I will try to explain what objects “really” are.
Maybe someone has already said this, but I thought it couldn’t hurt to start a thread up about it.
First I will assume that all things are connected by reality fabric, space, and time, even if their matter does not touch. So two trees in a field, far away from each-other, are still connected to each-other. Human thought cuts up wholes into components. This makes reality intelligible. An unintelligible reality is useless to the evolutionary drives of a human life. What we need is things which are the most use-able and intelligible. That is why we cut up reality into individual objects. Also larger objects are considered to be made of smaller objects. Without objects math would be impossible. Math is all about the dimensions of objects.
We have made ourselves so persuaded of the realness of what we sense, that we have went on to say that objects can exist without an observer. I think this is what produced “objectivity”. It is a class for all true objects.
In perspectivism, dimensions are points of view, but in objectivism, points of view can be objective.
I think objectivity is problematic, but objects don’t seem to be very problematic.
An object is merely a portion of the universe that has been noted to be distinct from its surroundings in some relevant way. It is an epistemological way to begin thinking about how to handle one’s environment.
To remove the notion of objects or regard them as insignificant distinctions, is to remove the ability of the mind to function.
I agree. (But objects, most probably, exist in some form even when un-observed; even if they don’t, there’s no way of ‘knowing’… That’s the only bit of the op I thought was ‘disagreeable’)
The objects around create the subject that knows about them. The knowledge projected onto the things around creates you, the subject. Without a circumference (knowledge of objects) there is no center point. You cannot measure anything unless you have a point. So, if the center is absent, there is no circumference at all.
Anyway we take this knowledge, use it as the structure of thought, and make stories by linking up particular events. When we link events this way, it sets a direction for which thinking (philosophy, etc.) is to delve. Any logical derivation requires a space (the beginning and end point) and the time factor in which there is a logical flow from the beginning to a definite end. Thought is the thing that has created the space and experiences the space. But how is value assigned in the formulations of these events and directions? What happens when we get caught in the trap of a conceptual framework? Predicaments take place. So what’s happening there? The mind is involved somehow, not the objects.