Originally Posted by sometime sun
Can something that only exists by definition its self have value.
Or is the value only attributed by the definition?
Which is more valuable the described existence or existing description?
Auction lot, is it a antique or a chair?
Are you asking, what is the value of a definition? Are you asking this from a linguistic point of view? Your writing is so cryptic, I don't know exactly what you mean.
I am asking what is the value of definition.
Also what is the definition of value.
Perhaps a new word needs to be coined 'defination'
definition of a definition;
1 a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase. 2 the act of defining a word or phrase. 3 the act of demarcating the extent or boudaries of something. 4 the quality of having clear, precise limits or form. 5 the degree of clearness and preciseness of limits or form- by definition because of what something or someone essentially is or does.
ACT, QUALITY, FORM.
The definition is a quality and form I was asking about.
We base our judgements (which is a measure) which are a value on the definition before the fact or act.
The definition even description is what adds the value more than the thing itself.
We think something is more valuable because there is more definition.
A antique is more valued and than a mere chair.
We base and allot value on the definition before finding what something is actually provably usable for.
So what is worth more an antique chair that may break so can never be sat upon, or a plastic garden chair which will never break?
What is the value of the aesthetic?
What is the value of the function?
Does the art make more valuable than the paint?
Many things exist that are more valuable because of their definition.
What I am asking is if something has a function and is used and usable does it first need definition to be valuable or is only value attributed by function.
In which case a soul is both a function for some so has value.
And soul for some has no function but doe shave definition so despite no function is still valued.
(I hope this helps, I was a little nervous writing it)
---------- Post added 06-06-2010 at 12:55 AM ----------
You blow my mind. I really have absolutely no clue what you're saying.
Really, dude, you blow my mind. :surrender:
You see now I found this heart-full.
I would rather suck you mind though.
As said if you want a clue, just ask for one.
---------- Post added 06-06-2010 at 01:02 AM ----------
You can't own something that does not exist.
You can, however, own a psychological constructof that something.
Can you buy and sell a psychological construct? I guess so. But, since a psychological construct can be re-made, there is a major problem with price stability.
You just here said a soul cannot be owned, agreed soul is a psychological construct and then said a psychological construct can be owned.
This says that a soul by your own definition can be owned.
Please describe further 'price stability'