Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:49 pm

bobevenson wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:43 pm Please, the intrinsic value of a gold ring is what a buyer is willing to pay for it and a seller willing to accept, pure and simple, my friend.

Only if the buyer and the seller are inside the ring.

Yeah, that pretty well sums up your intellect.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:06 am

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:47 pm

bobevenson wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:54 pm Sorry pal, you simply don't understand English. Stick to your gobbledygook.

There goes that irony bird again.

Oh, my God, an Arising copycat!

Yes, I did copy Arising. The cap fits so wear it.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:08 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:49 pm

bobevenson wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:43 pm Please, the intrinsic value of a gold ring is what a buyer is willing to pay for it and a seller willing to accept, pure and simple, my friend.

Only if the buyer and the seller are inside the ring.

Yeah, that pretty well sums up your intellect.

You agree of course that prices for gold rings are set by markets.
And you know that markets for gold rings are not intrinsic to the rings.
And you already wrote that "At any point in time, price determines the value of anything."
So you must also agree that the value of the ring is derived from a market, which is external.
And therefore you must agree that the value of the ring is extrinsic.
Exactly in line with the dictionary definition of extrinsic value I already gave you.

And therefore you must agree that the value of the ring is not intrinsic.



Now you will respond by just stating that value is intrinsic without referring to any reasons why, or addressing any objections, because that is what you always do when you know you're out of your depth.It's about the tenth time you have tried this particular one, and you aren't getting any nearer to success. I expect you will say please first.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:08 am Please, the intrinsic value of a gold ring is what a buyer is willing to pay for it and a seller willing to accept, pure and simple, my friend.

No,it is not simple, and definitely not pure.

Intrinsic value can change independent of the price (what a buyer is willing to pay for it.) In today's world a gold ring's intrinsic value is sentimental, or else metaphorical. That's the object made with that material. The material's intrinsic value aside from ring-type objects, is that it conducts electricity very well, and over touching surfaces not just in a continuous wire form.

The price of gold varies daily.

If the price was connected to the intrinsic value, then the gold material in the ring would vary in its capacity to conduct electricity. But gold does not vary in its capacity to conduct electricity. Therefore price is not connected to intrinsic value.

Therefore the payment is price. The intrinsic value can't be pinned down to a particular price.

This is fundamental in the language. Those who give a dollar amount to objects, and call it a value, are using the wrong word. Dollar amount given in exchange is price, not value. Value is intrinsic, esp. intrinsic value. That does not and can't have a price.

I know that in colloquial English or informal English it is possible; but it is only possible because the word "value" assumes the meaning of the word "price". However, on a conceptual level, the two ought never to be mixed up.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:12 am

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:06 am

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:47 pm

There goes that irony bird again.

Oh, my God, an Arising copycat!

Yes, I did copy Arising. The cap fits so wear it.

Yeah, dunce cap!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:38 am

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:08 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:49 pm

Only if the buyer and the seller are inside the ring.

Yeah, that pretty well sums up your intellect.

You agree of course that prices for gold rings are set by markets.
And you know that markets for gold rings are not intrinsic to the rings.
And you already wrote that "At any point in time, price determines the value of anything."
So you must also agree that the value of the ring is derived from a market, which is external.
And therefore you must agree that the value of the ring is extrinsic.
Exactly in line with the dictionary definition of extrinsic value I already gave you.

And therefore you must agree that the value of the ring is not intrinsic.



Now you will respond by just stating that value is intrinsic without referring to any reasons why, or addressing any objections, because that is what you always do when you know you're out of your depth.It's about the tenth time you have tried this particular one, and you aren't getting any nearer to success. I expect you will say please first.

Please, you are beating a dead horse! Please refer to the dictionary definition of the intrinsic value of a gold ring. Then compare the intrinsic value of a gold ring to the intrinsic value of a stock certificate. A world of difference, my friend, the difference between the market value of gold compared to the market value of paper and ink!

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:28 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:38 am

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:08 am
Yeah, that pretty well sums up your intellect.

You agree of course that prices for gold rings are set by markets.
And you know that markets for gold rings are not intrinsic to the rings.
And you already wrote that "At any point in time, price determines the value of anything."
So you must also agree that the value of the ring is derived from a market, which is external.
And therefore you must agree that the value of the ring is extrinsic.
Exactly in line with the dictionary definition of extrinsic value I already gave you.

And therefore you must agree that the value of the ring is not intrinsic.



Now you will respond by just stating that value is intrinsic without referring to any reasons why, or addressing any objections, because that is what you always do when you know you're out of your depth.It's about the tenth time you have tried this particular one, and you aren't getting any nearer to success. I expect you will say please first.

Please, you are beating a dead horse! Please refer to the dictionary definition of the intrinsic value of a gold ring. Then compare the intrinsic value of a gold ring to the intrinsic value of a stock certificate. A world of difference, my friend, the difference between the market value of gold compared to the market value of paper and ink!

Gold doesn't have much intrinsic value, any more than paper and ink does.

The stock certificate is valuable only if it represents a share in a valuable company and the value of the gold ring is variable as is that of gold, and of non gold rings.

The market sets the value of things, it is not intrinsic to the things it prices.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:18 pm Please, a gold ring and a stock certificate may have the same market value, but the gold ring has far more intrinsic value, and anybody who argues against this position is an ignorant fool, and a damned ignorant fool to boot!

That's beside the point. Neither has intrinsic value to match its market value, both are priced for the purposes of transactions by the market. The market is extrinsic to the objects.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:47 pm Well, if you don't think a gold ring has any intrinsic value, I guess you won't look for it if you lose one.

Well if I'm only valuing it for its intrinsic value such as the industrial usefulness of its metal, then perhaps I wouldn't.
If I want to sell it for money then I would, but that's extrinsic as you are well aware.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:21 pm

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:12 am

bobevenson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:06 am

Oh, my God, an Arising copycat!

Yes, I did copy Arising. The cap fits so wear it.

Yeah, dunce cap!

I wouldn't go so far as to say you are a dunce, I think you are being a bit hard on yourself.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:56 am You said, "Yes, I did copy Arising. The cap fits so wear it." I think you were saying that since the cap fitted you, you were only too happy to wear it.

Sparkling wit always gets even better when you have to write an explanation for your joke.