Can there be an object without any subject?

[ontological_realist]

This is the point where we switch to Sanskrit, which has very clear terms for such things.

Form (rūpa) arises from experientially irreducible physical/physiological phenomena.

The coming together of an external object (such as a sound) and its associated internal sense organ (such as the ear) — gives rise to consciousness (viññāṇa • vijñāṇa)

The concurrence of an object, its sense organ and the related consciousness (viññāṇa • vijñāṇa) is called "contact" (phassa • sparśa).

From the contact of form and consciousness arise the three mental (nāma) aggregates of feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā• saṃjñā) and mental formation (saṅkhāra • saṃskāra).

The mental aggregates can then in turn give rise to additional consciousness that leads to the arising of additional mental aggregates

So not object, but sparsa, a contact - a form/external object which has been sensed and known.

It will be more helpful if you tell us what you think and in English!

 

[ontological_realist]

If moon appears to be bigger than stars to most people, then it is true that moon appears bigger than stars to most people. But that does not mean that the moon is bigger than stars.


If an apple appears red to most people then it is true that it appears red to most people. But that does not mean that the apple is red.

How any thing appears to humans is subjective to humans. It does not make it an objective feature of the cosmos ( all that actually exists).

.

i agree with you. I agree with you.

There's something about color, however, that makes how humans perceive it important. It's more of a lexical oddity that I don't have the energy to deal with at the moment.

Thank you, later on then.

 

[Juma]

No it doesnt. A lot of words were invented before anyone really understood what they represented. No one thinks that atoms are indivisible today. So that the word "object"is similar to "objective" doesnt not mean that it is.

There are objects and then there are perceptions of objects. The object is the "source" of what is being perceived.

No. We dont perceive objects. They are created from sensory data. As the characters you read now.

 

[ryan]

There are objects and then there are perceptions of objects. The object is the "source" of what is being perceived.

No. We dont perceive objects.

And the data comes from the supposed object. When someone speaks of an "object", they are essentially telling you that they believe in objects that exist outside of the mind.

They are created from sensory data. As the characters you read now.

Do you not believe that there is something causing us to experience the perception of these characters?

 

[Juma]

No. We dont perceive objects.

And the data comes from the supposed object. When someone speaks of an "object", they are essentially telling you that they believe in objects that exist outside of the mind.

They are created from sensory data. As the characters you read now.

Do you not believe that there is something causing us to experience the perception of these characters?

Of course there is. But an object is a property of the model the human body makes to organize incoming sensory data.
It has several properties that is obviously not "out there". (As for example the feeling of a clear distinction of what is part of the object and what is not)

 

[ryan]

And the data comes from the supposed object. When someone speaks of an "object", they are essentially telling you that they believe in objects that exist outside of the mind.

They are created from sensory data. As the characters you read now.

Do you not believe that there is something causing us to experience the perception of these characters?

Of course there is. But an object is a property of the model the human body makes to organize incoming sensory data.
It has several properties that is obviously not "out there". (As for example the feeling of a clear distinction of what is part of the object and what is not)

Maybe the properties that we give the object can be considered its extrinsic properties. But the actual object is traditionally outside of the brain.

 

[Juma]

And the data comes from the supposed object. When someone speaks of an "object", they are essentially telling you that they believe in objects that exist outside of the mind.

They are created from sensory data. As the characters you read now.

Do you not believe that there is something causing us to experience the perception of these characters?

Of course there is. But an object is a property of the model the human body makes to organize incoming sensory data.
It has several properties that is obviously not "out there". (As for example the feeling of a clear distinction of what is part of the object and what is not)

Maybe the properties that we give the object can be considered its extrinsic properties. But the actual object is traditionally outside of the brain.

When you read this text you read characters and words. What is the "actual object" of the last word in this sentence?

 

[ryan]

And the data comes from the supposed object. When someone speaks of an "object", they are essentially telling you that they believe in objects that exist outside of the mind.

They are created from sensory data. As the characters you read now.

Do you not believe that there is something causing us to experience the perception of these characters?

Of course there is. But an object is a property of the model the human body makes to organize incoming sensory data.
It has several properties that is obviously not "out there". (As for example the feeling of a clear distinction of what is part of the object and what is not)

Maybe the properties that we give the object can be considered its extrinsic properties. But the actual object is traditionally outside of the brain.

When you read this text you read characters and words. What is the "actual object" of the last word in this sentence?

Nobody knows because we only perceive what the object radiates. The only object that we know is our own minds.

 

[Underseer]

What do you mean by subject and object? As I understand the usage of the terms in philosophy, a subject is an observer and an object is a thing being observed. Is that what you're talking about?

If so, then objects can exist quite well without subjects - we're completely irrelevant to their being there.

This.

I don't know why a subject would be required for an object. Ever.

 

[ontological_realist]

[Nobody knows because we only perceive what the object radiates. The only object that we know is our own minds.

Humans perceive (or are able to catch) only a part of what is radiated from outside, not all, because human apparatus of cognizing works only within a certain range or limits. And this fact has very important implications.

If you find that I have not been able to be clear, let me know and I will try again.

 

[ryan]

[Nobody knows because we only perceive what the object radiates. The only object that we know is our own minds.

Humans perceive (or are able to catch) only a part of what is radiated from outside, not all, because human apparatus of cognizing works only within a certain range or limits. And this fact has very important implications.

If you find that I have not been able to be clear, let me know and I will try again.

I am not sure what you are getting at in this post. Did I say something that disagrees with you?

 

[Juma]

What do you mean by subject and object? As I understand the usage of the terms in philosophy, a subject is an observer and an object is a thing being observed. Is that what you're talking about?

If so, then objects can exist quite well without subjects - we're completely irrelevant to their being there.

This.

I don't know why a subject would be required for an object. Ever.

Then explain what makes something an object?

 

[Perspicuo]

A thing is an entity, whether or not it is being observed.

Entity and thing is just other words for objects.

In street language yes, but not in philosophy where they are technical terms.

 

[fromderinside]

OK lets call object a thing. If one observes a thing and considers it in some way it's an object. If those considerations actually do apply to the thing then the thing could be called the object without needing the one who considered it considering it. In this case there is a thing and it in some respect it is the object. Now if we remove the observer understanding the thing has properties exactly as seen by the one who would have considered it is not that thing the object?

Seems to me that there need be no subject required to observe a thing for that thing to be the object.

just sayin.....

No, an object is not a thing.
Object in philosophy is the the target of an observation or an action. Subject is the observer or agent.

A thing is an entity, whether or not it is being observed.

Agree. So you agree this brings us to my thrust "why the topic of subject and object is a philosophical construct at all if it has no objective value".

Please

 

[Juma]

Entity and thing is just other words for objects.

In street language yes, but not in philosophy where they are technical terms.

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

 

[ryan]

In street language yes, but not in philosophy where they are technical terms.

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.

 

[Horatio Parker]

So there is objective value in the universe and objects radiate.

If objects radiated value, that'd be the ball game.

 

[ontological_realist]

Humans perceive (or are able to catch) only a part of what is radiated from outside, not all, because human apparatus of cognizing works only within a certain range or limits. And this fact has very important implications.

If you find that I have not been able to be clear, let me know and I will try again.

I am not sure what you are getting at in this post. Did I say something that disagrees with you?

No there was no disagreement. I was just adding another point. Any way, does not matter. Forget about it. I may take it up later in an appropriate context.

 

[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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.