代写essay：人与物的不可分割性
Appadurai(第15页)谈到了人与物的不可分割性，即随着人的视角的改变，物只是在不断地进化，以不同的形式存在着。他承认，事物或物体是与人类的社会关系相关的，人类赋予了事物某种社会意义。商品或物品在最初制造时享有盛名，后来变得古老而古董化，然后失去其价值，然后又回到原来的存在状态。因此，事物和人是没有区别的，没有从人那里得到意义，事物就不会存在。他形容印度不是一个完整的消费市场,因为都是交易的必要性和没有隐藏的价值,他们可以生成,而美国是一个成熟的消费市场,商品价值的效用,包括房屋、作家、运动员、身体部位等。因此，事物无非是人类社会知识的外延，并根据赋予它们的意义不断地改变着它们的存在。布朗(第4页)对一般事物有非常不同的看法。
代写essay：人与物的不可分割性
他提到事情比我们想象的要复杂，因为有时它们是失语的替代品。事物具有特殊的意义，这种意义是非常模糊的。事物及其意义存在于事物的特定描述之内或超出了特定的描述范围。因此，事物仅仅是具有特定非特定性的对象，这使得事物在其普遍的定义和接受中具有模糊性和无穷尽性。他补充说，当人们自己无法赋予事物特定的意义时，事物永远不可能有任何特定的理论来将其限制在有限的理解范围内。事物本身就是它们自己的定义，因为它们只能被定义为空性，因为没有别的东西能够代表事物。这里出现了一个问题，如果事物是由空来代表的，它们不就会有某种内在的价值，依附于它的物质性，因为它们被人类用作效用。这是一个有趣的观察关于事物和感知其内在价值的人谁使用这些他们的生存。
代写essay：人与物的不可分割性
Appadurai (pg. 15) speaks about the indivisibility of humans and objects, such that the objects are nothing but ever evolving and taking different forms with the change in perspective of humans. He admits that things or objects are invested in with the social relations of humans, where it is humans who give some kind of social meaning to the objects and things. Commodities or things are prestigious when first made, later becomes old and antique, then lose its value, and then again come back to their original state of existence. Thus, things and humans are not different from each other, for things would not have existed without having received a meaning from humans. He described India as not a full consumer market because things are traded for their necessity and not for the hidden value that they can generate, whereas the US is a fully grown consumer market where the commodities are valued for their utility which includes houses, authors, athletes, body parts, etc. Thus, things are nothing more than the extension of the social knowledge of humans and keep changing their existence according to the meaning attached to them. Brown (pg. 4) has a very different view about things in general.
代写essay：人与物的不可分割性
He mentions that things are more than what we assume them to be, because sometimes they are the substitutes for loss of words. Things hold a special meaning which is very vague for understanding. Things and their meanings lie within the specific description of the object or beyond the specifiable limit of description. Thus, things are mere objects with a specific un-specificity leading one to keep it ambiguous and endless in its universal definition and acceptance. He adds that things can never have any specific theory to confine it to a limited understanding when people themselves have not been able to give things a specific meaning. Things are in itself their own definition, because they can only be defined as emptiness, as nothing else is able to represent things. A question arises here that if things are represented by emptiness, wouldn’t they have some kind of inherent value of the materiality attached to it, because they are used as utility by humans. This makes an interesting observation about things and the perception of its inherent value among people who uses these them for their survival.