Appreciate how you’ve grounded this conversation in both philosophy and psychology. I share your view that, objective or not, values are unavoidable, and the real work is in becoming conscious of them and deciding which ones deserve to guide us.
I’ve come to see values as tools we choose and refine over time, shaped by both our nature and environment, but ultimately curated by our agency. The clarity that comes from aligning actions, habits, and choices with consciously chosen values has been transformative for me, especially in periods of transition.
I’ve explored some of these intersections between belief, agency, and lived practice in my writing, for anyone curious. But mostly, I want to say: you’ve put into words why this work matters so much.
Thank you for this. I like what you said here about how we shape our values with agency. That is a deep topic I plan to explore further and your writings will definitely help!
Great read as always, Paul. However, it left me wondering: how would you factor in the attention-hijacking capacity of our current technology (e.g. social media, games, advertising…)?
Even if we assume that, ultimately, it’s down to us to let negative values in or not, it doesn’t seem fair to blame the individual for not being able to resist the barrage of psychological tricks, dark patterns, etc. that are constantly thrown at us?
For instance, I’ve heard countless friends and acquaintances use a variation of this phrase: “I went into <any social media platform> and before I realized it two hours had passed.” It seems like they didn’t value that time that they spent there (even if they value the platforms themselves), and yet they recurrently do it. How can you value something that makes you do something you don’t find valuable? Or maybe they secretly and/or subconsciously do?
I know that’s a rabbit hole, but my question essentially is if it’s a matter of having let negative values enter our lives, or having our good values conditioned or taken hostage in our current society, at least sometimes.
And then… is it possible to hold on to your values even if you momentarily drop them? If I am aware of how I spend my money and my time, and try to change that to better align with my values but sometimes still fall into old patterns, are those conflicting values? And, more importantly, can they coexist?
If I value knowledge (which is why I read you and tens of other people that post things I find valuable), but at the end of the day feel depleted and just want to watch an episode of a TV series, I guess we could say that I also value something else (entertainment, rest?), but it still seems to go against my knowledge value, because I could be putting that time towards more edifying activities.
This is an interesting point and I am generally in agreement that we are all being manipulated by incredibly advanced techniques.
But it may be helpful to distinguish between the micro and macro here.
On a micro level, while using social media your mind is open to being manipulated.
But on a macro level, you are able to choose your relationship to these things while you are not actively using them.
Regarding some of your later points: some of our values become more salient or relevant during certain periods of our lives. So values can be quite flexible. But you might also be someone for whom there are some fundamental values that you must uphold across contexts.
I wouldn't say seeking entertainment is necessarily in conflict with the pursuit of wisdom. They are different values, but unless you have some other belief that what it means to hold a value is to always try and maximize it, then there is no deep conflict. The optimal way for you to pursue knowledge might require a certain amount of mindless relaxation and entertainment to let you recharge. That might be what is optimal, even if it requires not always pursuing knowledge.
Thanks, Paul. Differentiating between macro and micro makes a lot of sense. And I think it has a lot to do with your original point.
If you come to the conclusion that something is manipulating you into spending your time (and/or money) not according to your values, then I guess you already went into the macro level and understand what you need to do... if you truly value it.
As to the other point, I was also leaning to that conclusion. It seems to be about finding a balance between several values, rather than trying to put them in a zero-sum game and then maximizing the winner. It's also a saner way to live, I think.
Yes David, I think many people mistakenly view values in a zero sum way. I almost put that in my article. We have limited time and energy, but that doesn’t me that by choosing it on a set of 5 values we thereby don’t value everything else.
Mate, so appreciative of the consistency with which you are posting useful and consumable content. So firstly, thank you.
This is such a HUGE topic, that we can approach from soooooo many different angles.
The first comment I have is a somewhat simple one (hahaha!): Did you choose to omit the relation between our theory of reality (ontology), our theory of knowledge (epistemology), our theory of value (axiology) and our theory of conduct (ethics) deliberately (i.e. for the sake of simplicity for now)? I'd love to explore this a little. In my work, I often find that people don't realise how 'bounded' all of these concepts are. So I often have to spend a little (or a lot!) time doing something like a relational mapping. Happy to expand, but I realise I've opened a form of pandora's box on this one...
The second comment is coming from a rather different angle: If we look at the process of niche construction, where an organism seeks to alter its environment to suit its needs (also desires, aspirations etc. etc.), something humans basically do on steroids (i.e. civilisation building), and we also accept that in any agent-arena relations, the 'environment' is also 'shaping' the organism, then the process of explicating values becomes a rather more complex concept (some argue it's not really possible. I am not in this camp). Do you have any thoughts on what you've written above from a more evolutionary perspective?
I'm also wondering if you've read First Values, First Principles?
First off this is an awesome comment and you have given me a lot to think about. I don’t think I can do justice to your questions here, but I will try.
I think about the relation of value, ontology, epistemolgoy, etc. all of the time and this is something I hope my micro-philosophy system can help people navigate. In my course we talked about the relationship between metaphysics and value last week! It’s fascinating.
Second, I haven’t thought about these things from an evolutionary perspective, but now that you raise these points about nihces I feel like I have to look into this more. Very interesting. I will check out both of the links you shared!
Values are interesting because they imply morality. In reality they create.
Take abandonment for example, you might think how can that be a positive value. Then consider a moment when it was unsafe to be in a particular environment. So we hid/ abandoned to survive.
I loved the read, I'm gonna have to go through it again. I wrote about values last week but this is a different beast. Thanks.
Appreciate how you’ve grounded this conversation in both philosophy and psychology. I share your view that, objective or not, values are unavoidable, and the real work is in becoming conscious of them and deciding which ones deserve to guide us.
I’ve come to see values as tools we choose and refine over time, shaped by both our nature and environment, but ultimately curated by our agency. The clarity that comes from aligning actions, habits, and choices with consciously chosen values has been transformative for me, especially in periods of transition.
I’ve explored some of these intersections between belief, agency, and lived practice in my writing, for anyone curious. But mostly, I want to say: you’ve put into words why this work matters so much.
Thank you for this. I like what you said here about how we shape our values with agency. That is a deep topic I plan to explore further and your writings will definitely help!
Great read as always, Paul. However, it left me wondering: how would you factor in the attention-hijacking capacity of our current technology (e.g. social media, games, advertising…)?
Even if we assume that, ultimately, it’s down to us to let negative values in or not, it doesn’t seem fair to blame the individual for not being able to resist the barrage of psychological tricks, dark patterns, etc. that are constantly thrown at us?
For instance, I’ve heard countless friends and acquaintances use a variation of this phrase: “I went into <any social media platform> and before I realized it two hours had passed.” It seems like they didn’t value that time that they spent there (even if they value the platforms themselves), and yet they recurrently do it. How can you value something that makes you do something you don’t find valuable? Or maybe they secretly and/or subconsciously do?
I know that’s a rabbit hole, but my question essentially is if it’s a matter of having let negative values enter our lives, or having our good values conditioned or taken hostage in our current society, at least sometimes.
And then… is it possible to hold on to your values even if you momentarily drop them? If I am aware of how I spend my money and my time, and try to change that to better align with my values but sometimes still fall into old patterns, are those conflicting values? And, more importantly, can they coexist?
If I value knowledge (which is why I read you and tens of other people that post things I find valuable), but at the end of the day feel depleted and just want to watch an episode of a TV series, I guess we could say that I also value something else (entertainment, rest?), but it still seems to go against my knowledge value, because I could be putting that time towards more edifying activities.
Thanks David.
This is an interesting point and I am generally in agreement that we are all being manipulated by incredibly advanced techniques.
But it may be helpful to distinguish between the micro and macro here.
On a micro level, while using social media your mind is open to being manipulated.
But on a macro level, you are able to choose your relationship to these things while you are not actively using them.
Regarding some of your later points: some of our values become more salient or relevant during certain periods of our lives. So values can be quite flexible. But you might also be someone for whom there are some fundamental values that you must uphold across contexts.
I wouldn't say seeking entertainment is necessarily in conflict with the pursuit of wisdom. They are different values, but unless you have some other belief that what it means to hold a value is to always try and maximize it, then there is no deep conflict. The optimal way for you to pursue knowledge might require a certain amount of mindless relaxation and entertainment to let you recharge. That might be what is optimal, even if it requires not always pursuing knowledge.
Thanks, Paul. Differentiating between macro and micro makes a lot of sense. And I think it has a lot to do with your original point.
If you come to the conclusion that something is manipulating you into spending your time (and/or money) not according to your values, then I guess you already went into the macro level and understand what you need to do... if you truly value it.
As to the other point, I was also leaning to that conclusion. It seems to be about finding a balance between several values, rather than trying to put them in a zero-sum game and then maximizing the winner. It's also a saner way to live, I think.
Yes David, I think many people mistakenly view values in a zero sum way. I almost put that in my article. We have limited time and energy, but that doesn’t me that by choosing it on a set of 5 values we thereby don’t value everything else.
Mate, so appreciative of the consistency with which you are posting useful and consumable content. So firstly, thank you.
This is such a HUGE topic, that we can approach from soooooo many different angles.
The first comment I have is a somewhat simple one (hahaha!): Did you choose to omit the relation between our theory of reality (ontology), our theory of knowledge (epistemology), our theory of value (axiology) and our theory of conduct (ethics) deliberately (i.e. for the sake of simplicity for now)? I'd love to explore this a little. In my work, I often find that people don't realise how 'bounded' all of these concepts are. So I often have to spend a little (or a lot!) time doing something like a relational mapping. Happy to expand, but I realise I've opened a form of pandora's box on this one...
This gets at some of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtyrOUmv07E
The second comment is coming from a rather different angle: If we look at the process of niche construction, where an organism seeks to alter its environment to suit its needs (also desires, aspirations etc. etc.), something humans basically do on steroids (i.e. civilisation building), and we also accept that in any agent-arena relations, the 'environment' is also 'shaping' the organism, then the process of explicating values becomes a rather more complex concept (some argue it's not really possible. I am not in this camp). Do you have any thoughts on what you've written above from a more evolutionary perspective?
I'm also wondering if you've read First Values, First Principles?
https://worldphilosophyandreligion.org/first-values-first-principles/
So much more to explore, but I'll spare us some time for now.
Thank you again for doing what you do.
Thanks Nate, I appreciate you!
First off this is an awesome comment and you have given me a lot to think about. I don’t think I can do justice to your questions here, but I will try.
I think about the relation of value, ontology, epistemolgoy, etc. all of the time and this is something I hope my micro-philosophy system can help people navigate. In my course we talked about the relationship between metaphysics and value last week! It’s fascinating.
Second, I haven’t thought about these things from an evolutionary perspective, but now that you raise these points about nihces I feel like I have to look into this more. Very interesting. I will check out both of the links you shared!
Looking forward to exploring some of this together :)
Values are interesting because they imply morality. In reality they create.
Take abandonment for example, you might think how can that be a positive value. Then consider a moment when it was unsafe to be in a particular environment. So we hid/ abandoned to survive.
I loved the read, I'm gonna have to go through it again. I wrote about values last week but this is a different beast. Thanks.
Tommy, you raise an interesting point about how the polarity of values can flip depending on the context. Perhaps values have no intrinsic charge.
That's a great analogy.
I think its safe to say no, they don't. Their charge is context specific.
They are also extremely abstract, whilst being action orientated.