Diogenes and the Diamonds-Water Paradox
Famous for being the only philosopher in recorded history who wasn’t insufferably boring, Diogenes of Sinope used a combination of asceticism, sarcasm, and violence to demonstrate to the citizens of Athens their complete lack of virtue.
Diogenes based his Cynical philosophy on action and common sense, rejecting metaphysical constructs and thought “paradoxes”. According to the pro-Diogenes account, when Plato attempted to demonstrate the concept of an ideal philosophical “cup” from which all physical cups are derived, Diogenes characteristically accused the space between Plato’s ears of being the archetypal emptiness from which all emptiness is derived. When a student tried to prove one of Zeno’s paradoxes (“there is no motion”) to him, he walked away. Great as Diogenes was, however, I can’t reconcile his lovable antics with his response to the diamonds-water paradox.
The diamonds-water paradox goes something like this: since water is essential for survival and diamonds are irrelevant in this regard, the high price of diamonds relative to water is nonsensical, assuming people prefer life to death. Diogenes’ version might be called the grain-statue paradox, and his solution was this: people don’t value the very things required for life highly enough:
“Very valuable things, said he, were bartered for things of no value, and vice versa. At all events a statue fetches three thousand drachmas, while a quart of barley-flour is sold for two copper coins.” -Laertus
This is, of course, the very sort of philosophical navel-gazing which Diogenes was supposed to ridicule.
Nobody ever chooses between all the world’s grain and all the world’s statues or all diamonds and all water. We can only ever value the amount of something we’re being presented with, in the context of what we already have. If water is so plentiful you can bathe in it, what is that next glass of water worth to you? Almost nothing. If you’re in Athens where food is plentiful, grain is similarly worthless. You only ever decide whether to take the next handful of grain, not all grain that ever existed.
Diogenes also contradicts his objection to Plato’s ideal “cup” with his explanation. The idea that there is an inherent value to grain, separated from the price individuals are willing to pay for it, assumes that there is an ideal “grain”, maybe somewhere up in the sky (or between Diogenes’ ears), the metaphysics of which are violated when someone does the only thing that makes sense, selling at a price people will buy.
Diogenes ought to listen to himself:
“When behaving indecently in the marketplace, he wished it were as easy to relieve hunger by rubbing an empty stomach.”
Well Diogenes, thanks to mass refusal to value grain at anything more than what it’s worth, it’s now extremely easy to alleviate one’s hunger. The price might not be as low as rubbing yourself indecently, but we’re getting there.
