Look at a cup, for example. Do you see a cup, or are you merely reviewing your past experiences of picking up a cup, being thirsty, drinking from a cup, feeling the rim of a cup against your lips, having breakfast and so on? Are not your aesthetic reactions to the cup, too, based on past experiences? How else would you know whether or not this kind of cup will break if you drop it? What do you know about this cup except what you learned in the past? You would have no idea what this cup is, except for your past learning. Do you, then, really see it? (https://acim.org/acim/en/s/409#3:1-7 | W-7.3:1-7)

>>16726578 (OP)

The old question if the cupness of the cup is an inherent property of the cup or just a mental representation? You know what ... somehow the word "cupness" does sound deeply satisfying. I got no idea why. :)

>>16726668 Location is an attribute in objects. That's why extraterrestrials can travel from their planet to ours. They change the variable 'location' in the object (their spaceships and the spaceship crew) with theirs very advanced AI, from a place near their planet to a place near ours, so they 'travel' instantly. This is pure Physics.

>>16726578 (OP)
Physicsfags seethe at the inevitable fact of Einstein being a philosopher who happened to be interested in physics

>>16726668
The cupness of the bowl complements the bowlness of the cup.

>>16726668
The cup needs to be empty for something to be poured in.
Be always empty, me dude.

>>16726578 (OP)
Cupness is synthetic a priori: as soon as we understand there are things in space, the possibility of cupping the cuphole springs into being. Experiences of cup-fragility and cup-aesthetics are accidental, and strictly speaking cupness is more limited because a non-cup becomes a cup when it gets to perform cupping. Filling your hands with water to drink exposes their cupness.

>>16726684

>Location is an attribute in objects.

Caught me at sophistry there. Honestly, I think it is not very conductive to the whole investigation if anyone assumes a priori that the cup does not exist as a physical object.

>>16726853

>forever chasing the Pringle

So? Perhaps some just enjoy doing so!

>>16726854

Ah yes, I have heard that lesson somewhere else already. ;)

>>16727127
Schopenhauer describes his will as a limitless appetite that refills endlessly leading to pessimism because it starts to appear as a futile cycle, but but but but now it's Cleverly Refuted it's being parodied as pringle-seeking which has nothing to do with depression because eating is only for sustaining the higher brain functions in the higher brain. So we can simultaneously laugh at the parody and the parodiser for failing to understand as if there's a third perspective.

>>16727127
>Physics is sophistry
Believe whatever you want, fake scientist.

>>16726578 (OP)
This is a great example of overthinking way too much into something. Just drink out the fucking cup and shut the fuck up. It’s not that deep.

Even if I never seen a cup and I saw an object with water in it I would pick it up and try to drink the water if I was thirsty.

Seek treatment for your developing schizophrenia. Before you start flinging your feces at random people during a manic episode

>>16728446
>overthinking
Nah it’s a fair family of questions, and munching on it is a rite of passage for young minds. Even if not particularly deep