Objecthood

Maybe the notion of an object is primitive: it cannot be explained any further. A word is primitive if it is meaningful but not capable of being defined. Moreover, if the notion of objecthood cannot be explained in terms of something else, then, given that it is a genuine notion at all, then it is a primitive concept. Maybe it would help to limit one's ambitions to the concept of physical objecthood. But it will not do to suggest that physical objecthood can be understood in terms of fundamental particles, such as quarks. Presumably, ...

See also:

Objecthood, Objecthood - What the problem is and is not, Objecthood - Substance theory vs. bundle theory

Read more here: » Objecthood: Encyclopedia II - Objecthood - What the problem is and is not

In philosophy, an object is a thing, an entity, or a being. This may be taken in several senses. In its weakest sense, the word object is the most all-purpose of nouns, and can replace a noun in any sentence at all. (In ordinary usage, the word has something like this effect, but not as extreme.) Thus objects are things as diverse as the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, my belief in predestination, and your mother's fear of dogs. Charles S. Peirce succinctly defines the broad notion of an object as follows: "By an object, I mean anything that we c ...

Including:

• Object philosophy - Semantics

Read more here: » Object philosophy: Encyclopedia - Object philosophy

WordNet gives four main senses for the English noun object: a physical entity; something that is within the grasp of the senses; an aim, target or objective — see Object (task); a grammatical Object — either a direct object or an indirect object the focus of cognitions or feelings. Some specialized meanings are as follows: In computer science: An object is a language-supported mechanism for binding data tightly with methods that ...

Including:

• Object - Etymology

Read more here: » Object: Encyclopedia - Object

Some philosophers deny that the concept of "being" has any meaning at all, since we only define an object's existence by its relation to other objects, and actions it undertakes. The term "I am" has no meaning by itself; it must have an action or relation appended to it. This in turn has led to the thought that "being" and nothingness are closely related, developed in existential philosophy. Existentialist philosophers such as Sartre, as well as continental philosophers such as Hegel and Heidegger have also written extensively on the ...

See also:

Being, Being - Being and substance in Aristotle, Being - Being in continental philosophy and existentialism, Being - Being in Islamic philosophy

Read more here: » Being: Encyclopedia II - Being - Being in continental philosophy and existentialism

Among the first inquiries into what "being" encompassed was that undertaken by Aristotle. The term "substance" in Aristotle was a precise metaphysical term denoting an individual thing about which specific assertions may be made. Since the Aristotelian view of matter is negative, the "substance" or "being" is a real thing that exists. Since matter renders things more obscure to our perception, it follows that the true essence of an object is independent of ...

See also:

Being, Being - Being and substance in Aristotle, Being - Being in continental philosophy and existentialism, Being - Being in Islamic philosophy

Read more here: » Being: Encyclopedia II - Being - Being and substance in Aristotle

The nature of being has also been debated and explored in Islamic philosophy, notably by Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi, and Mulla Sadra.[1] ...

See also:

Being, Being - Being and substance in Aristotle, Being - Being in continental philosophy and existentialism, Being - Being in Islamic philosophy

Read more here: » Being: Encyclopedia II - Being - Being in Islamic philosophy