Does gold have value in itself? Or it's us who give it value? Explain.?

Answer 1

It is we who give it value, but that value is based on supply and demand, not on anything intrinsic within the metal--except its relative short supply.

Answer 2

To the American Indians, gold was a pretty, but useless metal. Too soft to be good for much, they just left it in the rivers and streams where it belonged. No 'thing' has any intrinic value until we attribute value to it, either by finding a use for it, or because we just 'like' it. Gold is no different.

Answer 3

The historic answer is that humans give value to the gold. Today, we use steel for many tools and other usages. Such usage assume steel is cheap to produce, which did not happen until the eighteen century. Before then, tools were made with wood and stone. Metalworks were very expensive, and gold and silver were workable with little technology.

The philosophical answer is that we humans give value to gold. At one point, silver was quite valuable, but that is not true anymore, for practical reasons. In modern times, silver has become much cheaper to mine. Gold has retained its usage as currency support. Eliminate this usage, and its value would become similar to silver.

Answer 4

The whole concept of value implies a valuer. So no, gold by itself has no intrinsic value. It can only have value TO someone, and not necessarily people. It could taste good to monkeys, for example, or intoxicate dogs who licked it -

We FIND it to be valuable, but we don't GIVE it its value. It does something useful for us, (not sure what) so we value it, but we didn't charge it with whatever property we find valuable in it. We do charge say, an engine, with the properties we find valuable in it, namely it's ability to run machinery. So you could say we give an engine it's value - by creating it - but not gold.

Answer 5

It does have benefits, but also, its cost is inflated by virtue of it being rare. So, it has value, but its true value is not equivalent to its price. Take money for instance, it is simply paper, but we are under the impression that it is worth something. As nations, we collectively "agree" that we should raise the status of a paper slip to greater value in order to sustain an efficient barter system.

Answer 6

i think fundamentally we gave it the value it has, in all respects. Just like the value we give diamonds instead of the lead in pencils, they are both made from the same thing after all!

Answer 7

It is only of value to us. If humans did not exist, who would value gold?

Addition: No other 'life forms' here on earth value gold...just humans. Animals value water, food, shelter....but not gold. Ever see an animal using gold? Trying to find gold?

Answer 8

It has scientific value. It's composition is a good energy conduit, (electricity for example ). Its strength is incomparable to any other element as well its flexibility, (spacial cord). Is doesn't corrode and doesn't oxidize as fast as any other element, its a matter of fact, Gold's oxidation is almost nonexistent.
It's not that we put a value because it's shiny, it's valuable because its uniqueness and useful trade at many things besides economic value.

Answer 9

It can not be understood with reasoning and logic.
It comes under the subject of para-psychology.

Gold affects aura in a unique way.

http://www.search.com/search?q=gold+affects+aura+according+to+parapsychology

People throughout the world since millenia knew
it sub-consciously.

Answer 10

guason,

dude, this is the sh!tstorm of stupidity that is here on philosophy every single second.

stupid, stupid...very stupid people take a very simple concept and 'try' and make it deep and meaningful.

why?

my theory is that those who do this have a HUGE feeling of insecurity in their low intellect and zero accomplishments in life.

sound like sour grapes? well, let's just put it this way...i know a lot of pseudo intellectuals who are 'angry' at the world because the best job (if they can find work) is flipping burgers and using the words 'would you like fries with that?' from their extensive, ornate and useless vocabulary.

i came here on philosophy at first to find intelligence...but all you find are petty beeyatches and guys with small pen!s'.

on here, they claim that things are 'relative' with every situation, yet, do not establish any substantial reason why.

for example:

morals are 'relative'.

thus: 'what is right for you is right for you and what is right for me is right for me'

so: 'i feel that it is 'right' for me to break into your house, steal everything and then set the rest on fire'. this is RIGHT for me. what? you're mad because i did this? you shouldnt be. this was what was 'right' for me. it is not my problem that it wasnt 'right' for you.

believe it or not. this is more the normal way of thinking than not. like i said...a sh!tstorm of stupidity here...a sad sh!tstorm...,