That, my homie, is a matter of perspective. Things can have value/worth without that as well. It ascribes value a weight based on usage rather than money. Which is fine! Value is relatively relative ;)
Things can have value/worth without a connection to a human’s perception of that thing. It gets pretty nebulous and woo-woo, but the principle is valid.
I guess what I’m also saying is that utilitarian thinking isn’t the only way to approach the discussion. But I’m also saying that utilitarian thinking is a valid part of the discussion. But when it comes down to utilitarian versus non utilitarian, it isn’t a discussion, it’s an argument about being right. Which is what the thread turned into towards the end.
You can disagree all you want but value is absolutely and always associated with (at least perceived) scarcity.
Only sometimes. Not always. The value of many things comes with commonality. Social media for example would be worthless for only one person.
I think this is a matter of terminology.
You’re talking monetary value/worth only. They’re talking about value and worth in a broader sense.
Even there, something gets MORE worth when it’s used again, even to sit on a shelf and look pretty.
That, my homie, is a matter of perspective. Things can have value/worth without that as well. It ascribes value a weight based on usage rather than money. Which is fine! Value is relatively relative ;)
Things can have value/worth without a connection to a human’s perception of that thing. It gets pretty nebulous and woo-woo, but the principle is valid.
I guess what I’m also saying is that utilitarian thinking isn’t the only way to approach the discussion. But I’m also saying that utilitarian thinking is a valid part of the discussion. But when it comes down to utilitarian versus non utilitarian, it isn’t a discussion, it’s an argument about being right. Which is what the thread turned into towards the end.