Timeline for What is the definition of 'object' in philosophy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 9, 2019 at 15:11 | vote | accept | yukashima huksay | ||
| Oct 8, 2019 at 13:28 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | @Rusi If you are more interested about the project you can go read my comments on the currently posted answer. | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 13:20 | comment | added | Rushi | 😆 No but teachers can set strange questions and/or behave obtuse toward answers because they are leading you to some point. ie the question can be trick/bogus (And I speak not as a musician but as a teacher 😇) | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 13:16 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | @Conifold sadly there is a certain culturally significant meaning to the contents of a trash can that I aim to describe and investigate, hence, trash can itself is not an object;) | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 13:15 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | @Rusi, considering your activity in music stack exchange, May I ask whether your comment had a rhyme? :P | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 13:14 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | @Rusi it is not, my girlfriend studies architecture, she goes to a contemporary art school, her team had gone with the first definition and they didn't get accepted, I suggested the second definition but she insisted that this wont be accepted, but I believed that there is a huge difference between the two, and that is the fact that the first one is subjective and the second one is definite. So I asked here to see if the teacher was having a self invented definition of object in philosophy or he is following a philosophical paradigm. | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 4:58 | comment | added | Rushi | May I ask (especially since you are active on stackoverflow, Unix etc) whether this question is in the context of object oriented programming? | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 14:28 | history | edited | Frank Hubeny | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar for clarity and stating the question in the title
|
| Oct 7, 2019 at 14:22 | answer | added | Frank Hubeny | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 12:55 | comment | added | Conifold | Hard to say without knowing your teacher or the class this is for, but he might have the narrow colloquial meaning in mind. If you want to be safe why don't you go with the trash can itself. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 11:52 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | @MauroALLEGRANZA please see my comment. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 11:52 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | @Conifold We had to select an object and investigate it, last week I had chosen the first thing in my question, but the teacher said that it was not an object, I don't have any way to contact him, and I have chosen the content of trash can this time, I'm trying to predict if this will also be rejected, so I'm trying to see if he is following a specific definition of object. I so much want to go with content of trash can, I'm trying to see if there is a high chance someone who doesn't accept the first definition as an object would also reject "The contents of a trash can" | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 9:26 | comment | added | Conifold | Why does it have to be one? Both concepts are legitimate, they just happen to share a six letter label (which is also used for other purposes, as in "to object"). Just use whatever is appropriate in a given context, and disambiguate when necessary. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 9:10 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | I have a pencil : it is an object. Then I break it and put it into the trash can : now there is an object into the trash can. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 9:08 | history | edited | yukashima huksay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 98 characters in body
|
| Oct 7, 2019 at 9:07 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | @Conifold Which one of these two do you consider as object, is there any common definition of object in which one of the two is considered object and the other is not? | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 9:07 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | @MauroALLEGRANZA Which one of these two do you consider as object, is there any common definition of object in which one of the two is considered object and the other is not? | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 7:22 | comment | added | Conifold | There are at least two different meanings that the word is used for. One is a broad "object of consideration", which can be anything and everything, including contents of a trash can or beauty, and which Peirce's quote is about. The more narrow is of an individual item, physical or not, held together in some sense and standing out from the background and other items, like a brick or mathematical circle. Your hesitation is probably caused by mixing those two. There is no general "definition in philosophy", philosophers specify what they mean when using "object", and it depends on context. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 7:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 21, 2019 at 18:10 | |||||
| Oct 7, 2019 at 7:02 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Not very clear… We do not define "objects": objects exist (or not). | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 6:59 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | See Object : "is there a category under which every thing falls? Offering an informative account of such a category is no easy task. […] Nonetheless there are candidates for such a fully general office, including thing, being, entity, item, existent, and —especially— object." | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 6:58 | history | edited | yukashima huksay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1593 characters in body
|
| Oct 7, 2019 at 6:50 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 7, 2019 at 8:05 | |||||
| Oct 7, 2019 at 6:48 | history | asked | yukashima huksay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |