Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A poll:Follow

#27 Dec 17 2009 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Pensive, things and ideas have only the value we place in them. If someone puts value in having money, then whatever he does is a means to the end of having more money. Perhaps we'll use money itself as a means to that end, as money can obviously be a means as well.

Compare it to a car maybe? For me getting a car would simply be a means to being able to transport myself. Don't get me wrong, I like driving, but in the end, I don't really care, my focus is on the goal of going somewhere. I have a friend for whom getting a car is often the end. He doesn't particularly need it, but he gets it to have the car, regardless of how useful it is. On the other hand, I have a really nice triathlon bike that for me is both a means and and end.

Pretty simple right? Save it and it's not money, spend it and it's not an end. There isn't a third option.

False

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 1:11pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#28 Dec 17 2009 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
things and ideas have only the value we place in them.


Yes, that's the point.

Quote:
Compare it to a car maybe? [..] I have a really nice triathlon bike that for me is both a means and and end.


All of this is true, but it's not relevant.

Quote:
If someone puts value in having money, then whatever he does is a means to the end of having more money.


This is incorrect. If someone puts value in having X it does not guarantee X to have ultimacy in terms of value. Certainly you recognize that and have merely misspoken, but this little distinction is the entire point.

Quote:
Perhaps we'll use money itself as a means to that end, as money can obviously be a means as well.


The money is not your end in any case. Again, provide an example. Make one up, using any caprice you'd like. You aren't going to get it. Money is peculiar in that it's concept simply is not something which can be valued as your ultimate goal. Part of what makes money, money, is that it it considered to be valuable for exchange, and if you rob money of that potential to be used, it ceases to actually be money. The second you treat money as an end it simply isn't money anymore: it's paper.

It's like saying that a bag of old bones and entrails is a human being. It was once before but is no longer. Both a human and money have certain conditions which make up their conditions and definitions, and if you remove something required, it doesn't fit anymore. The only difference here is that a human being requires consciousness as one of it's qualities, whereas one of those necessary conditions for money just happens to be the potential use of it as a means.

Quote:
Pretty simple right? Save it and it's not money, spend it and it's not an end. There isn't a third option.

False


Crying false dilemma doesn't actually work when the dilemma is true. Sometimes you have A or not A, and you simply can't have both at the same time.

I can save or not save money. We should be able to agree that the latter is immediately not an ends. If the former also does not allow for the existence of an end, then there is quite simply no other option, and any attempt to consider money as an end is an exercise in self-delusion.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 2:19pm by Pensive
#29 Dec 17 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I suppose the argument could be made that even if one hoards money for security, it is still a means to that end (feeling secure).

Physical money has very little use, except to penny a door shut or snort coke.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#30 Dec 17 2009 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
At a certain point money is simply a means of keeping score. There are people who for whom simply acquiring more money is their actual goal, they have no need for it, nothing they will get with it, nothing they could do with it, aside from perhaps using it to get even more money. It also doesn't cease to be money just because you don't use it. And it always has the potential to be used. Perhaps that would make it easier? People like acquiring more potential? It's the same thing.

I'm not going to pretend it's a view that makes sense to me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Imagine if I liked pipes. I would collect pipes, and have hundreds of them. I never smoke, because I don't like smoking, but I like pipes, and simply having one more pipe is an end in and of itself. Do the pipes stop being pipes because I don't use them? Am I really just valuing wood and plastic in a certain form? Because this is what you seem to be saying.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#31 Dec 17 2009 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
See my post above yours. Smiley: smile

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#32 Dec 17 2009 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
True, but use doesn't determine value. And the problem with the idea that being secure is the goal falls apart when people continue to value money after their security is assured.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#33 Dec 17 2009 at 1:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
True, but use doesn't determine value. And the problem with the idea that being secure is the goal falls apart when people continue to value money after their security is assured.


No, it just points to their neurosis. For some people there is no such thing as enough security, enough status, enough numbers in the account.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#34 Dec 17 2009 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
The money is not your end in any case. Again, provide an example. Make one up, using any caprice you'd like. You aren't going to get it. Money is peculiar in that it's concept simply is not something which can be valued as your ultimate goal. Part of what makes money, money, is that it it considered to be valuable for exchange, and if you rob money of that potential to be used, it ceases to actually be money. The second you treat money as an end it simply isn't money anymore: it's paper.


I've found a flaw in your argument, sir!

I have a Danish Kroner that a client brought back and the bank won't let us deposit (they don't take foreign coins). It has a hole in the middle of it, and I think it's pretty. I put it on a chain and wear it around my neck, 'cause it makes me happy. That piece of money is an end, and not a means!

It's like my analogy with a child. If you don't know what money is used for, that it has a value and can purchase something, or if the money is obselete (the gold coins that the Franklin Mint sell), then it becomes an end and is no longer a means!

Am I right?
#35 Dec 17 2009 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
@Samira
That's reasonable, but I'd still say that there are people who will value the money for no other reason then that it's money. Societies lust for money, usually as a means sure, is what lets it maintain it's value to someone for whom it's an end.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 1:43pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#36 Dec 17 2009 at 1:54 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
It also doesn't cease to be money just because you don't use it.


I disagree. That's basically the end of any meaningful or mutual clarification. I would like to amicably put up a pretty close analogy I thought of in the shower, to show how this process can happen, even if you don't think it does with cash.

I think it's a decent comparrison to make the sort of destroyed-in-the process-of-honouring-it sense about money as the same one as is in virginity.

Now just imagine a dude who's been really snookered by the puritans into the notion of respecting virginity forever but he, in a very similar and understandable (if you may empathize with such conflicting morals act of rationalization, decides that the best way to honour the idea is to engage in it's consummation with his wife every day! The thing you're trying to honour as an end simply can't endure the process which converts it into one; you have to ruin the very thing you're trying to value because it simply isn't something which you can simultaneously value and preserve.

This is not a perfect analogy. You could actually value virginity as an end by never breaking it. I want to illustrate just a simple point though for your consideration, in that some things must break to have the value that we normally give them, and money without that sort of breaking simply doesn't work as money. You can value the things which compose the idea as ends sure, but it's a hard notion to swallow that a pool full of paper actually counts: it doesn't have the same behavior, use, function, or even value (not even by scrooge.) Maybe it looks like a duck, but it's not quacking, it's not walking, and it's not swimming like one.

Quote:
That piece of money is an end, and not a means!


I took a rock off of my shelf from an old rock collection, put a rope around it and hung it from my lamp. Your coin is not currency anymore than that rock. With a little work and modification, both could become money, but they really just aren't at present.

(I did not actually take a rock; just pretend I did ok?)

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 3:00pm by Pensive
#37 Dec 17 2009 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
you analogy is about a state, rather then something you can acquire. I don't find it terribly applicable really. It also doesn't really make any sense. but that might be your point.

What about the pipes? That was my analogy, and I'm wondering what you think of it?

Ah, ok well your edit confirmed what my theory was. I disagree that money is defined by it's use. Now that's not completely true, but the fact that most people use money preserves it's value in the face of one person not using it. I believe this is our point of disagreement, and I'm happy disagreeing with you on that point. the piece of money, used as jewelery in this case is still money.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 2:09pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#38 Dec 17 2009 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
That piece of money is an end, and not a means!


I took a rock off of my shelf from an old rock collection, put a rope around it and hung it from my lamp. Your coin is not currency anymore than that rock. With a little work and modification, both could become money, but they really just aren't at present.

(I did not actually take a rock; just pretend I did ok?)

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 3:00pm by Pensive


But your rock was never currency. My coin is currency. It's not been ruined by my making a necklace out of it or my valuing it apart from what can be done with it.

Look at the stores who frame and hang their very first dollar bill. That dollar bill is still money. But that dollar bill is the end, not the means. They want to keep that dollar bill, not because of it's worth $1 USD, but because of the emotional value it has. It never stops being a dollar. If someone broke into the store and emptied out the cash register, then broke the glass and took that dollar just for spite, they could spend it.

ETA: Your analogy about the rock is no different from any of Xarus's analogies about items, by the way. It doesn't work in the same context because it's not the same thing as money.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 2:11pm by Belkira
#39 Dec 17 2009 at 2:14 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
But your rock was never currency.


Are you trying to insinuate that the properties we value in objects are somehow inextricably injected into the objects themselves and cannot be lost?

Quote:
That dollar bill is still money.


It is in no meaningful sense currency. Are the deer heads hanging in my father's bedroom still deer or are they trophies? That's all a framed bill is: a trophy.

Quote:
They want to keep that dollar bill, not because of it's worth $1 USD, but because of the emotional value it has. It never stops being a dollar.


A "dollar" need not be "money." If we're wiped out tomorrow by a biological T virus, there will still be tons of dollars, at least in some physical capacity. There won't be -money- anymore.

Quote:
I disagree that money is defined by it's use.


It's not. I'd go with function moreso. A function isn't really a strictly observable fact or occurance. It's a state of existence which is defined by certain potentialities and actual traits. It's a pretty hard to spot difference, I'll admit, and if you don't see it then I'm certainly not the one with the wherewithal to give you sudden clarity as to what I think is importantly different.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 3:20pm by Pensive
#40 Dec 17 2009 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Are you trying to insinuate that the properties we value in objects are somehow inextricably injected into the objects themselves and cannot be lost?


Um... sure?

Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
It is in no meaningful sense currency. Are the deer heads hanging in my father's bedroom still deer or are they trophies? That's all a framed bill is: a trophy.


Sure it is. It can still be spent. It's value is not gone. If the proprietor got really thirsty and needed that dollar for the vending machine, he can take it down and use it at any time. The deer heads in your father's bedroom are still deer, yes. Dead deer, I hope, but deer nonetheless. It is also a trophy. Items can have more than one label, more than one use.

Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
A "dollar" need not be "money." If we're wiped out tomorrow by a biological T virus, there will still be tons of dollars, at least in some physical capacity. There won't be -money- anymore.


Why won't there be money anymore...? Of course there will be, unless the physical incarnation of every coin and paper bill is destroyed.
#41 Dec 17 2009 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
It is in no meaningful sense currency. Are the deer heads hanging in my father's bedroom still deer or are they trophies? That's all a framed bill is: a trophy.
It's still a deer's head. A framed deer head is different then a framed dollar, which is different then a framed certificate. They're all being treated similarly, and they do share commonalities, but I'd say they aren't the same.

What about my pipe analogy? Do the pipes stop being pipes?

As I said before, pensive is defining things(money in this case) solely in their use. I don't think that's a good definition, but that's really the crux of the issue. /shrug

As to money still being around, I'm not talking about paper or coin money necessarily, I have money in the bank. It's largely an idea, yet people can still value it.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 2:41pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#42 Dec 17 2009 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
What about my pipe analogy? Do the pipes stop being pipes?


Not really. You don't have to destroy or consume a pipe in order to enjoy it.

Quote:
Why won't there be money anymore...?


Because that's not what "money" means.

Bringing me to the next point

This dispute is terminological at this point. It's an arbitrary ******** about what a single word means, and doesn't have much to do with a dispute of reality, but rather clarity and communication. Now, the only reason for anyone to continue to mutually ***** about those sorts of things is a general sense of pride and knowledge of the usage of a word, but I @#%^ing hate purely terminological disputes, meaning from this post on further dialogue changes from useless but having at least redeeming esoteric intellectual value to being utterly arbitrary and pretty much worthless because it consists of lots of people saying the same thing with different words.

In that regard, on a constructive point at least, I would say, that if you insist on holding what you hold as "money" as a concept (why shouldn't you? you need not use the same words I do,) that you should make up some new words for what I am indicating, whether or not you give up your present word choice. I really don't care what words you use if you do, in fact, make different ones.

Quote:
As I said before, pensive is defining things(money in this case) solely in their use.


Function, and it's not things, just certain things which are functionally manifested, like intelligence, sensation, consciousness, beauty, etc.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 3:44pm by Pensive
#43 Dec 17 2009 at 2:40 PM Rating: Decent
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
What about my pipe analogy? Do the pipes stop being pipes?


Not really. You don't have to destroy or consume a pipe in order to enjoy it.

Quote:
Why won't there be money anymore...?


Because that's not what "money" means.

Bringing me to the next point

This dispute is terminological at this point. It's an arbitrary ******** about what a single word means, and doesn't have much to do with a dispute of reality, but rather clarity and communication. Now, the only reason for anyone to continue to mutually ***** about those sorts of things is a general sense of pride and knowledge of the usage of a word, but I @#%^ing hate purely terminological disputes, meaning from this post on further dialogue changes from useless but having at least redeeming esoteric intellectual value to being utterly arbitrary and pretty much worthless because it consists of lots of people saying the same thing with different words.

In that regard, on a constructive point at least, I would say, that if you insist on holding what you hold as "money" as a concept (why shouldn't you? you need not use the same words I do,) that you should make up some new words for what I am indicating, whether or not you give up your present word choice. I really don't care what words you use if you do, in fact, make different ones.


Reading your posts really is becoming akin to peeling my fingernails off with a pair of pliers. While I work on making up new words, you could work on making up a new personality. Deal?
#44 Dec 17 2009 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
What about my pipe analogy? Do the pipes stop being pipes?


Not really. You don't have to destroy or consume a pipe in order to enjoy it.
How can I enjoy a pipe if I never use it?

I agree with you on the terminology, and I've stated that the last two posts I've made. I'm not entirely clear on what your definition of money really is, aside from the fact that it is inextricably tied into it's use. I understand that argument, seeing as money is largely imaginary, and is mainly a voucher that lets you acquire something else. I don't disagree with this definition, but I'm still going to maintain that people, for whatever reason, can value the simple possession of that voucher, without any intent to use it. The ability to spend it is still there, and that's what they value. That ability to spend, is essentially what money is these days, and while I find it absurd to place value in that for itself, that does not mean people don't.

Pensive, let me know if that ability to acquire something is what you mean by money? Or else define it please.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 2:53pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#45 Dec 17 2009 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Reading your posts really is becoming akin to peeling my fingernails off with a pair of pliers.


Are you a *********? Compensating for my charm? Looking for ******** opportunities? Perhaps just a total idiot without the slightest notion of problem solving or common sense?

Don't read them.
#46 Dec 17 2009 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
This is what bothers me about Pensive, and why I don't usually enter into these conversations with him:

Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Because that's not what "money" means.

Bringing me to the next point

This dispute is terminological at this point. It's an arbitrary ******** about what a single word means, and doesn't have much to do with a dispute of reality, but rather clarity and communication. Now, the only reason for anyone to continue to mutually ***** about those sorts of things is a general sense of pride and knowledge of the usage of a word, but I @#%^ing hate purely terminological disputes, meaning from this post on further dialogue changes from useless but having at least redeeming esoteric intellectual value to being utterly arbitrary and pretty much worthless because it consists of lots of people saying the same thing with different words.

In that regard, on a constructive point at least, I would say, that if you insist on holding what you hold as "money" as a concept (why shouldn't you? you need not use the same words I do,) that you should make up some new words for what I am indicating, whether or not you give up your present word choice. I really don't care what words you use if you do, in fact, make different ones.


So, we're wrong because we don't see things as you do (and, really, as a Philosophy major, one would think that you could understand that different people perceive things differently, and it's not black and white) and, to further that, we've degraded into a semantic argument that should no longer be discussed. Oh, and we're instructed to begin using different terminology because Pensive says.

Smiley: mad

It's frustrating. I quit.
#47 Dec 17 2009 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
I think you use unnecessary words because you like vocabulary. I tend to avoid this on the internet as I feel it leads to misunderstanding, but I don't mind your posts because I really like vocabulary as well. I don't believe you at all that you sound the same on the forum as you do in real life, but I think you're being honest about thinking that so it's cool.

Oh and yeah, stubbs is a *********. Where have you been?

I don't feel like making a new post for this, but I'm really curious as to how you feel about the definition of money I proposed.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 3:00pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#48 Dec 17 2009 at 2:54 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
So, we're wrong because we don't see things as you do


I did not say this

Quote:
Oh, and we're instructed to begin using different terminology because Pensive says.


I did not say this

Quote:
we've degraded into a semantic argument that should no longer be discussed


I did not say this

(
Quote:
and, really, as a Philosophy major, one would think that you could understand that different people perceive things differently, and it's not black and white


This isn't a universally applicable maxim. If it was, it would kind of be self-defeating. Always think about context! There's a pretty obvious contradiction.

Quote:
This is what bothers me about Pensive, and why I don't usually enter into these conversations with him


Yes, misinterpreting posts and intuiting non-existent malicious intent is a very fast qay to get bothered, I would think.

Look, writing in response to stubs? Malicious intent. look, it's totally right there.

Ugly: again, malicious intent, pure diatribe!

Xsarus and belkira: not there

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 4:03pm by Pensive
#49 Dec 17 2009 at 2:57 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
I don't believe you at all that you sound the same on the forum as you do in real life


You'd be wrong, but you're entitled to believe what you feel is most probable.

Quote:
I think you use unnecessary words because you like vocabulary.


None of them is unnecessary in my appraisal. I don't know why people flatter themselves so much that you'd think I'd change the entire mode of speaking for them.
#50 Dec 17 2009 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
I don't believe you at all that you sound the same on the forum as you do in real life


You'd be wrong, but you're entitled to believe what you feel is most probable.
yeah, I know, I just like bugging you Smiley: grin

Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
I think you use unnecessary words because you like vocabulary.


None of them is unnecessary in my appraisal. I don't know why people flatter themselves so much that you'd think I'd change the entire mode of speaking for them.
Most choices of words can be changed, and are unnecessary. It isn't necessary to use words like esoteric or conflate, other words will be more widely understood. You have a good vocabulary and enjoy using these words, instead of using of a combination of simpler words, and that's fine. This doesn't make them necessary, and you would be better understood if you chose not to use them. Please don't stop though, I think everyone should know as many words as they can

Also I don't care, talk to me about money.

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 3:07pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#51 Dec 17 2009 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
So, we're wrong because we don't see things as you do


I did not say this

Quote:
Oh, and we're instructed to begin using different terminology because Pensive says.


I did not say this

Quote:
we've degraded into a semantic argument that should no longer be discussed


I did not say this

(
Quote:
and, really, as a Philosophy major, one would think that you could understand that different people perceive things differently, and it's not black and white


This isn't a universally applicable maxim. If it was, it would kind of be self-defeating. Always think about context! There's a pretty obvious contradiction.

Quote:
This is what bothers me about Pensive, and why I don't usually enter into these conversations with him


Yes, misinterpreting posts and intuiting non-existent malicious intent is a very fast qay to get bothered, I would think.

Look, writing in response to stubs? Malicious intent. look, it's totally right there.

Ugly: again, malicious intent, pure diatribe!

Xsarus and belkira: not there

Edited, Dec 17th 2009 4:03pm by Pensive


1. No, you didn't say that. I was just peeved, so I inserted that one in there.

2. Yes, you did say that. You told us that if we wanted to continue talking to you, we were to make up different words for what you are talking in an effort to leave a semantic debate behind us.

3.
Pensive wrote:
Now, the only reason for anyone to continue to mutually ***** about those sorts of things is a general sense of pride and knowledge of the usage of a word, but I @#%^ing hate purely terminological disputes, meaning from this post on further dialogue changes from useless but having at least redeeming esoteric intellectual value to being utterly arbitrary and pretty much worthless because it consists of lots of people saying the same thing with different words.


So you didn't come out and say it in as few words as I did (that would certainly be a feat if you managed that) but the summation is: "Semantic arguments are worthless. We shouldn't continue this line of debate."

4. I'm going to be honest and admit that I don't know what this: "This isn't a universally applicable maxim. If it was, it would kind of be self-defeating. Always think about context! There's a pretty obvious contradiction." means. I think you're saying that this "debate" isn't up for objectivism, and that there is only one right answer: That money cannot be valued for anything other than a means to an end. For some reason, wanting to hold on to a dollar bill or a foriegn coin for sentimental reasons makes it no longer money... it's very odd. Like Xarus, I have no idea what definition of money you're using. It's not the one I found in the dictionary, though, I don't think.

5. I never said, nor did I think, that there was any malicious intent in your post. Maybe a bit of condescension, though.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 102 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (102)