READ

What is 'the object'

In this series of articles, we will discuss some basic ideas about the concept of 'object.'

Thoughts about the object constitute the primary thoughts determining the person's fundamental conceptions and basic judgments about existence. For instance, ontology, the domains of fact, and the initial areas of theology develop under the influence of concepts guided by the transmission of judgments. Even if one hasn't organized a coherent set of thoughts, anyone with a conception of an object inherently possesses a form of ontology, a primitive level of existential thought. Daily tasks and conversations are impossible without an image of an object. Even someone with intellectual interests and pursuits outside of ontology and theology inevitably begins to think and talk about the object when they engage in thinking or speaking. In short, this topic is universal and fundamental.

Despite its universality and fundamentality, studies directly ask questions such as "What is an object? "What are the nature and foundations of the object?" "What should be considered about the concept of the object?" and conducting direct research on the concept of the 'object' are not typical and have never been. Even in philosophy and theology, the two deeply rooted institutions best equipped to explore this matter, such research is rare. The most significant reason for this rarity is that the object of this issue is, in fact, the concept of the object itself. Undertaking a conceptual inquiry where the subject is the concept of the object requires fundamental questioning, almost like turning the investigation back onto the objects used in the research. Such an inquiry necessitates the examination, testing, and essentially questioning of the entire framework, all the tools employed, and the foundations relied upon within the very space of the research itself. This is something only some are willing or may want to undertake; it has never been. However, only with such an inquiry into the concept of the object do we come to know whether we exist within a world of solid and genuine knowledge or lead a life guided by this authentic knowledge. In this respect, for someone searching for reality and solidity, taking the risk of such questions does not seem as difficult as it is for others. However, it is still difficult to bring this to an end; it has always been difficult.

In short, considering these contexts makes it possible to predict the panorama of the path followed in this article series. The subject is likely to tire the reader because it is difficult in many aspects and may be unfamiliar in many ways. We will proceed as much as we can without neglecting to draw attention to the primary points to avoid making the task too complicated. We hope it will be helpful and meaningful to the reader.

Firstly, for the sake of clarity and the convenience it provides, let's begin our exploration and discussion by examining the linguistic meanings of the word "object." The word "nesne" comes from Old Turkish and is composed of the expression "Ne ise," meaning whatever it is, however, it is, whatever condition it is. It denotes the essence, state, and structure of a being. The plural form is "nesneler," formed by adding the "-ler" suffix.

In Turkish, "nesne" is also conveyed by the word "şey." "Şey" has Arabic origins, primarily derived from the Quran. Although there is a debate about the exact origin of the word, the consensus is that it comes from the verb "sha'e," meaning "he wanted, desired." In this context, it evokes exciting associations. The word "mashiyyat," meaning "to want," is also considered to be the word "shai-." Its plural form is "ashia." "Shai" and "ashia" have been extensively debated in linguistic, theological, and philosophical realms, serving as subjects for fundamental definitions.

Today, the word "object" is also used in place of "nesne" and "shai." This term has entered our language from French and is itself a word derived from Old Latin. "Obje" is generally the Turkish usage of the word "objekt," which means "object" worldwide. "Objekt" itself comes from Old Latin "obiectivus." The meaning of this word is quite interesting; "obiectivus" translates to implications like "forcibly thrown," "sprouted," or "thrown."

In our language, words like "varlık," "yaratık," and "mevcud" can be used interchangeably with "nesne." Let's briefly look into these as well. "Varlık" comes from the meanings of "varmak" and "varı etmek." "Varmak" implies reaching a place going somewhere, while "varı etmek" denotes acquiring, possessing, or having something. The transformation of the "v" and "b" sounds in Turkish suggests that "varlık" originated from the verb "bar," which means "to go." In this regard, it shares the same root as the word "barış" used for peace. "Barış," with the "ış" infix, signifies mutual "reaching," implying reconciliation, coming to a common ground, or attaining an agreement.

"Yaratık" is used as the equivalent of "mahluk." Its origin is "Yara," which means compatibility or equipment. "Yaraşmak" and "yaramak" share the same root. While its usage in the sense of being created can express various understandings depending on the context, the commonality across these interpretations is that the entity is in a passive or created position. So, it implies to -created, made, or fashioned – a product. In this respect, it's similar to the word "obje," having a subject and object relationship, a doer and a done-to aspect. In contrast, for "nesne" and "şey," a direct subject-object connection is unnecessary, although it might be context-dependent. In the context of "objekt," the considered subject is expressed by the word "subjekt," pronounced as "süje" in Turkish.

"Mawjūd" is, to put it briefly, a passive word derived from the Arabic root "wajede," meaning to find. It implies being brought into existence. Considering its connection with words like "wijdan" and "wajd" in terms of meaning, it becomes pretty intriguing, given the loaded implications associated with finding and being.

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that while knowing and understanding the roots of words and the various meanings they have acquired over time is essential, the more fundamental and primary goal is to construct a "concept" beyond etymological purposes. In the composition of a concept, one of the fundamental aspects is the needs considered by the concept's composer. In this regard, those who formulate concepts can consider various things that surpass particular linguistic and cultural meanings regarding some goals and foundations in these areas. Therefore, the nature of the needs considered essentially shapes the concepts' essence.

Therefore, specific organized domains, where meticulous crafting takes place, can imbue the words used in such endeavors and the process of composing them with many functional features. Examples will help illustrate this. For instance, the concept formulated for an association's bylaws can differ in many aspects from a concept composed and elaborated in a field like philosophy or ethics. Similarly, someone engaged in intellectual or spiritual disciplines needs more meanings than a linguist identifies. Therefore, these domains can reshape and reinterpret certain words within varied constraints, ensuring meaningfulness for their specific concerns.

Our research here aims to approach the concept of an object from a scientific perspective, considering the needs of various fields. Therefore, it might be possible for us to develop a specialized understanding of "object" within the framework of this article. Nevertheless, this technical understanding of an object can still incorporate shared meanings with various versions from other fields and languages. In addition, if a specialized understanding can expand beyond different versions, this specialization may become suitable for generalization and, therefore, enforce the law in other versions. Essentially, this possibility arises spontaneously with the nature of the identified problem, namely the generality of the desired condition. The more general and fundamental a need is, the response obtained or produced within those contexts is equally general and fundamental. The response brought forth by the need transforms into meaning and is there to be loaded. The word carrying this meaning, in this regard, may take on a different level of generality and fundamentality based on this loaded meaning.

In these respects, it is necessary to review the work from the perspective of the person who will compose and comprehend the concept. Understanding the need and a possible response is essential at this point. As a result, the essence of the concept also depends on the principles of the comprehender and the thing comprehended. Notably, the nature of the comprehender is the priority in forming the composition. Proceeding with an understanding of an entire task solely through the words expressing the concept, without taking the comprehender into account, leads to error. In terms of the formation of the concept, the essence of the comprehender lies in the activity of 'Tasawwur' of the comprehender. Therefore, in this regard, tasawwur precedes the comprehension of the concept.

By Tasawwur( an Arabic word related to the concept of imagination or conception), one should not understand simply acts of imagining or thinking. Tasawwur is a more fundamental activity in which these may also be involved.

"Tasawwur," in terms of the dictionary, is an activity of forming an image or form (suret). In this regard, it is essential to understand the word "tasawwur" with the concept of "suret." "Suret" encompasses meanings such as "image," "appearance," "picture," "form," "shape," and "content." Consequently, tasawwur is an activity related to seeing. Here, seeing is not limited to seeing with the eyes alone; it can also include seeing through thought, perceiving, or, in other ways, being within the scope of tasawwur.

Indeed, ultimately, the essence of the composition of a concept is imagination (tasawwur). The essence of tasawwur, in a broad sense, is comprehension (idrak). Here, understanding "idrak" should be interpreted in an extensive definition within the scope of "experience." (tecrube- tacribat) In a vast sense, an experience is obtained through sensory perception, as well as through dreams, thoughts, imagination, or, in another instance, experiences perceived in the heart. Therefore, perception is experienced in a broad sense; however, experiential aspects are not limited to thinking and perception alone.

The conceptual framework is ultimately based on tasawwur (imagination) rooted in experience in a broad sense. Concepts processed and introduced into circulation by nullifying the foundations of experience and imagination are, in these respects, concepts with unknown origins. What is essentially unknown is unknown. After all, it is baseless or still strange because the comprehender does not experience its essence. A concept that originated from the cancellation of experience and imagination in a broad sense and whose essence is unknown is a concept without a proper foundation; at the very least, it is a concept without a proper foundation in experience and imagination. There are many such concepts. There are even things manufactured to create baseless concepts in this sense, for example, things like computers or artificial intelligence.

Here, the situation referred to becomes more understandable when we look at experience broadly, such as the experience based on the heart. Any concept that has no place in the experience based on the heart is not genuine from the perspective of the heart. Some ideas, for example, can be grounded at a level lower than the heart; in that case, the concept is only genuine about that specific place. There may be an original concept within the narrowed framework of experience. Suppose this limited framework has arisen, for instance, through the closure of certain essential places. In that case, the concepts inherent within these frameworks may have a place within the narrowed frame. However, since this place is a "closure" place, these concepts essentially become concepts of "closure."

In any case, the essence of every concept lies in experience and imagination. The nature of experience and imagination (tasawwur) determines the nature of the concept. The state of experience and imagination also determines the state of a concept. Concepts that surpass their unique experience and imagination engage in boundary violation. At the same time, those that narrow down may result in a neglect of sources. Violation and neglect also give rise to "confusion." Conceptual confusion is an extension of this confusion, and there is no limit to the troubles it causes!

In this regard, extreme caution is required to avoid falling into conceptual confusion. For someone who understands these conditions, constructing a concept is a significant responsibility of the composer. This responsibility becomes a burden on the user of the concept, too. Walking with concepts requires responsibility. Those who fail to fulfill their obligations cause harm and, in essence, may commit a crime by violating the rights of entities fundamentally guided by these concepts.

The price of such crimes is somewhere and somehow exacted, inevitably by the hands of those who have suffered harm. After all, the essence of the concept is experience. In this experimental one, some things are the initiating facts. We mentioned "need" among them. The process that begins based on the needed thing becomes the essential determinant of the product obtained at the end of the process, such as a concept. This is the logic of how the process operates.

In addition to feeling the need, there are ways to express it. In terms of its literal meaning, we can call this thing expressing the need "demand." It is known that "demand" means both "question" and "a desire formed to meet a need."

Due to the potential differences like the one in need and the nature of what is needed, there are multiple aspects to the demand. In its most common form, a spoken request can be a demand. Still, an unspoken need expressed through circumstances can also be a demand. Some entities pose demands through their states without uttering them in language. Everything, in every state and condition, always demands its Creator for the continuation or perfection of its existence. This demand is, in essence, a desire, a request. What is given in response is, accordingly, an answer, a response to the demand. Therefore, a demand indicated by a state can be answered with a condition. The continuous existence of being is, in every moment and circumstance, the answer of the one who is demanding, seeking the continuation of its existence, to the One who grants it existence.

More specific and defined demands can be answered in various ways. All of these are aspects that can be explored through experience, provided that experience is held in a broad sense.

Suppose we want to clarify the meanings of the demand conceptually. In that case, we can consider it in terms of the words "question" and "problem" as we commonly express it.

It will be beneficial to delve into the matter more effectively by proceeding through question and problem. Considering the nuances between question and problem is essential, so let's briefly elaborate on their distinctions.

Referencing Teoman Duralı's work titled "What is the problem?" provides an in-depth exploration of this matter.

According to Teoman Duralı's work "What is the problem?" he distinguishes these two words in terms of their conceptual domains. Accordingly, a question, for instance, is a request that can be answered, such as inquiring about the identity of a perceived object like a pen. When pointing to a pen on the table and asking, "What is this?" a simple answer like "This is a pen" can be given. This type of question, typically requested during childhood about tangible objects, exemplifies one of the most common and straightforward instances of the concept of questioning. This is true for all kinds of things with more common and easily defined definitions.

Indeed, not all questions are on the same plane, as the realm of the questioned subject varies. For instance, similar questions about abstract and increasingly abstract things, unlike the earlier examples, tend to be more comprehensive, challenging, and capable of touching upon various areas and often need complex answers. Exactly, questions like "What is good?", "What is bad?", "What is justice?" – as Teoman Duralı expresses it, involves "extremely abstract" concepts that lack simple answers akin to "This is a pen."

Indeed, questions of this kind, unlike the straightforward inquiry about an object on a table, entail meticulous reasoning and the need to comprehend or at least consider more profound aspects. Therefore, to distinguish these types of inquiries, it is more fitting to refer to them as "problems" rather than mere "questions."

Precisely, according to this distinction, a question has an answer. Still, a problem can't sometimes have a straightforward answer or solution. Specifically, the answer to a problem lies in its "solution" or "resolution." In other words, an issue is either addressed or resolved through these means. This is the end of the late and respected Teoman Duralı's views on this subject in this article. We continue by considering these opinions.

Above, we briefly see and understand how the demand can be differentiated into question and problem. However, this distinction should be noticed further by looking at other common points of both concepts. In this context, it should be noted that one common point in both "question" and "problem" is "incompleteness." That is, it's a form of "lack." When examined carefully, whatever is missing in the person who has the question about the thing about which the question is raised, that missing point, creates a "demand" in the person as the incomplete point about that thing. In other words, the person "wants" the absence of the item to be removed. The lack that needs to be removed is whatever is missing in that thing; In other words, whatever is not available in that thing is what is desired. Thus, by addressing the deficiency, the item is "completed." In a sense, the desired outcome is a form of "completion." Therefore, we have a typical pair of concepts forming both the question and the problem: "completeness" and "incompleteness." Again, in this context, there is another pair of concepts. According to Teoman Duralı's distinction, the simple fulfillment of what is desired in the question is due to the inherent offering of what they spontaneously provide in terms of the quality of what is desired in the question. Since there is no certainty regarding the subject of the problem, the answer to the problem cannot be given more simply. So, the fundamental difference between asking what this pen on the table, clearly perceived and pointed to, is and asking the less distinct question of "what is good" lies in perspective, in that, regardless of how you look at it, it's essentially a difference of "certainty" and "uncertainty." Therefore, another essential aspect, like the duality of "completeness-incompleteness," is also present here. These are the states of "certainty" and "uncertainty". In this respect, another concept pair of the question and the problem is the concepts of "certainty" and "uncertainty."

Thus, we understand that, at its most fundamental level, the demand that arises out of a need should be considered in terms of two pairs of conceptual dualities.

Creating questions and problems to open thoughts about the object by considering these conceptual pairs means pursuing general questions and problems that are valid for everything and every situation where these pairs are in question.

In short, in our exploration of the "object (thing and entity)," we identify the dominant issues of questions expressing our needs: the thoughts of "completeness-incompleteness" and "certainty-uncertainty."

In this sense, the question at the beginning of the article reveals its inherent meaning. Thus, with the question (or problem), "What is the object?" we understand that in this article, we are asking the following questions:

"What is the essence of completion for the 'object' as 'whatever it may be'?

"What is the state of incompleteness for the 'object' as 'whatever it may be'?

"What is the principle of certainty for the 'object' as 'whatever it may be'?

"What is the state of uncertainty for the 'object' as 'whatever it may be'?

In these regards, what is the object's essence, after all?

In this way, we begin to search for the answers. While searching for these answers, the new needs and the further internal questions arising from the needs will naturally emerge, aiming to determine themselves in whatever way possible and move towards completing the work.