Firstly, nice of you to reply, thanks.
Here's my attempt at a definition:
A thing is extrinsically valuable if it is valued by somebody as a means to an end. For example, if I need to unscrew a screw, a screwdriver has value to me, since it will help me to achieve my goal. The value of the screwdriver has little to do with the screwdriver in and of itself; it's value exists only in relation to me and my goals and opinions.
Okay, and I'm really sorry I have to ask this because of the associated bag of worms, but seriously... value is a state of mind... so in granting intrinsic value to the art, isn't that literally the act of you projecting value into it, rather than its value somehow existing in a manner other than a state of mind? I should have mentioned something about this in the OP but didn't think to do so.
A thing that is intrinsically valuable, on the other hand, is recognised to have value as an end in itself, rather than as the means to an end of a particular person at a particular time.
Which when keying on the word "recognized" it would seem this is what I discussed in the OP, where it's just a general agreement. I think this agreement actually breaks down severely under harsh scrutiny, but would agree that it serves some utility in the social sphere, such that we can sort of resonate in our percieved agreeance.
One example might be something like Beethoven's 5th symphony. Sure, listening to it might serve the goal of making me feel happy, and so it has some extrinsic value. But that kind of thing doesn't seem to capture its true value as a work of art.
I don't see exactly why. If you have reverence for the value of the art and realize that instead of some smoke and mirrors place where its "intrinsic value" might exist, it's really just that it exists in you, due to what you are... what you've become, then isn't that simply a shift toward respect for the power of experience, minds, or something along those lines?
Just having the symphony in the world arguably makes it a richer and better place than it would be otherwise.
Arguably, sure. Absolutely? I'd say not, depending upon how it's framed I suppose. If by absolutely "when reviewing the evidence of human opinion, there were no cases of disagreement on this statement of value" since value doesn't exist outside of minds, this is considered absolute... I'd say maybe this would work, but you'd have to ask every person to know for sure and that's not exactly possible. And then of course there's the possiblity of alien intelligence, which would mean we'd have to find them all and ask them too.
Alternatively, I'm not sure where you'd say the value exists, given that its only known place to do so is as a state of mind.
Mostly, we accord some measure of intrinsic value to human beings. The prohibition on slavery is a recognition of this, because a slave is treated solely as the means to an end of another human being. The slave has no real rights of his or her own - only those given by his or her master. The slave is property, with only extrinsic worth. And it's our natural sense that people have intrinsic worth that makes slavery so abborent to most of us.
Mostly yes, but that we accord it I'd think is a case of extrinsic value as you put it above.
