Is the comfort I find the pessimist in me? I would argue no; it's the human in me.
For so long, I found value in purpose, and I found that purpose in endings.
My friend said there are two types of people.
1) One who finds value in the purpose of the thing.
2) One who finds value in the existence of the thing.
Could they correlate? Or do they remain binary? If so, is there a more correct one? Or could it be personality--determining value says more about the person that it does the thing?
I would argue for all the above. Well, kind of...
Maybe asking people how they value something is asking the wrong question, or at least seeking the wrong answer.
First, a great thought introduced to me this semester, and I have taken large interest in exploring: How something is described is less telling of the thing and more telling of the person describing it. For example, how one describes the taste of an apple is more telling of the person describing the piece of fruit than the actual apple. Why? Because, the likelihood the person describing the apple is going to discuss the chemical reaction and biological functions is very slim. That person isn't really describing the taste of the apple, so much as they are describing how he or she taste the apple. Further, his or her word choice depicts that person even more.
Detour:
Language is more limiting than we realize. Our thoughts are limited to the words we know. We can only think in the language we speak. We can only think in our words. Perspective--other languages have words for feelings and experiences we do not.
Cafuné "the act of tenderly running one's fingers through one's hair." Brazilian Portuguese.
L'appel Du Vide "used to describe the instinctive urge to jump from high places." French.
Back on track, I would argue that even if the person does describe the apple's taste in all its scientific glory, it would still be more telling of the person.
So, what's this have to do with value?
-I'm glad somebody is keeping me focused.
Well, let's take a look at this apple. We are saying the description/value of the apple is more telling of the person than the apple. On the same page? But here's the kicker, here's what blows my mind. How we describe such apple, does not change the apple. The apple isn't becoming sweeter, mushier, crisper, grosser, tastier, etc. as we describe it with our words. Follow? The apple still exists just as the apple was before we bit into it.
You can knock on philosophy as a waste of time. I have heard it all before. However, what you don't know is that philosophy is in every part of your life.
My professor said it best: "Every belief has consequences."
What you choose to believe never goes without an acceptance or denial of something far greater. What you choose to believe (or inversely, choose to not believe) will affect your life, inevitably.
So, what's this have to do with the apple?
-Thank you, other side of my brain. I'm glad you asked.
I would say the value of something says more about the person, just as our description of the apple has more to do with the person. How? Because no matter how we value the thing, it still remains. So "how" you value something is inevitably going to be how you experience that thing, but it doesn't change the thing.
The thing is unchanging based on our value or description. And maybe our lack of value or orthodox value is more telling of us than it.
Whether or not we believe something about the apple (sweet, sour, beneficial, harmful) the apple still is.
[Thanks, Socrates.]
Maybe, it's a peaceful reminder that the apple was, is, and will be consistent no matter how fickle we are.
or
Maybe, it's a terrifying reminder that the apple was, is, and will be consistent no matter how fickle we are.
[Apples have long existed before us and will exist long after us.]
Alternatively, could it be the value of the apple cannot be given by us?
Maybe the peace and/or terror is all depending on the ability to accept the apple is far greater than me. Maybe I'm too small, and the apple has been around a lot longer than Chloé Zoellner.
Let us remember two things:
1) The acceptance of the thing has no power over the thing. The apple still exists whether or not we choose to accept what it is, it remains the apple.
2) Outside of the apple... what we believe will always have consequences.
Q: And guess what I'm eating right now?
A: A banana.
1) One who finds value in the purpose of the thing.
2) One who finds value in the existence of the thing.
Could they correlate? Or do they remain binary? If so, is there a more correct one? Or could it be personality--determining value says more about the person that it does the thing?
I would argue for all the above. Well, kind of...
Maybe asking people how they value something is asking the wrong question, or at least seeking the wrong answer.
First, a great thought introduced to me this semester, and I have taken large interest in exploring: How something is described is less telling of the thing and more telling of the person describing it. For example, how one describes the taste of an apple is more telling of the person describing the piece of fruit than the actual apple. Why? Because, the likelihood the person describing the apple is going to discuss the chemical reaction and biological functions is very slim. That person isn't really describing the taste of the apple, so much as they are describing how he or she taste the apple. Further, his or her word choice depicts that person even more.
Detour:
Language is more limiting than we realize. Our thoughts are limited to the words we know. We can only think in the language we speak. We can only think in our words. Perspective--other languages have words for feelings and experiences we do not.
Cafuné "the act of tenderly running one's fingers through one's hair." Brazilian Portuguese.
L'appel Du Vide "used to describe the instinctive urge to jump from high places." French.
 |
| If you get this, we're friends. |
Back on track, I would argue that even if the person does describe the apple's taste in all its scientific glory, it would still be more telling of the person.
So, what's this have to do with value?
-I'm glad somebody is keeping me focused.
Well, let's take a look at this apple. We are saying the description/value of the apple is more telling of the person than the apple. On the same page? But here's the kicker, here's what blows my mind. How we describe such apple, does not change the apple. The apple isn't becoming sweeter, mushier, crisper, grosser, tastier, etc. as we describe it with our words. Follow? The apple still exists just as the apple was before we bit into it.
You can knock on philosophy as a waste of time. I have heard it all before. However, what you don't know is that philosophy is in every part of your life.
My professor said it best: "Every belief has consequences."
 |
| This is the original sculpture, but the face was too pretty somebody chipped it off to have forever. |
What you choose to believe never goes without an acceptance or denial of something far greater. What you choose to believe (or inversely, choose to not believe) will affect your life, inevitably.
So, what's this have to do with the apple?
-Thank you, other side of my brain. I'm glad you asked.
I would say the value of something says more about the person, just as our description of the apple has more to do with the person. How? Because no matter how we value the thing, it still remains. So "how" you value something is inevitably going to be how you experience that thing, but it doesn't change the thing.
The thing is unchanging based on our value or description. And maybe our lack of value or orthodox value is more telling of us than it.
Whether or not we believe something about the apple (sweet, sour, beneficial, harmful) the apple still is.
[Thanks, Socrates.]
Maybe, it's a peaceful reminder that the apple was, is, and will be consistent no matter how fickle we are.
or
Maybe, it's a terrifying reminder that the apple was, is, and will be consistent no matter how fickle we are.
[Apples have long existed before us and will exist long after us.]
Alternatively, could it be the value of the apple cannot be given by us?
Maybe the peace and/or terror is all depending on the ability to accept the apple is far greater than me. Maybe I'm too small, and the apple has been around a lot longer than Chloé Zoellner.
Let us remember two things:
1) The acceptance of the thing has no power over the thing. The apple still exists whether or not we choose to accept what it is, it remains the apple.
2) Outside of the apple... what we believe will always have consequences.
Q: And guess what I'm eating right now?
A: A banana.
 |
| You're welcome. |
