Value Theory by Margaret Leora Workman; Warponie Art

Value Theory by Margaret Leora Workman; Warponie Art
Analogous: Comparing items in order to make each clearer in what they could be understood to be. Why do we do this? So that we can place value on what we want to obtain. In my opinion value theory was brought about so that philosophers would have something to talk about regarding why people value certain things over others, this helped them to know what people valued. According to the book Dictionary of Philosophy, (1962), There are actual questions that philosophers used depending on if the word ‘value’ was used as a noun or a verb. In order to sell tangible items or situations to people salespeople have to understand who, what, where and why people value what they value. When using the word value as a noun it can be abstract or concrete. As a verb it refers to the process of valuing an object or situation. When used with the word ‘very’ it is regarding or pointing to our desires and wishes of valuing or valuation of an object. When used as an abstract noun it points to the property of value. In my opinion this could be like using it as we use properties in algebra to get the answer to an equation or algebra problem. A person can just insert different subjects or ideas on each side of the equal sign to see if you can get equal ideas to form. What if I compared the movie “Chucky” and public speaking. For me that would be equal in value or two subjects that I equally fear. Do you think that Chucky was a marionette?  when used as an abstract noun it refers to a certain subject to be valuable; equivalent to ‘worth’ or ‘goodness’ in where evility is referred to as being disvalued. But that word means that it once had value but then lost it. When talking about goodness vs. evility it automatically refers to words having the opposite meaning without the prefix of ‘dis’ unless within value theory it refers to evility as once having value and now it has been disvalued or devalued. But who took the value of evility away? Evility is subjective and so is goodness. If we go back to the subject of goodness vs. evility being the opposite subject at the root, then that subject would be for people who think that goodness only has value and that evility does not have value at all. But again, who decided what evility is and what is goodness? It is subjective. If evility has no value, then should we regard it? If not, then only goodness can be regarded, but then goodness will erode into different variations of goodness. Some of those variations will become evil, depending upon how we value goodness and evility. What about only regarding evility and disregarding goodness? Would some categories of evility erode and become good? Based on the law of entropy which says that every situation will start at order and become disorderly. Can we include people into that situation?? Next, value theory refers to value in that it can be used as a concrete noun. This refers to items or situations being able to be measured or observed. Those things are valued because they can be seen or measured. Do you think this could be compared to a situation where an object exists that is seemingly insignificant? A person observes this item and because they liked it, they believe that it now has meaning because of their own observations and their own idea of their own (falsely claimed) importance. In the category of concrete nouns are concrete objects or situations that already have value. A value, singular, or values, plural, refer to specific value given to objects being compared to each other in order to understand the meaning and give it value. How does this work? Colors can be measured; this is how we can get a specific color. They have value in of themselves because of the color that they are. We value them because of the color that they are. What else can be referred to in this way? When value is used as a noun there are certain questions that are asked. Who asks these questions and why? Philosophers do in order to understand what people value. Salespeople do in order in order to sell things to society to make money. We do as well. Through asking questions we can understand ourselves and why we value certain things, situations, or people. In my opinion these aren’t the only questions that we ask, but these questions are what value theory has decided upon. Again, this is for when value theory is used as a noun.
1.      What is the nature of the object or situation?
2.      Is it a quality or relation i.e…. is it on its own or is it comparable to others?
3.      Objective or subjective?
4.      Single property or several properties?
5.      Is the value ambiguous?
6.      Is its presence in an item dependent upon or reducible to the fact that the item is valued by someone?
When value theory is used as a verb it refers to the process of valuing an object or situation.  When used as a verb it will ask these questions:
1.      Is it a feeling, desire or wish?
2.      Does it involve judgement and cognition?
Involving question number (2) What about posturing just to prove a point, but the point has already been proven valuable because the point has already been stated through being automatically understood by the audience, some people just needed time to catch up. Has anyone met these internally, easily combustible people? Please! don’t implode while restating what has already been stated just to hear yourself speak! The choir thought it already had value without your personal interpretation.  Thanks, and we don’t care or value it.   
The book refers to the ideas ‘ought’ vs. ‘is’ within value theory regarding different categories within itself. A few of the categories that it mentions are:
Existence
Fact
Goodness
Beauty
Rightness
Obligation
Why these? I do not know.  Does anyone value these?  Do people question if something is valuable just because it exists?  Maybe some people would say that it has value because it already…is.  What about fact.  One could say that facts are just facts, or they ought to be facts.  Does this involve having value?  I guess if something isn’t a fact yet, maybe it is just an idea but not a fact, does that make it invaluable?  Such as me using the word ‘evility’.  This word is in the Wiktionary, but it technically is not a word yet because it is not in the actual dictionary.  I like it more than the word ‘evilness’.  For me ‘evility’ has more value but it is not a fact yet.  What about beauty?  I ought to do X, Y, Z to be more beautiful because people will value me more.  Is this true?  Yep.  What else can one say about that?  Rightness.  What is valued in this subject?  Rightness is very subjective and all roads lead to heaven or hell, depending on the day.  Obligation is a difficult word to cut up and splice value into!  What if a person is energized one way one day and then saw the light.  What will be explained the next day, or will anything be valued or talked about regarding obligation the next day when all is dark.    According to this book, regarding ethics, value theory can only be included in certain situations, but it does not say why.  In my opinion it can only be included in the subject of ethics as a noun but not as a verb.  As a verb the word value is in the process of valuing a subject or object but as a noun it can be included in the subject of ethics because it’s just another theory of how we live. The word ethics is a noun so in my opinion it cannot be included with a verb and be called equal or the same.
Some people have a religious philosophy based on the bible or other religious books that talk about different Gods of their understanding or choosing.
Some people do not use any of those books and look at philosophies that people or philosophers have come up with over time. Those philosophers have disciples who follow their disciplines. These people tend to be dead, but their philosophies are still valuable. Some people use these religious books and these philosophies, and some people have no clue what these beliefs are and they just do what everyone else does in their current society based off of what is culturally acceptable. Each country has laws that people follow as well and that guides people so that we do not then go to jail, also when we are in another country, we have to follow the laws of that country even if the laws of our country are different.
In my opinion marketing guides people’s choices as well. Commercials about people buying the most popular item that will make us happy affect all of us. We give things value that make us or others happy and sometimes people believe that those things give us value and self-worth when we have them.
I was wondering if religious people or if people who only follow philosophical belief systems buy more and spend more money on things to be happy?
 
Does it depend on religion, philosophy or how different people value things?
What is their status in society?
Who has more money?
And What do they buy or value?
What type of jobs do they have?
Does everyone shop in the same places?
No. They don’t and everyone knows that, but I wonder if religion or a person’s philosophy plays a part in what people value.
Philosophy is more of a discipline that people follow and uphold.
There are many different philosophical ideas and/or religions that support and those can guide what we value. One of them is called value theory. All of these theories are very subjective, and I think that each philosophical direction that people support, in of themselves hold value for different people and that is why they tend to take that path. Value theory, in my opinion, organizes how we value anything and everything based off of different categories that we unknowingly put these items in so that we can enjoy our lives and happiness is not the only guiding factor. I wanted to talk about what I have observed about people and what makes them happy. These might not be listed officially in value theory
Committing crimes makes some people happy. They like to feel in control of their lives, and they do not like an outside source making them obey. Can we sue their parents or the people who have convinced them that being above the law is something impressive?
Being an evil villain can make people happy. This is kind of funny, but really true. What if this person’s actions don’t actually break the law? One evil villain is not evil to some people, but someone to be followed. What if that evil villain has convinced people that he/she is right because he was able to market his actions as something popular or needed? Sometimes these followers have no positive support from others, and they will follow anyone who will give them attention.
Specifically, being able to control another person can make people happy.
Can a person really control another person? I think that it is possible through fear or torture or manipulation. There are many of these situations that have happened, and books have been written about these true situations. The people who are controlling these people can really be very happy that they are able to do this. I wonder if the people who are being controlled are happy with that situation depending on what type of situation it is. People can convince themselves that they are happy with the situation because they cannot get away from that person. It is illegal if they have no way of getting away from the controller. What if it is just a matter of one person does not wanting a loved one to use their gifts in a way that would bring attention to them? The controller might convince them that the success is out of their reach, and they would not be successful anyway. The person who is convinced might be afraid of that success and attention and agrees to just go on with the controller in their life. These people might have a false sense of security or a kind of ‘false’ happiness that both people may have in my opinion. We have all seen these situations with other people around us in everyday situations.
How would you talk about value theory regarding drugs and alcohol? We all know about these situations in our society and nothing that I am mentioning is new at all. I just wanted to relate societal situations to value theory. Whether drugs are legal or otherwise people find value in them for many reasons. Many people do not find value in how they feel when they are taking certain drugs, so they do not put value in drugs. Some people value not taking drugs and they find value in seeing if their bodies can heal without them after a certain time of being in pain. Why do people drink or take drugs excessively? What value does that hold for them? Maybe they could get out of working or homework?? Maybe certain people become happier on some drugs, so maybe they value happiness? I really don’t know actually, but I do value talking to people who are drunk or high. They are completely stupid and that makes me laugh at them. That holds value for me. It doesn’t make me feel better about myself, I just like watching people fall and say stupid things. When they are not drunk though, it’s not as fun. It’s not as valuable because they are usually mean people to begin with who nobody likes.
There have been many movies about cults. Overall, in my opinion, cults find value in finding members because it gives them value within the cult. Cult leaders find value in their people finding members because that means that he/she has value as well. People may be fully convinced by other cult members that all of society should find value in what the cult values even if it is against the law. I always think about cult members being enslaved and having to clean other cult members’ houses, yard work, cleaning guns, shining boots, or pretending to be other people so they could be liked by everyone. Childcare is free if you are in a cult and so is everything else. Free stuff holds value well and doesn’t degrade when it’s driven off the lot like a car. There is value in getting to wear head coverings or “scarves” because you never have to fix your hair. Some people are more attractive with scarves on their head so that holds value for everyone. No one wants to be in a cult with ugly people. That is why big brother always had to carry that big stick and walk tall.
What about gangs? Do you think that gangs are needed or have value? Some people of course would say no but many would say that they do have value. I wonder if gangs allow some people to have family members. These family members can take in people whose parents are not available for whatever reason and in this situation, gangs have value for these people. What if they have no choice and are forced into one because no one will help them. They could be homeless at a young age and if they do not join a gang, they will receive no protection from anyone. How can they receive help if they are homeless? What if they do not know where a shelter is? What if they cannot get there? What if they have no money for a bus? On the way they could get kidnapped and forced to be at someone’s home whom they do not know and what will happen then? That is a very frightening situation so another person might suggest being in a gang and it will have value for them. What about the actual gang members. Do they see value in receiving another person? This person will get older and might be forced to stay in the gang because they were allowed to join at a young age. What if the parents are around and they find value in their young adult joining a gang because of protection or any other benefits that they might receive. Society as a whole does not value gangs because of many things but those people are not in the situation that the person is in who decides that it’s better to have some other people who will help them. What if they don’t want their parents to know where they are? Maybe they do not get along with their parents.
People find value and happiness in these situations and others that I have not mentioned. What are some situations that you find valuable that I did not mention that may not be easily talked about? By Margaret Leora Workman; Warponie Art