its always a matter of perspective

... the setting is this... two people having a conversation, call them PersonA and PersonB.

PersonA says: "Its just a [insert worldly possession here], it can be replaced."

To which PersonB replies: "That's easy for you to say."

This is a significant conversation to blog about. I know the details seem vague, but the details are not of importance. Its significant because, as the blog title indicates, its a matter of perspective. Whether or not a worldly possession is easily replaced depends on many things.

1. The 'Replacer'
It depends a lot on the person. A person's financial stability or lack there of will often dictate whether a possession can be replaced. For someone with financial security, a statement like the one PersonA said is pretty easy to make! This decision isn't even always dependent on the value of the possession - people have different levels of financial security, so something really expensive to one, could be considered cheap to another. A response like that of PersonB could lead one to believe they are not of the same level of security as such an apparent brash statement-maker like PersonA.

2. The 'Replacee'
The item itself is sometimes not replaceable, for some obvious reasons: one of a kind, homemade, etc... This dependency is pretty self explanatory.
But taking this a little farther... Some items, regardless of value, worth, or uniqueness, have value in another way - sentimental value. This is a bit of a tricky one, because we all *know* that sentiments are in our minds, they are something we hold close to us, and are technically not related to an inanimate worldly possession. However, the possession, like a photograph, is a trigger to that memory, like a snapshot. Having sentimental attachment to an object is virtually the same instinct as taking a photo of a "kodak moment." PersonA's comments seem to also indicate they have no sentiment associate with the possession while PersonB's reply could indicate they do.

So, this conversation that was overheard, what was it about? Was it about the cost of replacing the item, and whether or not it was easier for PersonA than for PersonB? Or, was it about the sentimental attachment to the item that PersonB had and PersonA didn't?

Both actually.

PersonA was thinking of this possession from strictly a cost perspective, and yes, due to their financial security, made the statement with firmament that the possession is replaceable.

PersonB thought of the sentimental attachment they had to this item, completely ignoring whether or not they could financially replace it (which they could, though not as easily as PersonB).

What I find most interesting about this conversation is that niether of them were at all comprehending or even acknowledging each other's perspectives!