b, Not doubting that you wil take this small gift in good worth.
1642 T. Fuller Holy State i. vi. 16 He compounds with his father to accept in good worth the utmost of his endeavour.
(d)
a1542 T. Wyatt Coll. Poems (1969) cxcix. 8 Hap evyll or good I shall be glad To take that comes as well in worthe.
1564 Briefe Exam. A iiij, I trust your most Reuerende fatherhood wyll beare all these thynges well in worth.
1592 T. Tymme Plaine Discouerie Ten Eng. Lepers Ep. Ded. sig. A2, Pardon‥my rudenesse herein, and take it well in woorth.

[PassedOut]

 phil_20686, on 2011-November-16, 07:22, said:

...beauty is never, properly understood, a property of the object itself.

Thanks for clarifying your position. Do you hold that to be true for abstractions in general?

For example, we often make statements like:

The princess has beauty.
The queen has wisdom.
The soldier has courage.
The politician has charisma.
The performer has talent.
The athlete has strength.

If I understand your position on this, such statements are not properly understood as ascribing properties to individuals.

[kenberg]

Is this the face that launched a thousand ships? --- Goethe

Was it worth it? Was it worth it? ---- Jim Croce

Probably no one will value this contribution to the thread, but the price is right.

[phil_20686]

 PassedOut, on 2011-November-17, 05:55, said:

Thanks for clarifying your position. Do you hold that to be true for abstractions in general?

For example, we often make statements like:

The princess has beauty.
The queen has wisdom.
The soldier has courage.
The politician has charisma.
The performer has talent.
The athlete has strength.

If I understand your position on this, such statements are not properly understood as ascribing properties to individuals.

These statements do not seem to be all of one kind - physical strength is not an abstract. Talent/ability is murky, I lean on the side of treating these as properties of the people.

Courage is an abstract thing, we have an idea of courage and we compare peoples actions to this abstract. We might also compare the actions we think someone might make in advance, but then its just an expectation. Charisma is also like this, but in this case its self fulfilling, we have an internal metric for leadership, and we are more likely to do what someone says if they tick the boxes for leadership.

Wisdom I don't know. If wisdom is seeing to the heart of the matter, and being right in your diagnoses of the problem, then its a property of the person. If wisdom is "saying things that sound wise" then we are obviously comparing them to our own abstract definition of wisdom.

[phil_20686]

 gwnn, on 2011-November-16, 07:24, said:

No, it doesn't mean that we treat it as less important, it's just that our best guess for future will change as we go forward in time. Just a simple example, my umbrella will have more or less worth as the weather forecast changes. Today is Wednesday, but the forecast for next week will be different today than it is tomorrow. So my umbrella's worth will change from today to tomorrow (its total use or expected total use change from day to day). The only time we could even in principle know its worth is once I disposed of it.

This is an odd example to me. You are limiting your time horizon to a few days - for surely you expect the weather forecast to change again. Why should I not use my knowledge that rain is basically random over a longer horizon and say its utility is essentially fixed. Your expected value here changes if and only if you limit your horizon to that which you can reasonably predict. This is classic Present-ism. Why is the week after the one I foresee not as important, and should I not treat it equally? Based on historic norms it too has an expected usage of unbrella. If I extend this indefinitely into the future the change of forecast makes no difference.

Having said that, I agree with your point that you only know its true worth once you dispose of it, I just don't see the fact that we have only a vague idea of the worth of something now as an problem.

Apply it to the discovery of electricity - no one knew what it would be good for at the time, did that mean it was useless until the light bulb was discovered? Did the value of the discovery only go up when we built the national grid? My metric is more honest in these cases - it simply admits that we cannot effectively measure the future utility, without denying that there is future utility.

[gwnn]

Fair enough, you are saying that it is essentially fixed, but you must admit that it is not precisely fixed. It does change over time, something you said is an abhorrent attribute of any good definition of 'worth'. I still don't know why it is, and haven't yet heard from you on this, other than 'surely it is a better definition'.

[PassedOut]

 phil_20686, on 2011-November-17, 07:16, said:

These statements do not seem to be all of one kind - physical strength is not an abstract. Talent/ability is murky, I lean on the side of treating these as properties of the people.

Courage is an abstract thing, we have an idea of courage and we compare peoples actions to this abstract. We might also compare the actions we think someone might make in advance, but then its just an expectation. Charisma is also like this, but in this case its self fulfilling, we have an internal metric for leadership, and we are more likely to do what someone says if they tick the boxes for leadership.

Wisdom I don't know. If wisdom is seeing to the heart of the matter, and being right in your diagnoses of the problem, then its a property of the person. If wisdom is "saying things that sound wise" then we are obviously comparing them to our own abstract definition of wisdom.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that abstractions cannot be properties, but that measurable qualities are not abstractions. Is that right?

The Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where I live now, has a very low population and pretty much everyone accepts that beauty is subjective, so I rarely get the opportunity to probe the thinking of someone with a different view. Thanks for hanging in there.

[phil_20686]

 gwnn, on 2011-November-17, 07:26, said:

Fair enough, you are saying that it is essentially fixed, but you must admit that it is not precisely fixed. It does change over time, something you said is an abhorrent attribute of any good definition of 'worth'. I still don't know why it is, and haven't yet heard from you on this, other than 'surely it is a better definition'.

The purpose of a definition is that is should be generally applicable and should avoid absurdities. It seems to me that your definition leads to an absurdity whenever it is applied to something where the future is highly uncertain - e.g. the "value" of a scientific discovery.

Moreover, your definition also runs into problems in other areas - if you applied it with a very short time horizon then unconsciousness would be the same as a Permanent Vegetative State. Moreover, your definition seems to have no principle by which to determine an appropriate time horizon, beyond "If I can reasonably predict it", but many things in life cannot be reasonably predicted even a short time in advance.

While my own definition is not completely problem free, it seems to be much better than the present orientated one that you suggest.

[phil_20686]

 PassedOut, on 2011-November-17, 07:44, said:

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that abstractions cannot be properties, but that measurable qualities are not abstractions. Is that right?

The Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where I live now, has a very low population and pretty much everyone accepts that beauty is subjective, so I rarely get the opportunity to probe the thinking of someone with a different view. Thanks for hanging in there.

I think that's right, its a more important distinction in morality - are there "bad people" or only "people who do bad things".

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-November-14, 12:09, said:

Of course not. My question goes to the subjective/objective distinction.

Late to the party but I think this distinction is key. One definition from Dictionary.com goes like this: objective: existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

IMO, this is the best method to define the truly objective - becaue it is unambiguous. The problem, then, for discussion is that anything that requires an observer becomes subjective by default.

Beauty would automatically fall into the subjective category. Only objects (shape + location) could be stated unequivocably to exist, and the reason is not sentience but that objects can be reasoned to have existed prior to sentience. In the case of beauty, sentience is a necessity to define or experience that which we term beauty. That dramatic waterfall may well have existed prior to sentience, but mother nature did not consider the scene beautiful - only the sentient observer defines or experiences that emotive aspects of beauty.

The trouble with this clear delineation is that only objects can be thought of as eternal, as anything subjective requires preceding sentience. Therefore, those whose arguments arise from an eternal nature of this type of subjectivity renounce the definiton as too limited.

This is not an argument that there is no such thing as beauty - only that it does not exist objectively in the most strict sense of that word.