This is a horrible misreading of Kantian TI. The idea of "value" is what's worthless in itself, not objects or entities. Yes, everything is worthless in itself, but that says more about "worth" than it does about "everything", and it isn't mutually exclusive with there being things in the world that are required for human life. Value at the bottom end takes its shape from these things, and in the top end, like complex financial derivatives, is far removed from human necessities.

You're missing that we can get really close to things-in-themselves. It's like you got an erection as soon as you read that we were fundamentally separate from things-in-themselves, and just ran with it.

It can't be a 'horrible misreading of Kantian TI' because it isn't a reading of Kantian TI, in itself as distinguished from for itself and for others is a standard concept in philosophy since Kant and part of common sense language.

My point is just that value isn't some simple natural thing that you could consider as a positive fact, like you are trying to do. Value doesn't 'take its 'shape' (whatever that would mean) from necessities of human life', and has no immediate special relation to necessities.

Everything that doesn't serve a human basic need, of which there are many. Food is not worthless in itself, nor is shelter, security, human contact, etc.

Extreme subjectivism never fed nobody nor kept them worm. It only made them think they are smart.

You don't understand what in itself means, it is a philosophical term used to distinguish between being in itself of something versus being of that for someone. For example there is no food in itself, food is always food for an animal in itself its just some matter. In the same way there is no value inherent in anything as it is in itself, but becomes valued by humans on the basis of speculation, use and rarity.

Exactly as I said, you think I do not understand a "smart" thing while you equate the worth food and crypto have for humans.

Solipsism 2.0

You keep using words you don't seem to understand, I'm sure you mean to draw an analogy, but do it, draw it, stop just implying - thats the worst for any kind of dialogue.