Can there be an object without any subject?

[Juma]

Really? Then specify the definitions you mean that "philosophy", what ever that means, uses. I think my post above still holds.

Juma, you and others seem to be missing the definitions of the subject and object and probably the predicate.

An object is what a subject does to, does with, does for, does next to... etc.

Entity is a broader term than subject or object. If you have an entity, you don't necessarily have an object.

And keep in mind that an object is relative. I am an object to you, and you are the subject. But to me, you are the object and I am the subject. To a third party, we are both objects, and the third party is the subject. Sometimes the subject can be the object, for example, if one is cleaning one's self.

No, this doesnt help: the object is still within the human mind: it is what the subject is thinking of.

 

[ryan]

Juma, you and others seem to be missing the definitions of the subject and object and probably the predicate.

An object is what a subject does to, does with, does for, does next to... etc.

Entity is a broader term than subject or object. If you have an entity, you don't necessarily have an object.

And keep in mind that an object is relative. I am an object to you, and you are the subject. But to me, you are the object and I am the subject. To a third party, we are both objects, and the third party is the subject. Sometimes the subject can be the object, for example, if one is cleaning one's self.

No, this doesnt help: the object is still within the human mind: it is what the subject is thinking of.

Whether or not you believe that objects exist, you still have to use it in the correct context. By every definition that I can find, "objects" exist outside of the mind.

You are talking about perceptions/thoughts.

 

[ontological_realist]

I will ask my question again:

What is a thing? What is it's epistemological origin? How do you come to know it? If we explore it that would be a good beginning I think.

The origins of the Thing are that he was piloting a space ship for his friend Reed Richards and they got bombarded by cosmic rays which turned his body into stone.

Also, it's something that exists in the external world. We came to know them because there was a survival advantage to developing senses to make us aware of where food, predators and cliffs were.

Hooligan tactics are not an acceptable substitute for rational argument.

 

[ontological_realist]

No, this doesnt help: the object is still within the human mind: it is what the subject is thinking of.

Whether or not you believe that objects exist, you still have to use it in the correct context. By every definition that I can find, "objects" exist outside of the mind.

You are talking about perceptions/thoughts.

ryan, as I said in an earlier post, this point will be difficult to understand unless you have studied continental philosophy, specially Kant's or Schopenhauer's epistemology.

What actually exists outside are not ready made objects as tables and chairs etc. It is the cognizer who makes these objects in his mind. This is a very very short answer which I do not expect most people to understand and I do not blame them for it, I also did not understand this point some years ago.

For some one who actually wants to understand, I would suggest to read Kant's critique of pure reason which is considered to be a classic of Western philosophy. This is a very deep subject, much deeper than quantum physics.

.

 

[Juma]

No, this doesnt help: the object is still within the human mind: it is what the subject is thinking of.

Whether or not you believe that objects exist, you still have to use it in the correct context. By every definition that I can find, "objects" exist outside of the mind.

You are talking about perceptions/thoughts.

Then those definitions are either invalid/ incoherent or you have not understood them correctly.

You cannot just define your way out of this.

Assume that there are se poeple in a room. They all view a red chair. That red chair is the object because they are all having similar models of the outside world. Becsuse they are humans and of similar background theit models are so similar so they can effectivily be seen as the same. They can speak of objects in this model as if they where in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the "illusion" of a shared model.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The origins of the Thing are that he was piloting a space ship for his friend Reed Richards and they got bombarded by cosmic rays which turned his body into stone.

Also, it's something that exists in the external world. We came to know them because there was a survival advantage to developing senses to make us aware of where food, predators and cliffs were.

Hooligan tactics are not an acceptable substitute for rational argument.

I don't know what hooligan tactics you refer to.

That is the origin of the Thing. You can google it.

Also, our senses provide us with information about the external world because there was a survival advantage to being able to know what's around us and navigate that external world. That's the number one reason that we know things about the external world. This distinguished us from our ancestors' cousins who couldn't do it as well and got eaten or starved as a result.

 

[ryan]

Whether or not you believe that objects exist, you still have to use it in the correct context. By every definition that I can find, "objects" exist outside of the mind.

You are talking about perceptions/thoughts.

ryan, as I said in an earlier post, this point will be difficult to understand unless you have studied continental philosophy, specially Kant's or Schopenhauer's epistemology.

What actually exists outside are not ready made objects as tables and chairs etc. It is the cognizer who makes these objects in his mind. This is a very very short answer which I do not expect most people to understand and I do not blame them for it, I also did not understand this point some years ago.

For some one who actually wants to understand, I would suggest to read Kant's critique of pure reason which is considered to be a classic of Western philosophy. This is a very deep subject, much deeper than quantum physics.

Your OP asks something specific about objects, not what they are. You are tacitly taking an ontological position about the general usage of "object".

If someone asks, "would Jesus take a ride in a car if he were alive today?" they are not asking whether or not Jesus existed. They want to know something specific about him; they are really saying "If Jesus existed the way that the Bible says, would he ...".

I am totally aware of the endless rabbit holes of countless subjects in philosophy.

 

[Juma]

ryan, as I said in an earlier post, this point will be difficult to understand unless you have studied continental philosophy, specially Kant's or Schopenhauer's epistemology.

What actually exists outside are not ready made objects as tables and chairs etc. It is the cognizer who makes these objects in his mind. This is a very very short answer which I do not expect most people to understand and I do not blame them for it, I also did not understand this point some years ago.

For some one who actually wants to understand, I would suggest to read Kant's critique of pure reason which is considered to be a classic of Western philosophy. This is a very deep subject, much deeper than quantum physics.

Your OP asks something specific about objects, not what they are.

The specifics are what defines them.

 

[ryan]

Whether or not you believe that objects exist, you still have to use it in the correct context. By every definition that I can find, "objects" exist outside of the mind.

You are talking about perceptions/thoughts.

Then those definitions are either invalid/ incoherent or you have not understood them correctly.

Oxford Dictionaries says that an object is, "A material thing that can be seen and touched" from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/object .

Philosophically, it has an object as, "A thing external to the thinking mind or subject." and "A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed".

There is no debate about what an object is with how the OP was put.

Assume that there are se poeple in a room. They all view a red chair. That red chair is the object because they are all having similar models of the outside world. Becsuse they are humans and of similar background theit models are so similar so they can effectivily be seen as the same. They can speak of objects in this model as if they where in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the "illusion" of a shared model.

You are still using your own definition. We already have a definition for what you claim is actually the object; it is called "the perception" of the object.

You can apply a new definition as long as there isn't one for it already. Do you know what I am saying?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, if the object is defined as something within a subject's mind, then the OP question makes no sense because objects are dependent on a subject. It's only if they're defined as something external to us that the question even has meaning.

 

[ryan]

Ya, if the object is defined as something within a subject's mind, then the OP question makes no sense because objects are dependent on a subject. It's only if they're defined as something external to us that the question even has meaning.

Or they could just say that only perceptions exist, not objects. There is no need to redefine something and confuse things.

 

[Juma]

Then those definitions are either invalid/ incoherent or you have not understood them correctly.

Oxford Dictionaries says that an object is, "A material thing that can be seen and touched" from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/object .

Philosophically, it has an object as, "A thing external to the thinking mind or subject." and "A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed".

There is no debate about what an object is with how the OP was put.

Assume that there are se poeple in a room. They all view a red chair. That red chair is the object because they are all having similar models of the outside world. Becsuse they are humans and of similar background theit models are so similar so they can effectivily be seen as the same. They can speak of objects in this model as if they where in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the "illusion" of a shared model.

You are still using your own definition. We already have a definition for what you claim is actually the object; it is called "the perception" of the object.

You can apply a new definition as long as there isn't one for it already. Do you know what I am saying?

That is obviously not a valid definition. Do you really mean that a molecule, a neutron star or a galaxy isnt an object?

 

[Juma]

Ya, if the object is defined as something within a subject's mind, then the OP question makes no sense because objects are dependent on a subject. It's only if they're defined as something external to us that the question even has meaning.

Or they could just say that only perceptions exist, not objects. There is no need to redefine something and confuse things.

Yes, there is. Because the belief in objects in the real world is a naive one with severe problems.

Note that I dont say that that belieif is not useful in our daily life. It works, just because we have evolved in this world.

 

[ryan]

Oxford Dictionaries says that an object is, "A material thing that can be seen and touched" from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/object .

Philosophically, it has an object as, "A thing external to the thinking mind or subject." and "A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed".

There is no debate about what an object is with how the OP was put.

Assume that there are se poeple in a room. They all view a red chair. That red chair is the object because they are all having similar models of the outside world. Becsuse they are humans and of similar background theit models are so similar so they can effectivily be seen as the same. They can speak of objects in this model as if they where in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the "illusion" of a shared model.

You are still using your own definition. We already have a definition for what you claim is actually the object; it is called "the perception" of the object.

You can apply a new definition as long as there isn't one for it already. Do you know what I am saying?

That is obviously not a valid definition. Do you really mean that a molecule, a neutron star or a galaxy isnt an object?

I am completely confused by what you are saying here. I am the one posting the definition that says that an object exists outside of the mind.

It seems to be you that doesn't believe in an outside world.

 

[Juma]

Oxford Dictionaries says that an object is, "A material thing that can be seen and touched" from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/object .

Philosophically, it has an object as, "A thing external to the thinking mind or subject." and "A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed".

There is no debate about what an object is with how the OP was put.

Assume that there are se poeple in a room. They all view a red chair. That red chair is the object because they are all having similar models of the outside world. Becsuse they are humans and of similar background theit models are so similar so they can effectivily be seen as the same. They can speak of objects in this model as if they where in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the "illusion" of a shared model.

You are still using your own definition. We already have a definition for what you claim is actually the object; it is called "the perception" of the object.

You can apply a new definition as long as there isn't one for it already. Do you know what I am saying?

That is obviously not a valid definition. Do you really mean that a molecule, a neutron star or a galaxy isnt an object?

I am completely confused by what you are saying here. I am the one posting the definition that says that an object exists outside of the mind.

It seems to be you that doesn't believe in an outside world.

I definitely believe in an outside world. But I also believe that we project way to much of what really just goes on in our mind back on the outer world.

You cannot see or touch a galaxy. The concept is created by human minds from the knowledge about the data received from measurements of the universe. The universe obviously behaves so that it is useful to us to speak about galaxies. The object corresponding to each falaxy is just our projection of the concept of galaxy vack onto the behaviour of the universe.

 

[fast]

We don't define things.

1) we can't define things.
2) we don't define things we can't define.
Therefore 3) we don't define things.

 

[ryan]

You cannot see or touch a galaxy. The concept is created by human minds from the knowledge about the data received from measurements of the universe. The universe obviously behaves so that it is useful to us to speak about galaxies. The object corresponding to each falaxy is just our projection of the concept of galaxy vack onto the behaviour of the universe.

Okay, so whatever it is providing this data is what we call the galaxy. This thing that provides data that we call a galaxy is classified as an object or subject depending how we talk about it.

 

[fast]

Oxford Dictionaries says that an object is, "A material thing that can be seen and touched" from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/object .

Philosophically, it has an object as, "A thing external to the thinking mind or subject." and "A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed".

There is no debate about what an object is with how the OP was put.

Assume that there are se poeple in a room. They all view a red chair. That red chair is the object because they are all having similar models of the outside world. Becsuse they are humans and of similar background theit models are so similar so they can effectivily be seen as the same. They can speak of objects in this model as if they where in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the "illusion" of a shared model.

You are still using your own definition. We already have a definition for what you claim is actually the object; it is called "the perception" of the object.

You can apply a new definition as long as there isn't one for it already. Do you know what I am saying?

That is obviously not a valid definition. Do you really mean that a molecule, a neutron star or a galaxy isnt an object?

I am completely confused by what you are saying here. I am the one posting the definition that says that an object exists outside of the mind.

It seems to be you that doesn't believe in an outside world.

I definitely believe in an outside world. But I also believe that we project way to much of what really just goes on in our mind back on the outer world.

You cannot see or touch a galaxy. The concept is created by human minds from the knowledge about the data received from measurements of the universe. The universe obviously behaves so that it is useful to us to speak about galaxies. The object corresponding to each falaxy is just our projection of the concept of galaxy vack onto the behaviour of the universe.

There is a difference between a galaxy and our concept of a galaxy. One in not a mental phenomena whereas the other is. We should always be careful not to confuse a concept with what a concept is a concept of.

 

[Juma]

You cannot see or touch a galaxy. The concept is created by human minds from the knowledge about the data received from measurements of the universe. The universe obviously behaves so that it is useful to us to speak about galaxies. The object corresponding to each falaxy is just our projection of the concept of galaxy vack onto the behaviour of the universe.

Okay, so whatever it is providing this data is what we call the galaxy. This thing that provides data that we call a galaxy is classified as an object.

No. It is not an object. It is not a thing. It is not even an it.

 

[ryan]

We don't define things.

1) we can't define things.
2) we don't define things we can't define.
Therefore 3) we don't define things.

Are you joking? If not, what the hell are you talking about?