Valuation more important then value?


While Dr Hartman declared I > E > S, in the HVP test the "standard" order of phrases is actually I+I, E+I, S+I, I+E, I+S, etc. Which actually means that love for formal axiology (S+I) is of more value then a waiter in the restaurant (I+E). Or more generic intrinsic valuation of a system is more important then person valued in utilitarian or systemic way.

In another words the overall value comes not from what the objects really are but how do we value them, what we think or believe they are.

So what is the goal of HVP? Order the phrases based on what is best to worst, instructions say. Best for what? Worst for whom? Let's take some extreme:

Nonsense ←→ A madman

If I had to choose if to cope with a nonsense or a madman, then I'll choose the nonsense. But if the question is whether to make nonsense or a madman "survive", it will be the madman. Isn't even a bad person more worth then a thought?

So is HVP more likely about our valuation and less about values? More about the way we perceive things, then about how they really are? Is really our believe stronger then reality?



comments powered by Disqus