An Important Element in Value Philosophy

An important element in value philosophy (to me, value philosophy is value ontology as applies to humans for humans), without daring to make the claim for ontology, is this: that the entire scope of action for an individual is determined by his active valuings. He may percieve values, but only those product of his own action are the totality of what he can value of the world. So, for example, if Pithagoras only ever actively valued mathematics, he was only able to value and act upon the world perceptually in terms of the marthematics he concocted. Other values may have not escaped him, but action was only possible via mathematics.

I could also call this the theory of excess in evolution. Then, maybe, I would dare to suggest it to value ontology. But then, you know how I feel about logic...

I think this accounts quite well for political human history.

Pezer wrote:

An important element in value philosophy (to me, value philosophy is value ontology as applies to humans for humans), without daring to make the claim for ontology, is this: that the entire scope of action for an individual is determined by his active valuings. He may percieve values, but only those product of his own action are the totality of what he can value of the world. So, for example, if Pithagoras only ever actively valued mathematics, he was only able to value and act upon the world perceptually in terms of the marthematics he concocted. Other values may have not escaped him, but action was only possible via mathematics.

I could also call this the theory of excess in evolution. Then, maybe, I would dare to suggest it to value ontology. But then, you know how I feel about logic...

I think this accounts quite well for political human history.

Some very sound propositions.

I very much feel drawn to the basic idea; which implies that we separate active from passive being in terms of deliberation. What can we/an entity be deliberate about?

Active valuing and being- deliberate are indeed akin, alike even.

It is true that few things produce more chaos and disaster than people acting from a state of deliberateness in a field where they can not actively value.

Politics; indeed.

Precisely for this reason however it may not be in vain to initiate some theory - this thus obviously only goes for those who value it - about politics qua politics, that is to say political theory but with philosophical purity of intent.

Leo Strauss has been quite sound in this respect. The result is that he is to most people quite unreadable; but to some reads like revelation.

The definition of VP as VO as applied to humans for humans seems perfectly correct to me.



The implications of your general idea are enormous. Its something that has been crossing my mind; but never quite exactly.

It means we can basically prescribe "diets of activity" and de-generalize " Man" and kill the idea of general human representation, the "hollow word become flesh".

the term "talent" , which has been hovering around, comes into its own here, as nothing less than concrete, particular valuing capacity.
One works on what one values, what one values is part of oneself, one works, by talent, on oneself, which is "the good (world)"

Once again, a thought that shakes up our conception of passive and active: in such thoughts I recognize the  truthfulness of mind before language.

The very most problematic aspect of language is that it presumes that activity is contingent upon passivity (just-there-ness) which is essential: it is rather the other way around.

Humanity is no a priori universal. A universal is attained when potential is exhaustively explicated.

Yes! And I really like the world talent. To me, the greatest revelation here on passivity and activity is like a volcano. The eruptions of the past are fundamental, probably more so than the present one, but only the present one determines movement and new shapes and hellish passion: life. In the end, the present eruption will contain the old as all the eruptions before it did. Maybe in some places the old will still peek out, maybe this depends on the size and force of the eruption.

Completely off topic, but I have to say it: the day Nietzsche published Human, All Too Human in 1883, an island was born in Indonesia from a volcano erupting.

Anyway, the volcano analogy may be too dehuminizing. I do fervently believe some valuings are like retarded sons who get violent.

I don't think it is because they are unable to value, I think one would have to look inside the values like a doctor: why was it so ambitious? What instincts were fed with what ideas? What was the intention? Intention, after all, also depends on what has already been actively valued.

A theory of philosophically strong politics would be quite good. As an excercice, it would, if nothing else, contribute to settling the age old question about philosophy's potential in politics. And, if made with enough care and clarity of intentions, it might absolutely be the bomb. With the slogan "nothing is a priori universal," I think we could go far.