The forum discussion centers on the classification of dreams as objects within the context of philosophical definitions. Participants argue that dreams, being non-physical and transient, do not meet the criteria of a "discrete, tangible thing" as defined by standard dictionaries. The debate explores the nature of objects, processes, and the implications of subjective versus objective realities, ultimately concluding that dreams lack the substantiality required to be classified as objects. The conversation emphasizes the importance of clear definitions in philosophical discourse.
PREREQUISITESPhilosophers, cognitive scientists, linguists, and anyone interested in the nature of reality and the classification of experiences.
Originally posted by yinyinwang
when i try to define the concept of object, i mean the philosophical sense of the word, not the general language usage, a very presise, clearly,logically defined, which means the clear connotation and extension.
"observe" is more related to human behavior, "detect" can be an equipment or unhuman behavior, like a dog finds something.Originally posted by hypnagogue
What is the difference between "detectable" and "observable"?
i am still examing them, but do not feel promising.Originally posted by hypnagogue
So, which of the terms in the above definition of object correspond to "the philosophical sense of the word"?
Originally posted by yinyinwang
"observe" is more related to human behavior, "detect" can be an equipment or unhuman behavior, like a dog finds something.
I think this distinction exists as a function of your personal connotations, not as a result of the definitions of the words themselves. For instance, there is nothing semantically wrong with saying "the dog observed a peculiar smell." If anything, I suppose you could make a case that "observing" entails "detecting" accompanied by "reflecting," though this is not the meaning of the word in scientific parlance. Either way, though, "detectable" works just as well as "observable."
Originally posted by yinyinwang
when i try to define the concept of object, i mean the philosophical sense of the word, not the general language usage, a very presise, clearly,logically defined, which means the clear connotation and extension.
Well, there always a first time for every thing.Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Your paragraph is full of contradictions.
First, what is the "philosophical sense" of the term object? There is no "object" philosophy I've ever heard of.
i want a newly defined meaning of language because the old ones are not satisfactory.Next you say you don't want a language meaning, but then ask for a precise, clear, logically defined term. Well, that is how language operates, not philosophy which is seldom so clear or defined.[/B]
Please explain why "To connote and extend is exactly the opposite of precise and defined, "Finally, after asking for preciseness and definitiveness, you demand "connotation and extension"! To connote and extend is exactly the opposite of precise and defined, so I don't think you are helping this discussion by your latest input.[/B]
If you think there is a philosophical issue with the meaning of "object," then please lay it out for us so the rest of us can understand what it is. Nothing you've said so far indicates to me that you are asking anything other than a language question. [/B]