More on Value
A long time ago in LJ Land, when I was working out my thoughts[1] on how there are three types of beauty[2], I talked about an idea by my great buddy, mallon04008, regarding value and what it is:J. [mallon04008] is interested in law and economic-types of stuff and such, things low on my list of interests -- but he is very bright. (Outside our fields though, we share a million interests.) One day while running, he described thinking of value and the definition of value. It struck him simply that something has value only if that thing is desired, if someone would give something for it. This is simple yet profound. It implies that things do not have inherent value separate from someone longing for them. This fits well with an age-old economic principle. The cost of something depends greatly on what people are willing to pay for it, and that shows the thing's worth.
At that time, sadeyedartist pointed out a flaw in this statement [3]:I think that its false to say that something is worth something only if someone is willing to place a price on it. That contradicts what I believe about inherent worth. . . Again, I go to art for my example. I think that some art that is significantly better than other art. A person may be willing to pay a great sum for a clishe'd [sic], pastel picture of a lighthouse done ten at a time by a pastel "artist" who works on the boardwalk, yet care nothing for ansheim kieffer's work. My argument would be that kieffer's work is inherently better than the ::shudder:: boardwalk "artist's" regardless of what people will pay for it, and even if no one were to pay ANYTHING for it. Your argument seems to be: Something has worth if a person is willing to pay for it. Mine is: A person is (ideally) willing to pay for something BECAUSE IT HAS WORTH. The difference is subtle but important. For you, the worth lays in the person's opinion, for me, the worth lies in the object itself.
This motivated me to break down beauty into three classes[2]. (Click the link, if you are interested in the three types of beauty; it is not directly relevant to what I wish to discuss here.)
But I was returning to these discussions in my mind the other day while in church (I don't know why.) And I thought of another way of wording the value thing as a negative:
If no one is willing to pay something for something, it does not have value.
I don't think this runs into the problem that sadeyedartist posed. And I think this is sort of the way that Lewis started his "Experiment in Criticism". (If I can trust my tags, I've not talked much about my thoughts on that book, which I read a year ago in Ecuador. I'll have to remedy this problem sometime soon.) Because if people are willing to pay for something, there is the possibility at least that there is value in it. Or else, they are "misusing" the thing or finding value in it indirectly. But if no one will even purchase something, it must not even have indirect value.
At that time, sadeyedartist pointed out a flaw in this statement [3]:I think that its false to say that something is worth something only if someone is willing to place a price on it. That contradicts what I believe about inherent worth. . . Again, I go to art for my example. I think that some art that is significantly better than other art. A person may be willing to pay a great sum for a clishe'd [sic], pastel picture of a lighthouse done ten at a time by a pastel "artist" who works on the boardwalk, yet care nothing for ansheim kieffer's work. My argument would be that kieffer's work is inherently better than the ::shudder:: boardwalk "artist's" regardless of what people will pay for it, and even if no one were to pay ANYTHING for it. Your argument seems to be: Something has worth if a person is willing to pay for it. Mine is: A person is (ideally) willing to pay for something BECAUSE IT HAS WORTH. The difference is subtle but important. For you, the worth lays in the person's opinion, for me, the worth lies in the object itself.
This motivated me to break down beauty into three classes[2]. (Click the link, if you are interested in the three types of beauty; it is not directly relevant to what I wish to discuss here.)
But I was returning to these discussions in my mind the other day while in church (I don't know why.) And I thought of another way of wording the value thing as a negative:
If no one is willing to pay something for something, it does not have value.
I don't think this runs into the problem that sadeyedartist posed. And I think this is sort of the way that Lewis started his "Experiment in Criticism". (If I can trust my tags, I've not talked much about my thoughts on that book, which I read a year ago in Ecuador. I'll have to remedy this problem sometime soon.) Because if people are willing to pay for something, there is the possibility at least that there is value in it. Or else, they are "misusing" the thing or finding value in it indirectly. But if no one will even purchase something, it must not even have indirect value.