| This question <195|193> overall <4|8> Akudiya: <638|41>. graded A |
| Question 37: Do things have use-value because people use them, or do people use things because they have use-value? |
| [5] Akudiya: Use-value relation. Although this question reminds me of the question, what came first the chicken or the egg, it has its own distinct tone, which is easily answerable using Marx's model how definitions of things such as property, use value and usefulness are derived. |
| In order to create a foundation as to why I believe that people use things because they have use-value, Prof. Ehrbar's quote in his annotations on page 17 will lay the ground work for my argument. He states in his commentary of a quote of Marx, “Things have use-values before people use them, namely they must have certain properties which can be useful for humans before people can use them. If a person uses something, that is not only the human agent's decision that this is what he or she wants to do, but the thing itself must be amenable to this use.” |
| To delve deeper into the quote in order to fully analyze the question, the properties of a commodity must be discussed to illustrate how use-value is not dependent on whether people use them or not. It logically follows on page 13 that the use-value of a particular commodity is derived from its properties and that human beings use them after those conditions are met. The use-value of an object is the reason a human being uses the commodity. |
| On page 13 the annotations give definitions as to what properties are by stating, “Properties are intrinsic to a thing. One should consider them as something dormant, the thing's potential.” The definition of usefulness may seem to counter my argument as part of it states, “The usefulness of a thing is therefore not intrinsic to the thing itself, but it is a relationship between the thing's properties and human needs. It depends not only on the thing but also on humans.” |
| The counterargument to my claim would use the preceding claim to state that a use-value is equally determined by the human using it along with the properties within that commodity; therefore, a thing would have use-value because a person used it just as much as a person using a thing because it has use value. |
| But the key to the argument itself comes on page 13 within the definition of properties as the annotations quote Marx in 149:2/o as saying, “The properties of a thing do not arise from its relations to other things; they are, rather, merely activated by such relations.” |
| The properties of a thing are activated by its relation to humans; it is not created by its relation to human. That distinction brings me to my conclusion. |
| When a human being makes a decision whether or not to use a thing, he or she looks at the use value that will come out of that particular thing. The decision itself must have reason and that reason stems from what the use-value of a particular thing is. |
| To clarify, if a thing only gains use-value when a person uses it, then why would a human even think about using it? Only when that human realizes the intrinsic qualities within a commodity and sees its use value, does he or she use it. As stated in the quote at the beginning of my answer, “If a person uses something, this is not only the human agent's decision that this is what he or she wants to do, but the thing itself must be amenable to this use.” |
| People use things because they have use-value, since they examine that commodity before usage and realize that it is amenable toward their use. Activation of a property does not mean that property did not exist before, rather it was always there and it once its use-value was found, then the human being used it. |
| Hans: Excellent answer which goes very deep. |
|
|
|||||