But what about artificial cases where one is sure that there will be objects of this type, even if one of them is destroyed? That’s where our second idea comes in. 8/n
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The idea is that (roughly) there’s value in diversity of values, i.e. the world is better to the extent that there are more different “types” of valuable things. This is an intuitively compelling idea, but it is hard to articulate exactly (what’s a “type”?). 9/n
To learn more about this thought, I really hope you’ll check out the paper (it’s short!). Our work to make it precise involves a number of ideas that we hope will be useful to others working on a wide array of topics, well beyond the value of irreplaceable objects. 10/n
This is a new area for me, and I was lucky to work with Robbie and Adam as guides and mentors. The paper was the product of a number of fortuitous conversations (see the acknowledgement). It was rewarding to work on, and we hope it'll be a rewarding read as well! n/n
This sounds very interesting! I think I reject the very idea of the "amount" of a value: this idea makes the value into a kind of stuff (like e.g. gasoline), where its "amount" is an extensive quantity (like the total mass or volume of this stuff in the universe as a whole).
But I do think it is better - in a certain distinctive respect - for the social practice of appreciating artworks (like Hokusai prints) to be extended over more people and over longer periods of time, and for this social practice to involve the appreciation of a greater diversity of artworks.
Comments