杯的價值 (if any), 不在於空或滿, 只在於its own very EXISTENCE (which means 'having been existent'), irrespective of its form, performance, deformance, reformance, function or dysfunction, composition or decomposition, construction or even destruction.
It seems that "Value" describes the relationship between a subject and an object. I am not sure whether a cup can rely on "existence" to assess its own value.
[A]The value (if any) of the cup is its emptiness, according to your perception, in your personal relation to the cup only.
[B]The value (if any) of the cup, is ".....?" (please fill-in-the blank), according to a person X's perception, in the person X's personal relation to the cup, may be something else rather than emptiness.
[C]The value (if any) of the cup, is "its very existence as an object" (I have filled-in-the blank), according to my own perception, in my personal relation to the cup only.
The logical reasoning in [A], [B], [C] are exactly the same. In [A], the subject is Tony. In [C], the subject is Doggiedog.
The perceived focus of the object cup is its "empty" condition in [A] with Tony.
The perceived focus of the object cup is its "being there in beingness" as a condition in [C] with Doggiedog. WITHOUT such "being there in beingness", nobody can talk about its emptiness, colour, shape, weight, or any other perceived quality.
Therefore, to Doggiedog, 杯的價值 (if any), 不在於空或滿, 只在於its own very EXISTENCE. Even if the cup cracks, or is broken into pieces, the deformed cup may be still valuable to someone else. This is the principle of recycling business: Your waste (no value) is my beautiful raw material for recycling use( valuable, and have to be bought back sometimes).
An object A that one sees as a cup has value to one because of its condition being empty in a container form ready for filling-in with water. It's understood and clear.
That very same object A that I see as a cup OR as "something else" has value to me becasue of its condition being empty in a container form ready for filling-in with water OR "as something in existence ready for me for some other usage" should just be similarly understood and clear.
We can assign their individually perceived value to the object A. The intrinsic values of the cup are to be discovered by you or me. Intrinsic values of the cup in whatever forms, colours, shapes and conditions vary in different people's hands.
A big cup can be good enough to become "a portable toilet" to collect a baby's urine at midnight. This is extra or unexpected value of the big cup other than the normally expected value of the same big cup for filling-in with water.
Intrinsic values of any object cannot be available WITHOUT the very existence (being as such in beingness) of the object. The object (a cup for example) can be recycled whether it remains intact in the form of a cup or whether it has changed into other forms or whether it has already been broken into pieces. And don't forget that a cup can be any form, like a bird, like a tree, like a cabinet, like any funny toy forms...
A big leave can be a cup. A boot can be a cup. A shoe can be a cup. "Cup" is only one's perception. A so-called cup is perceived as a cup, but it can also be perceived as something else. No matter what we perceive about such object, its physical materials can be recycled.
What's wrong with such thought??
A baby just born need not do anything "to fill-in anything like a cup" but it is already the most valuable to the mother. Why? Because of its existence.
The same baby, if it dies quickly, its ash still is valuable as fertilizer. Has the baby itself done anything "to fill-in anything like a cup" in order to be valuable? Nil, yet its being as such in beingness, alive, or dead, still can be valuable!
Therefore value rests with existence (even without nurture, or without doing anything) down to the root.
It seems that "Value" describes the relationship between a subject and an object. I am not sure whether a cup can rely on "existence" to assess its own value.
回覆刪除Correct, so why did you just say: "茶杯的價值就在於它的空"??
回覆刪除[A]The value (if any) of the cup is its emptiness, according to your perception, in your personal relation to the cup only.
[B]The value (if any) of the cup, is ".....?" (please fill-in-the blank), according to a person X's perception, in the person X's personal relation to the cup, may be something else rather than emptiness.
[C]The value (if any) of the cup, is "its very existence as an object" (I have filled-in-the blank), according to my own perception, in my personal relation to the cup only.
The logical reasoning in [A], [B], [C] are exactly the same.
In [A], the subject is Tony.
In [C], the subject is Doggiedog.
The perceived focus of the object cup is its "empty" condition in [A] with Tony.
The perceived focus of the object cup is its "being there in beingness" as a condition in [C] with Doggiedog. WITHOUT such "being there in beingness", nobody can talk about its emptiness, colour, shape, weight, or any other perceived quality.
Therefore, to Doggiedog, 杯的價值 (if any), 不在於空或滿, 只在於its own very EXISTENCE. Even if the cup cracks, or is broken into pieces, the deformed cup may be still valuable to someone else. This is the principle of recycling business: Your waste (no value) is my beautiful raw material for recycling use( valuable, and have to be bought back sometimes).
自愧只是一個凡人，只知海德格thing-in-hand 等功利思想，而不知存在的真諦。又只知狹義的存在主義，以為"存在"的意義是如何繪畫生命，所以不知道閒置的杯是無須努力地去填滿存在的意義。
回覆刪除當杯循環再造後，它的存在是消失了，還是以更多的型態而出現。
An object A that one sees as a cup has value to one because of its condition being empty in a container form ready for filling-in with water. It's understood and clear.
回覆刪除That very same object A that I see as a cup OR as "something else" has value to me becasue of its condition being empty in a container form ready for filling-in with water OR "as something in existence ready for me for some other usage" should just be similarly understood and clear.
We can assign their individually perceived value to the object A. The intrinsic values of the cup are to be discovered by you or me. Intrinsic values of the cup in whatever forms, colours, shapes and conditions vary in different people's hands.
A big cup can be good enough to become "a portable toilet" to collect a baby's urine at midnight. This is extra or unexpected value of the big cup other than the normally expected value of the same big cup for filling-in with water.
Intrinsic values of any object cannot be available WITHOUT the very existence (being as such in beingness) of the object. The object (a cup for example) can be recycled whether it remains intact in the form of a cup or whether it has changed into other forms or whether it has already been broken into pieces. And don't forget that a cup can be any form, like a bird, like a tree, like a cabinet, like any funny toy forms...
A big leave can be a cup. A boot can be a cup. A shoe can be a cup. "Cup" is only one's perception. A so-called cup is perceived as a cup, but it can also be perceived as something else. No matter what we perceive about such object, its physical materials can be recycled.
What's wrong with such thought??
A baby just born need not do anything "to fill-in anything like a cup" but it is already the most valuable to the mother. Why? Because of its existence.
The same baby, if it dies quickly, its ash still is valuable as fertilizer. Has the baby itself done anything "to fill-in anything like a cup" in order to be valuable? Nil, yet its being as such in beingness, alive, or dead, still can be valuable!
Therefore value rests with existence (even without nurture, or without doing anything) down to the root.
在討論中，似乎有很多對杯的不同描述，杯的價值是會有很多。當然這是不會假的真。
回覆刪除一句恒真的話，存在的很重要，沒有存在，是很難進一步討論物質的價值。但是討論的核心，可能要討論，"存在"是條件或是價值。所舉出的例子中，是包含了一個或多個使用者(或除杯之外的物體)，那麼，杯的價值是對使用者而言，而不是它的存在。正如第一次回覆所說，沒有主客觀的關係，是很難確主價值是什麼。
以海德格而言，存在是有角色的，而且是有很多不同的角色。但是如果完全沒有角色，這絶不會影響杯的存在，只是它的存在與否，似乎沒有任何物體價會關注，亦沒有很大的特別意義。