On objects
Hello,
I have a few questions regarding the concept of the object. I am starting from the same premise as you, that there are spiritual and material objects whose properties are their own.
- An electron is a material object, but so is an atom, a molecule, a cell, and so on. I will also add the following fact: a cell is made up of molecules, a molecule is made up of atoms, and atoms are made up of particles (among them electrons). If this is so, my understanding is that several objects together can create a new object. In the spiritual dimension this also happens: a nation is an object separate from the collection of objects (humans) that compose it. Do you agree with the statement that there are objects that are more than the collection of individuals (objects) that compose them? This? (Or in other words – that several objects together create a new object that is not just their sum, but something beyond).
- Does this also apply to artificial objects? That is, is a table, for example, an object that exists in the world, and not just the sum of the objects (e.g., the atoms) that compose it?
- A spiritual entity can only contain spiritual properties, and a material entity contains only material properties. But a person contains both spiritual and material properties. Does this mean that a person is a “special” entity that contains both types of properties? If this is not the case, it seems that there is a spiritual entity (the soul) and a material entity (the body), and a person is neither one of them, but rather their sum. It seems to me that this explanation actually means that there is no person, that is, that a person is the collection of his components (or the soul and body together) and nothing beyond. What do you think about this? Who are we talking about when we refer to ourselves (by the way, the question applies to anyone who has both a body and a consciousness, such as animals).
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Regarding 1 and 2, we can see that there are ways in which these things appear to us as objects. For example, from a moral point of view we judge a people and see its details as belonging to it. And another example - we recognize the “group of tables” or the “group of lemons”, and the fact that we recognize a group of things can indicate some kind of metaphysical existence of the group (for example, like “democratic state”, which in one of your lectures you referred to as an existing object). Therefore, I ask less about the meaning we give to the concept of object in our definition, and more about the metaphysics of objects.
Regarding 3, and like 1,2, I am trying to understand some kind of metaphysical existence of the concept “person” or “I”. I have no doubt about the existence of the spiritual and physical entities, but their connection supposedly creates a third entity that has 2 projections as you wrote.
It is true that most of our references to ourselves refer to the spiritual entity, but we are also a physical entity, and therefore I ask about the identity of the ”I”.
I answered everything. I don't see what else needs to be added here.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
