Timeline for What is the definition of 'object' in philosophy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2019 at 13:23 | comment | added | Frank Hubeny | @yukashimahuksay Under the umbrella view they would all be "objects". This is why other views of object are useful. The point is an object an be defined in multiple ways. The article I referenced provide examples of how that might be done. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 15:27 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | I consider "god" as an object but I'm wondering if the subjective sentence "The creator of the world" also is considered the definition of an object. I hope I could explain myself well this time. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 15:27 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | it's not like those 0.01% are stupid or irrational, they just happen to have a different opinion, which is also perfectly valid but just exotic. Also I could ask a more interesting question, "The creator of the world" is this definition considerable as an object in philosophy? Many people could consider god as the answer to that question but also many people could consider some other god, or sun, or nature etc as the answer and also many people would just claim that there is no such thing as the creator of the world. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 15:23 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | So, subjective definitions can be considered as object? For instance, "things people like", "best president in the world", "kindest person in the world", "the best number between 1 and 10", for example considering the last definition, one could say the best number doesn't mean anything but it's possible that you find a population of people of which 50% believe 7 is the best number! Also for certain definitions you might find out that 99.99% of the world consider a certain thing as the target of that definition and 0.01% consider another thing as the target of the definition. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 15:11 | vote | accept | yukashima huksay | ||
| Oct 9, 2019 at 3:36 | comment | added | Frank Hubeny | @yukashimahuksay The object vs subject would be more the difference between an 'it' and a 'you'. It is just another way to have more categories than the one umbrella view of object. The subjective component of the first definition may fit this. | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 18:41 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | So if a certain definition is subjective, as in, different people would have different understandings of that definition based on their own personal assumptions and beliefs, that won't be an object? | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 14:36 | comment | added | Frank Hubeny | @yukashimahuksay If you can describe it at all it would be an "object" by the umbrella view. It may not be an object under the object vs property or object vs subject distinction. The different uses may have enough subjectivity to make them not objects by the third definition. The object would be the cobblestone. The subjective part the use made of the cobblestone. | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 13:27 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | since there was a lot of advertisement pained on it. but in the second square it was used as a bumper because it made cars go slower. and do the same thing for other items such as benches, trees, etc. As for the second definition, the project would be to investigate the content of trash cans in both squares and interpret it, I thought it could be very interesting because trash can holds the stuff people discard. And that has a lot to do with their culture and the way they think. specially noting that one square was in a poor area and the other was in a rich area of the city. | |
| Oct 8, 2019 at 13:24 | comment | added | yukashima huksay | Thank you so much for your great answer, but I'm afraid you might have misunderstood my first definition, I didn't mean the property of having a second usage, I meant the second usage of things itself, maybe I should have described the question that the teacher had asked, the question was to go in two squares of the city, consider an object from each square, and talk about it, so choosing the first definition would be to consider the second usage of several items in both squares, e.g. the Cobblestone on the ground and for instance say that in the first square it was used also as a billboard. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 14:22 | history | answered | Frank Hubeny | CC BY-SA 4.0 |