If everyone accepted the "market's" determination of their value, half the world's great writers, artists, scientists, philosophers, would not exist.
If everyone accepted the "market's" determination of their value, half the world's great writers, artists, scientists, philosophers, would not exist.
Could you give me a few examples of great writers who failed to sell any books?
Before or after they died?
When the market made the determination wouldn't be relevant if we're to not accept its determination. In other words, neither, since market value can and does change over time. To clarify, I would mean writers (who wrote a book/s) who were at any point determined to be great based upon the system of determining value you have referred to while at the same time never having achieved the "market's" determination of value by having individuals freely choose to consume their work.
From what you wrote, you seemed to imply that if a writer (or any kind of thinker or 'creator') doesn't find a positive response in the market, then he should direct his energies elsewhere. My knowledge of the lives of many of the world's greatest thinkers immediately told me that we would kiss those thinkers and their thoughts goodbye if they had followed the tastes of the market. Nietzsche, my favorite philosopher, lived on a university stipend. His Zarathustra, probably the best book ever written (imo) was self-published and gifted to relatives (all 30 or so copies of it) and the evidence indicates that probably none of them read it. One of my favorite sf writers, Philip K. Dick, lived on dogfood for a time, and could only afford a permanent residence when Blade Runner was being made. He never saw it, he died before the movie was finished. Now the biggest names direct and star in movies based on his stories.
The examples are endless. These people know they got talent. I don't want to get philosophical cos it's a big subject, but I believe value is objective, it's not merely determined by public taste. And for all I know there may even be great writers who failed to sell any books, I wouln't know since I wouldn't have access to them because they failed to become popular, but I'm pretty certain I'd be able to appreciate their value if I was exposed to it (tho I can't possibly justify this!)
I suppose writers want to be read, so when they insist on writing according to what their inner belief tells them, it's because they're hoping that one day people will understand what they did, i.e. that the market will agree with them, it's a form of betting I guess, like the stock market.
Also in my understanding, great people really can't help it! I don't think Dali could help drawing, I don't think he could be an office worker instead. Talent is a force that demands expression.
Oh, please understand that I'm not suggesting everyone do what I do, nor would I suggest it for the majority, or anything close to that. I'd hoped that I would be clear in saying that it is simply what helps me (plus the disclaimer I hope helped in that regard). I just recognize my own poor ability to estimate the value of the things I produce, and thus find it helpful for me. I have never learned to overcome the feeling that all of my writing sucks. I feel it so strongly that just about everything I write flirts with the waste bin, and a good portion of it ends up there. With some of the things I've written I was so embarrassed to even have it be seen, only to have it be, apparently, well received and well liked. That's not to say others may not find it useful to follow this same approach, as I'm sure many people we'd both agree are great probably tried and failed at many other things before finding that thing they're great at. They didn't just keep doing the thing they were failing at from birth to death having tried nothing else, usually. Some did, I'm sure, and eventually reached a superior mastery of the thing, but that's the exception. I would also suggest that having an overly inflated valuation of your own work comes with its own challenges and dangers. It's just that the more I learn about something, the more I come to realize how little I know about it, and the more things on the whole I learn, the more I realize I don't really know much of anything at all.
I'm a big fan of both of the examples you used, though in both of those examples the creators reached massive recognition of value in the market. Money aplenty has been thrown at the creations of both men, just that it was after they died. What system of value determination would you suggest that would allow us to appreciate their talents long before they are appreciated in the market? If there is such a system, then are we not talking about two completely different perspectives on valuation that don't necessarily conflict? Would the objective valuation be more theoretical, or wholly theoretical in nature? Couldn't someone's work be appreciated as valuable by your definition, while independently (or simultaneously) being valued by the market? I realize those are big questions. I don't expect you to sit down and spend all night educating some idiot on the internet, so links to information that you agree with that explain those things would be perfectly fine.
I wholly agree with the last couple of paragraphs. In fact, I think after looking at a few of your posts that objective vs subjective value for goods, services, and ideas might be one of the very few topics on which we disagree. With the economic and philosophical overlap, I should reemphasize, as I don't find values like morality and virtue to be subjective.
Thanks for taking the time to respond!
You've made yourself abundantly clear now (not that you weren't before, maybe it was just me). I think we've all experienced what you describe, looking at our own writings in a different way as time passes or reinterpreting them through the eyes of others. Heck, Kafka wanted his stuff burned, so what does that say about his ability to appreciate his own work! :p
You are maybe being practical about your market value theory, you have a sort of "it works better than other systems" capitalist approach, whereas mine resembles communism's effort to assign objective value to goods and services and we all know how that usually goes.
But what I'm saying is rather simple: Nietzsche's writings were good before the market decided they were good. If you kill everyone who likes Nietzsche's writings, his books would still be good ever if everyone now hates them. It's in this sense that I think it doesn't matter what the market says. Otherwise we'd have to say that 50 Shades of Grey or whatnot is a better book than Ecce Homo because it sold more copies (don't know if it did, I assume it did), or, to return to the topic of your post, that Taylor Swift is a better musician than Nina Simone.
That I can't stomach!
(No links to offer, but I guess this topic falls under the whole subjective vs objective debate. Pragmatists had this interesting theory that truth is what people of the future, or ideally informed citizens, will agree is truth. I've no doubt that if Taylor Swift fans are allowed to live long enough, they'll agree with me! People might even agree that science and philosophy are more interesting than football. Objectively! :p)