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

[mallon04008]

I think that what I am calling value is a measure of the intrinsic success of the thing to perform its function. (Again, I am not sure about the use of intrinsic here. I think you can leave it out and the point still gets across.) I would call this a property or quality of an item, not its value. What I think your above reply and sadeyedartist's original comments are hitting on is more why something is or should be valued, and not what value is. The subtle process of valuation that we constantly and almost automatically perform on a minute-to-minute basis I think tends to blur the distinction between these two. To apply this to the example above, while fitness to or success in performing a designed function is a large component (if the ultimate component) of why something is valued, it is not a value itself. Let's think of it in market terms: Inventor X has made a new gadget. He goes from customer to customer trying to sell his new gadget, but their problem--the task that the gadget makes easier (let's call it Task A) is not

[lhynard]

Returning back to these discussions, I'm not sure if I mentioned this or not, but couldn't one say that everything has been assigned a value by God, in which case, that value is now intrinsically attached? Without a God, there could be no such thing as value -- or meaning or anything lese of the sort -- because of your line of reasoning. But within the confines of a theistic worldview, doesn't everything than have value?

[mallon04008]

I cannot believe it has been almost 8 weeks since you posted this. I am a lazy bum.

Returning back to these discussions, I'm not sure if I mentioned this or not, but couldn't one say that everything has been assigned a value by God, in which case, that value is now intrinsically attached? Even before you replied with this question, I had started considering this. Yes, I think this is highly likely that this is the case. In fact, for the purposes of this argument, I am willing to concede it. My thought then is, given this is true, what are the practical implications of this? At first blush, the answer is nothing at all or perhaps not much. Humans have two major means of expressing value: time and money. Both of these have no meaning to God. That is to say, they have no value communication properties for God (I think you understand what I mean by this). So how can he communicate His valuations? How can we possibly know what God's value is for (let's use the favorite example) a painting? The simple answer we cannot. So in the