re: to wayne on cracked pots

In my ever humble opinion you are mixing language. In your journal you are talking about two different types of worth “objective” and “emotional.” I think that a better description for your “objective” would be practical worth. “Can they ‘do’ something useful.”

Dammit. I just looked up “objective” in the dictionary and the first two definitions are as follows: “Of or having to do with a material object as distinguished from a mental concept, idea, or belief,” and “Having actual existence or reality.”

That’s a pain. The first definition supports your usage whereas the second is what I was going off of as my rationale to redefine your term as practical.

I wonder what practical means exactly.. “Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action.”

I’ll try to say what I am wanting to say even though I can’t quite find the words to describe it. =)

The division that I see you describing and defining as “Objective” is the capacity of a person to bring about favorable changes in their environment. I have value if I make something viewed as positive. In the case of the pots one brought water to the house while the other watered flowers which were also a positive addition to the house.

The cracked pot was “valuable” because of the flowers produced, whereas if there were no flowers then the pot would have just been spilling water on the ground to no productive end and would be considered less valuable.

That is the traditional way to determine “value.” If you have a boat with a surgeon, a mathematician, the Dhali Lama, Mother Teresa, and a mentally handicapped serial rapist with cerebral palsy on it and the boat is sinking in such a way that unless one person gets out into the shark infested waters they all die. Why would nearly everyone who says that someone ought to get out of the boat so as to save the others agree that the one who is the least valuable the serial rapist?

Even beyond the hypotheticals most of us treat others as though they were of different values. Dehumanizing our enemies and treating them as though they were less valuable that our friends is a pretty common think to do. And the methods that we use to determine a person’s value are usually based on their productivity in some sense.

But what I think that you are touching on with your description of “emotional” value is a measure of the value of an individual that is based on something other than their practical usefulness. Is this correct?

I am tying this in strongly with stuff that I have been trying to iron out with a universal subjective. Fitting socialization and everything in with that is difficult. But I’m not gonna go into that right now. I’m gonna go play under the house. Did you know that Cat-5 is only $0.15 per foot. That ain’t bad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *