Seems to me this is multidimensional. First let's start with the presupposition. These are the key terms I picked up on:
Knowledge- facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Truth- that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
Value- the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

I view knowledge as something that is transformative. You need to have lacked something to obtain it. Truth is very subjective imo. A truth can be stacked in a deck with other truths, as to which one is the truest I rarely can say. And value is simply a comparison in my mind. How I read your original question:
If [gaining a new understanding] determines [what is most beneficial given the reality of the situation], how can I [judge which option is the best choice]?

I'd answer that with a question: what goal are you trying to achieve? What outcome?

And value is simply a comparison in my mind. — ISeeIDoIAm

A comparison of what to what?

what goal are you trying to achieve? — ISeeIDoIAm

What outcome? — ISeeIDoIAm

To the first question. I do not know.

To the second, completeness or unity in understanding I suppose.

"A comparison of what to what?"
Exactly :) Pick two things that are different in some regard and set them on the same goal. Whichever achieves it to the participants satisfaction is that which has "greater value".

Figure out why you're doing what you're doing. That's the first step. Humans are visual animals, we need a target to aim at.

To the second: that's so vague I've no clue what you're alluding to.

If knowledge determines truth, how is value determined?

It seems to me that when we value something that one might automatically assume it is a good. In one of my other two threads I talked about the dangers of superfluous valuation of happiness. In yet another thread, I talked about how can one go about discounting what one already values to make room for coinciding wants that are separate from needs.

I take it upon myself to try and answer my own question. So, my take is that in general rational egotism might seem like the automatic choice here; but, hedonism does not precede the determination of worth.

Would anyone care to expand on this thesis, whether you agree with it or not? — Shawn

I've been waiting to, in fact am dying to, know what non-hedonistic values would look like? What could be so valuable that happiness doesn't matter? Whatever it is, the fact that happiness is the challenge it must overcome is an eye-opener no?

I've been waiting to, in fact am dying to, know what non-hedonistic values would look like? — TheMadFool

@unenlightened, please help us out here...

What could be so valuable that happiness doesn't matter? Whatever it is, the fact that happiness is the challenge it must overcome is eye-opening no? — TheMadFool

Say more...

Say more... — Shawn

I wish I could...I really wish I could

"What could be so valuable that happiness doesn't matter?"

Abstaining from eating all of my food today so as to not starve later. Aka: rationing.

That is not to say people don't hold self destructive behaviors, but we don't talk about them anymore, they didn't make it. (waka waka)

"What could be so valuable that happiness doesn't matter?"

Abstaining from eating all of my food today so as to not starve later. Aka: rationing.

That is not to say people don't hold self destructive behaviors, but we don't talk about them anymore, they didn't make it. (waka waka) — ISeeIDoIAm

So, there's a reason (not to starve later). Is this reason based on happiness or not?

You act as if happiness is something that's static. I abstain from happiness now for happiness later. No matter what I had to "suffer" in some way at some point.

I feel like you're splitting hairs. Or is that a non sequitur?

If knowledge determines truth, how is value determined? — Shawn

From an old thread discussion, I speculate ...

To live is to evaluate.

In Spinoza's terms, every life seeks to persist in its existence - continue, survive, grow-develop (à la 'will to power'); thus, every life values - is valuable to - herself; and insofar as a life recognizes other lives as valuable to themselves, a life enters into reciprocal valuing with and among them, to value and be valued by other lives. Thus, value, or meaning, does not come "out of nothing"; it comes from community - natality, eusociality, fatality - and reinforced, or enriched, by communicative practices (e.g. cooperative labors, crafts-arts, rituals, trade, discursive dialectics (e.g. scientific / historical / philosophical inquiries)). — 180 Proof

:death: :flower:

You act as if happiness is something that's static. — ISeeIDoIAm

People tend to act or expect as if it is...

To live is to evaluate. — 180 Proof

Yes. But, in regards to what exactly?

Apparently, you didn't read the rest of my post or the link (click on "180 Proof" @end of quotation) provided ...

Has the thought occurred that you ask too much from other's?

To live is to evaluate.

In Spinoza's terms, every life seeks to persist in its existence - continue, survive, grow-develop (à la 'will to power'); thus, every life values - is valuable to - herself; and insofar a life recognizes other lives as valuable to themselves, a life enters into reciprocal valuing with and among them, to value and be valued by other lives. Thus, value, or meaning, does not come "out of nothing"; it comes from community - natality, sociality, fatality - and reinforced, or enriched, by communicative practices (e.g. cooperative labors, crafts-arts, rituals, trade, discursive dialectics (e.g. scientific / historical / philosophical inquiries)). — 180 Proof

I like this. Seems intuitively right.

Could you elaborate? What aspects in particular?

"People tend to act or expect as if it is..."

Perceptions can be false as they often are.

It appeals to my panpsychism. I didn't want to mention that as 180 and I disagree sharply on that, and I was enjoying being able to agree with him on something.

But panpsychism aside, it seems to accurately characterise a healthy attitude to one's own existence: to seek to continue it and develop it, to increase the things one is able to do with oneself, increase one's functional efficacy; and also a healthy attitude to others existence: increasing the possibilities of inter-function with others, to aid one another in seeking to persist and grow and develop. Of course, there may be occasions where it is not possible for two creatures to both grow in the way they want to without one interfering with the other. But such abortive relations can perhaps be re-made with adjusted values, so that their purposes and values do not clash. One value we are encouraged to have by Jesus and The Beatles is love. And if we define 'love' as something like the will to develop the possibilities of existence, then that should hopefully result in mutually beneficial relations, whatever forms that takes :).

it seems to accurately characterise a healthy attitude to one's own existence: to seek to continue it and develop it, to increase the things one is able to do with oneself, increase one's functional efficacy; — bert1

To me this doesnt necessarily sound positive. It sounds like we are being used by society. The greatest value is rest, peace, sleep. The work and energy of this functional efficacy seems like positive spin on simply being used. More work to stay alive, to maintain, to entertain. Growth, collaboration (which amounts to essentially energy expended from more work) doesnt matter if you are temporarily or permanently asleep. Why the awake part with all its poetic odes of affirmation for its sound and fury?

Has the thought occurred that you ask too much from other's? — ISeeIDoIAm

From "other's" what?

If knowledge determines truth ...? — Shawn

It doesn't. It is well known that there are known unknowns the truth of which is already fixed, but as yet undiscovered. Being (existence) determines truth.

... how is value determined? — Shawn

Relations determine value.

I didn't want to mention that as 180 and I disagree sharply on that, and I was enjoying being able to agree with him on something. — bert1

Eureka! I was enjoying the same feeling yesterday: uncanny agreement with 180 Proof! Sensing a trend?

"It is well known that there are known unknowns the truth of which is already fixed, but as yet undiscovered. Being (existence) determines truth."
I like your summary. But if I were to speak in what I see to be universal truths I'd tweak your statement as: "[Percieved] being determines truth."

I know, you already basically said that (as far as I could tell) but I wanted to reiterate.

"Relations determine value."
Care to elaborate? I read that as: things can't have value without a comparison.

"Relations determine value."
Care to elaborate? I read that as: things can't have value without a comparison. — ISeeIDoIAm

No, not that. More that values are relational. Slugs value lettuce, gardeners negatively value slugs and positively value slug killers, crows value carrion, philosophers value reason, cats value cardboard boxes, crack-heads value crack.

Thus though people say 'chocolate has value', and behave in ways that confirm it, it is understood, but sometimes forgotten, that the value is not a property of chocolate in its own right, but of people's relation to chocolate, that they value it.

and insofar a life recognizes — 180 Proof

And this innocent qualification seems at the same time both the strength and Achilles's weakness of the argument. What you've written, it seem to me, must be read very carefully. And finally calling for a decision to be made as to what it means and how. 180 proof seems about right - why is that not a surprise?!

We are judging all the time, by being both judge and jury, executioner maybe as well, hell, we could say that human is the being that makes value judgements, so that to discriminate ourselves from other species that do not do that, at least not so much, not so sophisticated and complicated judging.

As Detective Rust put it:

Look, as sentient meat, however illusory our identities are, we craft those identities by making value judgments: everybody judges, all the time. Now, you got a problem with that... You're livin' wrong. — Rust

So, according to the above, our identites are shaped by our value judgments. But it is not at all clear how each of us judges. Modern psychology speaks of the subconscious, that there is something there, unbeknown to us, that drives us, which implies that we are judging and acting without knowing the real reason why. And so, an introspection is needed, psychological, if nothing else, to find out how this shaping took place. Huh, like true detectives that we are, as truth seekers, I don't think we have a choice.

@Shawn nothing substantial to say, but I like your pic.

thus, every life values - is valuable to - herself; and insofar as a life recognizes other lives as valuable to themselves, a life enters into reciprocal valuing with and among them, to value and be valued by other lives. — 180 Proof

:up:

Lately I keep coming back to the idea of an audience: the people it's for. Art is like that, even if you do it for yourself, there's an audience of both yourself and a phantom other. Like Emily Dickenson: no one saw her poems until after her death, but they're written to someone.

Imagine life in general is like that, a poem to someone. Is your audience (those who look on and applaud or boo) inexplicable from your identity?

And if so, what's going on with a hermit? What is cabin fever?

What I'm adding to your thought is that when you approach someone else, like me, in a way, though I might seem like a stranger, there's an aspect if me you've always known.

If your internal audience tends to love you, do you expect others to? If your internal audience hates you, do you approach the world with shield and sword in hand?

Nothing new, just coming back around to it.

If knowledge determines truth, how is value determined?

It seems to me that when we value something that one might automatically assume it is a good. In one of my other two threads I talked about the dangers of superfluous valuation of happiness. In yet another thread, I talked about how can one go about discounting what one already values to make room for coinciding wants that are separate from needs.

I take it upon myself to try and answer my own question. So, my take is that in general rational egotism might seem like the automatic choice here; but, hedonism does not precede the determination of worth.

Would anyone care to expand on this thesis, whether you agree with it or not? — Shawn

I would argue rational egotism is fully supported or subconsciessly (spelling) by everyone whether they are willing to recognize it or not.

I rationalize the extent to my narcissism because i like to avoid conversations about my narcissism with other people, thus i never have to fully analyze the extent to my narcissism. No joke.

Narcissism is a spectrum, which is why i hide it from people, so i can feel better about myself and thus be happy and/or happier.

On the main part of the forum topic, who ever in society or over the course of time is the most powerful, to some extent or to the complete extent defines value. Time periods dictate who is the most powerful and what each person's weight in a conversation is. Its like the Democrat's concept of super delegate in the primary election, some just have more say in the primary.