In this essay I would like to focus on the possible realisations of a direct object. At the beginning I will try to explain what an object is. I want to make clear difference between direct and indirect objects and I will also write about some other clausal elements which influence objects.
Generally, we can distinguish five basic elements within a sentence: subject, verb, complement and object. Let’s imagine we have a sentence in which there is involved some action. If the action or event involves another person or thing which the action affects, relates to or produces, we express it by placing a nominal group referring to them directly after the verbal group (verb). This is called direct object (I-subject- don’t like- verbal group- Jack.-object realised by a nominal group). Clauses which contain a direct object are called transitive clauses. Verbs contained in these clauses which are followed by direct object are called transitive verbs. Direct object is the most frequent kind of object and if there is an indirect object in the sentence, there must be a direct object as well (but there are some exceptions from this rule). An object (both direct and indirect) can be also described as a noun phrase or clause with nominal function which follows subject and predicator (verbal group). For distinguishing objects it is necessary to know that by being made passive they assume the role of subject.
Objects can be realised by a nominal group or by finite clauses. The finite clauses can be further divided into “that” clauses and “wh-“clauses. Other way of realising objects are non- finite clauses. We distinguish two types of them: “to infinitive” clauses and “-ing” clauses.
The example of a direct object realised by a nominal group can be: The police (subject) caught (verb) the murderer (direct object). Direct objects realised by pronouns belong to this category as well. Pronoun is considered to be a nominal group. We use so called object pronouns in these sentences. Object pronouns are: me, us, you, him, her, it and them. Example of such realisation is: Jack (subject) couldn’t find (verb) them (object realised by a pronoun).
Usage of “that” clauses depends on the verb in the preceding clause. Verbs which are often followed by “that” clause can be divided into verbs of knowing and perceiving (believe, imagine, find, realise, see) - I believe that the situation will improve soon.
Fromm, Erich. “The Nature of Symbolic Language.” Class Handout: English 101. Cerro Coso Community College, 2010. 121-26. Print.
Accepting that we cannot establish the "objectivity" of our experiences' content, Kant nevertheless attempts to resist a slide into relativism by insisting that they are mediated by rationally delineated categories which supposedly insure the transcendental or universal nature of their form, thereby providing an absolute standard against which we might check the veridicality of our descriptions of, and communications concerning, them. However as a priori preconditions of the possibility of experience such categories are obviously inexperienceable in themselves, and consequently must also fall to the phenomenological reduction. (3) Nevertheless, a moments reflection will confirm that our experiences do indeed exhibit structure or form, and that we are able, even from within, or wholly upon the basis of, the (phenomenologically reduced) realm of, our experiences per se, to distinguish between the flux of constantly changing and interrupted subjective appearances, and the relatively unchanging and continuously existing objects constituted therein. Husserl confirms:
In this paper I will lay out the argument by both Aristotle and Aquinas on the immateriality of the mind.
This paper is an initial attempt to develop a dynamic conception of being which is not anarchic. It does this by returning to Aristotle in order to begin the process of reinterpreting the meaning of ousia, the concept according to which western ontology has been determined. Such a reinterpretation opens up the possibility of understanding the dynamic nature of ontological identity and the principles according to which this identity is established. The development of the notions of energeia, dynamis and entelecheia in the middle books of Aristotle’s Metaphysics will be discussed in order to suggest that there is a dynamic ontological framework at work in Aristotle’s later writing. This framework lends insight into the dynamic structure of being itself, a structure which does justice as much to the concern for continuity through change as it does to the moment of difference. The name for this conception of identity which affirms both continuity and novelty is "legacy." This paper attempts to apprehend the meaning of being as legacy.
Accordingly, all that is needed for an individual to possess and maintain his personal identity are certain mental capacitates for having conscious experiences, the examples of thoughts and sensation are given, and the ability to perform intentional actions. It this portion of the theory, a departure from the traditional Aristotelian view of substances is made. The original viewpoint of Aristotelian forms can apply only to inanimate objects, which have no personal identity, in this dualist theory, if the arguments illustrating that two people can be the same person, even if the is no continuity between the physical matter of each body are correct. Consequently, for two substances to be considered the same, in this reformed view, they
In order to explicate Sartre’s notion of intersubjectivity I will follow the progression that Sartre takes in Being and Nothingness. I will first distinguish between “being-for-itself” and “being-for-others”. Second, I will provide an explication of the subject’s encounter with the Other as an object. Third, I will explain the significance of “the look”. Here I will show how the look provides the foundation for the self. I will also show how the look of the Other affects the subject’s freedom.
Schopenhauer makes it clear that he is indebted to Kant for his vision of transcendental idealism, and that his Critique of Pure Reason [2] is a work of genius. However, Schopenhauer argued that Kant made many mistakes when formulating his philosophy, and he set about the task of uncovering them in his Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy, an appendix to be found in The World as Will and Representation [1]. In this essay I wish to analyse the criticism made against Kant's determination of an object, since this is an important factor if we are to comprehend how we understand reality.
In the Transcendental aesthetics, Kant defines the objective validity of Space and Time as concepts a priori with the help from of Geometry, showing that if we believe in the validity of Geometry, we have to believe that Space and Time are concepts a priori. In the Pure Concepts of Understanding, Kant claims that our intuitions are dependent on sensibility; everything we sense accumulates into our brain and our understanding of the information we sensed relies on organizing that data so that we can recognize the object. Thus, he asserts that understanding is not a faculty of intuition but sensibility. Furthermore, the act of organizing the data into one representation is defined as function and these functions serve as a bridge between the object and its concepts because concepts are not directly related to an object but just some representations of it. This, when function and concepts are put together, Kant concludes is defined as judgment, knowledge of the fact that there is ...
One of the more interesting concepts is the "Chain of signifiers", in which the signifier itself points not to the signified, or concept, but rather points to another set of signifiers, which each point to another set of signifiers, ad infinitum. It is this idea that "the word...never reaches the point when it refers to a signified" (Tyson 252) that positions language as nonreferential, with no end-game where a signified is met and all the supplements provided by the signifiers are resolves. There is no point at which language "refer[s] to things in the world" (252) instead relying on how we, through our own structures of signification, view concepts. Each chain of signifiers is dependent upon the structure that acts upon the creation of meaning and experience, and no longer dependent on the signified itself. For instance, a text never reaches the point where it relays the disparate ideas that formulated the text in the mind of the author - it instead is formulated of supplements that point to poten...
In this essay I will be discussing the thought-provoking theory of universals and be asking whether this idea of an invisible yet prominent realm of reality can claim to have a place in existence. I shall firstly examine Plato's dialogue of Parmendides and see if a partition can be drawn between the forms and universals. I shall then move on to the opposing argument which invariably denies such dimensions in reality before reaching my conclusion.
Russell’s Theory of Definite Description has totally changed the way we view definite descriptions by solving the three logical paradoxes. It is undeniable that the theory itself is not yet perfect and there can be objections on this theory. Still, until now, Russell’s theory is the most logical explanation of definite description’s role.
Many have scrutinized and compared the dissimilarities and similarities of Aristotle's doctrine of categories and Plato's theory of forms. The observations found are of an interesting nature.
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes seeks to prove that corporeal objects exist. This argument is put forth based on the principles and supposed facts he has built up throughout the Meditations. In order to fully understand his argument for the existence of corporeal things, one must trace his earlier arguments for effects and their causes, the existence of God, the nature of God, and his ability to never make mistakes.
The Greeks are credited with inventing philosophy and it was believed that whoever pursued a deeper understanding in a subject was a philosopher. Since then, the subject of philosophy has grown and has helped us analyze complicated questions such as what is real and what is beauty. The questions encountered in philosophy can fall under four areas, but in this essay we will focus on one of them, Metaphysics. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions relating to the physical world. Further, in life we encounter many physical objects in which we can touch and feel. However, what makes these objects real? Plato introduced his metaphysics idea of Theory of Forms, which presents a view of what makes an object real. In this paper, I will touch upon the Theory of Forms and explain that a world of forms does exist separately from concrete/permanent things.
Therefore natural substances are capable of motion i.e. growing, gaining qualities, losing them and lastly being born and dying. In Book II of Physics and Parts of Animals Book 1, Aristotle goes on to contrast natural substances with artefacts, he states these are also capable of motion, but they move according to what they are made out of, he gives us an example of a wooden bed “if the bed sprouted, not a bed but wood would come up”3. Here Aristotle is contrasting two parts of nature – matter and form. An investigation of the principle of matter leads him to draw his important distinction between form and matter and in this essay I will explain and critically discuss why Aristotle holds that “we ought to speak of a things form and the sort of character it has as well, since the nature corresponding to the form is more important than the material nature”4.