Justin S.
Member
I intent to respond individually to the other very provoking posts, but am very busy at the moment. I will post some later this weekend.
Norsemaiden said:Is all valuing metaphysical? And, if so, does that mean that one shouldn't have a mental process of evaluating things? Isn't it inevitable that we must all have some sort of scale in our own minds of how much we value everything? There is so much phenomena to grade that no two people probably value everything exactly the same. Have I misunderstood you Justin?
Cythraul said:What? What do any of these examples have to do with metaphysics or any kind of predilection for metaphysical thinking? Perhaps I'm just taking issue with your use of the word "metaphysical". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about a particular set of metaphysical suppositions that society at large takes for granted, right? Most of these examples of yours can be analysed in terms of social phenomena, there is no need to attribute some kind of metaphysical thinking to individuals in these cases. So a media source proclaimed the "goodness" of some particular sounds and that is why people buy into it? Big deal, this is just a social phenomenon. Any valuing of said sounds on most other bases is just as theory-laden, for lack of a better term, or "metaphysical" I guess, as what you cite.
speed said:I think you are overly concerned with semantics cythraul, and missing the point, which transcended any of these rather trite concerns of yours.
Justin S. said:Valuing is metaphysical, it is nihilism in motion.
Demilich said:At risk of appearing trite and pedantic, I'd like a better explanation of this expression. How do you equate metaphysical value judgement with a negation of the value of such judgements?
Demilich said:@Justin S.: I understand, and commend your efforts in constructing this argument, but am not sure I can wholeheartedly agree with what I see to be a fairly extensive leap in reasoning. Where you lose me is in the process of defining the bridge between the impulse to apply subjective value and subsequent affirmation of nihilism. To whom is this affirmation known at the time that it comes to fruition? Surely not those who are blind enough to engage in this subjectifying process of applying value. I would say that this metaphysical pursuit of a rigorously heirarchized/value-laden existence openly defies nihilism. To me, this is reaffirmed by my daily life experience, as I frequently encounter people who are incapable of removing themselves from their socially/culturally constituted understanding of their surroundings and thus unable to break from this subjectifying process of evaluation.
Silver Incubus said:But can't you value something because of its usefulness in acheiving a goal. A quick example might be a thristy person finding a container full of water? I mean water and thrist are not metaphysical in nature, and the need of a body to have that water is very real, and physical. I see that water has value regardless if we think it does or not, simply because without it life on this earth wouldn't exist.
Demilich said:Where you lose me is in the process of defining the bridge between the impulse to apply subjective value and subsequent affirmation of nihilism. To whom is this affirmation known at the time that it comes to fruition? Surely not those who are blind enough to engage in this subjectifying process of applying value.
Demilich said:I would say that this metaphysical pursuit of a rigorously heirarchized/value-laden existence openly defies nihilism.
Demilich said:To me, this is reaffirmed by my daily life experience, as I frequently encounter people who are incapable of removing themselves from their socially/culturally constituted understanding of their surroundings and thus unable to break from this subjectifying process of evaluation.
Justin S. said:By "metaphysical" I mean the process of thought that works down from "higher principles". This origin can take many forms: God(s), the One, "truth", the "self-evident", "logic" (deduction), the "they" of acculturation, etc.
What Nietzsche implicitly addressed, Heidegger explicitly confronted- "philosophy" (the world historical phenomena) = metaphysics. Norsemaiden, this is essentially what your quote from Zarathustra means. All these elaborate systems and constructs, are just that, and have no more solid grounding that any other. For Nietzsche, this understanding leads into discussion of nihilism. For Heidegger (as well as the movements influenced by his thinking) the abyss of "nihilism" is actually the opportunity to perceive beings as they are- without subjecting the universe to subjectivising "values" and "categories" as if they require such things. As we discover, not the absence of metaphysics, but metaphysics itself is nihilism- the impulse to "value" implies that the object has no "value" outside of this process! The traditions we speak about (philosophy/religion/metaphysics) are simply a reaction to the abyss of nihilism, one they only confirm by their elaborate attempts to cover it over with grand systems.
What is the "social phenomena" except the generalization of the thoughts and practices of many individuals? One cannot formulate a whole comprised of parts, and then speak of the whole removed from its component parts- this is metaphysical.
More than just thinking, the individual has a metaphysical relationship to its world. To return to my art example, the average person when viewing art accesses (from "higher principles") an acculturated experience of the artwork. Although their eyes see it, their mind passes over the lines, forms, shapes and color of the work. They may make passing comments on such things, but they do not evaluate it based on how it is perceived phenomenologically- no, it is not color on canvas, it is the "Mona Lisa"- what is this "Mona Lisa" to these individuals? Not its component parts forming a painting, but the stand alone metaphysical entity that is given meaning by shared cultural experience.
Justin S. said:Perception preceeds this valuing- things appear as they are before we have a chance to impose claims upon them. Only after this primordial stare into the "valueless" abyss of things as they are comes the fearful, reactive attempt to assert that constructed meaning and value are absolute.
Cythraul said:In fact, values are inseperable from rational discourse, the very kind of discourse we're trying to engage in right now, and which we have to engage in everyday.
i agree with thisNorsemaiden said:That's true. Now I get it Justin! Nothing has value apart from that which we apply to it. We, ourselves, have no value other than that. We all inescapably value things though, because one has to prioritise the things needed for one's survival.
Most people are unaware or unwilling to realise that they are attributing value to things that have no value beyond that attributed in the mind. Wheras animals automatically prioritise what they need to survive and do not have a concept of "value", most humans cling to their "metaphysical" notion of the value of things. Others of us, who "think" more freely, are uninhibited from observing that the values we attribute to things are merely in the human mind.
We are not wise to drop our perception of value altogether however, and say "Aha! No thing has value, therefore I will value no thing!" (completely nihilistic) because this would be a negation of everything in life as well as a negation of oneself.