Talk:Subject and object (philosophy)

message: Same subject. Santa Sangre 02:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objecthood is now merged into here - from Feb 2006, it was the oldest outstanding Wikipedia merge request until now. Dl2000 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with objecthood 

message: I came here to check out what Wikipedia would have to say on this most obtuse and strange concept, and I have to say I was impressed. I particularly liked the part about how objects are "anything that can have properties or relations to other objects" - I think this best sums up what an object is, especially in a logical context. Perhaps it's necessary to include more discussion about logic and how logic is different from, say, phenomenology... in determining what things are objects (they happen to agree on a lot of things, interestingly... I dunno... more experienced people may be able to better decide).
Anyway just wanted to say: good article. Everyone's done a terrific job here.
150.203.11.219 03:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty good article 

message: There's been a distinct improvement in Wikipedia. A few years ago, say at the 1 mil article mark, you couldn't even use the term entity. The so-called editors would laugh you to scorn. Ok, now it is a legitimate term, but what to do with it? The origin of our term goes back to Greek philosophy. The entity is a perfectly universal term, meaning anything whatever that exists in any way. It is the object studied by ontology. Aristotle distinguished between independent existence and existence only in something else, such as a color. Thoughts are in humans; they do not exist independently. Since then the entity usually means something that exists and is not thought only; that is, something objective. The subjective, which is just as much of an entity, though of a different kind, is excluded. But now, in modern usage, we have something of a return to subjective entities, which exist only in the mind, but determine behavior. So, what to do? Semantically I got no objection to a merger, but I fear there are enough modern usages to justify 2 articles. Therefore on the grounds of material available I'm tentatively opposed to a merger. It would be interesting to see any other opinions on this. We could get this going. Meanwhile I think I may do some work on entity, which 2 years ago would not really have been tolerated. Wikipedia is gradually managing to produce some education here.Dave (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither article is very understandable to the lay reader, me for instance. However both seem to contain some useful information. I know more about the topics after having read them.  I would vote to oppose merge since that would seem to add more confusion.12.172.189.209 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger of entity with object (philosophy)

message: "In a more restricted sense, an object is something that can have properties and bear relations to other objects. On this account, properties and relations (as well as propositions) are not included among objects, but are explicitly contrasted with them, as falling into a different logical category.  Sets and universals may or may not be objects on this account."
You just finished developing the idea that an object can be anything, and now you say, well, sets and universals may not be objects. I seriously doubt this concept but whether someone else holds it or not, the idea would need to be developed at least to the definatory point.Dave (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenge

message: In particular, the introduction.  We know from the title that it is to be an explication of the word 'object' as used in philosophy.  The etymology, which is not too useful for a philosophical understanding, should really be put in a dictionary.  Then there's the lengthy segue into unrelated wordiness, such as 'Consciousness therefore is an act of cognition that takes in the self, which can never be doubted, as it would have to be the self who doubts, and some doubtable notes, which philosophy calls objects, which carry with them the understood possibility of being in error. '
Not only is this of dubious validity, but it is of dubious relevance to the topic as well.  
Overall the whole thing reads like some sophomoric dissertation on a barely understood concept.  There are reasonable elements in the article, but they are diluted by the surrounding self-arguments and verbiage.
A very poor article, even by Wikipedia's standards.
Not a troll, just thought that perhaps some outside criticism might be helpful.  87.139.192.244 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then improve it. Thepigdog (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What a terrible article

message: The usage and topic of surface is under discussion, see Talk:Surface -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Surface"

message: Object is defined as something that is observed by the subject, but isn't the whole point of objective to be independent of the mind. It would seem, by this definition, that observation is what defines objective. Am I wrong on this? RyanDanielst (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object definition 

message: Subject is all minds. Tzsf (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of subject