| This question <5|5> overall <3|5> Josh: <1149|47>. |
| Question 65: How is Barbon's statement that nothing can have an intrinsic exchange-value related to Butler's statement that the worth of something consists in the amount of money for which it can be exchanged? |
| [4] Josh: The relationship between these two statements can be found by analyzing the text of both quotes. Butler chooses to use the word ‘worth’ to signify a thing's value, more specifically its exchange-value. This is shown by further explaining that this ‘worth’ exists when a thing is exchanged for another thing (in this case the second thing is money). Butler cannot mean to define this ‘worth’ as use-value because the explanation he uses contradicts the definition of use-value. A thing's use-value is not determined by any exchange, but instead it is a result of that thing's interaction with human wants. Therefore, Butler is saying that the exchange-value of any thing is determined by the ability to exchange it for money, or more generally the ability to exchange it for another thing since money is only an exchange mechanism. |
| Barbon approaches the topic in a more simplistic way. He states quite literally that nothing can have an intrinsic value. For analytical purposes it is not important whether Barbon meant use-value or exchange-value, because both forms of value are the result of interaction with something else. Use-value results from an interaction with human wants and exchange-value results from an interaction with other things. Since value is a result of interaction it cannot have been a natural or intrinsic aspect of a thing. |
| Combining the analysis of both statements provides two basic theories. First, that value is the result of interaction. Second, that value is not a natural part of any thing. Logic shows that these theories are interdependent. If value is not intrinsic to a thing then it must come about as a result of some action and if value is a result of action then it cannot by definition be an original property of a thing. So, although these two statements say different things on the surface, both are based on the same underlying principles. |
|
|
|||||