Editing Subject and object (philosophy) (section)

==Etymology==
In English the word ''object'' is derived from the [[Latin]] {{lang|la|objectus}} (p.p. of {{lang|la|obicere}}) with the meaning "to throw, or put before or against", from {{lang|la|ob-}}, "against", and the root {{lang|la|jacere}}, "to throw".<ref>Klein, Ernest (1969) ''A comprehensive etymological dictionary of the English language'', Vol II, Elsevier publishing company, Amsterdam, pp. 1066–1067</ref> Some other related English words include ''objectify'' (to reify), ''objective'' (a future [[reference]]), and ''objection'' (an expression of protest). ''Subject'' uses the same root, but with the prefix ''sub-'', meaning "under".

Broadly construed, the word ''object'' names a maximally general category, whose members are eligible for being referred to, quantified over and thought of. Terms similar to the broad notion of ''object'' include ''thing'', ''being'', ''entity'', ''item'', ''existent'', ''term'', ''unit'', and ''individual''.<ref name="sep">{{cite web |last1=Rettler, Bradley and Andrew M. Bailey |title=Object |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/ |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=29 January 2021}}</ref>

In ordinary language, one is inclined to call only a material object "object".<ref name=sep /> In certain contexts, it may be socially inappropriate to apply the word ''object'' to animate beings, especially to human beings, while the words ''entity'' and ''being'' are more acceptable.

Some authors use ''object'' in contrast to ''[[Property (philosophy)|property]]''; that is to say, an object is an entity that is not a [[Property (philosophy)|property]]. Objects differ from properties in that objects cannot be referred to by predicates. Some philosophers include [[Abstract and concrete|abstract objects]] as counting as objects, while others do not. Terms similar to such usage of ''object'' include ''substance'', ''individual'', and ''particular''.<ref name=sep />

There are two definitions of ''object''. The first definition holds that an object is an entity that fails to experience and that is not conscious. The second definition holds that an object is an entity experienced. The second definition differs from the first one in that the second definition allows for a subject to be an object at the same time.<ref name=sep />

One approach to defining an object is in terms of its properties and [[Relations (philosophy)|relations]]. Descriptions of all bodies, minds, and persons must be in terms of their properties and relations. For example, it seems that the only way to describe an apple is by describing its properties and how it is related to other things, such as its shape, size, composition, color, temperature, etc., while its relations may include "on the table", "in the room" and "being bigger than other apples". [[Metaphysics|Metaphysical]] frameworks also differ in whether they consider objects existing independently of their [[Property (philosophy)|properties]] and, if so, in what way.<ref name="goswick">{{cite web |last1=Goswick |first1=Dana |title=Ordinary Objects |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0312.xml |website=oxfordbibliographies |access-date=20 April 2020 |language=en |doi=10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0312 |date=27 July 2016|isbn=978-0-19-539657-7 }}</ref> The notion of an object must address two problems: the change problems and the problems of substances. Two leading theories about objecthood are [[substance theory]], wherein substances (objects) are distinct from their properties, and [[bundle theory]], wherein objects are no more than bundles of their properties.