Hi,
I've just read A Simple Case for Studying Morals after reading this and I'm still not quite certain what is meant by values here. In fairness, I haven't read all the other things you've linked. If it's there, then sorry for my quibble As I read it, it sometimes seems to be used with 'that which is commonly desired/cared about by people writ large (sometimes it seems individualised as well)', 'a feeling of endorsement' or just synonymous with 'moral'.
Now, I understand that you claim that human values are hard to grasp and as such I'm not asking for the complete necessary and sufficient conditions here. I'm just not sure what it is you're aiming at.
I'm in agreement with the spirit of your piece written here, but I think the claim that emotions make true/false claims is not true. I think it's more reasonably to talk in terms of intentionality and sticking to the term 'information'. That is, emotion is 'about' something. I am not merely angry, but my anger is directed at a particular things. We also express information about our psychological states. We then construct propositions in relation to our emotions. When one says 'emotions are telling us something', I think this is best understood metaphorically.
Note the distinction between these three utterances
1. "Arghhhh"
2. "I am angry at Y."
3. "The cause of my anger is X"
The first expresses an emotion, the emotion generally being clear in the context. The second is a description of our mental state and intentionality, that is to say what our anger is directed towards. The third is a claim about the cause of the anger.
Now, when you say that our emotions may make 'false claims' or have 'false information'. I think you're really talking about utterance 2. The 'hangry' is in relation to utterance 3. The emotion expressed in utterance 1 is not truth-apt. It is a mere expression.
This may seem pedantic; perhaps it is pendantic. I suppose it depends on how strictly I'm supposed to take the idea that emotions can be 'wrong' or 'right' in the sense of being false/true.
"What is the meaning of life?"
I've always viewed this as an unclear question. I have no idea what kind of answer one might be satisfied with or even view as being legitimate as a response. I think there's a couple of questions rolled into one with 'what is the meaning of life'.
3. "What is the meaning of life?" = "Does the universe/god/nature/etc have intentions about how I should behave"
For myself, I think my answers to all three have a certain similarity. I think this is true for most people and it's why they get combined into one question about the 'meaning of life'. Enough preamble. My answer:
I am a particular kind of thing. I am a thing that has interests that are inherent to being the kind of thing I am. I try to act in accordance with what is 'good for' the kind of thing that I am. I often fail, but hey-ho. C'est la vie.
Less BS - I gain most of my meaning through conversation, goals which lead me to learn about stuff, moving towards a job that gives me a decent amount of freedom and that interests. Most importantly of all having fun.
On a personal note to you, dear Aprillion : I think having a 'goal' is perhaps the most important thing in terms of 'having something'. The second you start moving towards something you genuinely desire, even if the goal is deeply unrealistic. That feeling of meaninglessness disappears. I won't say I have some deep sense of 'meaning' in some spiritual or zen sort of way. But, I definitely don't think things have been meaningless since I've started to move towards things I fundamentally wanted.