User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 36

  1. #11
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    Well, values are ultimately for people, so in a sense they could never be more important than people. People with shared values are usually the basis of a culture. It might be said that values are more important the the individual. The specific individual may not agree, though, but who cares what he thinks if s/he's up against a whole culture. Of course if a value system values the individual, maybe that one person can find a place for himself.
    Perhaps, I think that implicit in the question is what you would consider sacrificing, so it is a matter of would you sacrifice things or people to preserve your values, or would you sacrifice people and values to things or would you sacrifice things and values to people? And why?

    In addition there is the question of what you would say and what you have done or would do in reality. I think most people would make the stock answer that their values or people count more than things, that perhaps people count more than either but I'm sure it could be evidenced that they consciously or unconsciously dont always act in congruence with that statement.

    Perhaps the way society is structured its not actually possible to act in congruence or even an approximation of it.

  2. #12
    Senior Member jimrckhnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont think the question's as flawed as you make out, where it so you couldnt have come up with that response.

    It's not. One can argue the general case.
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

  3. #13
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    To clarify my position...

    I feel that personal values/ethics are highly important. But I also think that the flexibility to violate those values for the greater good is important.

    To give an example from Harry Potter (because I know how much @Lark loves Harry Potter....)

    In general, Harry and his friends do not support the use of the "unforgivable" curses (Imperius, Cruciatus, and Avada Kedavra). So much so that when Harry tries to use Cruciatus (torture curse) on Bellatrix Lestrange, who murdered someone dear to Harry, he can't even make it work. The evil Bellatrix admonishes him: "You have to mean it!"

    But there comes a moment in Harry's crusade against Voldemort when someone needs to use the Imperius (put-somone-under-your-control) curse or else a vital goal will not be achieved. Harry steps up and does what's necessary even when it goes against his personal values. I really admired him in that scene.


    Obviously there are real-life examples too. Why I can only think of Harry Potter at the moment is beyond me.
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  4. #14
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Perhaps, I think that implicit in the question is what you would consider sacrificing, so it is a matter of would you sacrifice things or people to preserve your values, or would you sacrifice people and values to things or would you sacrifice things and values to people? And why?
    Again, how are you defining 'values'? Surely our values would have to extend to those things and those groups of people for us to prioritise between them?

    (We have both strongly held values and weakly held values..)

  5. #15
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Perhaps, I think that implicit in the question is what you would consider sacrificing, so it is a matter of would you sacrifice things or people to preserve your values, or would you sacrifice people and values to things or would you sacrifice things and values to people? And why?
    Hmm, depends entirely on the things or the people or the values involved. Probably the weakest of import on that list are things. The most self serving of my things are my hobbiest stuff.. tools, equipment, etc. I've already sacrificed some of my favorite things (bandsaw, router table, and many more) to help get my family (people + values) resettled and to streamline and simplify my life (values). That is only after I spend way to long sacrificing everything else I had for my values and suffering for it.

    I think really, people should be balanced according to the situations. And ultimately people are most important. Yourself and your health first so that you can take care of the needs of those close to you. Any values or attachment to things that compromise that aren't worth having, or in a straightforward of saying it, are 'bad'.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catbert View Post
    Again, how are you defining 'values'? Surely our values would have to extend to those things and those groups of people for us to prioritise between them?

    (We have both strongly held values and weakly held values..)
    Well obviously I cant make a precise statement because I dont automatically assume my values are shared by everyone and if I were to do that it would be easy for others to be dismissive about them, my values, rather than engaging in any discussion. Do you know what I mean? Rather than discussing a specific value set, which would invite derails big time, I was wishing to talk about values per se, Aquarelle's use of a literary analogy is pretty good because it doesnt threaten to fall foul of the same tangent problem.

    Unless serious Potter fans hijack the thread.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    Hmm, depends entirely on the things or the people or the values involved. Probably the weakest of import on that list are things. The most self serving of my things are my hobbiest stuff.. tools, equipment, etc. I've already sacrificed some of my favorite things (bandsaw, router table, and many more) to help get my family (people + values) resettled and to streamline and simplify my life (values). That is only after I spend way to long sacrificing everything else I had for my values and suffering for it.

    I think really, people should be balanced according to the situations. And ultimately people are most important. Yourself and your health first so that you can take care of the needs of those close to you. Any values or attachment to things that compromise that aren't worth having, or in a straightforward of saying it, are 'bad'.
    That's interesting, what you say about it depending on what things, I remember reading a US conservative, I think it was Nisbet, in a book on Conservatism recounting how important property and property rights were as both things and values to conservatives in the past and how that had slowly changed. It's similar to the boiling a frog analogy that libertarians use about tax increases over the historical time scale. Anyway Nisbet cited critical responses to a the shooting down of striking miners by mine bosses, I'm not sure if it was Rockerfeller or who, but the criticism in the press and elsewhere had not actually been that he had shot them down (that criticism made its way out in other ways, like the song about Joe Hill), it had been that he'd not had the courage of his convictions or realised that the property and mining was more vital to the national interest and shot them down earlier.

    Nisbet used it to describe how property could in some instances by conservatives be considered more important than peoples lives, he also made some points about what is enduring and lasting as opposed to temporary and fleeting, which I think is slightly different and more to do with what he thought was at the heart of conservatism per se, Russell Kirk I think makes similar points about conservatism versus libertarianism too.

  8. #18
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That's interesting, what you say about it depending on what things, I remember reading a US conservative, I think it was Nisbet, in a book on Conservatism recounting how important property and property rights were as both things and values to conservatives in the past and how that had slowly changed. It's similar to the boiling a frog analogy that libertarians use about tax increases over the historical time scale. Anyway Nisbet cited critical responses to a the shooting down of striking miners by mine bosses, I'm not sure if it was Rockerfeller or who, but the criticism in the press and elsewhere had not actually been that he had shot them down (that criticism made its way out in other ways, like the song about Joe Hill), it had been that he'd not had the courage of his convictions or realised that the property and mining was more vital to the national interest and shot them down earlier.

    Nisbet used it to describe how property could in some instances by conservatives be considered more important than peoples lives, he also made some points about what is enduring and lasting as opposed to temporary and fleeting, which I think is slightly different and more to do with what he thought was at the heart of conservatism per se, Russell Kirk I think makes similar points about conservatism versus libertarianism too.
    To be honest, the politics of your inquiry are only tangental to any interest I have in the question. I distrust such things, even though they are supposed to be very important, because this is where very abstract values are given import over things and people on an amplified scale. Then you have an elephant and anthill situation. It's something I'm still coming to terms with.

    There probably isn't any real difference between things and values. At least not any things that you feel are important, which are the only things that we're talking about here.

  9. #19
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    I would probably say yes... I'd rather not have people around at all if they did not have the right basic values.
    And values far outweigh any single object in existence. I'd possibly sell my soul and give up all my values for a functioning lightsaber, but apart from that.

    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

  10. #20
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Ideas are bulletproof. People are not. Atm, I would say values hold a higher priority.

    However, I would love it if someone would define "values" here.

Similar Threads

  1. Why not? More important than Why? When making choices?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-04-2016, 03:37 PM
  2. Is Happiness More Important Than Truth?
    By Forever_Jung in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 02-24-2014, 06:37 PM
  3. Intuitors are more grounded than sensors.
    By Vilku in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 10:50 AM
  4. Introverted functions are more ________ than their extroverted counterparts
    By Zarathustra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 05:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO