The Universal value and your unique value

Post Reply New Topic

I took these opinions from my another post. And I have putted some new things in it.I have make it easier to understand also.

In my unique value, I definitely prefer Jean-Jacques Rousseau than Grimm or Diderot. Despite that the last two had a better living than Rousseau. (I know it is a bad example, in many ways. I would not even try to explain because it will take too long) Furthermore, in modern Capitalist society, many capitalists can lack of romantic thoughts, have no interest in literature, do not think too much in facsinating philosophy... I would not even mention any more obscure things like linguistics, bibliographile, etc, because I would hardly imagine that they can do so. Especially typical US capitalists. I may feel a little bit cloyed when I trying to imagine. Although many experts can criticise Rousseau and we can state that he has many defects also, but he is always my favourite one.

Thus my unique value applies above.( It is very emotional, please do not critise it too hard. I can find his defects but I love Les Confessions and his works when my emotion comes)

But the conflict between idealism and reality then comes. It was not easy for me also. I have had such opinion before. But now I can see no harm to accept some universal value. I think somehow,some human nature could apply to all.

We can think about that human being are all able to enjoy high thinking. Therefore, I can hardly state that all wealthy people must have lack of all these above. I would not accept merely 'a billionare industrialist' except that he would spiritually love me first. However, I can imagine that wealthy people may have not got to much emotions to spend, for all their attentions may on their job and they may not share attentions in in-depth thinking, concentrate on details, meditation, etc...

For the Universal value, Wealth and social status can prove many things. Most things that we find simple now are great invention in human history. Including Capitalism. I have never say that it is admirable. But I hope that we can see it in different ways...

Therefore, which one should we appriciate for ourselves?

We can have an romantic and unrealistic one, as mine about Jean-Jacques Rousseau. But when I am in the real world, I tend to appriciate the Universal value. I can understand it also.

Which way have you appriciated?

Or we are merely indulging in our stereotypes without realise the similarity between the Universal value and our own unique value that varies person to person?

I have been keeping my unique value and objected to the Universal value before. Then I thought that oneself's unique value is a form of immaturity. Then I started to have deeper understanding and to accept the Universal value. But now I may have to step back to consider if it is actually the best one.

Thank you very much for reading it.

Please have a think about it. I hope you would like to give me your opinion also.

Wait for some stimulus opinions to come.........

I if no one else would need a clearer sense of what is this Universal Value?

This one is fine....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_value

I am so sorry for I did not make sense at all.

I was very emotional last night. And I was in my inner world last night, and it is very hard to explain...

I will try to make it clearly, I think it is a worthy question..

Please ask me if you have anything uncertain in my original post...

I cannnot explain it because I don't know what does not make sense to you and what does.

I checkerd the Wikipedia statement - that helps clear up part of the difficulty.

I was reading it as "the value I have = what is my value", you are looking at "the values I hold = what are my values". You know it is getting abstract when the language only allows ridiculous wordings.

It is very hard for me to let something get recognized as "universal" That is a very big claim. And when people hedge by saying something is universal because MOST people or MANY people believe it or say it or do it, I find my skeptical instincts rear up to smite.

For example, the motion toward the divine - that is certainly found across cultures and time and person type - I believe it is built in to the mind - but do I dare say it is universal? Speaking carelessly, I might. But I cannot say that I know that all humans have that urge whether or not it is outwardly visible.

In language, I will accept - provisionally - as universal the fact that NO human language employs a speech sound made by smacking the tail against the back of the head. Outside of language, I will gladly accept -provisionally - "All living human beings metabolize"

But universally held values? Too hard to demonstrate. Have we agreed on what IS and is NOT human? I think not - not a universally acceptable definition.

I suspect any "universal value" will be common but not universal [how well I remember my professor's annoyance when I pointed out an exception to the "universal" he was telling us about], and that even so to reach that point it will have to be stated so vaguely as to be useless - like "being nice to your friends" - which means WHAT?

Having only a passing interest in these thinkers, I haven't dug very deep into their work...

Of Rousseau, I have read The Social Contract.

Of Diderot, I have read The Nun and Conversation of a Philosopher with the Maréchale de X.

I'm more familiar with the Brothers Grimm than I am Friedrich Melchior.

Rousseau informed much of my developing political thought, along with John Stuart Mills.

Diderot was an amusement. Although, I recognize that I've only scraped the surface of his work.

I think Rousseau had more of an impact, influencing political thought in the western world...

Dunno if any of that helps.

At my pondering of ths:

At a fundamental level - subconsciously - we hunt for the "better," and if the experience is good,( by emotional rewarding), we, then think or "store" this as "good." It's a 'systemic building' from good or bad experiences, (albeit subconsciously). We arrive or distill this to "better" through rewards. If society rewards us in what we are doing, or if the fruit of this "thought" is personally congruent in the context of experience, then we think "good" at this moment in this evolution.

We are essentially blank, and much can be written there. The only universality about value, is good emotion or bad emotion, as a consequence from the experiential. We all think emotionally.

I agree. This is a great definition about the Universal Value also.

If we take your theory as the whole process, can we say that your unique value is a narrower form subordinate the Universal Value?

I still have doubt on this point.

well.. I think you're asking the question "how do your personal values conflict with the values of society?"

Am I on the right track?

If that is your question then Im reminded of the quote "Money is that thing nobody would need except for the fact that everyone else needs it."

That about says it all.