alt Hacker News> A mechanical watch has greater value as a mechanical watch
Note that this cannot work as a theory of value; everything has infinite value if you define value as "the ability of a thing to be itself".
> A mechanical watch has greater value as a mechanical watch
Note that this cannot work as a theory of value; everything has infinite value if you define value as "the ability of a thing to be itself".
There are various kinds of value and it is a mistake to confuse them or to reduce them to just one kind.
W.r.t. your imputed definition, there is a sense in which everything is irreplaceable, because the identity of two things that are otherwise entirely identical is never the same; that X is never this X.
But I was not making the claim that the value of something is its “ability be itself”. I was claiming that a thing x of kind A is more valuable as an A than a thing y of kind B as an A, where A is not B. This is trivially true.
Consider the utilitarian value of a pencil as an object for writing and consider a particle accelerator. It should be clear that the utility of a pencil as a writing instrument is greater than the utility of a particle accelerator as a writing instrument. The particle accelerator is more complex as a piece of technology, but so what? It has no value as an instrument for writing down your grocery list.
In any case, I was not proposing a comprehensive basis for a theory of value on this notion alone, so I’m not sure how you managed to selectively read that into my comment. It was only listed as one way in which one could say that a mechanical watch is more valuable than a Casio.