I think most of the objects and people and so forth that I have a relationship really do exist.
In the case of YOU, well, I will admit that I am starting to wonder. If you insist that you aren’t out there and that I am just imagining this interaction, I will not press the point.
I think “value” is a matter of perspective, not imagination.
This. V
But the relationship does not. The objects might but the value and worth that you place on them isn’t real.
Or as the Broward people say “you are living in your picture world which isn’t how things really are”.
Perspective that would be said to be imaginative.
Or as the broward people told me: that your mind takes pictures of things based on your experiences but those pictures are not reality.
I believe the fact that you sought to correct my misunderstanding of a koan rather than addressing the point I was trying to make has convinced me that any value in my continuing to comment is truly imaginary
Value exists; objective value does not. Value is completely subjective.
(This has interesting effects on the concept of “self esteem”.)
As for buddhists calling value “imaginary”, that’s just them screwing with terminology for their own purposes again - and that purpose is and remains to be sowing confusion in the attempt to sound wise by comparison.
I did address it but all you really did was just affirm what the guy was saying about value being imaginary.
AS much as I would love to believe that I don’t have proof of it.
I don’t understand this “value is subjective” idea. If tomatoes sell for $2.99/lb at the local market, then that is its value. Just because a particular farmer might absolutely hate the taste of tomatoes and would not eat one if given to him for free, he still produces tomatoes because their value is $2.99/lb.
Or maybe I hate tomatoes, but someone offers me a bushel of them for free. Should I say no because I don’t subjectively value them as worth anything, or should I accept and sell them for $2.99/lb?
What am I missing?
You value the tomatoes more than $2.99. The grocer values your $2.99 more than the tomatoes. Both of you are correct. Price and value are two different things.
And that’s not even getting into things that don’t have fixed prices. Music may be valuable to me, not to you. Who is right?
This has nothing to do with prices but more like things being “worth it” which the article I read was arguing that value is an imaginary metric we made for judging the world but in “reality” there is no such thing hence nothing is “Worth it”.
Er, you yourself gave explicit examples of where different people value the tomatoes more or less than one another. I’m not seeing how you can’t think value isn’t subjective.
In fact, all of commerce depends on people valuing things differently. Putting aide dollars for a moment, consider barter. I will only exchange my three eggs for your quart of milk if I value your milk more than my eggs. You will only exchange your milk for my eggs if you value your milk more than my eggs. The exchange will not occur unless both of us think we’re getting a good deal, and thus the exchange cannot occur unless we value the things being exchanged differently.
Which part, that value is inherently subjective, or that the articles you keep citing are riddled with sloppy writing and incoherent use of poorly-defined terminology?
Must be the former, because the latter is plain for all to see.
Noticed a Bojack Horseman quote tonight and thought it was great advice for this thread:
That still implies that there is value in doing that. Yet one thing kind of remains for me though, if value is “nonexistent” as he claimed then why tell anyone about it. It’s the same problem that people who tell others about nihilism have, why bother?
It’s more like it’s talking about how it is an imaginary metric that we use to pass judgment on things around the world when in reality if we weren’t around then there would be no value. It’s something we made up and doesn’t exist “out there in the world”. It’s like saying that everything is equal and therefor valueless (in that it has no value).
On a level I know it is right since value is something that is imposed and not inherent, yet without value we can’t make decisions. I don’t know about other animals but humans have values that guide their decisions whether they want to admit it or not. If this guy is saying that he is functioning like an animal then that means it’s automatic or instinctual, but then that would mean that killing and such (which animals take no issue with) would also be a part of our lives.
It doesn’t really help that his “answer” to what he claimed didn’t solve anything (or was really an answer) and kind of contradicted himself.
I understand all that, but the market price sets a de facto value. Gold is probably a better example. Today’s gold spot price is $1,426.40/oz.
If you love gold, are a jewelry maker, love its luster and would have been King Midas in another life, you would not pay more than $1,426.40/oz because that is what it is out there and available for. You wouldn’t pay $2k/oz for it, because it can be had cheaper.
If I hate gold, think it is overrated and am just as happy with any knockoff jewelry, I would still nonetheless pay something near $1,426.40/oz for it because I know I can resell it for that price (let’s ignore the transaction costs, resellers, and the like). I wouldn’t sell it for $1k/oz, even though I hate it, because I could get more for it.
So here we both are, one of us couldn’t love gold more, and the other couldn’t hate it more, yet we both value gold at near the same price. You are correct that there will be minor fluctuation around that price because there would be no transactions otherwise, but the market sets the value that we both see in the item.
If we are going to say that price is different than value, then IMHO we are just heading off the rails about some ephemeral sense of value that is more a philosophical thing than an economic one.
ETA: I guess how I would characterize it is that you would prefer 1 oz of gold to $1,426.40 and I would prefer the money to having the gold. But that doesn’t mean that society doesn’t value them equally.
Don’t you have anything in your life that has value to you? I’m sure you must. It is completely irrelevant that other people do not share your same sense of value in those things.
So you’re saying no one valued anything before the invention of money? That things like walking in nature are valueless because they’re free? Come on man, that’s a really bad argument.
Value and price are seperate though related concepts.