INTENTIONALITY=VALUE=REAL BEING
1) things in the world have value in virtue of how they can be intended to accomplish certain goals, purposes, or aims of a subject
2) these goals/purposes/ aims are determined by the worldview of the subject
3) the value of a thing is its real being
4) therefore, the real being of things can only be grasped by an understanding of the worldview in which they are immersed.
Examples of each premise:
a) The value of the hammer is understood by its capacity to serve a certain purpose, i.e. driving nails to build a house, to shelter a family
b) the goal of building the house to shelter a family is determined by the world view of the subject, in this case a worldview which considers providing shelter "the right thing" (134) to do
c) therefore, the real being of the hammer is not just an object that has a certain shape, weight and form, but whose being is determined by its value, i.e.its capcity to accomplish these goals
The tradition that culminates in Husserl, separates the value of an object from its real being. This tradition takes the real being of an object to be its physical characteristics, where its value is taken to be a secondary property. The value of an object, here, is derived from the manner in which the subjects intends it within consciousness. Heidegger, on the other hand, sees value to be intrinsic to the being of an object. Value is a primary characteristic of an object determined by its intentionality in the practical world. That is, the way in whcih an object is intended determines its value, and the manner of intention depends upon the world view of the subject. All subjects who investingate the being of things are immersed in a worldview from which they cannot escape. This is for the reason that in order for things to show up at all, a worldview has to be present.
To explicate this, Hall uses the example
of the value of teacups in different worldviews. In Eastern cultures,
teacups are considered as highly valuable works of art. In Western
cultures, teacups are merely functional and have been degraded to
styrofoam. Both cultures understand teacups because they serve a prupose
within each culture. However, each purpose is different, so the teacups
show up differently. In other words, each worldview intends teacups in
different ways. In this way we see how the value
of an object is derived from the world rather than from consciousness.
Thus, the real being of an object is not its formal properties but its
place within this nexus of relationships called a world view.
Got it stupid?!
Love,
Ceci and Heather