Objects exist; entities function; all objects are entities, but not all entities are objects.
Tag: ontology
-
Existence precedes all else. You cannot think, know, act, speak without first being an existent thing.
-
Encounter is not the same as experience. Experience is about epistemology, how we know what we know. Encounter is about metaphysics, about the nature of what exists, and is a word I dislike.
Objects, regardless of them of having the capacity to experience or not, encounter. To be an object is to be in relation to other objects. To be in relation in the field of reality is to be encounter-able.
Thus, a rock and the ground upon which it sits are encountering each other. The planet Earth and the sun are similarly encountering, as are the galaxies.
By simply existing an object is already in relation to other objects and already encountering whether they know it or not, or whether their encounter is significant or obvious.
-
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.
-
Existence is pre-conceptual (and pre-lingual). The objects of reality exist whether you think about them or place them in a category. Philosophical realism is uncontroversial. But ask about the status of thought and second substance, we have varying opinions.
The standard definition of abstract entities (to which concepts and symbols belong) is that iff it:
- has no spatiotemporal location
- does not bring about effects
- is imperceptible to the senses
- yet thinkable.
(1) and (3) are straightforward. I can’t see abstract entities in reality. And if they are not in reality to be interacted with, then there are no effects (2). But thinkable (4).
So, is it an effect for something to be thinkable?
No effects. NO effects. NO EFFECTS. (I am thinking.)
So, I can disregard them without any consequences (without any effects). This is what the definition says and means. But I can think about it.
Thesis kind of like thinking about stealing something but not taking it. Or having seductive thoughts about someone but not going through with the motions. Or are we to take the Minority Report path and say thought itself is already a done crime.
I think it is safe to say that thoughts and acting within reality are different issues. Or clearer, thoughts about stealing and actually stealing something are different acts—the former is not a crime, the latter is a crime.
Thinking is an action. Expressing verbally is an action. Stealing is an action.
But let’s also talk about the passive act of observing or seeing. The symbol for a referent, the concept of a referent, and the referent itself are three separate entities. Two are created as representations, and one is existent.
Again, the referent-object has effects in reality. The symbolic-entity and conceptual-entity has no effects in reality.
As I had just shown, it is not symbols and concepts that harm, but people who use symbols and concepts that harm. People are objects. Do not mistake them for their concepts or symbols.
People as objects think “things” and say “things”. Thoughts and words do not harms directly. People do.
Deal with what affects you—matter. Deal with people as matter or object; do not deal with thought and words as pseudo-objects or pseudo-matter.
-
One criteria of concrete entities is that they bring about effects. The antithesis of this, abstract entities (all non-concrete entities), therefore does not bring about effects.
But, many commit to abstract entities, which they claim have effects, and therefore ontologically exist.
For Aristotle, these are secondary substances. And for Meinong, these are subsistence. And Quine highlighted these ontological commitments to show how they are needed to keep such philosopher’s frameworks coherent.
My English teacher at high school taught me that there are more exceptions to the rules than rules themselves. I think Western philosophy is like this as well. This is perhaps English and philosophy’s strength, but more likely their weakness.
-
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.
theoria 