| This question <41|56> overall <46|55> Thugtorious: <37|83>. (graded A) |
| Question 38: Do things have use-value because people use them, or do people use things because they have use-value? |
| [53] Thugtorious: Response to and Question about Gza's answer. I agree with most of what the Genius, Gza, says in [41]. However, this perplexing question has me a little stumped. It sort of reminds me of the Platonian idea of “virtue.” The virtue of a tool, object, or commodity (in this case), is within its intended use. For example, if a hammer is used to hammer in a nail, the hammer is virtuous. However, if it is used as a means for murder, it is not virtuous. Therefore, the use of an idea, tool, object, etc. is presuppossed before use, and not defined by its use. I might have Plato's argument a little skewed here, but the point should still hold. |
| Now, moving onto the Marxian idea of “use-value.” He sites within the first chapter that two people meet in a marketplace to exchange commodities. Seller A has a commodity that is of no use-value to himself, and seller B has a commodity that is of no use-value to herself. Luckily, they find the other person's commodity to have use-value for their purpose, which makes the exchange beneficial for all parties involved. So, the idea of a “use-value” reminds me, in a way, of the Platonian idea of “virtue,” except in a much more relative sense. Instead of the commodity having an intrinsic use-value, the value arises within the possesor's intended use of said commodity; almost the inverse of the Platonian idea of virtue. |
| Here comes my question: Say said commodity no longer had a use-value for anybody in the market. It became completely obsolete. Does that item still contain some abstract concept of use-value, or was its use-value truely defined by the user? Or, does it fall out of the realm of commodities and become just an object with no use-value? Further, what is to be said about an item that, through study and technological advance, has a new use-value is uncovered (for example, diamonds and lasers)? Can we honestly say that the item always possessed that use-value, and it was because of this that we discovered it? Or, was it humans insatiable drive for discovery and repeated use of said object that bestowed upon it a new use-value? |
| This is not as much a critique of the Gza's answer, but more of a question. |
| Hans: Personal remarks, like calling other class participants a “genius,” are not appropriate in this kind of discussion. |
|
|
|||||