« Back to The Standard of Value
EPISTEMOLOGICAL MISTAKES IN PROVING LIFE AS THE STANDARD OF VALUE
Contents:
Knowledge is either self-evident or is based on a relevant context, i.e. previous knowledge that — as an integrated whole — conditions the meaning of the item of knowledge being considered.
For proving life as the standard, we must rely on the basis of proof, i.e. reason, and the basis of reason, i.e. reality. In other words, we must rely on the conclusions of metaphysics and epistemology, encapsulated by the ideas of “reality” and “reason”. Without them, the very idea of proof — let alone the proof of life as the standard (a much more complex concept) — is baseless.
Erroneous argument example:
“Life is the precondition of every end; if you are dead, you can have no values. Hence, to live must be the first value.”
It is true, but it does not establish life as the standard of value. Why? Because while life is the precondition of every end, the above statement does not show why life must be the ultimate end, i.e. the end of all ends. The above statement just by itself is in line with the view that life is the means to some other end (ex. procreation, pursuit of pleasure, service to the group, devotion to God, etc.).
LESSON: You must grasp the full meaning of the idea before trying to understand it, i.e. you must first make sure the full content of the idea is clear to you; this can be done by restating the idea in many ways to grasp its full relationship with the other knowledge.
Definitions are a means to focus on reality and are not the objects of focus themselves.
A definition is a means of identifying a concept as well as everything it refers to and implies within a context. A definition identifies the essence (within the context), but a thing is not its essence, hence a concept is not its definition (i.e. they are not interchangeable). Hence, to use a definition effectively, use it not to cover the whole concept, but rather, to identify the nature of the objects being integrated by the concept. In particular, be careful not to make the following equivalences, not because the definitions are wrong but because they are not equivalent to and interchangeable with the concept itself:
EPISTEMOLOGICAL NOTE: Why does this issue arise?:
A definition is a means to identify a concept in a given context, i.e. in relation to other facts and concepts, but it omits the details — distinctive and non-distinctive — that are not needed to separate the concept from others in the given context but that are needed (i.e. essential) to understand or imply the other characteristics of the concept’s referents.
For example, suppose I only know of cats, dogs and birds. Here, I may define a dog as a four-legged animal with a long snout; within my context, it serves to identify what concept I am referring to. But I am omitting a great number of details that are essential to other aspects of the dog’s nature: fur, claws, sense organs, nutritional needs, behavioural patterns, etc. From just the definition given for this context, for instance, I cannot deduce that a dog has an excellent sense of smell (though this is distinctive of a dog and an essential factor in much of its behaviour).
A definition is, in some sense, a pointer to a location. It only tells you where to find the location, but it does not tell you all of (or often even much of) what is in there; it may even leave out many essentials or fundamentals. To know what is in there, you must go to the location (the concept, in this analogy) and focus on its contents (related observations, knowledge, the concrete referents, etc.) rather than focus on the pointer alone.