What the FUCK do philosophers mean by subject/object? And how do I get into metaphysics and ontology?
The subject is not the warm, unified “you” you imagine sits behind your eyes, serenely steering the ship. That cozy figure is the ego, a mirror-made image, stitched together from identifications and misrecognitions. The subject is what emerges when you enter language: you become represented by signifiers, spoken by the Symbolic, and in that very representation you are split—barred—because no signifier can ever say you completely. The subject is the place where speech fails to coincide with being, where you speak and yet something in you does not speak, where the unconscious insists.The object, then, is not simply the thing “out there” that you perceive like a camera records a lamp. The decisive object is objet petit a: not the object you want, but the cause of your desire—an ocтaтoк, a remainder produced by the cut of language, the bit of the Real that cannot be symbolized and therefore returns as lure. So the subject is constituted by lack, and the object is the figure that organizes that lack; the relation between them is not knowledge but desire, and what you call “reality” is already filtered through the Other’s network of signifiers before you ever get to it.
>>25082543Buncha bullshit, learn to do math, or get into semiotics/linguistics
>>25082549Good language but this is a bad explanation
>>25082543It's pretty self-explanatory, if we're talking about metaphysics/ontology, the meaning of subject/object is the same as it's used grammatically in sentences. The subject is the performer of an action, and an object is the receiver of an action. I observe this monitor screen, the monitor is an object. I observe this water bottle, the water bottle is an object. I observe this keyboard, the keyboard is an object. Simple enough, they're objects because they receive the action of observation from someone. Where it gets tricky is investigating who is the one observing, where is the observer? This question and the pursuit of it's answer intellectually and through direct insight is the nexus of basically all metaphysics.
"I" am the only true subject.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
>>25082543a subject acts, the objects are acted on>And how do I get into metaphysics and ontology?Come up with precise questions, ask AI for books that contain part of an answer to those questions, read, be confused at first, read more, now you understand and have reached clarity
>>25082573That post was written by AI and you should feel deeply concerned that you weren’t able to detect it immediately
>>25082543read picrel
>>25084084This book begins from the presupposition that the mind can be objective, which is not true.
>>25084497Got anything better, asshole?
>>25082561>t. midwit
>>25082543Forget all the nonsense here...here is your answer :How do I get into metaphysics and ontology ?--> Read Aristotles metaphysics and categories
>>25084033nta but damn
>>25085978>Read Aristotles metaphysics and categoriesIs this really appropriate though? You wouldn't tell a physics student to start with Aristotle or Newton? Isn't that stuff outdated?
>>25087474outdated ? No ! Not at all dood... not at all...It is not comparable to physics...the foundation of metaphysics is still the same until today !
>>25084033You can't tell something is AI unless you have engaged with it often. Anti AI crowd shouldn't be so pissy about people not knowing something is AI when it just means they don't use or look at AI.
>>25082543Metaphysics in philosophy is bullshit and you shouldnt take them seriously. At best, they are some kind of refreshment, or fun daydreaming section that are being talked after a philosopher lay a core foundation of their belief and theory (usually in the first part of their books) as a speculative corroboration to their theory.The reason is quite simple, because there's no philosopher out there that could prove their metaphysics theory to be something that is accurate and true (because otherwise it wouldnt be called meta-physics lol), so most of them are self masturbatory in concept, being presented as speculation to corroborate their theory, and you shouldnt think about it too much
>>25082699Thad solipsism
Bump
>>25082543Subject is what feels like you in your experience, object is the thing in your experience which seems like it’s a seperate thing (coffee mug, rice foid, etc).If you want to approach metaphysics and ontology from a lived perspective, you’ll need to have a spiritual awakening also known as kensho, stream entry or gnosis. There’s modern secular teachings which will get you there in under a year if you are actually serious, get the book “awake: it’s your turn”. Alternatively look at writings by mystic saints and monks from history if you want to do it the hard way.
>>25082549Any sensation, warm or not, appropriated for semantics is symbolic in nature by necessity.
