It’s still paper, though. Post-WWI Germans used devalued Mark notes as wallpaper and fuel. Those notes might have had other uses to beings with other preferences. In your example, the sheep is only valuable to beings who like/want to wear wool and can digest animal protein. That’s why value is never intrinsic. There’s no case where the value is a property of the thing itself; it depends on whom you ask.
The words “intrinsic value” when applied to money have a well-known and sufficiently defined meaning. You are welcome to insist that the term is wrong, but I don’t see much point if you want to talk to other people.
I understand what you are saying and you are correct that value is not a property of a “thing itself”, it’s just that this observation is irrelevant in the context.
It’s still paper, though. Post-WWI Germans used devalued Mark notes as wallpaper and fuel. Those notes might have had other uses to beings with other preferences. In your example, the sheep is only valuable to beings who like/want to wear wool and can digest animal protein. That’s why value is never intrinsic. There’s no case where the value is a property of the thing itself; it depends on whom you ask.
The words “intrinsic value” when applied to money have a well-known and sufficiently defined meaning. You are welcome to insist that the term is wrong, but I don’t see much point if you want to talk to other people.
I understand what you are saying and you are correct that value is not a property of a “thing itself”, it’s just that this observation is irrelevant in the context.
Can you explain or link to more info about:
Wikipedia: “Intrinsic value (numismatics)”
See also use value and exchange value.