First, let's distinguish between two different forms of value: Instrumental and Intrinsic. Something A has instrumental value if what makes A valuable is that it leads to something else valuable B. If we take away A's connection to B, A loses value. Thus, it was only valuable as a means to B, not for its own sake. Consider the dollar bill in your wallet. It's valuable, but only because you can use it to purchase other things that you value. The paper itself has little value. The other type of value is Intrinsic Value. This is a non-dependent, or non-derivitave, value. If something is intrinsically valuable, then its value is not dependent on what it leads to or brings about, its valuable just because it is what it is. Can you think of an example of something that is really Intrinsically Valuable? I think this is more difficult than thinking of an example of Instrumental Value. Aristotle argued that something must be intrinsically valuable, otherwise nothing would have any value, instrumental or otherwise. If all value were instrumental, we would never find the original source of value that all instrumental goods depend on. Something must simply posses non-derived value, then other things can derive value from it. So, what is this intrinsic good? A big question. Here are two traditional answers: Pleasure and Happiness. What if someone asked you why you value pleasure? What would you say? I have trouble explaining what makes pleasure valuable above and beyond the fact that it is pleasure. Similarly for Happiness. Given what they are, they are automatically valuable.

So far we have said nothing about what makes something valuable. We have just made a distinction between different types of value. Nozick defines value in terms of the concept of Organic Unity. To say that something possesses organic unity is to say that it is integrated within its own boundaries, or that it has internal unified coherence. The main theme here is Unity and Diversity. The integration of a system provides unity. For example the theme that unifies the paragraphs of an essay. The paragraphs are the diverse elements unified by the theme. The tighter the unity and coherence the more value. Also, the more elements that are unified the greater the value. Perhaps math has ultimate organic unity since there are infinitely many numbers and they are unified by perfect mathematical principles. We can also apply this to a person's life. Their values are the unifiying principles, their actions are the things to be unified. Some values will organize our actions better than others. Hence some values are more valuable than others. I like that idea. This forces us to ask: What is the value of our values? Other examples of organic unity include Mind/Body, juggling, art, emotion, happiness. Recall Nozick's definition of emotion and happiness (in particular the third form) and see if you can see how these involve organic unity.

Ok, so much for value. What about meaning? Nozick says that meaning involves a connection to something beyond internal boundaries. This is different from value because value was determined by the internal connections between the elements of a system, not how it relates to anything beyond itself. Meaning requires a connection to something else. What is this something else? We might say that X is meaningful if it is connected to something else Y which possesses meaning. But Nozick sees that this will not work because it creates an infinite regress. What would make Y meaningful in the first place. By definition it would have to be connected to something else Z which has value. But how does Z get its meaning? It would have to be connected to something else meaningful, and so on and so on and so on. The process would never end, and meaning would never appear. So we cannot require that X must be connected to something meaningful in order to be meaningful. Hmmmm. Nozick refers back to the concept of value here. Clever. In order for X to be meaningful X must be related to something beyond itself Y which is valuable (rather than meaningful). So meaning is a connection between things of value. The degree of meaning will vary as the degree of value varies between the connected items. Meaning is a transference of value from one organic unity to another. I wonder if some meanings are more valuable than others on Nozick's definition.

Nozick does not answer this question: What is the meaning of life? However, with his definitions, we should be able to provide an answer, or at least the beginning of one. What answer would you give? Just a little question to leave you with.