WHAT IS ‘THE OBJECT’

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

Ideas about the object constitute the basic thoughts that determine one’s basic conceptions and basic judgments about existence. For example, the first fields of ontology, existence and theology are formed under the guidance of these conceptions and judgments. Even if one has not organized a specific body of thought, one who has a conception of the object already has an ontology, a primitive idea of existence. Without a conception of the object, it is impossible to carry out daily work, daily conversations. Even someone with intellectual interests and pursuits outside of ontology and theology, when they engage in thinking or speaking, inevitably begins to think and talk about the object. In short, this topic is universal and fundamental.

Despite its universality and fundamentality, studies directly asking 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 common, and have never been. Even in philosophy and theology, the two deeply rooted institutions best equipped to explore this matter, such research is quite 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 a fundamental questioning, almost like turning the investigation back onto the very 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 not something everyone is willing or may want to undertake; it has never been. However, without such an inquiry into the concept of the object, we cannot truly know whether we exist within a world of solid and genuine knowledge or lead a life guided by these authentic knowledge. In this respect, for someone who is in search of 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, by taking these contexts into consideration, it is possible to predict the panorama of the path to be 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 try to proceed as much as we can, without neglecting to draw attention to the basic points that need to be taken into consideration, and without making the task too complicated. We hope it will be useful and meaningful to those who read it.

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, condition, and structure of a being. The plural form is "nesneler," formed by adding the "-ler" suffix.

In turkish language, the meaning of "nesne" is also conveyed by the word "şey." "Şey" has Arabic origins, primarily derived from the Quran. Although the exact origin of the word is debated, the general consensus is that it comes from the verb "sha’e," meaning "he wanted, desired."In this context, it evokes quite interesting associations. The word "mashiyyat," meaning "to want," is also considered in relation to the word "shai-." Its plural form is "shai.” Both "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 "şey." 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 is commonly used worldwide to mean "object." "Objekt" itself comes from Old Latin "obiectivus." The meaning of this word is quite interesting; "obiectivus" translates to meanings 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 thought to be the term "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 being 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 relationship is not necessary, 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 signifies being brought into existence. Considering its connection with words like "wijdan" and "wajd," in terms of meaning, it becomes quite intriguing, given the loaded meanings 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 important and necessary, the more fundamental and primary goal is to construct a "concept" beyond etymological meanings. 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 take into account various things that surpass certain linguistic and cultural meanings, considering some goals and foundations in these areas. Therefore, the nature of the needs taken into consideration essentially shapes the essence of the concepts.

Therefore, specific organized domains, where meticulous crafting takes place, can imbue the words used in such endeavors and the process of composing them with a multitude of functional features. Examples will help illustrate this. For instance, the concept formulated for the bylaws of an association can differ in many aspects from a concept composed and elaborated in a field like philosophy or ethics. Similarly, meanings identified for a linguist may not suffice for someone engaged in intellectual or spiritual disciplines. 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 scientific perspectives, taking into account needs that might be considered different from various fields. Therefore, it might be possible for us to develop a specialized understanding of "object" within the framework of this article. Nevertheless, this specialized understanding of an object can still incorporate shared meanings with understandings from other fields and languages in various aspects. In addition, if a specialized understanding has the possibility to expand outside to relative understandings, this specialization may become suitable for generalization and therefore enforcing law to the other understandings. Essentially, this kind of possibility arises spontaneously in relation to the nature of the identified problem, namely the generality of the desired condition. The more general and fundamental a need is, the reaction obtained or produced within those contexts is equally general and fundamental. The reaction brought forth in accordance with the need transforms into a meaning and is prepared 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 the concept and comprehend it. Because to comprehend the need and a possible reaction 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. Particularly, the essence of the one comprehending is prioritized in terms of forming the composition. Proceeding with understanding an entire task solely through the words expressing the concept, without taking the comprehender into account, therefore 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( Arabic-that is 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" in relation to 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, falling within the scope of tasawwur.

Indeed, ultimately, the essence in 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 a very broad sense within the scope of "experience." (tecrube- tacribat) We say in a very broad sense because an experience can be obtained through sensory perception, as well as through dreams, thoughts, imagination, or, in another instance, experiences perceived in the heart. Therefore, perception is experience 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 that are processed and introduced into circulation by ignoring the experience and imagination become, in these respects, concepts with unknown origins. What is essentially unknown is either unknown because it is baseless or still unknown because its essence has not yet been perceived in the experience of the comprehender. A concept that has originated from the cancellation of experience and imagination in a broad sense, and whose essence is unknown, is a concept without a true foundation; at the very least, it is a concept without a true foundation in experience and imagination. There are many such concepts. In fact, there are even things manufactured with the purpose of creating baseless concepts in this sense; for example, things like computers or what is called artificial intelligence.

Here, when we look at experience in a broad sense, such as the experience based on the heart, the situation being referred to becomes more understandable. Any concept that has no place in the experience based on the heart is not genuine from the perspective of the heart. Some concepts, for example, can be grounded at a level lower than the heart; in that case, the concept is only genuine in relation to that specific place. There may be a concept that is original within the narrowed framework of experience. If this narrowed framework has arisen, for instance, through the closure of certain essential places, the concepts inherent within these frameworks may have a place within the narrowed frame. However, due to the fact that 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 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, while 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, to avoid falling into conceptual confusion, extreme caution is required. For someone who understands these conditions, the construction of a concept places a significant responsibility on the creator of the concept. This responsibility becomes a burden on the user of the concept. Walking with concepts requires responsibility. Those who fail to fulfill their responsibilities cause harm and, in essence, may commit a crime by violating the rights of entities that are 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, there are some things that 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 also 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 in the nature of the one in need and the natures of what is needed, there are multiple aspects to the demand. In its most common form, a spoken request can be a demand, but an unspoken need expressed through circumstances can also be a demand. Some entities pose demands through their states without uttering them in language. In fact, everything, in every state and condition, is always in a state of demanding to 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 state. The continuous existence of being is, in every moment and circumstance, the answer of the one who is in a state of 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.

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

At this point, it will be beneficial to delve into the matter more effectively by proceeding through question and problem. It is essential to consider the nuances between question and problem, so let's briefly elaborate on the distinctions between them.

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 simply answered, such as inquiring about the identity of a perceived object like a pen. Exactly, 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 asked 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 whose definitions are more common and more easily defined.

Certainly, not all questions are on the same plane, as the realm of the questioned subject varies. For instance, similar questions posed about abstract and increasingly abstract things, unlike the earlier examples, tend to be more comprehensive, challenging, and capable of touching upon various areas, often lacking easy answers. Exactly, questions like "What is good?", "What is bad?", "What is justice?" – as Teoman Duralı expresses it, involve "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.”

Exactly, according to this distinction, a question has an answer, but a problem does not necessarily have a straightforward answer or solution. Precisely, the answer to a problem lies in its "solution" or "resolution." In other words, a problem 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 taking these opinions into consideration.

Above, we briefly see and understand how the demand can be differentiated into question and problem. However, we think that this distinction should be taken 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 deficiency in the thing to be eliminated. The deficiency that needs to be eliminated 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 thing is "completed." In a sense, the desired outcome is a form of "completion."Therefore, here we have a common 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 in this regard to the subject of the problem, the answer to the problem cannot be given in a simpler way. 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 the perspective, in that, regardless of how you look at it, it's essentially a difference of "certainty" and "uncertainty."Therefore, here, another essential aspect, like the duality of "completeness-incompleteness," is also present. These are the states of "certainty" and "uncertainty". In this respect, another common 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 taking these binary concepts into consideration 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."

The question at the beginning of the article, in this sense, 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 is'?

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

"What is the principle of determinacy for the 'object' as 'whatever it is'?

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

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

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

Ahmet Turan Esin

November 17th, 2023