I use [[ ]] to indicate translatorfs notes, and [ ] indicates supplements by the translator. ( ) [II, ] indicates words used in the volume two of the System of Value-Creating Pedagogy. { } indicates additions in the Philosophy of Value by Toda.
[II, From old times many scholars have attempted to clarify the concept of value and to attain its exact expression, and this problem has become a focal point of dispute, and even more, the most important problem in the modern philosophy. Therefore, my attempt to distinguish the concept of truth from that of value and to clarify the essence of the two concepts is significantly related to the solution of philosophical dispute and will exert a great influence to determine the content of the purpose of education and to organize pedagogy.]
In making clear the concept of value, first we must try to distinguish the concepts which should be subsumed under the concept of value from those not. Therefore, I begin with clarifying the concepts of truth and value and the relationship between the two.
What is the essence of so-called truth? What is the essence of so-called value? When a person wants to discover a truth, he tries to grasp something common or universal, distinguishing it from among the various objects of the universe. On the other hand, when he wants to discover value, he tries to clarify what relationship the individuality and particularity immanent in the object has with society and our lives. When a reality is expressed as it is (exactly), we call the expression a truth, and when the relationship between an object and us is expressed, we call the relationship value.
Because value is an emotional relationship between an object and human life, it means quantitative acceptability which is produced between an object and an evaluating subject. On the contrary, because truth is (the mutual relationship between objects) [II, the concept of objects and the concept of their mutual relationship], it means qualitative equality of the objects.
{For example, when we say, gHere is a horseh, if the reality is socially recognized not as a cow or a sheep but as a horse, i.e. , the statement expresses the reality as it is, the expression [[=the statement]]is called a truth. Again, take the equation (a{b)(a{b)aa{2ab{bbDSince the equation has been acknowledged as being true irrespective of time, place, or person, it is called true, otherwise it would be called false.
On the contrary, when we say, gThis horse is beautifulh, or git is usefulh, the relationship between the object and human life is called value.}
We pay no attention to an existence which has no relationship with us. It is very often the case that we are not even conscious of it in the least. But on the other hand, we become conscious of an existence which influences our lives and feel a relationship with it. To an existence which threatens manfs lives, we are more sharply alert.
The difference between wild beasts and domestic animals lies in the relationship of the animal to human life. Man at first left beasts unobserved, seeing them having no relationship with human life. But when he somehow or other found that they could be tamed, he began utilizing them, first unconsciously and then consciously. Gradually the usefulness of the beasts was actually proven, and they became closely related to human life as domestic animals. Thus man came to recognize the relationship, the value of the animals as domestic animals.
The concept of truth is the concept of reality which is expressed as it is. No matter what relationship truth has with human life, truth is truth. [II, However, value cannot exist without the basis of concept of relationship with life.]
@@A reality which is reflected by the so-called five senses is at first accepted as a mere sensory representation but then can be recognized as an idea which is constituted from such an original representation. However, a power of a reality not only stimulates our senses but also touches our lives as a more intense power of resistance, giving us feeling of pleasure or displeasure. Such a state of relationship between (subject) [II, subject] and object is called value.
@@[II, When we recognize truth, we discover representative types which express common qualities which are subsumed under a certain concept and grasp the essence common to all and constitute a concept through the essence.]
@@Truth is the concept of qualitative equality drawn from a reality or from a mutual relationship between realities. On the other hand, value is the measured result of relation-power between object and (subject) [II, subject]---measured by the quantity of reaction which the subject produces when the subject is influenced by the reality or the mutual relationship of realities. Therefore, epistemological truth is qualitatively equal and deals only with truth or falsehood, and excludes the third. On the contrary, value, which is the relationship between (subject) [II, subject] and object, deals with acceptability or unacceptability, and has no qualitative equality. Therefore, truth is invariable irrespective of person, time, or environment, while value is naturally variable according to person, {time, or environment,} because it is the relationship between a person and an object.
Truth cannot be created. We only discover it as it is in the nature. On the other hand, value can be created and discovered. All natural resources which we use as material for our daily lives were at first utilized only in their original forms. [II, That is, value remains to be discovered.] After the passage of many centuries, however, these resources increased their utility to humanity through manfs efforts and further improvement, now coming to their present forms. This means creation and increase of value.
Creation means to discover and evaluate the relationship between an existence in nature and human life, and furthermore to develop closer relationship through human efforts. In other words, creation means to change the original order of nature to an artificial and special one, adding more utility for human life. This is the reason for calling the action creation. Strictly speaking, ecreationf is applicable only to value, but not to truth. Truth should be discovered, but value is to be discovered or created.
We sometimes discover value. In the case where we find the existence or degree of value, we call the action ediscoveryf, but not ecreationf, because we have discovered for the first time what has existed naturally or artificially. On the contrary, when someone think out or add an unknown relationship between an object and human life, we call his action einventionf or eoriginationf. By this action, people make gains, pleasure is increased and happiness is promoted.
[[In II, after the above passage the parts of V follow. However, in the Philosophy of Value, the parts of III and IV in II follow.]]
{In the foregoing we have explained the distinction between truth and value in details, regarding creation. Next we deal with manfs likes and dislikes.}
If news spreads that an earthquake or a fire occurred in a certain district, all concerned are greatly surprised with worry and try to ascertain whether it is the fact or not, that is, whether the news is true or false. If the fact exists, the news that it does is true, and the word that it does not is false. Likewise, if the fact does not exist, the news that it does is false and the word that it does not is true. Thus, in speaking of even the same truth, the former expresses the existence of the fact while the latter its non-existence.
(When we consider these cases, we find that we sometimes like truth and sometimes falsehood. Therefore we should judge truth or falsehood indifferent to human feelings.) [II, Here, we can clearly understand the great difference between the objects of value judgment such as good-evil, or beauty-ugliness and the objects of judgment such as true-false.
However, it may be possible that a small good becomes evil when it opposes a great good, or a small evil becomes good when it opposes a great evil. It looks like the case where 20 degree C water is felt warm for a hand which is pulled from 10 degree C water and felt cold for a hand pulled from 30 degree C water. This case is the difference of comparative degree but the aforementioned case is the difference of opposite degree.]
Truth and falsehood are qualitatively different from like and dislike. The concepts of truth and falsehood are quite different from each concept of beauty-ugliness, gain-loss, and good-evil. Regarding these latter concepts, differences in like and dislike are produced according to differences in subject. It may sometimes happen that something beautiful at one time becomes ugly at other time, something is gain to a person but the same thing is (loss) [II, disadvantage] to another person at the same time. In addition, on some occasions, the good in one society is regarded as evil by another. It is emotionally natural that everyone likes beauty, gain, good, and dislikes ugliness, loss, and evil.
On the other hand, truth is an expression which expresses reality as it is, and therefore must not be confused with such feelings as like and dislike. Supposing that here is a waterfall, the expression gHere is a waterfallh is true while the expression gHere is a riverh is false. Regardless of the expressions, the reality of a waterfall is invariable. The question lies in whether the expression is true or false. Therefore, when the waterfall has been recognized as a waterfall, then the expression is true irrespective of any relationship between the waterfall and human life.
There can be no case where man likes something because it is true or hates something because it is false. Although there has been a widely-accepted concept that man likes truth and dislikes falsehood, just as he likes beauty, gain, and good, and dislikes ugliness, loss, and evil, [II, and the concept is the reason why we mistake truth-good-beauty for an ideal common to all. However, it is only said so, and it doesnft express actual facts exactly. This is completely false, and] such a concept is basically erroneous.
It is true that no one likes liars or deceivers, but in this case, it is liars and not the lie that we dislike. Similarly it is said that in every case we like a person who speaks the truth, but it is not the truth but the person speaking the truth that is evaluated.
Also it is not proper to say that man likes those who tell the truth and hates those who lie. If an accused has actually committed a crime, he does not want any witness to attest to it and moreover in some cases he tries to revenge himself on the witness, angered by the testimony. [II, To fear this revenge, some witnesses are apt to tell lies.] With a threat of perjury the court attempts to avoid false testimony. However, it does not follow that any accused wants witnesses to make false testimony. A true testimony is sometimes more favorable for the accused.
{According to frequent experience, the encouragement to a seriously ill patient, such as gDonft worry. It is nothing much,h is desirable for the patient and for those concerned, even though the statement is false.} In any case, the aforementioned passage does not have direct relationship with the major subject of this book, because it deals only with the evaluation of those who speak of truth or falsehood, but not with likes or dislikes (evaluation) of truth or falsehood.
In brief, the word gtruth and falsehoodh and moreover the objects expressed by these words are of a different quality from the objects of evaluation. The objects of truth or falsehood are qualitatively different from the objects which we judge as beauty, ugliness, gain, loss, good, or evil. Even if the object is the same, we judge it from a different point of view.
[II, when news that there is an earthquake or a fire spreads, naturally all concerned are greatly surprised with worry about whether their relatives and friends are safe or not. In this case everyone wants to ascertain whether it is the fact or not, that is, whether the news is true or not, and also he wish the news is not true. Therefore, in this case, one likes falsehood and dislikes truth. The judgment that it is necessary that man likes truth and dislikes falsehood is proven to be false. In short, although truth-falsehood and like-dislike are different concepts, we mistake objects judged as true or false for like-dislike, or we mistake subjects who judge true or false for like-dislike. Therefore, we think wrong that there is a necessary cause-effect relationship between truth-falsehood and like-dislike.]
(In conclusion,) [II, however,] the relationship between value and feelings of likes or dislikes is quite different from that between truth and those. From this viewpoint we can clarify the distinction between truth and value.