New Social Thread

[skeptik]

Philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

In that case I still have no idea why you said "Materialism is a fallacy", so I guess that doesn't really clear anything up. What does "Materialism is a fallacy" have to do with what is being discussed (principally that, evidently, luxury items should not be valued)?

 

[Einherjar86]

The use value of oil is certainly reflected in its prices, because if we didn't need to consume it we wouldn't be paying so much for it. I don't see how oil has any significant exchange value in the same way money does, so you'll have to explain to me where this value comes from and how that value overshadows the use value (as you seem to be arguing).

I can point you to Section 4 of Chapter 1 of Marx's Capital where he begins to lay out how exchange-value is what comes to reside in commodities and determines their value within our social structure.

Use-value is not inherent in an object any more than exchange-value, according to Marx. "Use" is not something an object possesses; it only comes to possess it once humans attribute use to it. This is part of the egomorphic relation with objects.

Use-value is only realized by exchange-value. People want items because they're useful. Thus, items are exchanged for others so people can attain the items they need. Oil is part of this exchange. We need it, but its value is only realized by the fact that it's in demand and that people are willing to exchange other things of value for it (and it for things of value).

Attribution of ones own needs, desires, motives etc., to someone else; the tendency to build a system of thought and interpret the reactions in others as terms of ones own ego needs - projection.

This is where use-value comes from. We see objects as useful because they fulfill our needs; the properties of "use" are not inherent to objects.

It has been suggested that interpretations a psychiatrist makes to a patient are based on the egomorphism of the physician. This is one aspect that has lead psychoanalytic training institutes to require their students to undergo psychoanalysis.

Yes, this is true. People have egomorphic relations with anything that exists in the imaginary; this includes objects as well as people.

Motherfucker.

What a big smart boy you are.

Einherjar - "the relationship humans have with objects. Being entities with egos, we interact with objects on the basis that we perceive them as "for" us."

I don't see how this is different than the definition you quoted, except that I paraphrased. In perceiving objects as "for us," we understand them in terms of our own needs.

I'd appreciate it if you stop making such a vendetta out of this and instead try and have an intelligent discussion.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I can point you to Section 4 of Chapter 1 of Marx's Capital where he begins to lay out how exchange-value is what comes to reside in commodities and determines their value within our social structure.

Use-value is not inherent in an object any more than exchange-value, according to Marx. "Use" is not something an object possesses; it only comes to possess it once humans attribute use to it. This is part of the egomorphic relation with objects.

Use-value is only realized by exchange-value. People want items because they're useful. Thus, items are exchanged for others so people can attain the items they need. Oil is part of this exchange. We need it, but its value is only realized by the fact that it's in demand and that people are willing to exchange other things of value for it (and it for things of value).

I am really struggling to see how you can conclude that use value is only realized by exchange value. Maybe you're speaking from a much better understanding of these terms than I am, but the way I interpret what you're saying is that there is no commodity in existence that has value anywhere until it is exchanged. It seems perfectly obvious to me that something like food is always valuable to a person regardless of whether they produce it themselves or they produce non-food items which they in turn exchange for food.

 

[JontRevolting]

Getting on a plane at fucking 6am tommorow morning to board a ship interstate for 3 months that carries aluminium.It should be interesting for a land lover like me and I have 12 packets of Kwells incase I get seasick.It's a pretty great job though,my company flies me in and out at the end of every swing.I've got a training period of 36 months at sea but after that it's 6 weeks on and 6 weeks off at $80,000 a year.Not only is the money great but i'll be travelling a hell of alot also,gonna miss my dog though.Beats the shit outt've working for peanuts for some retard supermarket company.

 

[Pessimism]

Getting on a plane at fucking 6am tommorow morning to board a ship interstate for 3 months that carries aluminium.It should be interesting for a land lover like me and I have 12 packets of Kwells incase I get seasick.It's a pretty great job though,my company flies me in and out at the end of every swing.I've got a training period of 36 months at sea but after that it's 6 weeks on and 6 weeks off at $80,000 a year.Not only is the money great but i'll be travelling a hell of alot also,gonna miss my dog though.Beats the shit outt've working for peanuts for some retard supermarket company.

What exactly are you doing? What is the company?

 

[JontRevolting]

I'm going on as a Trainee Integrated Rating,pretty much a glorified deckhand,we help out the engineers,paint and other stuff,I had to do a 3month course at the Australian Maritime College aswell.The companies called 'ASP Ship Management',I'd never even heard of the job until last year when a friend of my fathers recommended it.

 

[Dak]

Damn, I missed the whole commodities discussion party.

 

[Einherjar86]

I am really struggling to see how you can conclude that use value is only realized by exchange value. Maybe you're speaking from a much better understanding of these terms than I am, but the way I interpret what you're saying is that there is no commodity in existence that has value anywhere until it is exchanged. It seems perfectly obvious to me that something like food is always valuable to a person regardless of whether they produce it themselves or they produce non-food items which they in turn exchange for food.

Keep in mind as well that I'm speaking within the parameters of a capitalist system.

Objects/items/etc. are not inherently useful, because useful is an egomorphic, Human-oriented term. Say we have a hamburger sitting in front of us, on a bun, with lettuce, tomato, the whole deal. We understand that object on the basis that it is potential food/sustenance for us. It's useful to us because we need food.

This use-value is not a character trait of the object itself. It's a trait we, as humans in need of it, attribute to it. It alone (w/o humans) does not have the use-value of food.

Now, let's not get so anti-humanist. Say there are still people and the burger is in demand. People are hungry, they need food. A burger possesses no use-value for its owner who is willing to sell it; otherwise s/he would not sell it. It only possesses use-value for those who are willing to buy it. Therefore, an exchange must take place, and this exchange must take place before any use-value of the burger is realized. The buyer must put something up in exchange for the burger, something that is accepted as equal in value to the burger: money. Does money possess the use-value of a burger? No, not at all. Something that is utterly different from an item's use-value is being realized during this exchange, and Marx qualifies it as the exchange-value.

This exchange value functions as a symbol, and commodities must be dealt with as this value before they can be consumed as a use-value. When you buy a burger, you don't say: "That burger is the equivalent of my hunger's needs" (or, you might, but that won't get you anywhere). You have to say: "That burger is the equivalent of $1.99" (or whatever). You equate $1.99 with your hunger, but this is an arbitrary, merely symbolic equation. You have to recognize the product as an exchange-value before you can realize its use-value.

 

[King Richard]

I just want to point out that oil is a much larger part of everyday life than most people suspect. There are hundreds of things people use on a daily basis that are made from petroleum products that are not named gasoline or oil itself. So in reality, petroleum products (not just gasoline) imo are borderline necessities to modern human life. Just wanted to throw that out there.

I was going to respond to a few people in that argument but I'm a little too late to do it. Interesting stuff though.

 

[Astrum]

QUICK whats a household object i can use as an effective coffee pot. mine's MIA

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

What a big smart boy you are.

I was responding to V5 "google motherfucker do you speak it"

I don't see how this is different than the definition you quoted, except that I paraphrased. In perceiving objects as "for us," we understand them in terms of our own needs.

I'd appreciate it if you stop making such a vendetta out of this and instead try and have an intelligent discussion.

I just think there is a big difference between an object and a being. That's what makes the definitions different.

Sorry if I come off like I'm bickering. The last thing I want is some falling out. I value the challenge and learn a lot from reading most debates on this forum although I don't really partake in most. Forgive me, as I am an amateur.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, I thought you were derisively comparing my definition to the other one. My mistake.

Well, I'd agree that there are major differences between mere objects and "beings," or "Things." Heidegger's "Origin of the Work of Art" does a good job of trying to separate the two (if you buy his theory and can penetrate the density of his prose). But I don't think that changes the egomorphic approach that we as human beings have toward anything that exists in the imaginary, as Lacan used the term (anything in the imaginary being both living entities and objects).

We approach everything through the lens, or filter, of our ego.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm still trying to grasp the axioms "the real, the symbolic and the imaginary"

I try testing it and using it in everyday life, the real is easy, but there are times when I think some existents are the symbolic and the imaginary all in one. It's confusing.

 

[Vossyrus]

I'm was trying to rip the audio from a CD onto my computer. Neither CDex, nor EAC could recognize the disc, and drive E would not show up, despite the disc working in my discman. I bought my computer brand new in December, and the disc is Moonspell's Sin/Pecado. Then I started up Tau Analyzer to see if it could read anything off of the disc, and for whatever reason that got everything going. Must have been some sort of copy protection? Strange.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm still trying to grasp the axioms "the real, the symbolic and the imaginary"

I try testing it and using it in everyday life, the real is easy, but there are times when I think some existents are the symbolic and the imaginary all in one. It's confusing.

They're confusing terms, and they overlap frequently.

As I understand it, imaginary simply refers to the formation of images in the visual field. This is why the mirror function is so important for Lacan as fundamental in the formation of a subject's ego. The ego is constituted by its understanding of and relationship to other images.

Symbolic is a bit more complicated, but I think we can pretty definitively state that it has a lot to do with speech and language, and the play of signifiers. I still don't have a complete grasp on it.

 

[Chanakya]

I have a better standard of English than Ananth, just so you know. If I was writing an essay rather than posting on forums then it would be quite evident, I think. I don't read over what I've have typed, I just click post.

The irony

 

[Zephyrus]

Yeah I would have said 'were' instead of 'was' because I'm in a total war against the death of the subjunctive mood.

 

[Marina_K]

The irony

I've noticed you criticised that guy's English quite a lot without bothering to use actual grammar in your own posts.

You're both losers anyway. I've wasted too much time looking through old posts now.

 

[Cythraul]

Yeah I would have said 'were' instead of 'was' because I'm in a total war against the death of the subjunctive mood.

.

 

[Episteme]

This Marina_K character is rather snappy. Interesting.