i already answered that question before.
if it's value as value only... well even non-persons have value. objects by their very being have value apart/independent of persons.
100 pesos will still be 100 pesos with or without persons.
on the topic of persons and personal value:
personal value does not exist by itself. persons have personal value because they are persons.
la_flash- 09-25-2006
With or without consciousness, considering that they are alive, persons have still value?
dean- 09-25-2006
yes
Ischaramoochie- 09-26-2006
i already answered that question before.
if it's value as value only... well even non-persons have value. objects by their very being have value apart/independent of persons.
100 pesos will still be 100 pesos with or without persons.
on the topic of persons and personal value:
personal value does not exist by itself. persons have personal value because they are persons.
actually, your analogy of money is false. money has value only insofar as there is an interplay of national gold and dollar reserves with the volume of bank notes out in circulation. the price of 100 pesos is always 100 pesos (which is tautologous), but its value or what we would normally call "purchase power" chages over time. that being said, the value of a 100 peso bill would range from the value of the material it is made from to an amount dependent on other value bases.
things also have value dependent on their perceived use and scarcity: a bottle of distilled water, although bought for p10 initially, changes in value depending on whether it is taken into the middle of a desert at noon or beside a working drinking water fountain. gold is not valuable insofar as it is gold, but because of its scarcity and peceived use to humans.
things can only have value insofar as it is relative to some other entity, and of course this value has to be perceived by an active consciousness
dean- 09-26-2006
nope, things have value in themselves independent from others. this value is intrinsic to being. and this intrinsic value has to be perceived by an active consciousness. but it isn't just a matter of perceiving this value... value also has to be affirmed by that consciousness.
Ischaramoochie- 09-26-2006
can you please cite another example? lately i'm finding it hard to accept statements without supporting evidence.
hamstermancer- 09-30-2006
hm...
A pile of elephant dung to elephants is a motherlode to dung beetles... uh... wait...
dignified- 10-02-2006
im a bit confused. is importance the same as value?
Ischaramoochie- 10-03-2006
not necessarily. importance is usually relative to an external object or situation, but value is not. however, the latter still needs to be either recognized or assigned by an entity capable of perceiving it. in other words, importance generally relates to utility, but value relates to a recognition of what something is (i.e. this is important for... but this is valuable to...)
la_flash- 10-09-2006
What is important is valuable, and what is valuable is important.
Forumer™ is Voted #1 Free Forum Hosting provider
Build your own community today with the largest message board hosting company.