The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines

>> SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 2010

The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines
http://elibrary.supremecourt.gov.ph/ accessed on 3 July 2007.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines served as the fundamental
law of the land from 1935 to 1972. It establishes the Commonwealth of the Philippines and
provides that upon withdrawal of American sovereignty in the country and the declaration of
Philippine independence, said commonwealth shall be known as the Republic of the
Philippines. The Constitution enumerates the composition, powers and duties of the three
branches of government (the Executive, Legislative and Judicial) and creates the General
Auditing Office and lays down the framework in the establishment of the civil service in the
country. The Constitution vests the President with the veto power on legislative bills and
emergency powers in times of war and other national emergencies. Also, the Constitution
adopts the Regalian Doctrine or the Principle of State ownership for all its natural wealth
and provides for the proper utilization of such wealth by its citizens.
NOTES : The 1935 Constitution was amended in 1940 and in 1947. This version
incorporates all the amendments.
The draft of the 1935 Constitution, adopted by the Philippine Constitutional Convention on 8
February 1935, provides for a unicameral Legislature and a single six-year term for the
President. The draft was submitted to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 18 March 1935.
He, in turn, certified that it conforms with Public Act No. 127 which was passed by the U.S.
Congress on 23 March 1935 and forwarded the same to the Governor General of the
Philippine Islands for ratification of the Filipino people. The constitution was ratified on 14
May 1935.
On 11 April 1940, the [Philippine] Second National Assembly adopted Resolution No. 73
proposing amendments to the Constitution. The amendments provide for the creation of a
bicameral Congress and the establishment of a Commission on Elections. It also limits the
term of office of the President to four years, but may continue to serve as such for a
maximum of eight years.
On 11 March 1947, a plebiscite was held for the purpose of ratifying the proposed
amendment granting US Citizens the right to the disposition, exploitation, development and
utilization of Philippine natural resources (Ordinance Appended to the Constitution). The
amendment passed.

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ARTICLE II

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
ARTICLE II AND STATE POLICIES
PRINCIPLES
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres
to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of
the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the
sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or
civil service.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property,
and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
STATE POLICIES
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other
states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity,
national interest, and the right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy
of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the
prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies
that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living,
and an improved quality of life for all.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights.
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral
character shall receive the support of the Government.
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall
promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It
shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in
public and civic affairs.
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture,
and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote
total human liberation and development.
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages
private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
communities within the framework of national unity and development.
Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral
organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.
Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nationbuilding.
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take
positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.
Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

But you don't really love her, do

you?

But you'll tell me if she calls, won't

you?

This'll work, won't it?

We'd never have known, would we?

Oh you think so, do you?

Oh you do, do you?

Well, I couldn't help it, could I?

The weather's bad, isn't it?

You won't be late, will you?

Shut up, will you!

Nobody knows, do they?

She can hardly love him after all

that, can she?

You never come on time, do you?

Nothing will happen, will it?

You couldn't help me, could you?

You think you're clever, do you?

So you don't think I can do it, don't

you? (British English)

A hot potato

Speak of an issue (mostly current) which many people are talking about and which is
usually disputed

A penny for your thoughts

Actions speak louder than words

People's intentions can be judged better by what they do than what they say.

Add insult to injury

A way of asking what someone is thinking

To further a loss with mockery or indignity; to worsen an unfavorable situation.

An arm and a leg

Very expensive or costly. A large amount of money.

At the drop of a hat

Back to the drawing board

Something good that isn't recognized at first.

Burn the midnight oil

To take on a task that is way to big.

Blessing in disguise

A good invention or innovation. A good idea or plan.

Bite off more than you can chew

Meaning: All the advantages.

Best thing since sliced bread

Avoiding the main topic. Not speaking directly about the issue.

Best of both worlds

Be happy when a person leaves.

Beat around the bush

Looking in the wrong place. Accusing the wrong person

Be glad to see the back of

It is up to you to make the next decision or step

Barking up the wrong tree

When an attempt fails and it's time to start all over.

Ball is in your court

Meaning: without any hesitation; instantly.

To work late into the night, alluding to the time before electric lighting.

Can't judge a book by its cover

Cannot judge something primarily on appearance.

Caught between two stools

Costs an arm and a leg

To present a counter argument

Don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched

The show has come to an end. It's all over.

Every cloud has a silver lining

Be optimistic, even difficult times will lead to better days.

Far cry from

When you are extremely desperate you need to take drastic actions.

Elvis has left the building

Do not put all your resources in one possibility.

Drastic times call for drastic measures

You are not very good at something. You could definitely not do it professionally.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket

This idiom is used to express "Don't make plans for something that might not happen".

Don't give up the day job

To succeed; to come up to expectations; adequate enough to compete or participate

Devil's Advocate

When something is done badly to save money.

Cut the mustard [possibly derived from "cut the muster"]

Being Inquisitive can lead you into an unpleasant situation.

Cut corners

When you complain about a loss from the past.

Curiosity killed the cat

Deal with a problem if and when it becomes necessary, not before.

Cry over spilt milk

This idiom is used when something is very expensive.

Cross that bridge when you come to it

This idiom is used when something is very expensive.

Costs an arm and a leg

When someone finds it difficult to choose between two alternatives.

Very different from.

Feel a bit under the weather

Meaning: Feeling slightly ill.

Give the benefit of the doubt

Believe someone's statement, without proof.

Hear it on the grapevine

Hit the nail on the head

To go to bed.

In the heat of the moment

Do or say something exactly right

Hit the sack / sheets / hay

This idiom means 'to hear rumors' about something or someone.

Overwhelmed by what is happening in the moment.

It takes two to tango

Actions or communications need more than one person

Jump on the bandwagon

Join a popular trend or activity.

Keep something at bay

Kill two birds with one stone

This idiom means, to accomplish two different things at the same time.

Last straw

Keep something away.

The final problem in a series of problems.

Let sleeping dogs lie

Meaning - do not disturb a situation as it is - since it would result in trouble or

complications.

Let the cat out of the bag

Make a long story short

Crazy, demented, out of one's mind, in a confused or befuddled state of mind, senile.

On the ball

Someone who lacks intelligence.

Off one's rocker

Meaning: No manners

Not playing with a full deck

This idiom is used to say that someone missed his or her chance

Not a spark of decency

An assertion that, despite one's approach seeming random, there actually is structure to

Miss the boat

Come to the point - leave out details

Method to my madness

it.

To share information that was previously concealed

When someone understands the situation well.

Once in a blue moon

Picture paints a thousand words

A job, task or other activity that is easy or simple.

Put wool over other people's eyes

A visual presentation is far more descriptive than words.

Piece of cake

Meaning: Happen very rarely.

This means to deceive someone into thinking well of them.

See eye to eye

This idiom is used to say that two (or more people) agree on something.

Sit on the fence

This is used when someone does not want to choose or make a decision.

Speak of the devil!

Steal someone's thunder

Everything. All of it.

Wouldn't be caught dead

To hear something from the authoritative source.

Whole nine yards

Means that something happens to you, or is done to you, that you have done to someone

To hear something straight from the horse's mouth

This means not to take what someone says too seriously.

Taste of your own medicine

else

To take the credit for something someone else did.

Take with a grain of salt

This expression is used when the person you have just been talking about arrives.

Would never like to do something

Your guess is as good as mine

To have no idea, do not know the answer to a question

NATIONAL
ARTICLE
TERRITORY
I

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such

as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired
through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.

Knowledge can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as
with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it
can be more or less formal or systematic.[1] Inphilosophy, the study of knowledge is
called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief",
though this definition is now agreed by most analytic philosophers to be problematic because of
the Gettier problems. However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist.

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication,

and reasoning;[2] while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in
human beings.[3]

Introduction

Epistemology is the study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified belief. It
analyzes the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such
as truth, belief and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as
well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. It is essentailly about issues having to do
with thecreation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry.

Epistemology asks questions like: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What
do people know?", "What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge?", "What is its
structure, and what are its limits?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "How we are to
understand the concept of justification?", "Is justification internal or external to one's own mind?"

What Is Knowledge?

Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of particular aspects of reality. It is the clear,
lucid information gained through the process of reason applied to reality. The traditional
approach is that knowledge requires three necessary and sufficient conditions, so that
knowledge can then be defined as "justified true belief":

truth: since false propositions cannot be known - for something to count as knowledge, it must
actually be true. AsAristotle famously (but rather confusingly) expressed it: "To say of something
which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of
something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true."

belief: because one cannot know something that one doesn't even believe in, the statement "I
know x, but I don't believe that x is true" is contradictory.

justification: as opposed to believing in something purely as a matter of luck.

Back to Top

Back to Top

In response to this regress problem, various schools of thought have arisen:

Foundationalism claims that some beliefs that support other beliefs are foundational and do not
themselves require justification by other beliefs (self-justifying or infallible beliefs or those
based on perception or certain a priori considerations).

Instrumentalism is the methodological view that concepts and theories are merely useful
instruments, and their worth is measured by how effective they are
in explaining and predicting phenomena. Instrumentalism therefore denies that theories
are truth-evaluable. Pragmatism is a similar concept, which holds that something is true only
insofar as itworks and has practical consequences.

Infinitism typically take the infinite series to be merely potential, and an individual need only
have the ability to bring forth the relevant reasons when the need arises. Therefore, unlike most
traditional theories of justification, Infinitism considers an infinite regress to be a valid
justification.

Coherentism holds that an individual belief is justified circularly by the way it fits together
(coheres) with the rest of the belief system of which it is a part, so that the regress does not
proceed according to a pattern of linear justification.

Foundherentism is another position which is meant to be a unification

of foundationalism and coherentism.

Sources of Knowledge

In epistemology, a common concern with respect to knowledge is what sources of

information are capable of giving knowledge.

The following are some of the major sources of knowledge:

Perception that which can be perceived through the experiences of the senses. The
view that experience is the primary source of knowledge is called empiricism.

Reason Reason can be considered a source of knowledge, either by deducing

truths from existing knowledge, or by learning things a priori, discovering necessary
truths (such as mathematical truths) through pure reason. The view that reason is the
primary source of knowledge is called rationalism

Introspection knowledge of ones self that can be found through internal selfevalution. This is generally considered to be a sort of perception. (For example, I
know I am hungry or tired.)

Memory Memory is the storage of knowledge that was learned in the past
whether it be past events or current information.

Testimony Testimony relies on others to acquire knowledge and communicate it to

us. Some deny that testimony can be a source of knowledge, and insist that beliefs
gained through testimony must be verified in order to be knowledge.

The problems of empiricism and rationalism can be derived from their respective
fundamental principles that define the faculties through which we can gain
knowledge. Empiricism is defined by its emphasis on a posteriori conclusions and
knowledge gained from that which is encountered in experience. In contrast,
rationalism is defined by its emphasis on reason and the activity of the mind to attain
knowledge from sources outside of the immediate scope of experience and sense
perception. In a move to resolve conflicts between the two schools of thought, Kant
proposed the theory of transcendental idealism and concluded that the extent of our
knowledge is determined in by both empirical and rational principles. In order to
create such a crossroads, Kant starts with experience in general and advances to
describe the kinds of knowledge that are possible through it. Kant forms his theory
based on a delineation of the types of knowledge that are possible and arrives at a

priori analytic, a priori synthetic and a posteriori synthetic conclusions as our

ultimate sources of knowledge. Importantly, these forms of knowledge are derived
from their corresponding judgments.

In Kantian terms, a judgment is considered analytic if it is merely explicative, i.e. it

does not add any new content to current knowledge. For example, the judgment, All
bodies are extended is analytic in that it tells us nothing more about bodies that is
not already apparent (2.a). On the other hand, analytic judgments are those that
do arrive at new ideas and increase the content of preexisting knowledge. For
example, the statement, All bodies are heavy is synthetic because it augments our
knowledge of bodies as compared to the previous statement, which tells us nothing
new (ibid.). Kant points out that the empiricists preceding him, namely Locke and
Hume, overlooked this distinction (3.296). He further argues that mathematical
judgments are of the latter sort and are a priori in nature, or a priori synthetic. That
is, mathematical judgments are independent of experience and also derive new
knowledge. For instance, when we say that 7+5=12, we are starting from one set of
knowledge an ideas in the subject, namely 7, 5 and the idea of a sum. When we solve
the problem and get to the predicate of 12, we arrive at a new concept that is
derived out of, but distinct from 7, 5 and the sum of 7 and 5.

The notion of a priori synthetic knowledge seems problematic because one could
assume that any synthetic judgments require a synthesis of knowledge from different
experiences, as illustrated by the examples with bodies above. However, Kant makes
the realization ofa priori synthetic knowledge possible with his transcendental
idealism, which is developed through and investigation of the necessary conditions
for the possibility of pure mathematics, pure natural science and ultimately, pure
metaphysics. His investigations into mathematics serve as the best base for
understanding the possibility of a priori synthetic knowledg.. In order to justify these
judgments as possible, Kant proposes that they necessarily involve transcendental
principles of the understanding that are prior to sensory experience and empirical
encounters (2.c.2). This organizes everything that is apparent to us in time and
space by the form of our intuition. Kant argues that we have removed empirical
variables from the content of our experience and are working purely with objects of
reason and the understanding when doing pure mathematics. Thus, we can make
judgments independent of experience (a priori) that augment our knowledge
(synthetic), such as 7+5=12. Kant goes on to prove that the same thing is possible in
pure natural science, but that we reach a priori synthetic conclusions in that sense by
considering all possible experiences in the understanding. Since we have not and
cannot encounter all possible experiences a posteriori, this again fits with Kants
theory that a priori synthetic judgments are not only possible, but also necessary for
the enterprises of mathematics and natural science.

Sceptical Arguments

The philosopher best known for his scepticism is Rene Descartes. Descartes main legacy to
philosophy was doubt. Ironically, Descartes himself was not a sceptic; though he proposed
various sceptical arguments that have subsequently proved difficult to refute, Descartes offered
responses to each of them. These responses, however, have convinced few; it is his sceptical
arguments that have had the greatest impact on philosophy.

Descartes doubt, set out in his Meditations on First Philosophy, comes in three waves. In the first
wave of doubt, Descartes advances the argument from error, arguing that as our senses have led
us astray before we should not trust them in future. In the second wave, he advances
the argument from dreaming, arguing that all of our experiences are as consistent with the

hypothesis that we are dreaming as they are with the hypothesis that we are awake, and so we
cannot know which hypothesis is true. In the third wave, he advances the argument from
deception, invoking the idea of an evil demon constantly deceiving us as a troubling hypothesis
that cannot easily be dismissed.

Origin and Meaning of "Cogito ergo sum"

The famous Latin phrase "Cogito ergo sum" is often discussed in philosophy class at schools and
in colleges.

The phrase was coined by Rene Descartes, a famous 17th century French philosopher and
physicist as a first step in demonstrating the attainability of certain knowledge. The Latin phrase
"cogito ergo sum" can be defined as a philosophical proposition by Rene Descartes. A variant of
this quote is "I think therefore I exist."

Rene Descartes has been dubbed the "Father of Modern Philosophy" and the "Father of Modern
Mathematics." Descartes is also known as Cartesius as the Latinized form of his name is Renatus
Cartesius.

Cogito ergo sum and Cartesian doubt

The Cartesian doubt is a form of methodological skepticism associated with the methods and
writings of Rene Descartes (aka Cartesius).
Cartesian doubt is a systematic process of being skeptical about the truth of one's own beliefs.
This has since become a characteristic method in philosophy.
The attempt by Rene Descartes to apply the method of doubt to the existence of himself
generated the proof of his famous saying, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). Rene
Descartes tried to doubt his own existence, but found that even his doubting showed that he
existed, since he could not doubt if he did not exist.

Rene Descartes and methodical doubt

Descartes believed that we should never accept anything about which we can entertain any
doubt. So in his attempt to find intellectual certainty, Descartes engaged in a process of
methodical doubt, in which he began doubting EVERYTHING until he could find the one thing that
could not be doubted. His conclusion was that of all the things that can be doubted, the one thing
he couldn't doubt was that he was the one doing the doubting. So Descartes concluded that the
one thing he could not doubt was that he existed. He expresses this in the phrase
[i:42cac3b3f4]cogito ergo sum[/i:42cac3b3f4], "I think, therefore I am".
But the thing is, it seems to me that Descartes conclusion is a logical fallacy. Isn't he assuming
his conclusion ( "I am" ) in his premise ( "I think" )? And if this is really fallacious reasoning, why
was Descartes so dumb not to see it?

Interpretations
There are several interpretations as to the objective of Descartes' skepticism. Prominent among

these is a foundationalist account which claims that Descartes' skepticism is aimed at eliminating
all belief which it is possible to doubt, thus leaving Descartes with only basic beliefs (also known
as foundational beliefs). From this indubitable basic beliefs, Descartes then attempts to derive
further knowledge. It's an archetypal and significant example that epitomizes the Continental
Rational schools of philosophy.
[edit]Methods
In his Meditations, Descartes provides several examples casting doubt on our sensory
perceptions in order to convince the meditator to suspend all belief. These examples include
specific instances of previous sensory perception, the argument from madness, the argument
from dreaming, and the evil daemon. It is suggested by some that these examples are arranged
in order of increasing skepticism.
These suppositions leads the meditator to doubt all sense perceptions and to doubt the existence
of any justified belief.

Rene Descartes and methodical doubt

Descartes believed that we should never accept anything about which we can
entertain any doubt. So in his attempt to find intellectual certainty, Descartes
engaged in a process of methodical doubt, in which he began doubting EVERYTHING
until he could find the one thing that could not be doubted. His conclusion was that of
all the things that can be doubted, the one thing he couldn't doubt was that
he was the one doing the doubting. So Descartes concluded that the one thing he
could not doubt was that he existed. He expresses this in the phrase
[i:42cac3b3f4]cogito ergo sum[/i:42cac3b3f4], "I think, therefore I am".
But the thing is, it seems to me that Descartes conclusion is a logical fallacy.
Isn't he assuming his conclusion ( "I am" ) in his premise ( "I
think" )? And if this is really fallacious reasoning, why was Descartes so dumb
not to see it?

The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a
good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor
necessary to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting
individual places on a good for the achievement of his desired ends. [1] While the modern version
of this theory was created independently and nearly simultaneously by William Stanley
Jevons, Lon Walras, and Carl Menger in the late 19th century[2] it had in fact been advanced in
the Middle Ages and Renaissance but did not gain widespread acceptance at that time.

Objective Theory of Values

The objective theory of values is the only moral theory incompatible with rule by force. Capitalism is the
only system based implicitly on an objective theory of valuesand the historic tragedy is that this has
never been made explicit.

If one knows that the good is objectivei.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by
mans mindone knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction
which negates morality at its root by destroying mans capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to

value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a mans judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering
him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering ones mind, is not
a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the
good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes.
Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full context of a mans life, needs, goals, andknowledge.

Intrinsic or extrinsic[edit]

Philosophic value may be split into instrumental value and intrinsic values. An instrumental value
is worth having as a means towards getting something else that is good (e.g., a radio is
instrumentally good in order to hear music). An intrinsically valuable thing is worth for itself, not as
a means to something else. It is giving value intrinsic and extrinsic properties.

An ethic good with instrumental value may be termed an ethic mean, and an ethic
good with intrinsic value may be termed anend-in-itself. An object may be both a mean and endin-itself.

Summation[edit]

Intrinsic and instrumental goods are not mutually exclusive categories. [12] Some objects are both
good in themselves, and also good for getting other objects that are good. "Understanding
science" may be such a good, being both worthwhile in and of itself, and as a means of achieving
other goods. In these cases, the sum of instrumental (specifically the all instrumental value) and
instrinsic value of an object may be used when putting that object in value systems, which is a set
of consistent values and measures.

Relative or absolute[edit]

Relative values differ between people, and on a larger scale, between people of different cultures.
On the other hand, there are theories of the existence of absolute values,[10] which can also be
termed noumenal values (and not to be confused with mathematical absolute value). An absolute
value can be described as philosophically absolute and independent of individual and cultural
views, as well as independent of whether it is known or apprehended or not. Ludwig
Wittgenstein was pessimistic towards the idea that an elucidation would ever happen regarding
the absolute values of actions or objects; "we can speak as much as we want about "life" and "its
meaning," and believe that what we say is important. But these are no more than expressions
and can never be facts, resulting from a tendency of the mind and not the heart or the will". [11]

Intrinsic value
When we say that something is intrinsically valuable, this means that something is valuable in
itself. These are things that are pursued for their own sake, not to acquire something else. Things
like happiness, truth, and goodness are all intrinsically valuable. You do not, or at least should
not, pursue these things to get you something else, but they should be pursued because they are
good in themselves. You don't need a reason to pursue truth; the fact that truth is good in itself is
enough.

Instrumental value
Instrumental value is a type of extrinsic value because its value comes from outside itself.
Something that is instrumentally valuable is valuable as a means to an end. So money and video
games are instrumentally valuable. They are only valuable because we place value on them. If
we did not value money, they would be worth no more than the paper that they're printed on (or
the metal that they're minted with). We use things that are instrumentally valuable as a means to
get us something else, usually something that's intrinsically valuable.

In physics and philosophy, a relational theory is a framework to understand reality

or a physical system in such a way that the positions and other properties of objects
are only meaningful relative to other objects. In a relational spacetime theory, space
does not exist unless there are objects in it; nor does time exist without events. The
relational view proposes that space is contained in objects and that an object
represents within itself relationships to other objects. Space can be defined through
the relations among the objects that it contains considering their variations through
time. The alternative spatial theory is an absolute theory in which the space exists
independently of any objects that can be immersed in it.