3 ms·
It's a redefinition of the word values to mean something more like Heidegger's dasein, I think. It's not the same as fact or value, so thank goodness it has its
by drewcoo 4y ago
It's a redefinition of the word values to mean something more like Heidegger's dasein, I think. It's not the same as fact or value, so thank goodness it has its own name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein
We usually mean values to be scope-dependent (individual, group, nation, etc.) beliefs. But those are always defined within boundaries, so not true outside the boundary. A fact can't be true and untrue at the same time, so values aren't facts.
- nonrandomstring 4y agoYes, about half-way though I saw where this was going. A bottom-up positivist attempt to redefine "values" has (as you say Heidegger) precedent, but is usually steps along the way to defining what philosophers mean by value (so distinguishing universaliable/simpliciter kinds of "good/bad") Those kinds of "facts" have utility. It's useful to know such "states of mind facts" as "That dog will bite you if it doesn't like you". But that's not real values. IIRC this is the difference between cognitive and non-cognitive value theories, but I forget now why that difference matters.