| This question <543|137> overall <128|132> Utegirl: <24|218>. |
| Question 196: Aristotle wrote: ‘There can be no exchange without equality, and no equality without commensurability.’ What does he mean by this? What is the difference between equality and commensurability? |
| [131] Utegirl: Aristotle wrote: “There can be no exchange without equality, and no equality without commensurability.” Aristotle saw that some qualitative and equative measure should be applied in order to value goods. However, because Aristotle believed in equality as a necessary condition for exchange, Aristotle would abandon a further theory of value on the basis that it would be impossible for unlike things to be commensurable, or qualitatively equal. |
| In other words, Aristotle discovered the need for finding a common basis of comparison, but stopped short from finding that common basis. |
| Equality's definition is “of the same measure, quantity, or amount.” Another definition that applies to Aristotle: equality is “like in quality, nature, or status.” |
| Commensurability is “having a common measure, divisible without remainder by a common unit.” Aristotle is saying it's hard to compare or determine an exchange without the items being exchanged having common characteristics. |
| The difference is: commensurability requires common characteristics where equality requires like qualities. |
| Hans: You are saying it all, and you understand what is going on, but your answer is still not clear enough. You are crafting nice-sounding sentences, even coining new expressions: “Aristotle saw that some qualitative and equative measure should be applied in order to value goods.” But this is probably the weakest sentence in your answer. I tried to give a brief, no-nonsense formulation, which allows the hurried reader to understand what is being said without having to ponder over the text for a long time, in my [137]. |
|
|
|||||