Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 03:49:52 AM

To answer your question of, “What value would any good have if we didn’t exist?” The answer is: No value.

I wrote in a response to another person that value requires the existence of a value. More specifically, a thing is a value when it supports that person’s life, and a thing is a disvalue if it harms that person’s life.

It’s funny that you talk about things needing facts too, but then keep bending concepts however they fit your narrative.

Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 03:49:52 AM

Now you’re probably thinking, so doesn’t this prove that value are subjective in that it is dependent on the subject? For example, a large piece of cheesecake may be a value to a healthy 20 years old subject, but a disvalue to a 60 years old with diabetes subject.

I say no because this is not what the term subjective means when use in conjunction with the term objective. Subjective means independent of facts (i.e., to go by feelings) and objective means dependent on facts.

Now im thinking that you’re not even looking at concepts but brainstorming bs to fit ur bias.

The subjective theory of value means that, the value of something lies in how much an individual values and desires it himself, this is subjective and can change. This can include facts, but it’s decided on an individual basis. And like we’re seeing your interpretation of facts can be different from anyone else, so this can be subjective again. Humans are highly subjective beings, there’s people who think the earth is flat and everyone around them is dumb, they think it’s facts too. No matter if you present actual facts or not.

Its not so much the inherent properties of things themselves, even tho this can influence it. We even see that information(„facts“) is valued differently on an individual basis. It would just be foolish to deny that you prefer other things than me. The concept of demand was derived from this, do you deny this one too?

Your viewpoint is also human centric its foolish for any human to claim superior objectivity, give a dog a gold coin and see how much he values it. To us gold might seem valuable, but if an alien watched us from above he would probably think wtf is going on here. Were letting kids/ poor people extract it for us in poor countries and they get nothing from it, were destroying entire liveable habitats for this thing and were even killing/ starting wars with other humans for some metal or paper that has no significant inherent value, all of this might not indicate that this species needs objectivity for anything.

Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 03:49:52 AM

Now, if you were to ask, “So who, other than the subject determines whether something is an value to that subject or not?” I would respond with, anybody with access to the facts could make that determination.

Humans
Arent
Fuckin
Rational
(You’re a good example, because you think force gave fiat it’s value and a voluntarily adopted currency like Bitcoin is worthless) Your whole thought process is shouting subjectivity.

If they want something they’ll do it, they can value something even in absence of facts or benefit. The tobacco industry is making 1 trillion every year without helping anyone, people know it’s bad for them, there’s literally pictures of sick people on the cover, and despite the presence of facts, people spend more on a pack of cigarettes than on a pack of water. How can you explain it, without needing subjectivity? Subjectivity doesn’t exclude objectivity, but this choice lies in the individual, they choose and desire however the f they want.

To me it seems like youre not even choosing reality as any reference point to check ur ideas, you just have this idea that everyone around you is wrong about Bitcoin and you gotta prove it, instead of maybe trying to understand it.