DanielPhilJuly 28, 2019 at 16:596775 views25 comments
Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world? Like a giant anthill swarming with unimportant individuals that will soon fade into nothingness.
Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world? Like a giant anthill swarming with unimportant individuals that will soon fade into nothingness.
Individuals matter to themselves and the people who rely on them and/or love them. Individuals are not indispensable to the system, as someone else could easily take his or her place. However, an individual consciousness has intrinsic value to most. Also, individuals do not matter to the indifferent universe.
Because I am an individual and therefore individuals are undisputably real in a way that concepts such as family, tribe or humanity are not. Morality starts with the self, and therefore the self matters.
Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world? Like a giant anthill swarming with unimportant individuals that will soon fade into nothingness.
That's what's called a [I]non sequitur[/I].
Terrapin StationJuly 28, 2019 at 18:01#3109540 likes
Well, first, it's only to individuals that anything matters. Valuing things so that something matters is something that only individuals do.
Without those individuals the giant anthill will soon fade into nothingness. The anthill will fade into nothingness anyway, so why should it matter? The Earth is an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy. All will fade into nothingness. Why should any of it matter? But the fact is, to most of the people who live on this planet it does matter, and what happens to themselves and to those individuals they care about it matters.
I suspect that in asking the question it matters to you as well, otherwise you would not ask why it should matter. It may be an expression of despair, but there is no despair when nothing matters.
How would you describe a collective value? Sure, ultimately it is composed of individuals valuing things but I wouldn’t say its “only” that, I would describe it as also being of value to a collective of individuals if they all placed the same value on it.
How would you describe that instead?
Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world? Like a giant anthill swarming with unimportant individuals that will soon fade into nothingness.
Saying individual people matter is a statement of human value. We are social animals and we like to hang around with each other. In general, I think there is a consensus among us humans that it is true. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement. There are some who don't agree.
I like people. They matter to me. I like meeting them, talking to them, and learning about them. I want to know what they know. I want to talk about philosophy with a non-English speaking Belgian using my 50 year old high school French. I want to tell jokes to a non-English speaking German using my 45 year old college German. I want to learn about the differences and similarities in culture between people who live in Tuscaloosa and Boston. I want to talk to Congolese about what their country is like and why people from Africa like to call people they don't know "dear" and "sweetheart."
Razorback kittenJuly 28, 2019 at 21:17#3110280 likes
Someone has to pick up your rubbish and stock your food, cook your bread and make all your clothes, long in advance of the day when you have enough time and luxury to sit back and think, "Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world?"
Terrapin StationJuly 28, 2019 at 21:53#3110360 likes
Someone has to pick up your rubbish and stock your food, cook your bread and make all your clothes, long in advance of the day when you have enough time and luxury to sit back and think, "Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world?"
Haha! So true! Existential despair is a luxury that a lot of people can’t afford.
Saying individual people matter is a statement of human value. We are social animals and we like to hang around with each other. In general, I think there is a consensus among us humans that it is true. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement. There are some who don't agree.
What has value is related to, but not the same as, what matters. Saying that an ant is insignificant is not necessarily the same as saying the ant doesn’t matter.
So saying ‘individual people matter’ is not negating the fact that an individual is insignificant or has little value in relation to the cosmos. An individual has certain value in relation to humanity, but has a different perspective of value in relation to their family unit.
It all depends on how one relates.
Terrapin StationJuly 29, 2019 at 10:28#3111280 likes
I don't see how. The value can't be transferred to objects, and there's no such thing as collective thought, collective mental activity. All that's really happening with respect to this manner of speaking is that people are agreeing with each other--as in saying, "Yes, that matters to me a lot, too," or as in, say, setting a price for something that people will pay. But that's not the same thing as mattering or valuing, because there's a semantic component, where people have to think about that behavior in a particular way.
Right, but couldnt they be thinking about the value in the same particular way? It doesnt mean they have to be the same consciousness, only that there is more or less the same level of value being assigned by the group. I would call that something mattering to the group, what would you call it?
I do not see why it is problematic to say that something matters to a group such that we should specify the mattering is “only” done by individuals in that group. What is the utility of doing that?
Terrapin StationJuly 29, 2019 at 13:36#3112090 likes
only that there is more or less the same level of value being assigned by the group.
If everyone in a group feels the same way, sure. (Or if we're discounting the outliers or whatever, and in a manner of speaking saying that the group (overall) feels some way.)
I would call that something mattering to the group, what would you call it?
Sure. As a manner of speaking I'd say that. But what's literally going on is that individuals value things as they do, and in that group, they happen to value them the same amount.
I do not see why it is problematic to say that something matters to a group such that we should specify the mattering is “only” done by individuals in that group. What is the utility of doing that?
To make sure that people understand what's literally going on versus a manner of speaking that might lead to incorrect ontological beliefs. (Which I think is more important when we're talking about things in a philosophy context, and especially important when we're doing that and we apparently have a lot of people with incorrect ontological beliefs.)
The level of value of the group isnt literal? What changes between an individual and a group that makes the latter no longer literal?
It's not literal because the group, as a group, can't value something. That's a category error, in that valuing isn't something that a group does as a group. Saying that a group values something is a way of saying that a majority of, or the "right" (powerful, influential) members of, etc. a group all individually value something. It's a shorthand way of indicating that fact.
Look at it this way: it's not literal in just the same way that it wouldn't be literal to say that "the group ran the marathon" or "the group (let's say a band) drove (as in sat behind the wheel and pushed the gas, etc.) their tour bus to Des Moines." Each person in the group had to run the marathon for themselves--the group can't run as a group, even though they did all run at the same time. And each person had to take turns driving. Etc. (though for a good illustration of the idea of people literally walking as a group, see Clive Barker's short story, "In the Hills, the Cities")
Well, I do not mean anything like the majority or powerful members of the group assigning value levels when I say the group has a certain value level, Im talking about a group who all have more or less the same value level. You are inserting context where none was needed or mentioned. The individuals have a value level, they are part of a group with other individuals with the same value level. The group has that particular value level.
You added while i responded so I will update:
I understand there is some sense that the value level isnt held collectively, as in a collective consciousness, but there is a sense in which the group can be said to have a value level as well. You said it can “only” be the individuals, but that is only in the context you later added. Anyway, I understand now. Thanks.
Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world?
Why shouldn't an individual matter when there are so many people in the world?
Then also, matter to whom?
I think if you add in, which one must, whom people are to matter to, you will have your answer.
Why does your question matter when there are so many questions in the world?
See, it's kidn of a confusion. You question doesn't matter to most people - in part because they simply do think that individuals they care about and perhaps others in general matter. But your question matters to you. Perhaps it matter to others.
Terrapin StationJuly 30, 2019 at 13:39#3114960 likes
Well, I do not mean anything like the majority or powerful members of the group assigning value levels when I say the group has a certain value level, Im talking about a group who all have more or less the same value level. You are inserting context where none was needed or mentioned. The individuals have a value level, they are part of a group with other individuals with the same value level. The group has that particular value level.
It seems like maybe you were thinking about valuing a group rather than a group valuing something? Or am I misreading that?
I didnt mean that no, it was the group valuing something, a common value level (by value level I mean how much a particular thing is valued) present in individuals and in the group comprised of those specific individuals.
I still think there is some sense in which the group has that value level, but I understand what you are saying...that the process/state of holding that value level is different (the group isnt holding that value level as a result of a mental process, but rather as a matter of...not sure the word to use, basically cuz we have grouped the individuals around a certain trait/ value level ) in an individual than in a group and thats fine in general but once things get a bit more specific the distinction is important because certain references will not be accurate.
Thank you all for many answers. I partially found a satisfying answer in the phrase "the fact is, to most of the people who live on this planet it [living] does matter, and what happens to themselves and to those individuals they care about it matters."
I also agree that only a person who has his basic needs met has enough time to think about this possible futility of existence, yet perhaps there are some who are bugged by it even when they have no roof above their heads (fortunately not my case though).
Deleted UserAugust 01, 2019 at 11:36#3121400 likes
I also agree that only a person who has his basic needs met has enough time to think about this possible futility of existence, yet perhaps there are some who are bugged by it even when they have no roof above their heads (fortunately not my case though).
I am sure that many people without a roof over their heads get frustrated by the futility. And sometimes surely wonder if there is any meaning to life or their lives. But this comes out of their frustration given how much their lives and the quality of them matter to them. And most of them would fight tooth and nail to keep that life going. We can all go through phases where it seems not to matter and the emotions that go with that phrase. But to start asserting that life doesn't matter is different from going through those kinds of states. It is attempting to draw a conclusion, as if logically, rather then faced with what can be very harsh, going through a state of despair.
Comments (25)
Individuals matter to themselves and the people who rely on them and/or love them. Individuals are not indispensable to the system, as someone else could easily take his or her place. However, an individual consciousness has intrinsic value to most. Also, individuals do not matter to the indifferent universe.
Because I am an individual and therefore individuals are undisputably real in a way that concepts such as family, tribe or humanity are not. Morality starts with the self, and therefore the self matters.
That's what's called a [I]non sequitur[/I].
I suspect that in asking the question it matters to you as well, otherwise you would not ask why it should matter. It may be an expression of despair, but there is no despair when nothing matters.
Best answer so far.
How would you describe a collective value? Sure, ultimately it is composed of individuals valuing things but I wouldn’t say its “only” that, I would describe it as also being of value to a collective of individuals if they all placed the same value on it.
How would you describe that instead?
Saying individual people matter is a statement of human value. We are social animals and we like to hang around with each other. In general, I think there is a consensus among us humans that it is true. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement. There are some who don't agree.
I like people. They matter to me. I like meeting them, talking to them, and learning about them. I want to know what they know. I want to talk about philosophy with a non-English speaking Belgian using my 50 year old high school French. I want to tell jokes to a non-English speaking German using my 45 year old college German. I want to learn about the differences and similarities in culture between people who live in Tuscaloosa and Boston. I want to talk to Congolese about what their country is like and why people from Africa like to call people they don't know "dear" and "sweetheart."
As a manner of speaking that's not something that literally obtains? :joke:
Don’t they “literally” have a value that “obtains” more or less the same as the “literal” value that obtains in an individual?
Haha! So true! Existential despair is a luxury that a lot of people can’t afford.
What has value is related to, but not the same as, what matters. Saying that an ant is insignificant is not necessarily the same as saying the ant doesn’t matter.
So saying ‘individual people matter’ is not negating the fact that an individual is insignificant or has little value in relation to the cosmos. An individual has certain value in relation to humanity, but has a different perspective of value in relation to their family unit.
It all depends on how one relates.
I don't see how. The value can't be transferred to objects, and there's no such thing as collective thought, collective mental activity. All that's really happening with respect to this manner of speaking is that people are agreeing with each other--as in saying, "Yes, that matters to me a lot, too," or as in, say, setting a price for something that people will pay. But that's not the same thing as mattering or valuing, because there's a semantic component, where people have to think about that behavior in a particular way.
It really doesn't matter what comes after this, does it? and even if it does, why should it?
Sometimes the right answer is " Hush! Go and clean your teeth, it's bedtime."
Right, but couldnt they be thinking about the value in the same particular way? It doesnt mean they have to be the same consciousness, only that there is more or less the same level of value being assigned by the group. I would call that something mattering to the group, what would you call it?
I do not see why it is problematic to say that something matters to a group such that we should specify the mattering is “only” done by individuals in that group. What is the utility of doing that?
The "same way" in the nominalistic sense, sure.
Quoting DingoJones
If everyone in a group feels the same way, sure. (Or if we're discounting the outliers or whatever, and in a manner of speaking saying that the group (overall) feels some way.)
Quoting DingoJones
Sure. As a manner of speaking I'd say that. But what's literally going on is that individuals value things as they do, and in that group, they happen to value them the same amount.
Quoting DingoJones
To make sure that people understand what's literally going on versus a manner of speaking that might lead to incorrect ontological beliefs. (Which I think is more important when we're talking about things in a philosophy context, and especially important when we're doing that and we apparently have a lot of people with incorrect ontological beliefs.)
The level of value of the group isnt literal? What changes between an individual and a group that makes the latter no longer literal?
It's not literal because the group, as a group, can't value something. That's a category error, in that valuing isn't something that a group does as a group. Saying that a group values something is a way of saying that a majority of, or the "right" (powerful, influential) members of, etc. a group all individually value something. It's a shorthand way of indicating that fact.
Look at it this way: it's not literal in just the same way that it wouldn't be literal to say that "the group ran the marathon" or "the group (let's say a band) drove (as in sat behind the wheel and pushed the gas, etc.) their tour bus to Des Moines." Each person in the group had to run the marathon for themselves--the group can't run as a group, even though they did all run at the same time. And each person had to take turns driving. Etc. (though for a good illustration of the idea of people literally walking as a group, see Clive Barker's short story, "In the Hills, the Cities")
Well, I do not mean anything like the majority or powerful members of the group assigning value levels when I say the group has a certain value level, Im talking about a group who all have more or less the same value level. You are inserting context where none was needed or mentioned. The individuals have a value level, they are part of a group with other individuals with the same value level. The group has that particular value level.
You added while i responded so I will update:
I understand there is some sense that the value level isnt held collectively, as in a collective consciousness, but there is a sense in which the group can be said to have a value level as well. You said it can “only” be the individuals, but that is only in the context you later added. Anyway, I understand now. Thanks.
Why shouldn't an individual matter when there are so many people in the world?
Then also, matter to whom?
I think if you add in, which one must, whom people are to matter to, you will have your answer.
Why does your question matter when there are so many questions in the world?
See, it's kidn of a confusion. You question doesn't matter to most people - in part because they simply do think that individuals they care about and perhaps others in general matter. But your question matters to you. Perhaps it matter to others.
It seems like maybe you were thinking about valuing a group rather than a group valuing something? Or am I misreading that?
I didnt mean that no, it was the group valuing something, a common value level (by value level I mean how much a particular thing is valued) present in individuals and in the group comprised of those specific individuals.
I still think there is some sense in which the group has that value level, but I understand what you are saying...that the process/state of holding that value level is different (the group isnt holding that value level as a result of a mental process, but rather as a matter of...not sure the word to use, basically cuz we have grouped the individuals around a certain trait/ value level ) in an individual than in a group and thats fine in general but once things get a bit more specific the distinction is important because certain references will not be accurate.
I also agree that only a person who has his basic needs met has enough time to think about this possible futility of existence, yet perhaps there are some who are bugged by it even when they have no roof above their heads (fortunately not my case though).
I am sure that many people without a roof over their heads get frustrated by the futility. And sometimes surely wonder if there is any meaning to life or their lives. But this comes out of their frustration given how much their lives and the quality of them matter to them. And most of them would fight tooth and nail to keep that life going. We can all go through phases where it seems not to matter and the emotions that go with that phrase. But to start asserting that life doesn't matter is different from going through those kinds of states. It is attempting to draw a conclusion, as if logically, rather then faced with what can be very harsh, going through a state of despair.