Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    The majority of philosophers most often define the word object in terms of its properties, specifically in terms of the ability
    of humans to touch and see it or to move it around:

    “ that which is perceptible by the senses, especially by vision or touch’.  [1]

    “ …by a rigid body we mean one which, when placed in two positions successively, can
      always be made to appear the same to us as before.” (p. 11) [2]

    “ Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and
      observable only through their interaction with other systems.”  [3]

    This particular notion or manner of defining the word object is known as the bundle’ theory of objecthood. It suggests that
    an object is merely a listing of its properties and absolutely nothing without them. Locke exemplifies for us:

    the idea which an Englishman signifies by the name swan, is white colour, long neck,
      red beak, black legs, and whole feet, and all these of a certain size, with a power of
      swimming in the water, and making a certain kind of noise, and perhaps, to a man
      who has long observed this kind of birds, some other properties: which all terminate
      in sensible simple ideas, all united in one common subject” (Bk. II, Ch. 23)  [4]

    Locke’s ‘subject’ includes practically every word in the dictionary since every word conveys at least one property or attribute,
    the most conspicuous being the notion of individuality, unity, or oneness. Is the subject of a sentence the same thing as an
    object?

    Dissidents known as substance ontologists prefer to associate objects with the now ancient notion of substantive, intuitively
    something corporeal, physical, a body. In the absence of attributes, a swan is just a ‘bare particular’, a substrate stripped of
    all its qualifiers.

    “ Bare particular is what a substance is called when considered independently of
      its properties.   [5]

    Locke analyzes this issue as well:

    “ we suppose them existing in and supported by some common subject; which support
      we denote by the name substance, though it be certain we have no clear or distinct
      idea of that thing we suppose a support… substance is supposed always something
      besides the extension, figure, solidity, motion, thinking, or other observable ideas,
      though we know not what it is.” (Bk. II, Ch. 23)  [6]

    Hence, whereas the bundle theorist argues that the color white is ‘owned’ by this swan and is an integral part of its description,
    the substance theorist argues that the word swan refers to an object in general irrespective of such qualifiers. A ‘bare particular’
    is simply a new term for the notion Locke had trouble identifying and which he diversely referred to as substratum, substantia,
    standing under, upholding, etc. The mysterious substrate that remains behind after we remove all attributes continues to be a
    mystery and the subject of intense debates.

    Anything tangible having existence (living or nonliving)”  [7]

    So what have the philosophers concluded after 3000 years? Do they know what an object is? Let's start with the bundle
    theorists and see all the versions these bozos came up with.
Is an object
a bundle of properties?
Look carefully, and
you will see the
energy between our
hands. Why... you
can almost touch it!
Do you feel it?



    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008