New Social Thread
- Thread starter MetalAges
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
I think you missed my point. Oil has no intrinsic value despite the fact that it's necessary for our society to function. The abstract notion of "value" is an egomorphic concept; we interact with objects based on the fact that they're "for us," so to speak. To paraphrase Marx, no scientist has ever conducted an investigation into the nature of oil and discovered "value" miraculously residing within it.
You can compare them because they're all commodities. Money, oil, and diamonds all function symbolically within a system of exchange. And what point are you making about the "joke"? Zeph was quoting Ron White's comedic sketch where he says: "Diamonds, that'll shut her up." I know there's no joke in the actual advertising campaign. I'm insisting that White's joke, rather than subversively attacking the diamond tradition, actually functions to support it.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
How the hell does oil "function symbolically within a system of exchange"? It's burned as fuel. It has an actual use, unlike money and (in most cases) diamonds.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It's been commodified. Oil possesses use value in our society, but that value is not inherent within it. The only way we can possibly understand oil (or any commodity) is within a system of exchange.
It's burned as fuel, yes; but is that reflected in the constantly fluctuating price of oil and gas? Something else influences those constant changes, and that has to do with its exchange value.
It's burned as fuel, yes; but is that reflected in the constantly fluctuating price of oil and gas? Something else influences those constant changes, and that has to do with its exchange value.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Did you mean egomaniac or geomorphic?
Yea, well, of course oil doesn't have value without human beings, Intrinsically nothing does, that's self evident, but that's short sighted in the sense that we are part of the world and in our condition oil has value almost instantaneously ( assuming we are smart enough to discover & use it/which we are) and is essential to our society and development as human beings. What Marx fails to understand is that we are conscious human beings with the ability to form concepts and therefore we have an identity. Materialism is a fallacy. Oil > Diamonds, there is nothing miraculous about it because we can reason.
...and White's joke is pure sarcasm. If a comedian makes a joke about rape or child abuse in the same context would he be supporting it? lol no, I think the law of supply and demand supports diamonds and irrational psychological weakness or plain stupidity the latter.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I meant egomorphic. It's a psychoanalytic term. It refers to the relationship humans have with objects. Being entities with egos, we interact with objects on the basis that we perceive them as "for" us.
What the hell are you talking about? How does Marx fail to realize that? He is a conscious human being forming concepts. I don't understand at all what you mean. All I'm saying and all that Marx said is that the economic system of capitalism treats objects as though they possess inherent value. It has nothing to do with humans being somehow stupid or ignorant. People know that objects have no inherent value. If you're stranded on a desert island with a diamond, no shit it's worthless. And obviously oil can be burned; but people know this. All I'm saying is that it's a characteristic of the capitalist system to treat things otherwise.
That's a horrible fucking example. Obviously people don't make jokes about raping children because everyone would be appalled; there's no ideological framework on which such a joke can rely. We all agree that raping children is wrong, but people don't go around doing it like they go around buying diamonds. You completely missed the point.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
What the fuck does this mean? Materialism is a fallacy? How does that even make sense? How is "materialism" some kind of misconception? Materialism, luxury, beauty, art; these are things that make life valuable. Money and oil are things that help us gain these things that make life valuable. Diamonds and beauty and art are at least as valuable to the essential human condition as utilitarian things like oil. There has to be a reason for the desire to survive beyond simply not wanting to die. Luxury items, including art, are kind of the reason that most people really give a shit about living, no? How many people live in the woods and hunt their own food with no stable shelter, and never even pick up a book? It seems like you want to trace value squarely to the things that help us not die, rather than the things that help us not want to die, to put it in retard terms.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
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).
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
No, it is a random bullshit from my brain reference. Or a reference to the nursery rhyme / fairy tale / whatever the fuck it is, more precisely.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,389
- 2,029
- 113
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
The Emptier
t3h b3aSt0rZ
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
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. 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. Motherfucker.
-Campbell's psychiatric dictionary
By Robert Jean Campbell
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."
-Campbell's psychiatric dictionary
By Robert Jean Campbell
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."
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
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
Active Member
zabu of nΩd;9817606 said:
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).
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.
Yes, this is true. People have egomorphic relations with anything that exists in the imaginary; this includes objects as well as people.
What a big smart boy you are.
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
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
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.
