Value: What Determines It?
I started thinking about this topic when I heard someone, as we all have probably countless times, commenting on the value of a musician's music. He observed that Taylor Swift's music was the trashiest trash to ever manifest itself upon this earth, named just about every criticism that could be levied against her music, and stated plainly that her music had no value and the fact that she was rich because of it was a stain upon humanity. That's the summary, in fewer words and less profane language. Everyone else in the room agreed with him. I disagreed, which made me unpopular for the rest of the day, but only really with the last part of what he said.
You see this all the time throughout your life. You probably see it here with your friends. They'll point out that another Steemit user's posts don't deserve the attention they're getting, either arguing that their own work is better or that the works they follow are far more deserving but are rewarded less.
So, let's break this down a little first. There are two primary distinctions that need to be made before determining value:
Value to the Individual:
This is the easy one. What is valuable to you is ultimately isolated entirely within your mind. Others may influence, make arguments for or against criteria by which you personally determine what is valuable to you, but there is no collective element to the judgment itself. You don't like Taylor Swift's music. You think pickled pig's feet taste great. You think Chevy makes the best cars. You think Mario is the best game series ever made. These are personal value judgments. These can be debated, of course, but you own this assessment of value. No one else. Those who like to put philosophical labels on things might refer to this as "aesthetic preference".
"I like the taste of pickled pig's feet" VS "Pickled pig's feet is a valuable food"
That's why it's not to be conflated with...
Overall Value:
This is the challenging one for some. Does Taylor Swift deserve to be rich? That's not up to one individual. Your hate of her music isn't enough, even if you convince a few of your friends to agree with you wholeheartedly. The truth of the matter is enough people out there love Taylor Swift's music, buy her albums, buy tickets to her concerts, request her songs on the radio, etc, that she she is one of the highest paid entertainers in the business. This would seem to offer pretty solid evidence that Taylor Swift's music is indeed of high value.
Price as an Indicator of Value:
This is where economics and philosophy have overlap. Since value is never the same to a group, large or small, between groups, to the individual, or even to the same individual in different circumstances, a persistent objective value cannot be determined. I could easily turn this into a criticism of economic strategies that attempt to create fixed, persistent pricing for goods and services, and why they inevitably collapse but that's almost purely economics, encroaching on politics; a discussion for another time when I hate myself more than I do at the moment.
Summary:
When price functions as an amoral act of nature, free of force, there doesn't appear to be any better indicator of value in existence whether it be for goods, services, ideas, etc. The market will not factor in your ego, and only considers individual determination of value insofar as that individual's contribution to the overall market whole. If the market consists of a billion consumers, your value vote counts as one billionth of the determination. Tough pill for some to swallow.
You will often see people languish over this. The world just isn't ready for their great ideas, people don't recognize good writing like theirs anymore, the general public must be stupid for not buying their innovative product. They are one hundred percent to be credited for their successes, and external forces are one hundred percent responsible for their failures. That's not to say that any of these claims can't be partially true, just to head off the "not all" argument. I believe we have all fallen into this way of thinking at some point in our lives, and it's always a great temptation.
Final Point:
I've found that what helps me avoid erroneously assessing my own value is to avoid assessing it at all. I will of course evaluate my own preferences, and what is valuable to me as an individual, but avoid a judgment of the overall value of my own ideas, quality of my writing, etc. I submit to the determination of the market. If my writing receives praise and/or I make money from it, I will continue to write and accept that determination. If it is not liked, and I never make a cent, I can safely assume that my writing does not have real value and I will seek to busy myself with something else where I have seen greater evidence of value. When I see others succeed in something I'm also working hard at, I try not to compare myself to them. Instead, I try to dissect their work and determine what the catalyst was for their success, what people find valuable about it. This gives me a sort of permission to disconnect from my own ideas and work that allows me to accept criticism of it without taking it personally or resisting change.
Disclaimer:
I am not a real philosopher, nor am I an economist. I have a love and a passion for the subjects, and have spent many hours studying them, but I have no degree or certification to demonstrate credibility to you. Take what I say with a grain of salt. Amateur hour, as I like to call it.
Criticisms, as always, are welcome and appreciated.
What really determines values?
in short ..
We must know that our freedom ends with the freedom and rights of the others
Values are what distinguish us from the law of animals law of the jungle
So I say that the values are simply make you happy and Keep the rights of those around you
Congratulations @witchguard!
Your post was mentioned in the hit parade in the following category:
Hmm. In my recent post (which you read, right? link to post: is philosophy a science?) I make the point that value and economic value get mixed often, but that this is a trend in contemporary society, but definitely something that is not helpful.
So maybe you could perhaps change the title - what is economic about value? Or you should maybe explore whether there is also something like 'value' that is not economical... Or at least I would be very interested in hearing what you think about that! :)
Nobyeni! Thank you for responding, and I'm so sorry it took me so long to respond. You posted it right after I went to bed and I wanted to wait until I got home from work because I thought my response to you deserved my full attention.
Could you clarify for me what you mean by "not helpful"? I reread your post as well, and I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by it not being helpful. I interpret it as you believe that not all issues are best approached from an economic perspective. If I'm incorrect, I welcome the correction. I'm going to operate off that assumption, so feel free to kick me in the ass if everything I'm about to write addresses a position you don't even hold.
In that I would certainly disagree that it is not helpful. Since all living things behave and change their behavior based upon incentives, I find it to be deeply meaningful to seek to understand these incentives and to use them to our advantage when we seek to further a cause. Does that mean you aren't correct in saying that it's not the best way to approach certain problems? I think you're absolutely correct in that, and one example in particular comes to mind: Slavery.
When the great debate was underway in the West on the value of slavery, before we decided to abolish it, it was commonly understood that slavery had enormous economic value. In fact, it was seen as economically necessary and had been seen that way for tens of thousands of years. After all, what successful society existed or had ever existed which did not have slaves? At that point, it was a strong argument. None had. None did. So we had the choice of making a decision for the sake of economics, or to make a decision based on our evolving understanding of what it was to be good, and virtuous, and moral men. I'm glad the economic argument lost, but I want to point out that this position lost out in the marketplace of ideas. Though it may not have been because of monetary valuation, it was still a free market of speech and ideas that allowed the counter argument to be made and to emerge victorious in the first place. In the end, though, it turned out to be a wonderful economic decision as well. Who would've known that we would have responded to the lack of slave labor with amazing industrial innovation that would become almost a second Renaissance? That leads to your question...
I certainly recognize that there is value that is not economical, as in my example above. It's a big subject, and there's a lot in it. So much in philosophical exploration of value has no overlap at all with economic value. My only point of disagreement I suppose would be with the fact that there is or isn't some overlap between economic value and philosophical value, and whether or not that overlap or perspective is helpful. To clarify further, I think this overlap only exists when looking through the lens of truly free market economics. Where there is control, or force in the economic market, there can be no overlap with philosophy.
For that matter, where there is control or force present in ideas, I would also say there could be little or no advancement in philosophy and those ideas. Socrates was murdered for communicating his ideas in the open market. Had they been onto him sooner, we would have even less of his work. Had they allowed him to advance his ideas in the open market, we'd have even more of his work to better the world. Same goes for Aristotle. That a man that brilliant would have to die on the run, and from some likely curable illness, while having all his written works destroyed (which was said, according to some who read it, was a writing superior to Socrates) is tragic. How many more great philosophers would we be referencing in our conversations today had they not been afraid of being killed for voicing their ideas?
Have you noticed yet that I tend to ramble? ;)
Thanks again for your reply.
I've read worse ramblings!
P.S. Superior to Plato you mean, I guess.
Oops, yes you're correct. I won't bother correcting above as it'll remove the context of your correction, but yes.
What makes society go round is the standardization of value. What's considered too much violence? What's considered too much money or not enough? ne of the hardest thing to do would be to disassociate yourself from society's standardizations. It would be a complete rewiring of your brain because on a psychological level they help us think faster.
In any case very interesting article.
Thanks for the comment. One example stood out to me in your reply. You mention the social standardization of what is considered the right amount of violence in society. Would this standard differ during war and peace time, and if it differs would that make it subjective depending upon the benefits of violence in that society at the time?
I would think so. I would consider everything relative. Today's social standard and tolerance for violence is different than what it was 40 years ago.
The world would be much more peaceful and prosperous if more people understood that all value is subjective. To deny this and to try to control prices is to try to control people and their preferences. It's a great injustice and economically disastrous.
Also, I think economics and philosophy overlap more than people would like to admit.
I don't know honestly I wrote post I think of value but in the end they don't seem that way to others sadly @witchguard. Great thoughts here
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)
Very interesting :)
How do you feel about the idea of 'absolute value'? Or about the intrinsic value of something like learning or creativity, i.e. there's value to be found in doing the thing, regardless of the outcome or response? I guess this might not be relevant if we're just talking about societal value, or specifically about work intended for public consumption...but just interested in your reflections?
Thanks
On assessing your own value, or the value of your writing:
This only applies if the goal is to make money and have a market determination of value. You might derive value from writing and thinking that is of even greater personal value than the market value.
Your early writings could garner no economic value, but they could still be building blocks upon which you will build later success - even financial success.
There are indeed many measures of value. I think it is dangerous to assess personal value in relation to anyone else though.... Of course, if the real goal is to make money and you aren't making money, I agree that some evaluation must be made. It more likely a practical matter than a value judgement though.