It is gratifying to see that the clamour of the furious heckling mob has now dwindled to the morose chattering of a handful of puzzled apes, whose antics can serve as light refreshment rather than presenting any serious impediment to the debate. Today I shall refute the remaining objections to parts three through five of my argument, and later (or perhaps tomorrow), I shall return to the fresh objections raised against part six. Then I shall move on to part seven, in which we will consider whether financial value is best considered as an idea or as a spirit.
FRUITLOOP: You dispute the need for a third category of “abstract value,” and say that “there can be no value distinct from exchange- or use-value except for the category of already instantiated labour.” But my argument is that abstract, or financial value, *is* “already instantiated labour” in alienated form. I shall then argue for an expanded definition of “labour” such that it becomes co-terminus with human life itself. Which brings me to:
ARTICUL8: The passage from Marx that you quote gives his critique of the Classical political economists’ labour theory of value--the LTV as outlined by Ricardo and Smith, the version of the LTV that inspired Darwin’s theory of evolution. Marx is in the middle of developing his wholescale demolition of this LTV, which he will publish in Capital. His critique of Classical political economy will rest upon his expansion of the category of “labour” from being the individual acts of production to being human subjective activity considered as a whole, or human life itself.
JONATHANS2: I am claiming that the difference between humans and animals is qualitatively distinct from the difference between, as you say, chimps and marmosets, or any other members of the animal kingdom. In fact, it is a difference that distinguishes us from the condition of animality per se. It is, as I have been arguing, the ability to *conceptualize,* which is expressed in two distinct but, as I shall claim, also unified media: exchange and language. Thus far I have only dealt with exchange, but I shall be coming to the subject of language presently.
ANDREWWYLD: Again, let me clearly state that I am offering a rational *proof* of God’s existence that will convince any who are not actively vicious or insane. So obviously I do not admit your case that such a proof is logically impossible. Let me remind you also that my proof will not be *empirical* (for I agree with you that empirical proof of God is impossible) but *rational.*
COMSTOCK: I believe in the process of evolution, as described by William Paley in 1802, and as developed by many modern advocates of “intelligent design.” I believe that the human mind was created by God, but that neither the human body nor anything material were. Except insofar as God constitutes the conditions of possibility for existence. But to define God as “the conditions of possibility of existence” is (a) tautological, and (b) says nothing whatsoever *about* God. But I should probably delay my explanation of the nature of God until I have demonstrated His existence.
AZRAEL: I completely agree that the search for God must be directed inwards. The proof of God’s existence is to be found in the inherent capacities of the human mind, although as I have often said, this proof will concern a God who is demonstrably external to the human mind.
I am unsure whether to press on now and explain why I say, and what it is to say, that financial value is a “spirit.” Would it not be more sensible to describe it as an “idea?” It would not, but on reflection I had better wait to ensure that I have now answered *all* the objections to stages three through five of my argument.
FRUITLOOP: You dispute the need for a third category of “abstract value,” and say that “there can be no value distinct from exchange- or use-value except for the category of already instantiated labour.” But my argument is that abstract, or financial value, *is* “already instantiated labour” in alienated form. I shall then argue for an expanded definition of “labour” such that it becomes co-terminus with human life itself. Which brings me to:
ARTICUL8: The passage from Marx that you quote gives his critique of the Classical political economists’ labour theory of value--the LTV as outlined by Ricardo and Smith, the version of the LTV that inspired Darwin’s theory of evolution. Marx is in the middle of developing his wholescale demolition of this LTV, which he will publish in Capital. His critique of Classical political economy will rest upon his expansion of the category of “labour” from being the individual acts of production to being human subjective activity considered as a whole, or human life itself.
JONATHANS2: I am claiming that the difference between humans and animals is qualitatively distinct from the difference between, as you say, chimps and marmosets, or any other members of the animal kingdom. In fact, it is a difference that distinguishes us from the condition of animality per se. It is, as I have been arguing, the ability to *conceptualize,* which is expressed in two distinct but, as I shall claim, also unified media: exchange and language. Thus far I have only dealt with exchange, but I shall be coming to the subject of language presently.
ANDREWWYLD: Again, let me clearly state that I am offering a rational *proof* of God’s existence that will convince any who are not actively vicious or insane. So obviously I do not admit your case that such a proof is logically impossible. Let me remind you also that my proof will not be *empirical* (for I agree with you that empirical proof of God is impossible) but *rational.*
COMSTOCK: I believe in the process of evolution, as described by William Paley in 1802, and as developed by many modern advocates of “intelligent design.” I believe that the human mind was created by God, but that neither the human body nor anything material were. Except insofar as God constitutes the conditions of possibility for existence. But to define God as “the conditions of possibility of existence” is (a) tautological, and (b) says nothing whatsoever *about* God. But I should probably delay my explanation of the nature of God until I have demonstrated His existence.
AZRAEL: I completely agree that the search for God must be directed inwards. The proof of God’s existence is to be found in the inherent capacities of the human mind, although as I have often said, this proof will concern a God who is demonstrably external to the human mind.
I am unsure whether to press on now and explain why I say, and what it is to say, that financial value is a “spirit.” Would it not be more sensible to describe it as an “idea?” It would not, but on reflection I had better wait to ensure that I have now answered *all* the objections to stages three through five of my argument.
