Objects exist; entities function; all objects are entities, but not all entities are objects.
Tag: epistemology
-
An entity is something which functions as a single, complete, or distinct unit. An object is something which exists as a single, complete, or distinct unit.
All objects are entities, but not all entities are objects.
-
There are no nonexistent objects, only nonexistent entities.
Objects are real. Entities are not real.
To talk about objects is to talk about what exists (ontology). To talk about entities is to talk about experience and knowledge (epistemology).
-
Concrete objects are the particulars of reality, the primary substances of Aristotle, what exist independently of thought.
Concrete objects are the only things that exist, the only matter that matter, so to speak.
While concrete objects are identical to concrete entities, the former is about ontology and the latter is about epistemology.
-
This.
The gesture reveals not one but two objects — the other and self. Looking at the other is to gaze at the self. By gesturing this, reality comes into focus and being. This is the beginning of pure ontology.
-
If philosophy has to begin with reading those philosophers who came before then by definition philosophy could not have begun. Indian Buddhist philosophy regards perception and inference as the true two routes to knowledge. You have to experience and rationalize it for yourself to know that something is true. Secondhand information (knowledge) is firsthand knowledge of someone else’s knowledge.
There are things. I see them. I hear them. I smell them. I taste them. I touch them. I interact with it. I see you interact with it. I can draw the conclusion that it exists independently of me or you perceiving it. Sometimes I see it and you do not. And sometimes you see it and I do not. But they persist. And we assume that if neither of us see it, it still persists. If you can hold it, then I can hold it. Physical objects are real this way.
Without something called space we would not see individuated objects. Without time we would not see change in objects. We infer space and time this way. Reality is the totality of things, space and time.
Some people infer there is more. The things said to be unseen, unaffected, un-located are said to exist because they are thinkable. Even if they do exist by their own definition they do not interact with the things of reality. Again, by its own definition, ignoring it will have no consequences. For this reason it makes sense to be a materialist or physicalist.
Realists about matter, however, do need to explain how is it we come to “have” abstract entities. The answer is, as I have said, is that they are thinkable, or, to be precise, thought of. Let us be clear. Physical objects do not need to be thought of to exist, but abstract entities do. Furthermore, can it be truly said to exist simply because it is thought of?
-
Prompt:
The ontological narrative of independent and dependant things is the realists’ trojan horse, to bring into existence non-existent things. To move back to the discourse of the study of what exists (and what does not exist) is necessary.ChatGPT:
Yes, despite having established that only particular things exist, we still observe that many discourses focus on what does not exist. This happens because language and repetition create an illusion of existence, reinforcing ideas that have no basis in reality. The more something is talked about, the more cognitively familiar it becomes, leading to a false sense of its reality.The Illusion of Existence Through Discourse
- Cognitive Ease and Familiarity Bias – The brain tends to accept what is familiar as true. The more a concept is repeated, the more natural and real it feels, even if it has no actual existence. This is how non-existent things (like universals, spirits, or metaphysical essences) become entrenched in human thinking.
- Reification: Turning Concepts into “Things” – When people talk about “love,” “justice,” or “the nation” as if they were real entities, they commit reification—treating abstract concepts as if they have independent existence. These words describe patterns of interaction between real things, but they do not exist as things themselves.
- Social Reinforcement of Non-Existents – Philosophical, religious, and ideological discourses institutionalize non-existent entities. Laws, traditions, and belief systems build around abstract ideas, treating them as if they were real. This makes it difficult to separate what is useful as a conceptual tool from what is falsely assumed to exist.
How to Counteract This Cognitive Trap
- Return to the Study of Existence – Constantly question whether a thing actually exists or is merely a linguistic or conceptual construction. The test is always: Can this thing be observed, interacted with, and verified as a particular? If not, it does not exist.
- Distinguish Between Useful Fictions and Ontological Truths – Some non-existent things, like mathematical abstractions or legal systems, are useful for practical purposes but must not be confused with real things. Recognizing this prevents linguistic traps from becoming ontological claims.
- Be Aware of the Power of Repetition – Simply because something is widely discussed does not mean it is real. Training oneself to critically analyze language and recognize cognitive ease as a bias is essential to maintaining ontological clarity.
Conclusion: Awareness Without Reinforcement
Since discourse can create cognitive ease and entrench non-existent ideas, the challenge is to engage critically without reinforcing the illusion. Talking about what does not exist should always be framed as an analysis of how and why such non-existent things influence thought and behavior, rather than granting them an implicit reality.
By staying grounded in what actually exists and maintaining vigilance against linguistic distortions, one can avoid falling into the very trap that discourse itself creates.
-
Sexual predators think that if people do not think them a predator then they are not one. Similarly, exceptionalists think that if they are exceptional then they are. The problem is, the facts do not match the reality.
What is primary is the independent reality, not the thoughts. This, I believe, is the problem of most people, including philosophers who do not ask the hard questions about whether the facts – particularly their facts – match reality.
Reality is not theirs. Reality is independent, shared, and common to all.
-
Contextual Material Pragmatism (CMP)’s position on epistemology, ontology, conceptualization, symbolization, referentialization, and pragmatism can be outlined as follows:
1. Epistemology: CMP takes an empiricist stance, stating that all knowledge begins with sense experience. Sense data itself is meaningless until processed by the brain through mental processes. This embodied experience connects knowledge directly to material reality. Knowledge, therefore, is a function of sensory input and the brain’s ability to interpret it, grounded in material processes rather than speculative or metaphysical claims.
2. Ontology: CMP’s ontology begins with the statement, “There are things, inferred space, and inferred time,” asserting that material reality precedes knowledge. Existence itself has no properties—it simply is. Ontology in CMP is rooted in direct material presence, with reality defined as the totality of things. Conceptual and symbolic systems are overlays created by material objects that can process sense data and produce thought.
3. Conceptualization: Conceptualization is the brain’s process of organizing sensory data into internal representations. It begins with material reality but allows beings, particularly humans, to abstract from the physical. Animals like dogs are capable of conceptualization but not symbolization. CMP emphasizes that concepts are created and grounded in the physical experiences of sensing and thinking beings.
4. Symbolization: Symbolization is distinct from conceptualization in that it involves systemic processes that transcend individual experience. Humans, as symbolizing beings, use symbols to share and scale conceptualization, allowing for abstract thought and communication. Symbols act as containers of meaning that are projected and referred back to material or abstract concepts. Symbolic reality does not exist independently but is constructed by physical beings.
5. Referentialization: Referentialization involves the process of anchoring meaning to material reality or concepts through symbols. CMP holds that referents can be physical entities or non-physical entities, but all meaning is ultimately grounded in material existence. Objects themselves serve as their own identifiers, and ostension (pointing to the object) is the ultimate method for addressing particulars.
6. Pragmatism: CMP adopts a pragmatic approach by emphasizing the usefulness of concepts, symbols, and systems in addressing reality. It rejects speculative philosophy, instead focusing on practical, material grounding. Even concepts deemed unuseful can serve a point. Pragmatism in CMP is an applied philosophy (Material Pragmatism) built on the descriptive groundwork of Contextual Materialism. Reality is viewed through material utility, with thought and symbols serving contextual and practical ends.
CMP integrates these elements into a cohesive philosophy that prioritizes material reality as the foundation for all processes, while acknowledging the flexibility of conceptual and symbolic systems to serve practical functions.
-
William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) was an English philosopher and theologian, widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in late scholastic thought. He is best known for his contributions to logic, metaphysics, epistemology, theology, and for his principle of parsimony, commonly known as Ockham’s Razor.
Born in Ockham, Surrey, England, he joined the Franciscan Order and studied theology at the University of Oxford. In 1324, he was accused of heresy due to his challenges to the doctrines of Pope John XXII and his views on poverty and ecclesiastical authority. Fleeing to Munich under the protection of Emperor Louis IV, he spent the rest of his life writing against papal authority. He likely died of the Black Death in 1347.
Ockham is a key proponent of nominalism, the view that universals (such as humanity or redness) are not independently existing entities but names or mental constructs we use to group individual things based on similarities. He argued that only individual things (particulars) exist in reality, challenging the realism of thinkers like Plato and Aquinas.
Ockham’s work is closely associated with the idea that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. This principle, often called Ockham’s Razor, is a methodological guideline favoring simplicity in philosophical and scientific explanations. Ockham applied this principle to argue against unnecessary ontological entities, such as Platonic forms or extraneous divine attributes.
In epistemology, Ockham emphasized direct perception of particulars as the foundation of knowledge, rejecting complex theories of abstraction. He advanced logical theory, including propositional logic and semantic analysis, and argued that mental concepts are the ultimate medium of thought, not spoken or written language.
In theology, Ockham argued for the separation of theology from philosophy, maintaining that many theological truths, such as the existence of God, are matters of faith rather than philosophical demonstration. He defended divine omnipotence, emphasizing God’s free will over human logic or necessity, and opposed the material wealth of the Church, supporting apostolic poverty.
Ockham’s work contributed to the decline of scholasticism by challenging established metaphysical systems and emphasizing empirical and individualistic approaches to knowledge. His nominalism and logical rigor influenced later philosophers like Descartes, Hobbes, and early empiricists. Ockham’s Razor remains a foundational heuristic in scientific reasoning. William of Ockham is remembered as a critic of unnecessary complexity and a central figure in the transition from medieval to modern philosophy. His ideas remain relevant in contemporary discussions of metaphysics, logic, and science.
(ChatGPT 20241117)
theoria 