More on Value

[lhynard]

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

Comments

[mallon04008]

I am glad you have posted again on this topic. When you first did, I was not yet actively reading your LJ and the discussion had already wound down at that point so it seemed ill timed to jump in

[shadewright]

I tend to agree. I'm not sure what word I would use to describe what sadeyedartist had to say, but the word value is closely tied to the market, where it is absolutely defined by the opinion of people, and not anything inherant in the object itself. Look into buying a house, and you'll see what I mean.

[shadewright]

...In addition, I think Lhynard might be on to something. There are works of literature that many people consider very highly, and which I think are nearly worthless. Lhynard's statement allows that these books may in fact have value to more enlightened minds, but that they do not necessarily have value in and of themselves (i.e, there's a small chance my opinion might be correct).

[lhynard]

That was more Lewis' idea than mine.