2

In what way are sublime objects, objects? I have a reading list for Object Oriented Philosophy and sublimity, but didn't start it yet, and I was curious for any easy take homes. I am especially interested if a sublime painting, poem or volcano has (or indeed lacks) a sort of self integrity, something analagous to human integrity, the virtue.

I understand that sublimity is usually thought to threaten the integrity of the subject, but was curious what that meant for the object, if anything.

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    I thought this was a good question for what its worth
    – wahwahwah
    Commented Aug 2 at 4:48
  • 2
    @andròs Do you mean "OOP" as object oriented programming and "sublime object" according to Zizek?
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Aug 2 at 7:19
  • 1
    object oriented philosophy @JoWehler sorry. idt sublime object is a zizek neologism
    – user71399
    Commented Aug 2 at 7:26

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5

Without a subject, there is no object, like there is no left without right.

The problem of all philosophies making the object independent of the subject, like OOO, is that the object (in general) depends on the subject. How can an object exist without a subject? The more the subject is excluded from the interaction, the more ideal and fleeting the object becomes.

Making the existence of objects completely independent of the subject implies a naive comprehension of the world. This is a case of philosophy based on fallacies (cf. Heidegger, Husserl and Hegel (dit 'dialectical absurdities' by mario Bunge)).

If all objects exist in an independent reality, don't accept they are what we human think of them, but go deep: what are objects? For example, is the tree the one existing, or is the leaf? Some would naively answer "the tree", and we can retort "isn't a tree part of a forest? So, is it the forest or the tree, the object?"

The object is always determined by the subject. If the subject vanishes, there is no object.

This is easy to demonstrate in multiple ways. For example, trying to determine where to find an object: what is the standard spatial frame of reference? The size of an atom? If so, all objects in the universe are not substances, but forces, and the only objects that exist are atoms.

Another example: what is the standard chronological frame of reference? The existence of an electron? If so, time would not exist (in addition, time is just human memory). So, do trees exist, view from an instant, or view from eternity? Hardly.

OOO overemphasizes objectivity, neglecting the complex relationships network between objects, and the inevitable interaction subject-object, which enables the existence of the object.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    More so. All sense requires a semantic subject. It is senseless to speak of a sense not manifest, not appearing to a subject. There can be no objective sense by definition and conceptual nature. It's not merely that there are other lines like time or distinction, those are aspects of sense and meaning(a temporal sense, a spatial sense). But all objects have an intrinsic rational sense. There is no possibility to posit such a possibility legitimately as all such attempts to make sense objective part from a subject's sense of things.
    – Sismetic
    Commented Aug 2 at 14:06
3

You should read Schopenhauer

Concepts such as "beauty," "integrity" are tough to wrap your head around. "Sublimity" is even tougher because it implies there's an ultimate value.

But, to answer your question... no there are no "sublime" objects in reality. Thats the argument. There really isnt a perfect aesthetic value to anything. Paintings, volcanoes, etc.

Think about OOP from the Kantian ethics perspective. "Not a means to an end but an end in itself." Beauty for beauty's sake. The ends justify the means, otherwise everything is useless. An, "Understandable place." A=A

At least thats the right way to interpret the info for your courses.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    so "sublime" objects are no different to any other?
    – user71399
    Commented Aug 2 at 5:43
  • 2
    @andrós I dont know? I think it raises the question whether there is such a thing as a "sublime object." Id argue nothing exists like that... so youre beat going in. Its like the equivalent of saying, " the moon looks yellow, it must be made of cheese:" Sounds nuts
    – wahwahwah
    Commented Aug 2 at 8:03
  • 2
    @andrós I think of Zizek as more of a novelist than a real philosopher. But hes super compelling.
    – wahwahwah
    Commented Aug 2 at 8:17
  • 1
    but presumably no less crazy than a "beautiful" object?
    – user71399
    Commented Aug 2 at 10:27
  • 3
    @andrós exactly as crazy as "beautiful object"
    – wahwahwah
    Commented Aug 2 at 17:15

You must log in to answer this question.