As Lewis mentions,” Value is …it should be synonymous with personal evaluation and related beliefs… that propel us to action, to a particular kind of behavior and life” (5). In general, personal value is a scale for individual behavior evaluations. It refers to the people to meet the individual needs in production, life of discovery, and creation, it is as self-development and social contribution to the development of individuals.
In general, we think we enhance our personal values when we know more things or get some new knowledge. The more we know, the higher personal value we are. In the reading, Lewis mentions some basic ways about “know” something, but I think these are negative ways to “know” something. The first one is sense experience (7). We have five senses, which are see, hear, taste, smell and touch. These five senses is a good way for people to know something. However, five senses may mislead us. For example, when we cut the watermelon, the watermelon is red, and then we blindly believe it must be tasted sweet. But actually, the watermelon has the hormone. Therefore, “know” something does not always helps people enhance their personal value, because know something does not means know true things.
Thus, the most important is how to enhance individuals’ personal value. Personally, I think the most efficient ways to do that is to build self-confidence. Because, the lack of confidence is a big problem plagued the people. So how to do that, as I see, set a personal aim is the most essential element. The goal is to establish a successful life, and inspire people’s potential, also to maximize the value of need. Thus, people must to have a goal in their life. Have a goal means people will try to strive to achieve the target. Furthermore, the establishment of the goal itself is a mark of confidence, we have a goal in mind, and our subconscious mind will mobilize all of energy to achieve goals. Therefore, set an aim is an efficient way that helps us to enhance personal value.
I’m not sure I understand the part about something red meaning that it is sweet. We know that raw red meat is not sweet, and we also know that we shouldn’t eat it because it’s raw. In this case, the value of knowing not to eat the raw meat is helpful. I see watermelon and think sweet and fruit because that is what i have been taught. Watermelon is both sweet and a fruit, so these are true. True, the hormones are not visible to you, but the fact that the watermelon has hormones is something that you can learn and then “know” in the future. Many people now know that most meat, if not all, you purchase at the grocery store is not raised in the best conditions. Most people also know that most fruits and vegetables at the grocery store have pesticides. We know these things because someone taught us.
There may be cases where knowing something isn’t always helpful (for example if you see something you weren’t suppose to), but I think it errors on the side of helpful. In the case of sense, you can feel something is hot, and this tells you to remove your hand. Also, many plants and animals are designed so that we will know they are dangerous because of their colors.
Thank you for your comment; you give me some ideas of what you thought about the value. Value is a very complex and abstract thing, so people has different understanding on it. I just simple take watermelon as a simple example. Watermelon looks red and it is sweet. That is what we saw and tasted. We know the watermelon is good via sense experience. But we may do not know the potential value of the watermelon. In this case, hormone could be as a potential value. Maybe hormone will enhance the value of the watermelon, like the nutrition. However generally, we do not the ingredient of the hormone, may be it good or maybe it bad for us. Also, I agree with you, sense can tell us something. As you said, we can feel something hot which tells us to remove our hand. However, I know basic modes, like the sense could tell us some things, but what I want to point out is: Are the basic modes to know something (like the real value) is 100% truly?