| This question <6|2> overall <7|9> Hans: <7|11>. |
| Question 29: Can you think of an example in which the quantity of something affects its quality, for instance some physical matter two litres of which are qualitatively different from one litre of it? |
| [8] Hans: Colloquial versus philosophical use of the word “quality” One of the difficulties in reading Marx is that Marx uses certain ordinary words in a slightly different meaning than we are used to. |
| Garfield [6] correctly captures the colloquial use of the word “quality”. If we say that a good has high quality, we mean that it serves well for human purposes. Marx does not use the word “quality” in this way. If Marx speaks of the qualities of something he means the ensemble of all properties of the good. But he only includes those properties which belong to the good itself, disregarding its usefulnes for humans. In the presently assigned readings you can find the following Marx quote: |
| A sheep would hardly consider it to be one of its ‘useful’ qualities that it can be eaten by human beings. |
| Whether a sheep tastes good or bad to humans is not part of its qualities! Therefore you will never find Marx saying that something is of high or low quality. |
| Also with some other words we have to be aware how Marx uses them. If he speaks of “wealth”, he does not just mean “abundance” but anything that is necessary for human well-being or enhances it. If he speaks of “social” relations, he does not just mean interactions in which someone is popular and acts in an outgoing and pleasant way, but all kinds of relations that bind people in a society together. |
|
|
|||||